University of the Américas Puebla Interactive and Collaborative Technologies Lab

A MODEL FOR GENERATING LEARNING OBJECTS FROM DIGITAL LIBRARIES.

Formal Thesis Proposal Claudia Verónica Pérez Lezama

Thesis Director:

Dr. J. Alfredo Sánchez [email protected]

-1-

Table of Contents 1. Context ..................................................................................................................... 3 2. Definition of the problem .......................................................................................... 4 3. Research question ..................................................................................................... 7 4. Hypothesis ................................................................................................................ 7 5. Objectives ................................................................................................................. 7 5.1 General Objective................................................................................................ 7 5.2 Specific Objectives.............................................................................................. 8 6. Methodology............................................................................................................. 8 7. Related Research....................................................................................................... 9 7.1 Computer Supported Collaborative Learning....................................................... 9 7.1.1 Collaborative Learning, CSCL and CSCW ................................................... 9 7.1.2 Collaborative Learning Environments......................................................... 10 7.1.3 Learning Management Systems (LMS)....................................................... 10 7.2 Learning Objects ............................................................................................... 11 7.2.1 What is a Learning Object?......................................................................... 11 7.2.2 Fundamental characteristics of Learning Objects ........................................ 12 7.2.3 Function and benefits of Learning Objects .................................................. 13 7.2.4 Taxonomies of Learning Objects. ............................................................... 13 7.2.5 Metadata..................................................................................................... 14 7.2.6 Standards and specifications for developing Learning Objects .................... 14 7.2.7 Repositories of Learning Objects ................................................................ 15 7.2.8 The importance of Instructional Design ...................................................... 15 7.2.9 Tools for generating Learning Objects. ....................................................... 15 8 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 17 9 Schedule of activities ............................................................................................... 17 10 References ............................................................................................................. 17

-2-

1. Context The development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) has caused the evolution of all areas of science; in particular, learning is in a process of change. Technological resources now are an integral part of the learning process. ICT has generated diverse paradigms of educative computation such as Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI), Intelligent Tutorial Systems (ITS), Computer Based Training (CBT), simulations and, more recently, with the generalization of the computer networks, eLearning and Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSLC) (Dimitriadis et. al., 2002).

e-Learning has produced flexible education models in which the techniques of teaching and learning are student-centered (Tavangarian et. al., 2004). In these models, the learners play the main role during the process of teaching-learning, because they identify their own learning needs and proposes solutions through individual and group work, whereas the instructor becomes a facilitator or moderator of the activities and the learning environment.

Learning Management Systems (LMS) are main components of the e-Learning systems. This kind of system helps to manage and support activities of the teachinglearning process. Instructors use these systems in order to share the material of their courses, communicate with the students and follow their progress. Students use these systems mainly for collaboration and communication. Some commercial examples of these systems are: Blackboard, WebCT, Desire2Learn, E-ducativa, y LatinCampus. There are also a great number of non commercial LMS such as: Moodle, Segue, Interact, CourseWork, ATutor y Fle3. These learning management systems facilitate the management, creation, distribution and improvement of learning content. The field of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning studies the use of computing technology in collaborative learning (Koschmann, 1992). Ayala and Yano (1998) define Computer Supported Collaborative Learning as “the use of the computer as a mediational device that helps the learner to communicate and collaborate in joint activities through a network, providing assistance in their coordination and application of knowledge in certain domain”. This area has advocated the systems development for collaborative learning and virtual learning environments. The main idea is to create systems that promote the participation of the learners in knowledge building communities through synchronous and asynchronous collaborative communication and interaction. (Morrison and Dennis, 2005). Examples of these systems are: Metalab

-3-

(Morrison and Dennis, 2005), CoVis (Pea R, 1994), CSILE (Scardamalia et. al. 1994), y KnowledgeTree.

In e-Learning and CSCL there is the necessity to develop technological tools that promote personalized learning. Environments where each user can create and maintain digital learning material that is relevant to him and that fits his own requirements, motivations and abilities.

Digital libraries are technological resources that further the construction of customized knowledge, which “are virtual collaboration spaces that provide means for acquiring, sharing and generating knowledge.”(Sánchez, 2004). Currently, digital libraries have numerous online collections that are rich instructional resources. Use of these collections however, is scarce mainly due the lack of friendly interfaces and customized services that allow users to access these collections. The foremost problem that arises in this kind of spaces is how to produce or generate elements or units of knowledge that can be shared, enriched and reused by a group. These units of knowledge are known as learning objects (LSTC, 2000), and there is a great amount of research about their definition, creation, use and storage. Nevertheless, an aspect of learning objects that has not been addressed with sufficient depth is the participation of the learner or end user during the creation of a learning object and the implications that this participation may have.

