October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation and conclusions After reviewing the state of the art, we set ourselves several goals. It should be possible to design courseware in small units, with a clear separation of the various aspects, in our case predominantly contents and didactics. Their interdependence should only be taken into account when courseware is produced for a specific learning/teaching context. There should be a clear separation of the modeling phase – corresponding to engineering for reuse – and the production phase – corresponding to engineering with reuse. The production phase should largely be automated, somewhat in the sense of model-driven programming. Our approach was modeled after the software engineering techniques of software reuse, component technology, and aspect-oriented programming. The combination of these techniques poses challenges even under ordinary circumstances and has never before been applied to courseware engineering. As a first attempt in this direction we feel we have been quite successful. Content is the driving force. Through a domain engineering approach that is based on a commonly agreed ontology a first component structure is defined. Component adaptability is achieved by introducing the concept of learning resource type. It allows refining an ontology-based component in a large variety of ways that each suit a specific instructional intent. The resulting so-called learning atoms can then be implemented and maintained in a repository. We also managed to separate the aspects of contents and didactics. We could show that one can derive a host of didactical methods for a given didactical strategy, and then detail the method in the form of a template that prescribes how atoms from the repository should be composed and ordered to meet the instructor’s and/or student’s objectives. A specific course can be generated almost automatically by a weaving process that takes a template as a prescription for which atoms to draw from the repository and how to arrange them in order. Nonetheless, the results are only a first and still modest step towards the flexible and economical production of courseware for a large variety of settings. One weakness of our work is the dearth of empirical evidence on the suitability of our approach. The approach evolved slowly in the course of a five-year project on a virtual university. Originally the emphasis was on the content level by ontology engineering. During the course of the work it became apparent that the desired flexibility could only be achieved if content and didactic were dealt with separately. This resulted in the concepts of didactic template and aspect weaving by generation. Unfortunately, the short remaining time of the program did not allow us to test the strategy on a larger scale. As a consequence, more empirical evidence must be gathered to convince oneself that the separation of content and didactic works under many conditions, and what these conditions are. Likewise, before undergoing the vast effort of building an ontology criteria would have to be developed whether a subject area is well-structured enough to justify the effort. As a first step, one should apply the approach to additional domains beyond the subject area of database courses. Also, for reasons of economy, it seems incumbent to integrate the SCORE courseware development and reuse environment into existing commercial learning platforms that support the learning technology standards and provide (to some extent) a modular learning/teaching environment. We were not entirely successful to separate the aspects of contents and didactics. Although we did better than other current work, we still had to merge content and didactic principles – as judged from our goals – prematurely during the domain design phase. Future work should concentrate on how to shift more of the merging into course engineering. Another characteristic of the approach is its heavy reliance on the existence of a suitable ontology. At least initially ontologies will have to be developed quite often, and this requires a fairly large investment in time and competent manpower and, therefore, there are considerable delays before the first course becomes available for a particular subject area. Consequently, one should steadily observe the market for ontology development tools. Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge the collaborative and stimulating environments of ViKar with Wolffried Stucky, Klaus Gremminger, Rudolf Krieger, Daniel Sommer, Jutta Mülle, and of SCORE with Birgitta König- Ries and Michael Klein. 111
