David Griffiths, Timothy Goddard and Mi Wang: Why has IMS LD not led to the advances which were hoped for?

Cloud created by:

Yishay Mor
5 October 2011

The publication of the IMS Learning Design (LD) specification in 2003 led to high hopes that the specification would lead to advances both in formalising the description of learning designs and patterns, and also of extending the range of possible learning designs which could be implemented with technological support. Today, however, there is no evidence that it has achieved anything approaching widespread adoption within the education sector. This study seeks to identify the reasons for this, and the lessons which can be learned for future research into learning designs and patterns. We describe how data is currently being gathered in the form of interviews with leading participants in IMS LD research, and how this will be analysed in order to identify hypotheses which can clarify the history of the specification in the form of proposed explanatory mechanisms. The results of this process will be presented at the ASLD workshop. Subsequently an open process will be carried out to contrast these hypotheses with evidence in the existing literature, and to develop conclusions regarding the lessons for future research into learning design and pedagogic patterns.

Extra content

Embedded Content

added by Yishay Mor

Some initial thoughts from the interviews

Some initial thoughts from the interviews

added by Timothy Goddard

Contribute

Adi Kidron
1:30pm 13 October 2011


1st discussion group:

  • integrating the IMSLD requires time
  • is it too complicated? what does it offer? what do you get in return? does it justify the investment?
  • is it too technical for teachers? what is their role?
  • can the IMSLD handle the complexity of real life situations? the differentiated needs?
  • can it capture all that teachers do in their classes?

Contribute to the discussion

Please log in to post a comment. Register here if you haven't signed up yet.