1 / 18

A practitioner’s view of Learning Design

A practitioner’s view of Learning Design. Mark Baxendale, Liverpool Hope University, UK. Background. Using IMS Learning Design tools in a real Higher Education context Installed CopperCore and SLeD Developing and running courses using Learning Design

zoltin
Download Presentation

A practitioner’s view of Learning Design

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A practitioner’s view of Learning Design Mark Baxendale, Liverpool Hope University, UK.

  2. Background • Using IMS Learning Design tools in a real Higher Education context • Installed CopperCore and SLeD • Developing and running courses using Learning Design • Tutors drawing up and using IMS LD with support • JISC SLiDe • JISC LD4P • JISC D4LD • JISC LD4Users • JISC DesignShare

  3. Why learning design? • Structuring of learning materials in the institutional VLE- where is the pedagogy? • LD as an educational modelling language was the main attraction • Richness of the specification • Capturing a wide range of pedagogical approaches • Focus on activity rather than content • Sharing/re-use was a secondary consideration

  4. The plan (and the reality) • The plan: small steps- start with level A • Building up to B and C • The reality: at least level B was required for real teaching e.g. • Submission of work • Conditional completion/showing of activities • Collaboration • Information about the learner

  5. Live Units of learning • Networks and Operating Systems (PBL) • Design and Implementation of Multimedia • Twentieth Century writings (English Literature) • MSc Multimedia • In development: MSc course fully on line

  6. Supporting the teacher • Methodology based on IMS Best Practice and Implementation Guide • Teacher attends authoring workshop(s) • Teacher authors design to level A using Reload • Author design to level B • Edit XML as necessary

  7. The Learning Designs • Level B • Used properties to control progress e.g. • Tutor monitors activities and allows to progress • File upload triggers progression • Group work • QTI

  8. Tutor experience • Sebastian Groes, English Tutor • Saw the potential of the approach to help him to visualise the learning design, and to provide the learners with a visual overview of their route through the topic • Amanda Oddie, Computer Science tutor • E-learning sceptic “converted” by LD • Chris Beaumont, Computer Science tutor • Liked the way could guarantee students would follow the PBL process correctly

  9. Learner experience • “The idea of SLeD is very good…” • “SLeD much better than [the institutional VLE], but would be even better if there was a forum” • “SLeD for me is an excellent way of studying as you can progress through it at your own pace and you also have the advantage of going back over what you have done if you feel you need to ...” • Learners canvassed for opinion on the software • Generally positive about • guidance offered • usefulness of the software • Earlier trials: negative about reliability of the software

  10. “Expert” experience • Initially working with IMS LD- complex, few “real” examples • Especially level B • Realised it was a scripting task (level B)- developing (and debugging!) algorithms

  11. Authoring to level B • Reload well suited to tasks • Collaborative authoring was a problem • Reference clashes - used XML editor - time consuming • Viewing/setting properties- producing form in XML • “form builder” within editor would have been useful • Scripting (conditions) was easier in XML editor

  12. Challenges and Problem Areas • Installing tools- during SLiDe project CopperCore and SLeD were developing- a lot of “tweaking” and self reliance • Installation much improved now • Threw up institutional/cultural/political issues- heavy reliance on “enthusiasts”, activity not seen as a priority, keeping students onboard

  13. Bill Olivier’s presentation (TENCompetence @ Manchester 2007 ) Where are we? http://www.tencompetence.org/files/gmex/presentations/olivier1.ppt

  14. Crossing the chasm • How to get there and get up the hill? • Need more usable and robust tools • JISC LD4P • JISC D4LD • JISC LD4Users

  15. JISC LD4P • Partners: St Helens College, Phosphorix, University of Bolton • Practitioners producing IMS LD units of learning with support • User interface to Reload for practitioners • Sharing IMS LD UoLs in other situations

  16. JISC D4LD • Led by UK OU • Partners: OUNL, LHU • Preparing SLeD (UK OU) and Coppercore (OUNL) for institutional use • Addressing performance issues • Usability • Improved course and user admin

  17. JISC LD4Users • Part of the Emerge community of practise (http://emerge.elgg.org/) developing a model of user centred design • LD4Users will Investigate the issues surrounding management of learning activities in personal environments

  18. Summary • Non-experts can use IMS LD • But plenty of support needed • The tools do benefit learners? • But we need tools that they will use; they will easily give up • Need more LD services implemented (cf. LAMS) • Tool developers and user communities must interact • This is happening e.g. through TENCompetence, JISC

More Related