2. Definition of the problem Current research about learning objects has been focused mainly on the following issues: Conceptual frameworks. Definition of a learning object (LO), its main attributes or characteristics, LO taxonomies and life cycle. (Ip et. al, 2001; Semmens, 2004; Hodgins, 2004; Wiley, 2000; Dolphin and Miller, 2002; Agostinho et. al, 2004 ; Merrill, 2002 ; McGee, 2003 ; Friesen, 2004; Polsani, 2003; Murphy, 2004; Wagner, 2002). In this regard a general consensus about the learning object definition should be reached in order to establish the required minimum components for multimedia material to be considered a learning object. Size. Establishment of the LO granularity is required to achieving success in its reusability. Granularity in the context of learning object is used to refer to the size of an object. (Collis and Strijker, 2004; Boyle, 2003; Jacobsen,

-4-

2001; Vinha, 2005; Qin and Hernández, 2004; Verbert et. al., 2005; Santacruz, 2004). Then, it is necessary to define the appropriate size of the LO so it can be shared and reused in different contexts of instruction. Description. One of the key issues in using learning objects is their identification by search engines. This is usually facilitated by assigning descriptive metadata to the learning object but there are several standards for the metadata specification. (Farrel et. al, 2004; Brown, 2002; Recker and Walter, 2000; Castro, 2002; Li et. al, 2005; Or-Bach, 2005; Saddik et al, 2000). So, it is necessary to establish a metadata standard for consistently describing learning object characteristics. Storage. How are current LO repositories organized, managed, and accessed? (Soto et. al., 2006; González, 2003; Neven and Duval, 2002; Friesen, 2001; Hatala et. al., 2004; Abernethy et. al., 2005; Dhraief et. al., 2004). A number of repositories have been created with the intention of providing LOs that are reusable, however one of the main issues in creating a networked system of repositories is how to achieve the interoperability between these repositories. Design. Guidelines for the design and tools to create LOs (Smith, 2004; Kotzinos, 2005; Brady, Conlan and Wade, 2005; Chalk et. al., 2003). Although there are tools to assist instructors and learner in selecting and creating learning objects without requiring specialized skills in instructional design and programming, it is necessary to establish guides to produce learning objects through a systematic process. A characteristic shared by most LOs projects is that the creation of learning objects is based on the curricula of specific courses; that is, learning objects are generated to "cover" concrete objectives of the unit or subject, have a specific functionality, and are reusable in other courses only if they share objectives or a similar design of the curricula.

Another common characteristic on these projects is that generally the author and administrator of the learning objects is the instructor or the designer but not the learner. Then, the instructor specifies the content of the learning objects, based on some specific set of prerequisities and an assumed set of learning objectives and the learner finds himself restricted to access learning objects created for specific goals. Furthermore, different interests, knowledge, and learning styles of particular students

-5-

are not taken into account during the creation of these objects. Therefore, the material selected by the instructor could not be useful or interesting for some students.

Bannan-Ritland and Gibbons suggest that if the learner acquires an author´s role during LO generation, learning will be more significant and the learning object will turn into a fundamental element of the learning process in virtual environments. In this sense there are several projects that suggest a more active participation of the learner during the learning process through self-learning (Magenheim and Scheel, 2004), with a major student interaction with the system (Ford, 2004); Chalk et. al., 2003; Li et. al., 2003) or creating flexible and customizable systems that meet to needs of individual students and as well as groups (Gunawardena and Adamchik, 2003; Yang and Yang, 2005). The main idea of this research is based on the possibility of students being able to adapt technology-based multimedia resources according to their own needs and learning styles, providing, in that way, a flexible and customized education. In order to achieve this change in the student role, it is necessary to develop a model for generating flexible, adaptable, open and personalized learning objects based on digital material that is contained in a specific digital library.

Learning objects will need to be conceptualized, designed, constructed, selected and used quickly and easily (Hodgins, 2004). The LO systems should have two major functions: The creation of content in a form that is amenable to customization, and the creation of a technical infrastructure and mechanisms to deliver the customizable content as required by the learners. This implies that each student can create his own knowledge network according to his needs, interests and experiences. The main premise of this research is to demonstrate that the student has learned or acquired new knowledge when he, in addition to adopting it, is able to teach the concept and share it through the creation of his own learning object, which represents this knowledge.

In summary, this project proposes a model for the generation of learning objects from digital collections. These objects will be incorporated into virtual learning environments to promote significant and collaborative learning among academic groups.

-6-

This project is important for the CSCL area because it will investigate general mechanisms for using ICTs to promote a change in the student´s role during the learning process in virtual environments, by facilitating the active participation of the student when generating learning objects. This participation of the learner will achieve a learning richer in experiences and also more significant. Another benefit derived from this work, is the possibility of sharing these objects with other students whose interests and/or needs are similar, creating learning communities.

The creation of learning object repositories from digital collections will allow learners to exploit multimedia elements that are stored by digital libraries.

Finally, instances of the model will be useful, becoming a study platform for online courses.

