Customized PLE implementations for test-bed scenario ... - ROLE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3 Test-bed validation study To evaluate the applicability of the ROLE vision within the test-beds, a study was conducted in year 2 of the project (M18-M24). The main goal of this study is to validate (1) which aspects of the ROLE vision have been realised in each test-bed so far, (2) what is planned within the next year, and (3) where test-beds are restricted regarding concepts and approaches of the ROLE project. Furthermore, this study also documents results of former project milestones, namely of the Christmas, the Easter, and the Stonehenge milestone (cf. iterative software development plan depicted in the deliverables D1.3/D1.4 and D5.1/D5.2). 3.1 Methodology of the study The test-bed validation study was implemented in the following way. In a first step, the deliverables published in the first 18 months were reviewed, and key concepts were identified and summarised. This literature review led to the scenario-driven PLE development and application approach consisting of four perspectives and to concrete questions for each perspective (see section 2). The second phase was realised in the form of an online survey in which the key questions of the last section were broken down to concrete questionnaire items (see Appendix A). The online questionnaire provided with the open source survey tool ‘LimeSurvey’ (cf. http://www.limesurvey.org/) were filled out by the test-bed partners. The results of the survey can be found under https://fit-bscw.fit.fraunhofer.de/bscw/bscw.cgi/39069778 (closed project repository; authentication and authorisation required). To get a complete picture on the situation in each test-bed, partners were interviewed according to selected findings from the survey (see Appendix B). The data collected was analysed and summarised in the following way. First, a description of each test-bed and its goal, one of the learning transitions given in the ROLE-DoW (p.31), is outlined. Then, the results concerning the four perspectives of the ROLE vision are elaborated briefly and in this sequence: (a) psycho-pedagogical perspective, (b) community perspective, (c) technical perspective, and (d) development perspective. Additionally, concrete learning scenarios from each test-bed are sketched before the results of the former ROLE milestones (Christmas, Easter, and Stonehenge project) are summarised and next steps are highlighted. 3.2 OU test-bed: Open, community-oriented but LMS-based and driven by the organisation Open University UK (OU) has gathered the interest of a wide audience ranging from governmental and non-governmental entities interested in promoting continuing professional development, public and private higher education institutes, academic teachers, training course designers, graduate and postgraduate students, educational researchers, and generally anyone interested in informal learning. This test-bed at the Open University UK is characterised by fostering informal learning activities for which Page 24 of 102
self-regulated learning (SRL) is considered to be important (formal to informal learning, F2I). Learners in this test-bed use the customized Moodle platform “OpenLearn” (http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn, see also appendix B.1) to learn at their own pace, keep a learning journal in order to monitor their progress, complete selfassessment exercises, and discuss with other learners in forums. Typically, they have full control over their learning processes. In this context, the psycho-pedagogical approach of ROLE could be an enabler for SRL, e.g. through adequate guidance mechanisms. So far, SRL is not yet supported by technology, and it is not an explicit goal but an interesting side-aspect within this testbed. Next to the LMS solution OpenLearn, learners have the freedom to select goals and use tools to find materials beyond the pre-defined course content. Hereby, help can be found at best by peers within a forum. Personalisation of the learning process and pedagogical recommendations (next instruction, background literature) are not realised while possible peers are suggested via the OpenLearn platform. Learner monitoring is implemented through the logging mechanism of the LMS which is also used for the activity reports provided to learners. Reflecting on the learning process is mainly supported by two instruments, quizzes for self-assessment and other indicators for learning (progress, scores). Collaboration between learners is facilitated (but not enforced) through tools like learning clubs and FlashMeeting. Particularly thematically oriented learning clubs aim at