Activity Tools for Learning Design Lessons from developing

Activity Tools for Learning Design: Lessons from developing LAMS James Dalziel Professor of Learning Technology & Director, Macquarie University E-learning Centre of Excellence (MELCOE) james@melcoe. mq. edu. au www. melcoe. mq. edu. au Presentation for Altilab Conference, 21 st July 2004, SF, USA © Copyright 21/7/04 James Dalziel

What does “Learning Design” mean? • Three “levels” of meaning for LD – Theory: “people doing activities with resources” (eg, Sloep, 2002) – Standards: Not just IMS Learning Design spec, but other relevant work includes EML, ISO SC 36 WG 2, SCORM extensions, IMS SS, workflow languages (eg WFDL, eb. XML, etc) – Software: Includes full systems, prototypes, parts of systems, future projects, etc

The Development of LAMS • Details in accompanying paper – see: http: //members. imsglobal. org/forum/ims/dispatch. cgi/f. altilabtech/doc. Profile/100066/d 20040717152358/No/t 100066. htm • A key focus of the project: development of LD collaborative activity tools • Driven by the “What is Greatness? ” use case (see paper for details) • Various problems with IMS LD during implementation – demonstration and issues presented at Feb 2003 Valkenburg group meeting

Learner Screenshot from Feb 03

Author Screenshot from Feb 03

Author Screenshot Versailles Example July 03

Issues from LAMS development: Feb 03 • (1) Need more tools (services), and descriptions of tools (and potentially tool instantiation/setup XML descriptions); • (2) Need ways for one tool to pass information to another tool (with possible processing of information in between tools); • (3) Need a user grouping concept, not just a role concept; • (4) Need an ability to pass roles/groups and tool information across Acts; • (5) More detailed concepts of sequencing within "Acts”, including within-Act multi-learner synchronisation, and Simple Sequencing • (6) More development of how a teacher monitors and approves actions in real-time during a complex, multi-task (including dependencies) activity sequence.

LAMS Demonstration of LD activity tools in action

Author screenshot from LAMS (b 5) live demo

Graphical illustration of the “first” and “second” generation LMS educational tools challenge

Typical First Generation Commercial LMS TOP SECRET LMS COMPONENT MODULES INSIDE DO NOT OPEN!!!

(First Generation LMS + “open”)

SAKAI - First Generation LMS (? ) + OSS

(First Generation LMS + “open”)

Second Generation LMS? Learning Activity Sequence “builder” (From James Dalziel July 2 nd, 2002 COLIS Presentation)

The Second Generation LMS Software Development Challenge? Portal Portlet Delivery and Rendering Standards Learning Activity Sequence “builder” (& player) (Builder Adaptor) Collaborative Activity Tool (Box size indicates very approximate scale of development task)

Second Generation LMS Software Development: The Lesson from LAMS Portal Portlet Delivery and Rendering Standards Learning Activity Sequence “builder” (& player) (Builder & Player Adaptor) Collab Activity Tool

Learning Design tool/platform requirements • Tight versus loose tools integration in a LD control system • A tightly integrated LD control system able to meet the needs of the “What is Greatness? ” use case needs to be able to: – – instantiate designated tools at specific points in time with specific students, run multiple versions of the same tool with different groups, synchronise learners across collaborative activities where required, centrally manage tool instantiation and shut-down processes (to ensure quality of service from tools during the running of a sequence), – manage the transition of students from one tool to another (including tracking of current location, and providing the ability to view outcomes from past tools, etc), – know how to provide instructions/content into a tool as a result of an authoring process, – provide a way of monitoring learner progress within each tool (preferably in real-time), together with recording student contributions and activities for tracking purposes.