3. Research question Is it feasible to develop systems that allow students to build their own learning objects from digital collections?

4. Hypothesis As mentioned earlier there are projects focused to develop learning environments that promote the participation of the learner during the learning process in various ways. So this proposal tries to include the common features that these projects present and to suggest a model in which the learner acquires an author´s role during LO generation.

The hypothesis of this proposal is that it is possible to develop work environments to facilitate the conceptualization and construction of learning objects by the student.

5. Objectives 5.1 General Objective To define a model that allow learners to generate flexible, adaptable, open and personalized learning objects from digital collections.

-7-

5.2 Specific Objectives 

To establish mechanisms for the design and generation of LOs from digital collections.



To determine rules or criteria for building LOs.



To provide a formal definition of the model´s components.



To define the rules for the description of LOs through metadata.



To develop a prototype for building LOs that promotes and allows the active participation of the learner during the creation of LO.

6. Methodology This research will address two major aspects of the learning objects: (1) the extraction, filtration and transformation of the information stored in specific digital libraries into learning objects, and (2) the construction of a LO model and its incorporation into a tool for developing learning objects by the learners. This is a novel model because it promotes personalized learning and proposes to obtain learning objects from digital collections. This research will be approached from an inductive perspective. Next, is the sequence of the phases that will be followed during this research:

1.- Reviewing of state-of-the-art research in areas like CSCL, e-learning, digital libraries and learning objects. 2.- Establishing necessary rules or criteria for the construction of LOs from digital collections. 3.- Defining a conceptual model to represent and to generate the LOs. 4.- Establishing an annotation or graphical representation in order to describe the learning objects and their interrelations. 5.- Verifying if the existing LO systems adjust to the proposed model. If the systems do not adjust to the model , this will be redefined. 6.- Designing the architecture of a learning object generator system based on this model. 7.- Developing a prototype to verify the technical feasibility of the proposal. 8.- Testing the prototype in pilot courses, for the validation of the model and for the generation and categorization of LOs The following technological aspects will be studied:  The architectures of learning systems

-8-

 The specifications and standards to model resources and learning systems  The systems dedicated to the administration of learning resources  The languages for the structuring of data based on the Web. And the following aspects about the learning objects will be reviewed with further detail:  Definitions  Components  Main characteristics  Taxonomies  Life cycle  Metadata, standards and specifications for development  Repositories  Tools for creation  Instructional design

7. Related Research Two contemporary areas converge mainly in this investigation: computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and learning objects. The state of the art of each of these areas is reviewed next.

7.1 Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 7.1.1 Collaborative Learning, CSCL and CSCW Collaborative Learning (CL) is defined as the mutual commitment established among students working together in small and heterogeneous groups for achieving a common academic goal. Learning in collaborative environments seeks to favor spaces in which the development of individual and group skills is promoted as from discussion between students at the moment of exploring new concepts, being each student responsible for his own learning and the learning of the other members of the group. CSCL has grown as a research field inside CSCW. Differences between CSCW and CSCL are the following ones: CSCW tends to focus on communication techniques, and CSCL focuses on what is being communicated. The purpose of CSCW is to facilitate group communication and productivity, and the purpose of CSCL is to effectively support group learning of students. Many theories sustain CSCL. There are sociocultural theories, constructivist theories, self-regulated learning, cognitive learning and

-9-

distributed cognition. These theories assume that individuals are active agents searching and building knowledge inside a significant context. Currently, several CSCL systems illustrate the use of technology for achieving collaborative learning. Specifically in e-Learning these systems are very useful because they allow students participating in on-line courses to collaborate and interact for fulfilling the course’s objectives without getting together at a same time and in a same place, eliminating in this way distance and space barriers.

7.1.2 Collaborative Learning Environments Computer assisted collaborative learning environments encourage the students’ skills for

participating

in

building

knowledge

communities

through

collaborative

communication and both synchronous and asynchronous interaction. Among researches made on collaborative learning environments we can mention the following ones: Collaborative Notebook (Edelson et. al. 1995), DeskTOP (Portugal, Guerrero and Fuller, 2005), EGA (Pérez, 2000), Espacios de Aprendizaje Altamente Interactivos (Ostróvskaya et. al. 2004) and KIE (Bell et. al. 1995).

7.1.3 Learning Management Systems (LMS) LMS provides an integrated platform for executing, administrating, distributing and controlling present or distance education teaching-learning activities of an organization. It allows access to a range of users that can be students, creators of contents and administrators. The main functions of LMS are: managing users as well as education resources and activities, administrating access to the system, controlling and following up the learning process, making evaluations, generating reports, administrating communication services such as discussion forums and e-mail, among others (Tortora et. al. 2005). Although traditional commercial LMS such as Blackboard and WebCT provide a frame of basic work of interactivity between instructors and students, they are systems with a low adaptability to the students’ needs. They are not capable of redirecting the learning route of the student through pre-evaluations and by the student’s own choice. They are static learning systems. However, there are non-commercial LMS projects that are more flexible and adaptive. Some of these projects are listed below:

- 10 -

Moodle, ELM-ART. (Brusilovsky et. al.

