the relation of ple, lms, and open content

Daniel Müller, IMC

The relation of PLE, LMS, and Open Content

© 2009 IMC AG

Session overview

WP5 Objectives

WP5 Learning Delivery Framework

WP5 Key Concepts Learning Environment

Open Content

WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.2009_Vienna: results

WP5 Widget Task Force Objectives

Task Description

2

© 2009 IMC AG

WP5 Objectives

Collect and further develop best practices for learning delivery with focus on the use of interoperable content (= Units of Learning), e.g. IMS-LD based, supporting competency driven higher education

Support the delivery of activity-based high-level (learning) scenarios (focus = teacher-learner-interactions), applying (open) content

Create guidelines that combine Teaching Methods with Open Content and (Collaboration) Services

to create and provide stimulating learning environments under the specific use of IMS-LD

Evaluate the usage of IMS-LD to support competency-driven learning

© 2009 IMC AG

Learning Management Personal Learning / Social Network

WP5 Learning Delivery Framework: Environments in which different modes and usages of standards for learning delivery will be tested

TechnicalServices

Standards

UseCases

• IMS-LD• SCORM

Learner:• Book UoL• Learn within UoL• Finish UoL

KeyConcepts

Teacher:• Search for UoL• Upload UoL• Match users to roles• Publish UoL• Teach within UoL

• IEEE LOM• Widgets (W3C)• OAI-PMH

• OpenSocial• RSS

• Unit of Learing (UoL)• Learning Environment (LE)• Teaching method (curriculum-based, collaborative, resource-based)• Service/Tool• Learning Object/Content• Context

PRIO 1PRIO 1 PRIO 2PRIO 2

© 2009 IMC AG

WP5 Key Concepts

5

Context

Unit of Learning

ServicesLearning Objects

Role

LearnerLearning

Supporter

Lesson

Course

Module

Learning Environment

gives meaning to

gives

mea

ning

to defin

es

is a

uses

Teaching Method

is s

peci

fied

inimplements

implements

uses

uses

uses

© 2009 IMC AG

WP5 Key Concepts: Learning Environment

Area or location in which learning happens consists of a a structured collection of components (e.g. learning

objects) to support learning activities in a physical or virtual setting

from a technological perspective, a learning environment consists of a range of services and software technologies

A typical managed learning environment is based on Learning Management System in combination with various educational tools like virtual classrooms. “It delivers the learning to the users”

Other types of learning environments are so called “Personal Learning Environments” or “Social Learning Networks”, which differ in their degree of pre-structuring learning (activities)

(in accordance with Sandberg, J. A. (1994). Educational paradigms: issues and trends. In Lewis, R. Mendelsohn, P., (ed.), Lessons from Learning, (IFIP TC3/WG3.3 Working Conference 1993), pages 13--22, Amsterdam. North-Holland).

© 2009 IMC AG

Learning Environment: LMS Scenario Description

Organizations manage the system by specifying the functionality within course rooms, and providing the learning materials

Instructors create courses by using preconfigured learning scenarios

Learners „just“ learn do not need to configure their environment

© 2009 IMC AG

• The common idea behind Learning Management Systems (LMS) is that e-learning is organized and managed within an integrated system[C. Dalsgaard, “Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems”, European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm, accessed on the 18.02.2009]

• Learning Management Systems have been widely adopted by institutions and instructional designers in order to fulfill certain needs and requirements in a field of ever increasing demands for effective, and fast […] education and training[P. Avgeriou, A. Papasalouros, and S. Retalis, “Towards a Pattern Language for Learning Management Systems”, Journal of Educational Technology & Society. http://www.ifets.info/journals/6_2/2.pdf, accessed on the 18.02.2009]

• This is in line with the understanding that “the institutional imperative is to manage the learning process and the technologies adopted are those which reinforce traditional modes of working[S. Schaffert, and W. Hilzensauer, „On the way towards Personal Learning Environments: Seven crucial aspects”, http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media15971.pdf, accessed on the 18.02.2009]

LMS: Opportunities

© 2009 IMC AG

• A LMS supports the management of learning content and learning activities, but with a focus on the traditional roles in a learning environment (teacher / learner) and provide efficiency gains rather than new pedagogical opportunities”[C. D. Milligan, P. Beauvoir, M. W. Johnson, P. Sharples, S. Wilson, and O. Liber, “Developing a Reference Model to Describe the Personal Learning Environment”; in: W. Nejdl, and K. Tochtermann (Eds.), EC-TEL 2006, LNCS 4227, Springer, pp. 506-511]