bringing together learners from different OpenLearn courses. Although supporting only informal learning, all learners of the test-bed and their outcomes are being assessed, mainly through automated quizzes in the OpenLearn platform and for self-reflection reasons. Furthermore, there is no learner profile (beyond the one in OpenLearn), and the goals achieved and the learners’ different skills are not measured at all. Generally, learning is driven by the course creators who also define the expected outcomes in a formal and explicit way. Training materials are available as user guides and forums. Regarding the community perspective, the OU test-bed is not restricted to the boundaries of an organisation or a specific context. Learners have to achieve the outcomes on their own, are involved into passive lecturing activities, and they can collaborate with peers. There is no strategy in place for motivating collaboration amongst learners. The OU test-bed offers various new media technologies to work and learn together, e.g. through collaboration tools (blogs, forums, FlashMeeting, FlashVlog, etc.) and sensemaking tools (Compendium or Cohere). These tools and the learning materials are recommended in a rather static way, i.e. as part of the OpenLearn courses. Learners are free to work with these or other external tools according to their needs and preferences. However, the Moodle-based LMS does not support the integration of all these learning tools. Capturing learner interactions is more or less restricted to the log files of the OpenLearn platform and the internal tools utilised in the test-bed. The log files are analysed with regard to activities and communities of learners (learning clubs, FlashMeeting groups). Moreover, organisational policies allow capturing and analysing user data, installing new PLE software (desktop and web-applications), and the usage of third-party tools while the sensitive data may not be accessed from outside or given away. Generally, the test- Page 25 of 102
Page 1 and 2: Integrated Project Responsive Open
Page 3 and 4: Document Control Title: Editors: E-
Page 5 and 6: Executive Summary In order to provi
Page 7 and 8: 1 Introduction The primary goal of
Page 9 and 10: (workplace learning, higher and fur
Page 11 and 12: Psycho-pedagogical evaluation metho
Page 13 and 14: Figure 2-2: Interaction and activit
Page 15 and 16: they motivated to collaboratively a
Page 17 and 18: school interoperability), (3) commu
Page 19 and 20: Technical evaluation methodology Ev
Page 21 and 22: technology (software and hardware)!
Page 23: • Can external stakeholders (e.g.
Page 27 and 28: Results from the Christmas, the Eas
Page 29 and 30: 2.0 platforms). Particularly privac
Page 31 and 32: mechanism to motivate learners and
Page 33 and 34: gadgets were shown to the learners,
Page 35 and 36: the IMC CLIX platform supports, whi
Page 37 and 38: In order to show how this could wor
Page 39 and 40: For evaluation in ROLE, Etestme pro
Page 41 and 42: egards to building and sustaining c
Page 43 and 44: Number of test-bed learners concurr
Page 45 and 46: o external materials have to be ver
Page 47 and 48: Citeulike Google Diigo None Other:
Page 49 and 50: 21 Are there any restrictions conce
Page 51 and 52: Artefacts Media repositories Commun
Page 53 and 54: No 32 Describe, how interaction rec
Page 55 and 56: A.2 ROLE - Test-bed validation, psy
Page 57 and 58: Blended learning Pure online activi
Page 59 and 60: 11 Which kinds of guidance are avai
Page 61 and 62: Yes No There is no technical suppor
Page 63 and 64: Yes No 32 How are domain-specific a
Page 65 and 66: Activities and skill profiles None
Page 67 and 68: Submit your survey. Thank you for c
Page 69 and 70: None Other: 5 Describe the stakehol
Page 71 and 72: On their own after requesting permi
Page 73 and 74: RWTH Aachen University Course “We
Page 75 and 76:
Who is working on technical tools f
Page 77 and 78:
Linking and mashing up data Inter-w
Page 79 and 80:
Please write your answer here: Plea
Page 81 and 82:
30 Which of the ROLE specifications
Page 83 and 84:
None Other: 37 Is there or will the
Page 85 and 86:
Please write your answer here: 45 W
Page 87 and 88:
If there are any other tools, is it
Page 89 and 90:
How are user interfaces and feature
Page 91 and 92:
Appendix B: Results of the Christma
Page 93 and 94:
B.2 SJTU test-bed From the viewpoin
Page 95 and 96:
B.3 RWTH test-bed Similarly to SJTU
Page 97 and 98:
B.4 FESTO test-bed Christmas Projec
Page 99 and 100:
B.5 BILD test-bed The BILD is a mem
Page 101 and 102:
References Chatterjee, A., and Law,
show all

Customized PLE implementations for test-bed scenario ... - ROLE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?