1996), LMS Flexible (Darbhamulla and

Lawhead 2004), MOOVEE (Tórtora et. al. 2002), ILL (Magenheim and Scheel, 2004) and InterBook.

7.2 Learning Objects 7.2.1 What is a Learning Object? The term “Learning Object (OA)” was popularized by Wayne Hodgins in 1994, when he named the CedMA work group as “Learning Architectures, APIs and Learning Objects” (Polsani, 2003). The concept of learning object has been central to many discussions, projects and funding priorities of both public and private educational organizations, and to date there is no general consensus that clarifies what a learning object is. The IEEE, for example, defines the learning object as “any digital or non-digital entity that can be used, reused or referenced during the learning supported by technology” (LTSC 2000). This definition according to Wiley (2000) is too broad. He defines the learning object as “any digital resource that can be reused as support for learning.” The use of terms such as “any” and “resource” still keep the definition open. Wiley considers this an important quality, since it allows considering things of very diverse size and function as resource. If any digital resource is an object, then a picture, a note, a question could be considered learning objects. Polsani considers this scope of objects excessive and he reduces them to those that, being digital, have the purpose of contributing intentionally to learning, for which they require to incorporate two fundamental components: A digital format that helps learning, and a reasoning or explanation through the interface that helps to assimilate appropriately what has to be learned. Polsani defines then the learning object as an independent unit of learning content predisposed to reuse in multiple instructional contexts. Another definition by Sicilia and Garcia (2004) views learning objects as digital units of independent didactic contents, which can be used in multiple educational contexts, and which are associated to descriptions (metadata) regarding how to use them in these contexts. There is another definition referring to small independent learning structures including an objective, activity and evaluation process (L`Allier, 1998).

- 11 -

David Merrill (2002) defines learning object as “a way to organize a data base (knowledge base) of content resources (text, audio, video, and graphics) so that a given instructional algorithm (predesigned instructional strategy) can be used to teach a variety of different contents.” Other definitions can be found in (Murphy, 2004; Shepherd, 2000; Friesen, 2004; Gibbons et al, 2002; Agostinho et al, 2004; Ip. et al, 2001; Magenheim and Scheel, 2004; Ford, 2004; Gunawardena and Adamchik, 2003; Yang and Yang, 2005). For the purpose of this research, the following definition is proposed: a learning object is an interactive digital informative entity created for generating significant knowledge in the user and which can be adaptable and reusable in different contexts. This definition is relevant because it suggests the active participation of the learners during the learning process through the interaction with the learning object in order to achieve significant knowledge according with their needs, interests and experiences. In addition to the diverse definitions, different synonyms are used for referring to “learning objects”: instructional objects, educational objects, intelligent objects, knowledge objects, instruction components, on-line learning materials, pedagogical document, educational software component, resource.(Gibbons et. al., 2002; Agostinho et. al, 2004).

7.2.2 Fundamental characteristics of Learning Objects Numerous attributes of learning objects have been discussed in the literature including “durability, interoperability, accessibility, reusability, extensibility, productivity and manageability” ” (Murphy, 2004). Chan (2002) mentions that the main characteristics of learning objects are: reusability, independence of instructional strategy, articulated in their interior and oriented to a competence. Wiley (2000) refers to learning objects having the potential of reusability, granularity, interoperability and scalability. The most mentioned features in this literature will be explained in detail: 1) Granularity. Learning objects are defined as fine units or “grains”, which can be combined or added in several ways. 2) Platform independence. The learning object should be independent of both the delivery media and knowledge management systems. 3) Accessibility. The learning object should be labeled with metadata identifying it in a database.

- 12 -

4) Reusability. Once it is created, a learning object should function in different instruction contexts. In order to achieve genuine reusability, the development and operation of learning objects should be considered as mutually exclusive processes. 5) Scalability. A scalable module is the one that can be easily adapted for its use in groups of different sizes.

7.2.3 Function and benefits of Learning Objects The function of learning objects is to facilitate reutilization, distribution and personalization of education contents in Internet, where the definition of international standards plays and important role for its extended use in multiplatform environments. The benefits brought by learning objects to actors of the learning process are various; the following are among the most important ones (Shepherd, 2000): a) For students Personalization, i.e. courses can be built to be adjusted to individual requirements. Learning comes in digestible chunks. Learning is available just in time. b) For administrators Courses can be adjusted to satisfy the needs of different audiences. Courses can be built using components from a wide range of sources. Components can be reused for adjusting to a range of learning needs. c) For developers Objects can be built or changed using different authoring tools. The same objects can be used through a variety of software and hardware platforms.