• LMS may be characterized as follows:– Focus on integration of tools and data within a course context– asymmetric relationships– homogenous experience of context– use of open e-learning standards for incorporating packaged learning materials

(e.g. SCORM, IMS Content Packaging), and for incorporating automated assessments (e.g. IMS QTI),

– access control and rights management– organizational scope (organization installs and manages the software)

[S. Wilson, O. Liber, P. Beauvoir, C. Milligan, M. Johnson, and P. Sharples, “Personal Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems”, Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society”, Giunti, Genoa, 2007, http://www.je-lks.it/en/07_02/04Art_wilson_inglese.pdf, accessed on the 18.02.2009, pp. 27-38]

LMS: Opportunities

© 2009 IMC AG

• The LMS should support the development and execution of four basic tasks via a simple, friendly and uniform user-interface:

– Information distribution, e.g. announcing the tips of the day, calendar, glossary, etc.– Management of learning material, e.g. customisation of the user interface to the

needs of the instructor, updating the learning material, etc.– Offer of Multiple communication facilities, e.g. asynchronous and synchronous

communication.– Class management, e.g. on-line marking of students’ assessments, tracking learners’

participation, management of learners profiles, etc.

[C. McCormack, and J.D. Jones, Building a Web-based Education System, Wiley Computer Publishing, New York, 1997]

• LMS provide a number of benefits to students and staff within an institution.

– For the tutors: a simple set of integrated tools allows the creation of learning content without specialist computer skills, whilst class administration tools facilitate communication between tutor and cohort (for class announcements) and individual learners (for feedback)

– For the learner: a single environment within which all online content can be accessed and communication can be managed.[C. D. Milligan, P. Beauvoir, M. W. Johnson, P. Sharples, S. Wilson, and O. Liber, “Developing a Reference Model to Describe the Personal Learning Environment”; in: W. Nejdl, and K. Tochtermann (Eds.), EC-TEL 2006, LNCS 4227, Springer, pp. 506-511]

LMS: Strenghts

© 2009 IMC AG

• According to the OECD, the success of LMS on campus-based universities has primarily been in relation to administrative and not pedagogical purposes.[OECD – Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, “E-learning in Tertiary Education: Where do we stand?”, OECD, Paris, 2005, p. 15]

• In this sense, LMSs are fundamentally a conservative technology; they are a solution to a set of organizational problems:

– managing students– providing tools and delivering content, and – whilst they serve the needs of the institution well, they are often ill suited to the

needs of learners.[C. D. Milligan, P. Beauvoir, M. W. Johnson, P. Sharples, S. Wilson, and O. Liber, “Developing

a Reference Model to Describe the Personal Learning Environment”; in: W. Nejdl, and K. Tochtermann (Eds.), EC-TEL 2006, LNCS 4227, Springer, pp. 506-511]

• This means that a management system aims primarily at teachers and administrators whereas it does not support the self-governed, problem-based and collaborative work of students[C. Dalsgaard, “Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems”, European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm, accessed on the 18.02.2009]

LMS: Weaknesses / Threats

© 2009 IMC AG

Learning Management Personal Learning / Social Network

WP5 Learning Delivery Framework: Environments in which different modes and usages of standards for learning delivery will be tested

TechnicalServices

Standards

UseCases

• IMS-LD• SCORM

Learner:• Book UoL• Learn within UoL• Finish UoL

KeyConcepts

Teacher:• Search for UoL• Upload UoL• Match users to roles• Publish UoL• Teach within UoL

• IEEE LOM• Widgets (W3C)• OAI-PMH

• OpenSocial• RSS

• Unit of Learing (UoL)• Learning Environment (LE)• Teaching method (curriculum-based, collaborative, resource-based)• Service/Tool• Learning Object/Content• Context

PRIO 1PRIO 1 PRIO 2PRIO 2

© 2009 IMC AG

Learning Environment: PLE Scenario Description

Learners manage solution by searching, and choosing widgets and mini-apps for learning

