Orchestrating Learning with IMS LD

Orchestrating Learning using Adaptive Educational Designs in IMS Learning Design

Marion R. Gruber, Christian Glahn, Marcus Specht, & Rob KoperCELSTEC, Open University of the Netherlands

IMS Learning Design (IMS LD)

• Specification providing a formal syntax for expressing educational designs

• IMS approved in 2003

• 3 Complexity Levels – Level A – Basic process and content– Level B – Interactivity– Level C – Event based processes

Personalisation & Adaptation

2 perspectives on personalisation

• Processes are tailored towards the individuals

• Individuals take responsibility and controlon processes

Research Question

How to model personalisationin educational designs

using IMS Learning Design?

Previous work on Adaptation with IMS LD

• Personalisation using “properties” and “conditions” (Paramythis & Loisl-Reisinger; Specht & Burgos)

• Content adaptation (Berlanga & Garcia)

• Lifecycle of adaptive courses (van Roosmalen et al.)

Approaches externalise parts of the educational design to other tools

Previous work on Adaptation with IMS LD

• Personalisation using “properties” and “conditions” (Paramythis & Loisl-Reisinger; Specht & Burgos)

• Content adaptation (Berlanga & Garcia)

• Lifecycle of adaptive courses (van Roosmalen et al.)

Approaches externalise parts of the educational design to other tools

Adds implicit constraints

Research Question (again)

How to model personalisationin educational designs

using IMS Learning Design?

We need to understand1.Semantics of IMS LD 2.Underpinning concepts of IMS LD

and educational design

MODELLING EDUCATIONAL PROCESSES

AND NOT PROGRAMMING INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS

Remenber

Orchestrating Learning & Educational Design

• Learning activities

• Learning environment

• Social planes

• Rules and directives

Elements of Orchestrating Learning• Learning activities

• Learning environment

• Social planes

• Rules and directives

• Learning-activity• Support-activity

• Environment

• Role-part (learner/ staff)• Personal-property (b) • Role-property (b) • Property (b)

• Activity-structure• Play• Act • Condition (b)• Notification (c)

Personalisation

• Responsibility is based on perceived control

• Tailoring does not guarantee more control

• Distribution of control is part of the educational design

Elements of Personalisation

• Choice• Sequence

• Arrangement• Availability• Interaction

Elements of Personalisation

• Choice• Sequence

• Arrangement• Availability• Interaction

IMS LD Level A

IMS LD Level B

IMS LD LevelCIMS LD Level C

EXPRESS EDUCATIONAL IDEAS

Designing for Orchestrating and Personalising Learning

Modern Architecture: Skyscrapers and Residential Homes

• Using OER provided by the MACE Projects– Frank L. Wright– Frank O. Gehry– Mies van der Rohe

• Learn about skyscrapers• Learn about residential homes• Learn about the architects

Modern Architecture: Skyscrapers and Residential Homes – MACE Resources

• Static resources– Selection of MACE resources

• Dynamic Resources– Provided by the MACE Search to explore

resources

• Interactive Services (widgets) – Additional services

Modelling Choice and Sequence (IMS LD Level A)

• Using “play” semantics to choose between approaches

• Using “activity-structures” to choose between pathways through a course

Modelling Choice and Sequence (IMS LD Level A)

Modelling Arrangement and Availability(IMS LD Level B)

• Note-taking controls the the learning path– Using “conditions” and “properties” for

arranging personal learning paths • Using “show” and “hide” for controlling the

access to resources and services• “conditions” guide the learners based on the

concepts they have worked on

Learning activity


Learning activity

Architecture conceptArchitect

Learning activity

Learning activityLearning activity

Learner note

Gaps and Challenges

• Level A activity-structures do not seamlessly integrate with Level B– Activity-structures rely on a restricted

process model (e.g. it forbids loops)• Explicit grouping is limited• Environments cannot get used to activate

learning activities• Interactive contents and services are difficult

to integrate

Conclusions• Abstraction of educational processes from

interaction is critical

• Simple personalisation can get modelled using IMS LD Level A

• For more complex personalisation IMS LD Level B provides sufficient semantics

• Not all simple things can be done, simply

Future Activities

• IMS LD Level C

• Extending towards new educational scenarios– Mobile Learning – Learning with tangibles– Web2.0 integration

• Limitation of Expressiveness of IMS LD

References

• http://learningdesigns.blogspot.com

• http://hdl.handle.net/1820/2550 (Level A example)

• http://hdl.handle.net/1820/2551 (Level B example)

http://learningdesigns.blogspot.com/

http://hdl.handle.net/1820/2550

http://hdl.handle.net/1820/2551

Orchestrating Learning with IMS LD

Education

Transcript of Orchestrating Learning with IMS LD