References ADL (Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative) (2004). Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM): SCORM 2004 3 rd Edition, retrieved May, 30, 2006 from http://www.adlnet.gov/scorm/downloads/index.cfm. AOSD (2003). Aspect-Oriented Software development, retrieved May, 30, 2006 from http://aosd.net. Aksit, M. (1989). On the Design of the Object-Oriented Programming Language Sina. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente. Ateyeh, K. & Klein, M. & König-Ries, B. & Mülle, J. (2003). A Practical Strategy the Modularization of Courseware Design. In: Professionelles Wissensmanagement – Erfahrungen und Visionen: Adaptive E-Learning and Metadata, Luzern. Ateyeh, K. (2004). Reuse-Driven Courseware Engineering. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Karlsruhe. Shaker Verlag. Bell, J., Bellegarde, F., Hook, J., Kieburtz, R. B., Kotov, A., Lewis, J., McKinney, L., Oliva, D. P., Sheard, T., Tong, L., Walton, L.& Zhou, T. (1994). Software Design for Reliability and Reuse: A Proof-of-Concept Demonstration. In Proceedings of the Conference TRI-Ada. Biggerstaff, T. J. & Perlis, A. J. (1989). Software Reusability, Concepts, and Models. Vol. 1. ACM Press. Addison-Wesley. Blumstengel, A. (1998). Entwicklung hypermedialer Lernsysteme. (Development of Hypermedia Learning Systems, in German) Ph.D. thesis, Universität Paderborn. Boles, D. & Schlattmann, M. (1998). Multimedia-Autorensysteme: Grafisch-interaktive Werkzeuge zur Erstellung multimedialer Anwendungen. (Multimedia Author Systems: Graphical-interactive Tools for the Development of Multimedia Applications, in German) LOG IN 18 (1), 10-18. Czarnecki, K. & Eisenecker, U. W. (2000). Generative Programming. Addison-Wesley. Garzotto, P., Paolini, P. & Schwabe, D. (1991). HDM – a Model for the Design of Hypertext Applications. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Conference on Hypertext Systems, 313-328. Grützner, I., Pfahl, D. & Ruhe, G. (2002). Systematic Courseware Development Using an Integrated Engineering Style Method. In: Networked Learning NL2002, Berlin. Henninger, S. (1997). An Evolutionary Approach to Constructing Effective Software Reuse Repositories. ACM Trans. Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 6 (2), 111-140. Holsapple, C. W. & Joshi, K. D. (2002). A Collaborative Approach Ontology Design. Comm. ACM 45 (2). IBM (2004). Subject-Oriented Programming, retrieved May, 11, 2006 from http://www.research.ibm.com/sop/. IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) P1484.1/D9 (2001). Draft Standard for Learning Technology Systems Architecture (LTSA), retrieved May, 30, 2006 from http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg1/files/IEEE_1484_01_D09_LTSA.pdf. IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) WG12 (2003). LOM Meta Data Standard. URL: http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/. IMS (2004). IMS Content Packaging Information Model Version 1.1.3 Final Specification, retrieved May, 30, 2006 from http://www.imsglobal.org/content/packaging/index.cfm. IMSLD (2004), retrieved May, 11, 2006 from http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/index.html. Isakowitz, T., Stohr, E. A. & Balasubramanian, P. (1995). RMM: A Methodology for Structured Hypermedia Design. Comm. ACM 38 (8). Klein, M. (2002). Courseware Engineering: Ein Vorgehensmodell zur Erstellung von wiederverwendbaren hypermedialen Kursen. (Courseware Engineering: A Procedural Model for the Development of Reusable Hypermedia Courses, in German) Ph.D. thesis, Universität Karlsruhe. Lieberherr, K. J. (1996). Adaptive Object-Oriented Software: The Demeter Method with Propagation Patterns. PWS Publishing Company. Macromedia (2004a). Authorware 7, retrieved May, 11, 2006 from http://www.macromedia.com/software/authorware/. 112
Page 1 and 2:
October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4
Page 3 and 4:
Guidelines for authors Submissions
Page 5 and 6:
How Does Educational Technology Ben
Page 7 and 8:
Adaptivity is one of the most impor
Page 9 and 10:
3. Ease of editing and updating: wh
Page 11 and 12:
Accessible and personalized Learnin
Page 13 and 14:
From this definition, we figured ou
Page 15 and 16:
Verifying contents Figure 3. The pa
Page 17 and 18:
Figure 7. The ISA on line interface
Page 19 and 20:
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
Page 21 and 22:
World Wide Web Consortium (1999a).
Page 23 and 24:
guiding and supporting environment
Page 25 and 26:
As an example, to improve the acces
Page 27 and 28:
option). Although this finding migh
Page 29 and 30:
of eLearning content and enhance th
Page 31 and 32:
Hodgings, W. & Duval, E. (2002). IE
Page 33 and 34:
the entire course of study. This sy
Page 35 and 36:
information useful for the contextu
Page 37 and 38:
Nr of student 25 20 15 10 5 0 a - w
Page 39 and 40:
Vincenzo, a second year student, ne
Page 41 and 42:
Evaluation Recently embodied conver
Page 43 and 44:
The interaction may be performed on
Page 45 and 46:
Poggi, I., Pelachaud, C., & de Rosi
Page 47 and 48:
Lanzilotti, R., Ardito, C., & Costa
Page 49 and 50:
quality in use, which is measured b
Page 51 and 52:
process of designing high quality c
Page 53 and 54:
eLSE methodology Designers and eval
Page 55 and 56:
Execution phase Execution phase act
Page 57 and 58:
on the inspection process and, cons
Page 59 and 60:
Piccinini, N., & Scollo, G. (2006).
Page 61 and 62:
Answers and reinforcement A.1: Use
Page 63 and 64:
potential project ideas (from pure
Page 65 and 66: For each column in Table 2, the sum
Page 67 and 68: educational goals and the various r
Page 69 and 70: A new computerized Records Manageme
Page 71 and 72: eflected in artifacts and other str
Page 73 and 74: any distributed community include b
Page 75 and 76: message in order to obtain a respon
Page 77 and 78: Figure 3. Social network after intr
Page 79 and 80: increased face-to-face collaboratio
Page 81 and 82: References Bogenrieder, I. (2002).