PLE supports self-paced learning, and self-organized learning

© 2009 IMC AG

PLE: Motivation

Learner need “standard interface to different institutions’ e-learning

systems”(Van Harmelen 2006, see also Olivier & Liber 2001)

want to “maintain portfolio information across institutions” (Van Harmelen 2006, see also Olivier & Liber 2001)

want to be mobile and use the system online and offline(Van Harmelen 2006, see also Olivier & Liber 2001)

14

© 2009 IMC AG

PLE: Characteristics

Accessing and searching (Attwell 2009; Neuhaus 2007)

Aggregating (Attwell 2009; Wilson 2005)

Scaffolding (Attwell 2009), structuring (Milligan et al. 2006)

Manipulating (Attwell 2009), editing (Wilson 2005)

Analyzing (Attwell 2009), annotating (Milligan et al. 2006)

Storing (Attwell 2009, Wilson 2005, Schaffert & Kalz 2009)

Reflecting (Attwell 2009, Wilson 2005)

Creating (Milligan et al. 2006), knowledge construction (Schaffert & Kalz 2009),

developping ideas (Attwell 2007b)

15

© 2009 IMC AG

PLE: Towards a Definition

Two different point of view: Attwell (2006) for example emphasizes clearly on the pedagogical

value of PLEs for learning support. Others (e. g. Van Harmelen 2007, Schaffert & Kalz 2009, Neuhaus

2007) label them systems or applications.

Definition: “A Personal Learning Environment (PLE) is an individually

adaptable user interface consisting of Web 2.0 applications which allows learners to manage their lifelong learning in all contexts and situations and to communicate with peers and teachers”

16

© 2009 IMC AG

PLE: Challenge the Definition!

“Individually adaptable user interface …

consisting of Web 2.0 applications …

which allows learners to manage their lifelong learning …

in all contexts and situations …

and to communicate with peers and teachers” …

-pedagogical approach, not tools

-web-based applications = supporters

-focus on learning processes, then drive potential PLE application area/contexts

17

© 2009 IMC AG

PLE: Challenges

Questions to be answered: Which requirements does the user fulfill for using Widgets for

learning purposes?

Which competencies does the learner need?

In which study-phase does the learner ask for Widget-driven learning?

Where to find task-specific learning Widget(s)?

18

© 2009 IMC AG

Open Content: Definition – Consumer Perspective

“Digitized materials: offered freely and openly for educators, students and self-learners to use and reuse for teaching, learning and research”

(OECD 2007)

19

© 2009 IMC AG

Open Content: Authoring/Production Perspective

Professionals: Professional institute Professor …

Non-professionals Students …

POP (point of production) Public

Wiki Blog YouTube

Non-public Vendor-driven solutions

20

© 2009 IMC AG

Open Content repositories: Overview

iTunesU: http://www.open.ac.uk/itunes/

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/theopenuniversity

Slidestar: http://slidestar.de/main.html#

Free Foreign Language Lessons: http://www.openculture.com/2006/10/foreign_languag.html

Free Lectures & Courses from great universities: http://www.openculture.com/2007/07/freeonlinecourses.html

MIT Open Courseware: http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

21

© 2009 IMC AG

Learning with Open Content: Do a SWOT analysis!

Strenght Cheap Available I can contribute to it Common knowledge You get the credit for it

Weaknesses Quality assurance You don‘t get the credits Fear of non-aknowledgments

Opportunities Makes up the different contexts (different disciplines) Bridging the digital devide Channel OC, try to find processes to make advantage of OC

Threats Bancrupcy…

22

© 2009 IMC AG

WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: general info

23

Vision: “towards the iCoper Learning Widget(s) to foster competence”

Objective: definition of learning-related Widget requirements with regard to the WP5 learning delivery environments Personal Learning Environment, and Social Network

Target group: iCoper WPLs/partners, and beyond

Number of participants: 32, two of them from JISC-CETIS, and further two participants from the ROLE and GRAPPLE projects

Information are available here:

http://www.educanext.org/dotlrn/clubs/icoper/wp5/new-lors//WP5_Widget_Workshop_Vienna

© 2009 IMC AG


24

Task: design a PLE Challenge for the end user to find the right widgets

General search skills are required (Information literacy issue)

Finding the core set of «learning widgets»

The teacher don’t know what widgets the students are using

Authoring environment/guidelines for the teacher to create widgets

Interoperability between platforms

© 2009 IMC AG

http://www.google.com/ig/directory?q=open+university&root=%2Fig&dpos=top&url=hosting.gmodules.com/ig/gadgets/file/109972500286724663473/fact-of-the-day.xml