7.2.4 Taxonomies of Learning Objects. All learning objects have certain qualities, the difference lies on the degree in which each object shows these qualities, and this makes a learning object type different from other one. Several authors propose different types of objects. Wiley (2002) differentiates between five types of learning objects: fundamental, combined-closed, combined-open, generative-presentation and generative-instructional.

Merrill (2002) classifies them in a progressive way: media objects, informative objects, learning objects, courses and collections. Dolphin and Miller (2002) classify them in

- 13 -

generative, connective and adaptive. Magenheim and Scheel (2004) define 2 types of objects: open and closed. Other authors such as Yang and Yang (2005) divide them in three types: Root Objects representing learning materials, Node Objects representing categories, chapters and/or sections of the learning material, and Sheet Objects representing the current knowledge description.

7.2.5 Metadata Metadata are descriptive labels used for cataloguing education materials with the purpose of facilitating their tracking and use, because they incorporate requirements of materials and the description of the way they can be implemented. Metadata are used for:  Storing descriptive words that are relevant for people using free text search.  Storing information on the developer.  Storing information on product status or any restriction of use.  Mapping learning contents in curricular topics. Several tools for creating metadata can be found in the literature, such as: Smart Multimedia Learning Objects (Saddik et. al. 2000); MAGIC (Li et. al. 2005); ALOHA , ALOHA2 and RELOAD.

7.2.6 Standards and specifications for developing Learning Objects There are many initiatives providing guidelines and standards for describing learning objects through metadata. The need of reusing materials in different platforms and types of students has caused the creation of standards allowing the documentation, search and distribution of education contents that are generated. Among the most important standards are: IMS developed by the Global Learning Consortium Inc., Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) developed by Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative, and IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM) standard. Metadata technology is not applicable only to the education context. There are other areas in which it has been used, such as in bibliographic description, e-commerce, geospace data description. The idea is to define what metadata or elements of the standard will be used for the learning objects development.

- 14 -

7.2.7 Repositories of Learning Objects Repositories are collections of accessible resources through a digital network. They can include resources, metadata describing such resources, or both. Many authors suggest that the idea of repository is intrinsic to Los because it is not possible thinking of learning objects if they are not accessible in repositories.

Repositories of objects emerge from the need of sharing objects coming from several sources and organizing their storage in a way to increase the power of their reutilization. As isolated objects they do not have any relevance or real significance. Objects are of diverse kind and, on the other hand, search criteria should consider more than titles, authors or key words. The type of components accommodated in a repository, which should have their own identities and therefore should be reachable, are so varied as graphics, images, texts, applets, videos, documents and integration of them as chapters of a course or even complete courses. Large repositories are distributed and the current trend is oriented to create enormous nets of local repositories. Examples of repositories of learning objects include the following: Wisconsin-Online Resource Center, Iconex, CLOE, Centre for International Education, EduSource, University of Texas at San Antonio, ARIADNE, SMETE and HEAL.

7.2.8 The importance of Instructional Design Instructional design theories are design-oriented; they describe instruction methods and situations in which these methods should be used. An instructional context defines a relationship between resources, and defines the way in which these are presented (sequence) to the student. An instructional context can define the role that a given resource plays on a learning scenario. In order an object is used in learning, it should be used in a specific way. Instructional design is important in developing learning objects because it permits defining education objectives for which such objects are created, and in addition to it considers different ways of presenting LOs and different uses of such materials having as purpose fomenting learning (Gibbons 2002).

7.2.9 Tools for generating Learning Objects. There are several efforts that provide guides and tools to develop learning objects, some of them with a traditional perspective where the author and administrator of the

- 15 -

learning objects is the instructor or the designer, others with a learner-centered perspective. Some of these projects are listed below: Customized Learning Object (CLO) Object Generator

(Gunawardena y Adamchilk 2003), Learning

(Ford 2004), Open Learning Objects (OLOs) (Li et al. 2003),

IDXelerator (Bannan-Ritland et al 2000), Fountain (Bannan-Ritland et al 2000) and the Project NCEC (Yang y Yang 2005). A comparative table of these systems is presented: IDXelerator

Fountain

Customized

Open

Learning

Development

Learning Object

Learning

Object

Object

Generator

Tool Uses

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Defines a LO YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

Instructional design

taxonomy Uses

LO YES

repository or database Has levels of YES granularity Allows levels NO control for the learner Allows

the NO

learner create his own LO Uses standard

a NO for

metadata definition Table 1. Comparative table of LO development tools. Table 1 shows that some systems allow more active participation of the learner during the learning process through certain levels of control on the learning path, however these systems do not promote the author´s role by the learner during LO generation.

