1 / 13

An alternate classification of LD authoring approaches

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

draco
Download Presentation

An alternate classification of LD authoring approaches

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. 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?

More Related