L EARNING D ESIGN

The core concept of the Learning Design framework is that regardless of the pedagogical strategy, learners attain learning objectives by performing a specific order of learning activities. It has emerged as one of the most significant developments in e-learning [22][14][10][2][3][7][10][11].

From a standards/specifications perspective, IMS Global Learning Consortium has recently released the IMS Learning Design specification[20], based on the work of the Open University of the Netherlands (OUNL) on “Educational Modeling Language” [23], a notational language to describe a “meta-model” of instructional design. The OUNL that coordinates an international EML/IMS Learning Design implementation group known as the Valkenburg group [31] has recently stated their intention to no longer develop EML continuously, but instead focus their energies of the new IMS Learning Design specification [29]. Thus it can be seen that LD has come into more and more notice.

2.2.1 IMS Learning Design Information Model

The primary use of IMS Learning Design is to model units of learning (uol) by including an IMS Learning Design in a content package. The Manifest is the information structure defined in the Content Packaging specification. It contains a package as an XML file with a fixed, pre-defined name (imsmanifest.xml). The integration of a Learning Design into the Content Packaging Structure is set out in the Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: the structure of learning.

To create a unit of learning, IMS Learning Design is integrated with an IMS Content Package by including the learning design element as another kind of organization within the <organizations> element, using the standard namespace for Learning Design. When the standard namespace is

“[standard-namespace-for-learning-design]”, then learning design elements are included as follows (ignoring irrelevant elements and attributes):

<manifest>

<metadata/>

<organization>

<learning-design xmlns=”[standard-namespace-for-learning-design]”>

[add learning design elements here]

</learning-design>

</organization>

<resources>

</manifest>

The core components of the Learning Design Framework are shown in Figure 2.3 and summarized below:

Figure 2.3: Learning Design Rationale[24]

－ Role component specifies the type of participant in a unit of learning. There are two basic types: Learner and Staff. These roles can be sub-typed to allow learners to play different roles in certain types of learning activity such as task-based, role-play and simulations. Similarly support staff can be sub-typed and given more specialized roles, such as Tutor, Teaching Assistant, Mentor, etc. Thus, Roles set the basis for multi-user models of learning. The name that a certain role is given depends on the underline pedagogy and the setting in use.

－ Activities are one of the core structural elements of the ‘learning workflow’ model for learning design. They form the link between the roles and the learning objects and services in the learning environment. They describe the activities that a role has to undertake within a specified environment composed of learning objects and services.

They also specify their termination conditions and the actions to be taken on termination. There are two basic types of activities: learning activities and support activities. A learning activity is directed at attaining a learning objective per individual user. Any user performs a learning activity only once (until completion). A support activity is meant to facilitate a role performing one or more learning activities.

The controller of the role and activities flow is the attribute “Method”. It contains two core parts of the LD specification: the play and conditions. A play specifies the actual learning design, the teaching-learning process, referring to the components declared earlier. And conditions are used in conjunction with properties to further refinement and to add personalization facilities in the learning design.

Here we illustrate the architecture more detail by showing an example of UoL.

Figure 2.4: Example of Learning Design

Figure 2.4 illustrates a LD compliant learning flow. There are two roles: Learner and Teacher. The property “Test_Mode” is default to be false and “Test_Grade” =””.

In the teacher’s learning flow, the only task is to grade every student’s test which is defined as a support activity (SA). This support activity will be executed several times until finishing all students’ grades. The learner takes two lessons: ”Introduction of Tree” and “Introduction of Search” (Learning Activity). While completing the lesson

“Introduction of Search”, the property “Test_Mode” becomes true and the Test activity will show up. After the learner finishes the test, the system will notify the teacher to grade by using the service: send mail of the environment. After the teacher grading this student’s test, the learning flow of the students will continue or go back to

the lesson ”Introduction of Search” depending on the value of the property ”Test_Grade”. If the “Test_Grade” is true, the learner will take the lesson: ”Conclusion” and then go to another act.

According to the expressive ability, LD specifies three levels of implementation and compliance. The level wise conceptual view of LD is provided in Figure 2.5. In this figure, the emphasis is on the functional differences between each level.

Figure 2.5: Conceptual model of overall Learning Design

LD Level A contains all the core vocabulary needed to support pedagogical diversity. And Level B adds Properties and Conditions to level A, which enable personalization and more elaborate sequencing and interactions based on learner portfolios. It can be used to direct the learning activities as well as record outcomes.

Afterward, LD Level C adds Notification, which can be used for notifying or

“messaging” both between system components and between roles. This adds a new dimension by supporting real-time event-driven work/learning flow. Activities can

then be set as a consequence of dynamic changes to the learner’s profiles and/or of events generated in the courses of the learning activities.

2.2.2 Compared with SCORM Simple Sequence

While the definitions of Learning Design vary, the main elements tend to include greater focus on “context” dimensions of e-learning (rather than simply “content”), a more “activity” based view of e-learning (rather than “absorption”), and greater recognition of the role of “multi-learner” (rather than just single learner) environments. While Learning Design does not exclude single learner, self-paced modes of e-learning, it draws attention to a wider range of collaborative e-learning approaches in addition to single learner approaches. Much of the focus on Learning Design arises from a desire for re-use and adaptation at a level above simply re-using and adapting content objects. These above advantages make Learning Design become more popular than SCORM.

2.2.3 Related Tools of LD Specification

Currently many systems and tools which are based on Learning Design specification are developing. The most popular related researches are two projects:

RELOAD Editor [26] and CopperCore [8].

The RELOAD Editor supports the full IMS Learning Design specifications for Levels A, B and C. It provides the graphical User Interface for all elements. Besides, it also provides fully featured Help system and easy file management. For the designer of LD compliant learning activity, the most convenient function is the wizards to import and export as IMS Learning Design Zip Package.

The CopperCore is a J2EE runtime engine for IMS Learning Design released by the Open Universiteit Nederland (OUNL). It supports all three levels of IMS Learning Design (A, B, and C). It includes a command line interface to most of the API calls, an example of a publication interface, and an example of a web delivery interface.

These two tools will be helpful in the experiment of this thesis.