- 16 -

8 Conclusions The study of the learning objects represents a challenge due to the diversity of concepts, theories and issues that exist around them. One of the most important issues of learning objects systems is how to author LOs. In order to achieve a significant knowledge by learners, it is necessary for them to acquires an author´s role during LO generation. The development of a model for generating personalized learning objects is proposed in order to explore how students can manage their own learning according to their needs and learning styles. Another relevant aspect for this research is how to transform the information stored in specific digital libraries into learning objects, so it is necessary to establish criteria for the selection of this material.

9 Schedule of activities Topic State-of-art

Dates Aug 2005 Jan 2006

Formal Proposal Thesis Definition of the conceptual model Verification of the correctness of the model Designing of a architecture based on this model

Feb 2006 July 2006 Aug 2006Dec 2006 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 March 2007

- May 2007 Jun 2007 Dec 2007

Developing of a prototype Testing of the prototype to validate the model

Jan 2008 July 2008

10 References Abernethy K., Treu K., Piegari G. and Reichgelt H. (2005). “A Learning Object Repository in Support of

Introductory IT Courses”. SIGITE’05, Conference On

Information Technology Education, Proceedings of the 6th conference on Information technology education, October 20-22, ACM Press, New York, NY, 223-227

- 17 -

Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., Lockyer, L. and Harper, B. (2004). “Investigating the suitability of pedagogical descriptors for digital learning resources”. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. 3482-3489 Ayala G. and Yano Y. (1998). “A Collaborative Learning Environment Based on Intelligent Agents. Expert Systems with Applications”. Vol 14, No. 1/2, Pergamon Press, 129-137 Bannan-Ritland B., Dabbagh N. and Murphy K. (2002). “Learning Object Systems as Constructivist

Learning

Environments:

Related

Assumptions,

Theories

and

Applications”. In Wiley, D.A. ed. Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Washington DC: Agency for Instructional Technololgy & Association for Educational Communications

and

Technology.

(available

at

http://reusability.org/read/chapters/bannan-ritland.doc) Bell P., Davis E. and Linn M.C. (1995). “The Knowledge Integration Environment: Theory and Design”. CSCL’95. In T. Koschmann (Ed). Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 1995 Conference. Bloomington, IN. Boyle T. (2003). ”Design Principles for Authoring Dynamic Reusable Learning Objects”. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. Vol 19, No. 1, 46-58 (available at http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/boyle.html)

Brady, A., Conlan, O. and

Wade, V. (2005). Towards the Dynamic Personalized

Selection and Creation of Learning Objects. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2005 (pp. 1903-1909). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Brown J. (2002). “Making a Macromedia Flash MX Learning Object SCORMConformant.

Macromedia

White

Paper”.

September.

(available

at

http://coco.ccu.uniovi.es/e-learning/learning_objects/macromedia/scorm_flashlo.pdf) Brusilovsky P. (2003). “A Distributed Architecture for Adaptive and Intelligent Learning Management Systems”. In Proceeding of the AIED 2003 Workshop Towards Intelligent Learning Management Systems. (aied2003 Conference ‘Artificial Intelligence in Education’, Sydney, July), 5-13

- 18 -

Brusilovsky P., Eklund J., and Schwarz E. (1998). “Web-based Education for All: A Tool for Development Adaptive Courseware”. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems. Proceedings of Seventh Interntational Worl Wide Web Conference, 14-18 April, Vol 30 (1-7), 291-300. Brusilovsky, P., Schwarz, E. W., and Weber, G. (1996). “ELM-ART: An Intelligent Tutoring System on World Wide Web”. In Proceedings of the Third international Conference on intelligent Tutoring Systems. June 12 - 14. C. Frasson, G. Gauthier, and A. Lesgold, Eds. Lecture Notes In Computer Science, vol. 1086. Springer-Verlag, London, 261-269.

Castro E. (2002). “ Estándares en los sistemas de gestión de aprendizaje”. Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Dirección de Tecnología Educativa. Biblioteca Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología. (

available

at

http://bibliotecadigital.conevyt.org.mx/colecciones/documentos/somece2002/Grupo2/C astro.pdf)

Chalk P., Bradley C. and Pickard P. (2003). “Designing and evaluating learning objects for introductory programming education”. Annual Joint Conference Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education. Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. Thessaloniki, Greece. ACM Press, New York, USA Chan M.E. (2002). “Objetos de aprendizaje: una herramienta para la innovación educativa”. Revista Apertura Innova U. de G.

Collis, B. and Strijker, A. (2004). “Technology and Human Issues in Reusing Learning Objects”. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Special Issue on the Educational Semantic Web. ISSN:1365-893X. May. (available at www-jime.open.ac.uk/2004/4)

Darbhamulla, R. and Lawhead, P. (2004). “Paving the way towards an efficient Learning Management System”. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Southeast Regional Conference (Huntsville, Alabama, April 02 - 03, 2004). ACM-SE 42. ACM Press,

New

York,

NY,

428-433.

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/986537.986644)

- 19 -

(

available

at

Dhraief H., Nejdl W., Wolf B and Wolpers M (2001). “Open Learning Repositories and Metadata Modeling”. International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS) July 30 - August 1, 2001 Stanford University, California, USA.