Page 83 and 84: Donoghue, S. L. (2006). Institution
Page 85 and 86: contemplate part-time, rather than
Page 87 and 88: espective institutions. The primary
Page 89 and 90: greater flexibility in course selec
Page 91 and 92: Cost-benefit One distinct benefit o
Page 93 and 94: Resources The development of online
Page 95 and 96: courses where it is has little pote
Page 97 and 98: A fellowship programme, such as the
Page 99 and 100: Moore, M.G. (1998). Introduction. I
Page 101 and 102: Software reuse has two dimensions,
Page 103 and 104: Courseware development process mode
Page 105 and 106: Didactics analysis This phase consi
Page 107 and 108: Process didactics design We focus o
Page 109 and 110: The repository is organized into co
Page 111 and 112: the analysis and the design phase o
Page 113 and 114: Figure 12. Weaving content and dida
Page 115: complete user-specific (author, ins
Page 119 and 120: Bender, D. M., & Vredevoogd, J. D.
Page 121 and 122: (see Figure 2). The incorporation o
Page 123 and 124: Figure 4: Example of Summary Image
Page 125 and 126: The competitive nature of design cl
Page 127 and 128: Dias, L. B. (1999, November). Integ
Page 129 and 130: materials built into the system. Th
Page 131 and 132: This theory of multimedia learning
Page 133 and 134: E-Tutor (with video). Two weeks aft
Page 135 and 136: empirically tested in TML environme
Page 137 and 138: Rieber, L. P., (1990). Animation in
Page 139 and 140: Appendix B The following 44 items r
Page 141 and 142: Appendix C A Sample of Exam Questio
Page 143 and 144: Appendix D Perceived Usefulness Que
Page 145 and 146: Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001) have a
Page 147 and 148: 2001). The system thus aims to assi
Page 149 and 150: a strong agreement between the two
Page 151 and 152: of the dynasty. 3. Information on
Page 153 and 154: Comparing works designed using the
Page 155 and 156: Tselios, N., Stoica, A., Maragoudak
Page 157 and 158: strategies during their interaction
Page 159 and 160: P(B|D) is the probability of a netw
Page 161 and 162: Online help adaptation using Bayesi
Page 163 and 164: AUSM that will return the most prob
Page 165 and 166: direct experimentation with a new s
Page 167 and 168:
Figure 7. An example of use of the
Page 169 and 170:
Cooper, J. & Herskovits, E. (1992).
Page 171 and 172:
Goldberg, A. K., & Riemer, F. J. (2
Page 173 and 174:
In addition to convenience, propone
Page 175 and 176:
members increased flexibility. They
Page 177 and 178:
Oppenheimer, T. (1997, July). The c
Page 179 and 180:
The basis of reform in science educ
Page 181 and 182:
technology and are not confident in
Page 183 and 184:
participants that learning as a gro
Page 185 and 186:
A hierarchy of Systems Identifying
Page 187 and 188:
the change agents to recognize the
Page 189 and 190:
Nonis, A. S., & O’Bannon, B. (200
Page 191 and 192:
maintaining the interest levels of
Page 193 and 194:
Focus group interviews with our stu
Page 195 and 196:
course and again at the end of the
Page 197 and 198:
second phase of valuing, commitment
Page 199 and 200:
Kinzie, M. B., Whitaker, S. D., Nee
Page 201 and 202:
Although this work is based on a st
Page 203 and 204:
Website Design The MTP website (www
Page 205 and 206:
Researchers, for review and coding
Page 207 and 208:
quality that are the focus of the M
Page 209 and 210:
Kelley, M. A., Whitaker, S. D., Nee
Page 211 and 212:
or underserved populations. For exa
Page 213 and 214:
2004 Baruch College Computer Center
Page 215 and 216:
professional-level tools and resour
Page 217 and 218:
Third, with the exception of the Om
Page 219 and 220:
Hepp, P., Hinostroza, E., Laval, E.
Page 221 and 222:
The AccessForAll strategy complemen
Page 223 and 224:
of people with special needs, or di
Page 225 and 226:
(including where their search for r
Page 227 and 228:
international standard. The ISO pro
Page 229 and 230:
information will be expressed using
Page 231 and 232:
DC Metadata Terms: http://dublincor
Page 233 and 234:
Choquet, C., & Corbière, A. (2006)
Page 235 and 236:
TEL Standards, Specifications and P
Page 237 and 238:
The Resources Management Process ma
Page 239 and 240:
Step 1: Instantiation of the enterp
Page 241 and 242:
Step 5: Instantiation of the techno
Page 243 and 244:
correlation of the different viewpo
Page 245 and 246:
Hummel, H., Manderveld, J., Tatters
Page 247 and 248:
Karagiannidis, C. (2006). Book revi
Page 249 and 250:
Glenn, L. (2006). Book review: Visu
show all

October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?