Facilities that solve the raised problems: Recommender

© 2009 IMC AG

http://www.google.com/ig/gmchoices?source=gdha

Facilities that solve the raised problems: Widget maker

© 2009 IMC AG http://www.widgetbox.com/search?q=learning

Facilities that solve the raised problems: Widget repository

© 2009 IMC AG


28

Task: Widgets for learning delivery

Production Asynchronouscommunication

Synchronouscommunication

Interaction

Wiki

Weblog

shared writing

Mail- gmail- popmail (general)

Forum/Messageshttp://www.widgetbox.com/widget/comments

Tagging- Delicious- Tag-notificationhttp://www.widgetbox.com/widget/related

Social network- Facebook

Chat:-instant messaging-video conferencing-audio conferencinghttp://www.widgetbox.com/widget/youcamscom---webcam-chat-widget

micro-blogginghttp://widgets.opera.com/widget/7206/

Search engine-general search-specific search(OR)http://www.widgetbox.com/widget/objectspot

© 2009 IMC AG

iCoper WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: results

29

© 2009 IMC AG


34

Task: Widget categorization Technical dimension: web-based, desktop, mobile Usage type: Accessory, application, information [Apple

categorization] Usage scope: generic (RSS viewer) vs. domain/purpose-

specific (equation simulator) Educational context: Bloom Taxonomy [Krathwohl et al.] Interaction complexity: one interaction (e.g. login) up to flows of

interactions (e.g. Google Docs) Dependency on server-side: Ajax vs. WebApp Degree of interoperability: open (APIs) vs. closed, application

layer vs. frontend (Microformats) Licensing: open source vs. commercial Personalisation/Customisation Security dimension (privacy, identity, …)

© 2009 IMC AG


35

Task: iCoper Widget definition “End-user's conceptualization of an:

interactive single purpose application, including code and content, for developing competencies through the display and/or update of

data, packaged in a way to allow a single download and installation on

any TEL environment”

© 2009 IMC AG


36

Task: SWOT-analysis – Widgets for learning Strengths

Easy to use for both administrator and learner Connectedness Modularity Granularity Adapt environment to personal needs Composability Portability

Weaknesses Incoherence – it is necessary to combine widgets into

structure Interoperability

© 2009 IMC AG


37

Task: SWOT-analysis – Widgets for learning Opportunities

Pick and mix approach for content authoring and instructional design

Maybe dependent on learning styles (autonomy of learners)

Threats Loss of control Informative load for students Insensitive to context Distraction

© 2009 IMC AG


38

Task: mission statement for iCoper widgets Learners and teachers should choose their learning

environment

Widgets enable in a user-driven perspective: Personalization of content and services Learning in different settings such as PLE, and Social

Networks More flexibility for teachers and learners Aggregate content and services from different providers at

one learning environment

Motivation behind using them is their added value

© 2009 IMC AG

WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: in a nutshell

39

It is hard to find learning widgets

Configuration of a PLE might be challenging for learners

Platforms are NOT interoperable (LLL)

© 2009 IMC AG

WP5 Widget Workshop_5.5.09_Vienna: task force

40

Installation of a follow-upWP5 Widget Task Force Elaborate potential Widget standards as well as

technical-/interoperability-centered evaluation criteria for potential Widget platforms in the context of PLE, and SNW

All information of the WP5 Widget Task Force are available here:

http://www.educanext.org/dotlrn/clubs/icoper/wp5/new-lors//WP5_Widget_Task_Force

© 2009 IMC AG

Task: Create your PLE till Thursday, 18.30 Incentive: We will pay you the MUPPLE-fee

When: Thursday, 16:15 - 17:30

Where: Workshop D

What: Present your PLE

Your PLE may be: Web-based (choose the platform you want!) Drawings

Consider „interoperability“ while creating your PLE Cross-widget Cross-platform

Consider: Widgets that deal with OPEN CONTENT (authoring, and using it!) Mashup-widgets Communication between widgets

41

For further information please visit www.im-c.com

Thank you very much for your attention!

the relation of ple, lms, and open content

Education

units of learning

learning process

management of learning

types of learning environments

competencydriven learning

packaged learning materials

learning materials instructors

ims content packaging