Dimitriadis Y., Asensio J. I., Gómez E., Martínez A., Bote M. L. and Vega G. (2004). “Middleware para CSCL: Marco de Componentes Software y Apoyo de Tecnología GIS”, Revista Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial, Vol. 8, No. 24, Dec. ; p. 21-31. (available at http://ulises.tel.uva.es/uploaded_files/UVA_EMIC_WS_CAEPIA03.pdf) Dolphin I. and Miller P. (2002). “Learning Objects and the Information Environment”. Ariadne

Issue

32.

July.

(available

at

http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue32/iconex/intro.html) Edelson, D., Pea, R., and Gomez, L. (1996). “The Collaboratory Notebook: Support for Collaborative Inquiry”. Communications of the ACM, 39, 32-33.

Saddik E., Ghavam A., Fischer A., and Steinmetz R. (2000). “Metadata for smart multimedia learning objects”. In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Computing Education (Melbourne, Australia). A. E. Ellis, Ed. ACSE '00, vol. 8. ACM Press, New York, NY, 87-94. (available at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/359369.359382) Farrell R., Liburd S. and Thomas J. (2004). “Dynamic assembly of learning objects”. International World Wide Web Conference. Proceedings of the 13th international World Wide Web conference on Alternate track papers & posters. ACM Press, New York, USA, May, 162-169 Ford, L. 2004. “A learning object generator for programming”. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Leeds, United Kingdom, June 28 - 30, 2004). ITiCSE '04. ACM Press, New York, NY, 268-268. (available at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1007996.1008103) Friesen, N. (2004). “Three Objections to Learning Objects. Online Education Using Learning Objects”. In McGreal, R. (ed.) London: Routledge. Pp. 59-70. (available at http://www.learningspaces.org/n/papers/objections.html

- 20 -

Friesen, N. (2001). “What are Educational Objects?”. Environments,

Vol.

9,

No.

3,

December,

Interactive Learning

219-230.

(available

at

http://www.careo.org/documents/objects.html ) Gibbons, A. S., Nelson, J. & Richards, R. (2002). “The nature and origin of instructional objects”. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version (available at http://reusability.org/read/chapters/gibbons.doc) González L., González M. (2003). “Repositorio de Objetos de Apoyo al aprendizaje colaborativo”. Taller Internacional de Software Educativo. Santiago, Chile, November 24-26 Gunawardena, A. and Adamchik, V. (2003). “A customized learning objects approach to teaching programming”. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Thessaloniki, Greece, June 30 - July 02, 2003). D. Finkel, Ed. ITiCSE '03. ACM Press, New York, NY, 264-264. (available at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/961511.961627)

Hatala M., Richards G., Eap T. and Willms J. (2004). “The Interoperability of Learning Object Repositories and Services: Standards, Implementations and Lessons Learned”. International World Wide Web Conference, Proceedings of the 13th international World Wide Web conference on Alternate track papers & posters. ACM Press, New York, NY, 19-27 Hodgins H. (2004). “The Future of Learning Objects”. 2002 ECI Conference on eTechnologies in Engineering Education: Learning Outcomes Providing Future Possibilites. Davos, Switzerland. Ip A., Morrison I., Currie M. (2001). “What is a learning object, technically?”. WebNet 2001 World Conference on the WWW and Internet; 580-586 (available at http://users.tpg.com.au/adslfrcf/lo/learningObject(WebNet2001).pdf) Jacobsen Peder (2001). “Reusable Learning Objects: What does the future hold?”. Learning

and

Training

Innovations

Magazine,

November.

http://www.ltimaganize.com/ltimagazine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=5043)

- 21 -

(available

at

Koschmann, T. (1992). “Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Design, Theory, and Research Issues. SIGCUE Outlook, vol. 21, no. 3, 1-2.

Kotzinos D., Pediaditaki S., Apostolidis A., Athanasis N. and Christophides V. (2005). “Online Curriculum on the Semantic Web: The CSD-UoC Portal for Peer-to-Peer Elearning”. International World Wide Web Conference Committee, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web. May 10-14, ACM Press, New York, NY, 307-314 L’Allier J. (1998). “Frame of Reference: NETg’s Map to the Products, Their Structure and

Core

Beliefs”.

NetG.

(available

at

http://www.netg.com/research/whitepapers/frameref.asp) Li Y., Dorai C., and Farrell R. (2005). “Creating MAGIC: system for generating learning object metadata for instructional content”. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM international Conference on Multimedia (Hilton, Singapore, November 06 - 11, 2005). MULTIMEDIA

'05.

ACM

Press,

New

York,

NY,

367-370.

(available

at

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1101149.1101227)

Li, L., Shi, H., Shang, Y., and Chen, S. (2003). “Open learning objects for data structure course”. J. Comput. Small Coll. 18, 4 (Apr. 2003), 56-64. LSTC (2000). Learning Technology standards committee website. http://ltsc.ieee.org/.

