Using Learning Design with practitioners

1. Using Learning Design with practitioners Mark Barrett-Baxendale Liverpool Hope University

2. Overview • Background • Experience • Next steps

3. Background • JISC funded projects 2005-2008 • SLiDe, LD4P, D4LD (OU), DesignShare • http://bsd1.phosphorix.co.uk/ld4p/ • Using IMS Learning Design (IMS LD) tools in a real Higher Education context • Tutors drawing up and using IMS LD with support • Running units of learning with learners

4. 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 • Focus on activity rather than content • Sharing/re-use was a secondary consideration

5. Supporting the tutor • Methodology based on IMS Best Practice and Implementation Guide • Tutor attends authoring workshop(s) • Tutor authors design to level A using Reload • With support • Expert authors design to level B • Edit XML as necessary

6. The Learning Designs • Level B • Used properties to control progress e.g. • Tutor monitors activities and allows to progress • File upload triggers progression • Granularity of UoLs was an issue • Global properties used to link UoLs • (e.g. can’t start week 3 until completed week 2)

7. 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 • Scripting (conditions)

8. Example: Mythologies of Loss • English tutor at Liverpool Hope University (LHU) • Supported in drawing up an IMS LD unit of learning (UoL) • Using the Reload IMS LD editor • UoL supports a six-week topic: “Mythologies of Loss” within a second year HE module “Twentieth-Century Readings” • Run using SLeD/Coppercore

9. The authoring process • Tutor attended an authoring workshop • Subsequently drew up a design to IMS LD level A using Reload • Some support • Expert authored to level B (properties & conditions) using Reload

10. Demonstration: authoring

11. Running with students • UoL published to the SLeD/Coppercore IMS LD player • Running on a server at LHU • Made available to learners attending the tutor’s module.

12. Demonstration: running

13. Tutor experience • “The most pedagogically sound method I have used …” • “I like the way we can structure the learning so that students have to respond to feedback before progressing” • “The advantage [of LD] is that both the tutor and the student can see an overview of the route through the course”

14. 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 ...” • Generally positive about guidance, usefulness of the software

15. Next steps at LHU • Moving forward with design for learning • Focusing on the mainstream practitioner • LAMS • IMS LD still too big a step for most • But progress being made here- ReCourse LD editor • Interoperable authoring tools would help

16. Tutor Learner Standards-based Editor Pedagogic planner ? ? Non-standards-based Editor Other standards-based tool Share/store Interoperability Level?

17. Conclusions • Practitioners/learners generally positive about using IMS LD • Possible for novice users to author IMS LD UoLs • but requires considerable support. • More usable authoring tools required • work more independently • progress from simpler tools as skills develop.