Daniel Burgos: IMS Learning Design next move: extensions and improvements on personalisa-tion and interoperability
The work presented in this paper summarizes the research performed in order to implement a set of Units of Learning (UoLs) focused on adaptive learning processes, using the specification IMS Learning Design (IMS-LD). Through the im-plementation and analysis of four learning scenarios, and one additional application case, we identify a number of con-straints on the use of IMS-LD to support adaptive learning. Indeed, our work in this paper shows how IMS-LD expresses adaptation. In addition, our research presents a number of elements and features that should be improved and-or modified to achieve a better support of adaptation for learning processes. Furthermore, we point out to interoperability and authoring issues too. Finally, we use the work carried out to suggest extensions and modifications of IMS-LD with the final aim of better supporting the implementation of adaptive learning processes
Extra content
What is learning design, why doesnt it work and what can we do about it?
Gráinne Conole
14:04 on 13 October 2011
IMS LD is fine but there’s no progress since 2003.
IMS LD annotation of ID: a structure based on theatrical metaphor. Three levels of a Unit of Learning.
Limits of UoL: not editable at runtime
Modeling is too difficult for non technicians professionals profile
Communication is isolated, not supported for other LMS or applications already wide adopted
Recommendations for the “spec”: notation more simple, interoperable
Marcelo Fabián Maina
14:13 on 13 October 2011
Embedded Content
Comment 1 by John Cook
Comment 2 by Luis P. Prieto
Luis P. Prieto
2:07pm 13 October 2011
A little technical detail:
Hmmm, I thought collaborative learning WAS possible with level A specification...
Comment 3 by Gemma Corbalan
Gemma Corbalan
2:58pm 13 October 2011
Daniel provides a serie of limitations of IMS-LD, what were your expectations before you carried out the experiments? And could you shortly describe why (selling points) should we 'buy'' or use IMS-LD, as it is now?'
Comment 4 by Daniel Burgos
Daniel Burgos
11:05am 14 October 2011
high expectations -> small outcome & support from IMS and other key actors -> increasing disappointment -> dropout (unfortunately)
when we see that there is some concern from the other side, we might come back to this promising spec
Contribute to the discussion
Please log in to post a comment. Register here if you haven't signed up yet.
Tags
About |
Blog |
Terms and Conditions |
John Cook
8:38pm 10 October 2011 (Edited 8:45pm 10 October 2011)
The paper gives a good overview of the standards and specifications arena, with detail on IMS & Levels. Combination of elements, particularly at levels B & C, "allows for the modeling of several classical adaptive methods (i.e. reuse of pedagogical patterns, adaptability, navigational guidance, collaborative learning, contextualized and mobile distributed learning, Adaptation to stereotypes)".
Adaptivity is really important in facilitating learning and I enjoyed reading the author's position on this, particularly learning flow-based adaptivity , plus adaptive user grouping, (I am personally interested in their application in "scaffolding" both for individuals and in groups). I liked the detailed analysis of what IMS-LD can and cannot model. Usefully the author uses this "detailed analysis of what IMS-LD can and cannot model". The author has "defined, modelled and analysed five Units of Learning (UoLs), which are described as learning scenarios (Table 1)". Adaptive Content = adaptation on the learner´s decision.
Main finding 7 was of particular interest to me:
"7. The communication between teacher and student is little and indirect. They can view the values of properties but there
is no other communication service between them".
A further analysis provides the basis for a ld critique and recommendations (metaphor problems, complexity and so on): "The key issue comes when a teacher needs to translate this well-know structure into specific pedagogical resources and features".
The author concludes by pointing out that "IMS-LD would increase its level of implementation in real settings and a wider support from Communities of Practice of end users if one or several high-level visual authoring tools are developed". This issue makes me doubt that the second case that I present in my own paper (People Tagging in workplace setting of career guidance) could be feasibly scaled up using IMS LS. I look forward to exploring this prospect further in the workshop.