An alternate classification of LD authoring approaches

1. An alternate classification of LD authoring approaches Bottom-up and Top-down TENCompetence Workshop, Barcelona Tim Sodhi, Yongwu Miao, Francis Brouns, Rob Koper

2. Outline • Introduction • Existing classification • Alternate classification • Bottom-up • Top-down • Salient features of the approaches • Conclusions and discussion

3. Introduction • Today‘s LD tools too complex for non-experts • No concept of support with • Learning Design rules • Specification formalisms and constructs • Modeling based on educational scenarios • Need for authoring tools for non-experts in spec. • Domain specific knowledge of their fields • No knowledge of the specification • Relatively low IT Skills

4. Existing Classification • (Griffiths et al., 2005) • General Purpose vs. Specific Purpose • Those targeted at experts, vs those at novices • Does not take into account how design actually takes place • Does not classify tools on the basis of support offered • Large corpus of tools that belong to either classification

5. An Alternate Classification • Classification based on • how authors approach the design task • Guidance and support afforded by the tool • We classify these approaches as • Bottom-up • Top-down

6. Bottom-up Approach • Emphasis on emergence of design from lower level details • Does not emphasize on the type of learning to be modeled • For instance for IMS LD • Relies on the author being fully cognizant of underlying pedagogies • Design activity is relegated to mere editing UoLs • Support offered is minimal • At most with the specification constructs. • No higher level support

7. Bottom-up Approach (contd.) • Potential users • Authors with considerable design experience • Authors with clear idea at the inception about the design

8. Top-down approach • Emphasis on elicitation and selection of learning scenario, and guidance based on that. • Provision of learning design rules (Koper, 2005) • Choice from among educational scenarios encapsulating sound educational principles and learning theories • Flexible modeling order, starting point of design • With regard to IMS LD • Support offered throughout the design process • Targetted support with design rules • Context sensitive support & support with specification

9. Top-down approach (contd) • Potential users • Non-experts in the specification • Non-experts in learning theories • High IT skills not a requisite

10. Salient features of the approaches • Scenario-based modeling • Underlying learning design theories taken into consideration? • Inception of the design activiy • Where does the activity start – blank learning design or tweaking existing designs, etc • Support and guidance during the design phase • What kind of support is provided to the non-expert • Specification constructs and formalisms • Learning design rules, etc

11. Salient Features (contd) • Proximity to the IMS LD specification • Close to the specification in metaphors and structure? • Authoring approach followed • Overall learning design to lower level details, or vice versa?

12. Conclusion & Discussion • An alternate classification presented • Views creation of UoLs as a conglomeration of processes • Basis for evaluation to clearly demarcate today‘s IMS LD authoring tools on the basis of their suitability for non-experts • Inform the development of a new generation of IMS LD authoring tools

13. Questions?