Magenheim, J. and Scheel, O. (2004). “Integrating learning objects into an open learning environment: evaluation of learning processes in an informatics learning lab”. In Proceedings of the 13th international World Wide Web Conference on Alternate Track Papers & Amp; Posters (New York, NY, USA, May 19 - 21). WWW Alt. '04. ACM Press, New York, NY, 450-451. McGee, P. (2003). “Learning objects: Bloom's taxonomy and deeper learning principles”. E-Learn Conference, Phoenix, AZ, November 7-11. (available at http://educ3.utsa.edu/pmcgee/nlii/McGee_eLEARN_2003.doc

Merrill M. (2002). “Knowledge Objects and Mental-Models”. In D. A. Wiley ed. The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version Washington DC: Agency for

- 22 -

Instructional Technololgy & Association for Educational Communications and Technology. 261-280. (available at http://reusability.org/read/chapters/merrill.doc).

Morrison, D. and Dennis, B. (2005). “MetaLab: supporting social grounding and group task management in CSCL environments through social translucence”. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Diversity in Computing (Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, October 19 - 22, 2005). TAPIA '05. ACM Press, New York, NY, 20-22. (available at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1095242.1095251) Murphy E. (2004). “Moving from Theory to Practice in the Design of

Web-Based

Learning using a Learning Object Approach”. e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1. Neven F. and Duval E. (2002). “Reusable learning objects: a survey of LOM-based repositories”. International Multimedia Conference, Proceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on Multimedia. ACM Press, New York, USA, 291-294 Or-Bach, R. (2005). “Educational benefits of metadata creation by students”. SIGCSE Bulletin.

Vol

37,

No.

4,

December,

93-97.

(available

at

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1113847.1113885)

Ostróvskaya Y., Hermosillo D. and Méndez R. (2004). “Espacios de aprendizaje altamente interactivos”. Poster presentado en el 3er congreso bianual de la Red Nacional de Cooperación bibliotecaris (RNCB) “Amigos 2004: Consorcios en la sociedad del conocimiento”, 12-14 Feb. Cholula, Puebla, México, Universidad de las Américas Puebla

Pea, R., Edelson, D., y Gomez, L. (1994). “The CoVis Collaboratory: High school science learning supported by a broadband educational network with scientific visualization, videoconferencing, and collaborative computing”. Presented in the Symposium Issues in Computer Networking in K-12 Classrooms: A Progress Report of Four NSF Testbeds at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

- 23 -

Pérez D. (2000). “Espacios Grupales de Aprendizaje: Explorando el Potencial de las Bibliotecas Digitales en la Educación”. Tesis de Maestría. Ingeniería en Sistemas Computacionales, Universidad de las Américas-Puebla, Pue., Mex, Sep. Portugal, R. C., Guerrero, L. A., and Fuller, D. A. (2000). “DeskTOP, a system based on virtual spaces to support and to promote collaborative learning” (poster session). In Proceedings

of

the

Third

international

Conference

on

Collaborative Virtual

Environments (San Francisco, California, United States). E. Churchill and M. Reddy, Eds.

CVE

'00.

ACM

Press,

New

York,

NY,

199-200.

(available

at

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/351006.351045) Polsani P. (2003). “Use and Abuse of Reusable Learning Objects”. Journal of Digital Information, Vol. 3 Issue 4, No. 164, 19 Feb. Arizona, USA (available at http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i04/Polsani/)

Qin, J. and N. Hernandez. (2004). “Ontological representation of learning objects: building interoperable vocabulary and structures”. In Proceedings of WWW2004, New York, May 17-22, 348-349. New York: ACM Press. Recker, M. M., Walker, A., and Wiley, D. A. (2000). “Collaboratively filtering learning objects”. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. (available at http://reusability.org/read/chapters/recker.doc). Saddik A., Ghavam A., Fischer S. y Steinmetz R. (2000).

“Metadata for Smart

Multimedia Learning Objects”. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Vol. 8. Proceedings of the Australasian conference on Computing education, Melbourne, Australia, ACM Press, New Yok, USA. 87-94. Sánchez J. A. (2004). “U-DL-A: Bibliotecas digitales en la UDLA”. Revista Digital Universitaria.

Vol

5,

No

6,

July

10,

ISSN:

1067-6079

(available

at

http://www.revista.unam.mx/vol.5/num6/art33/jul_art33.pdf) Santacruz-Valencia L., Aedo I. and Kloos C. (2004). “Objetos de Aprendizaje: Tendencias dentro de la Web Semántica”. Publicación trimestral de la red nacional de I+D, RedIris. ISSN: 1139-207X. Vol. no 66-67. Centro de Comunicaciones CSIC/RedIRIS. p: 76-79.

- 24 -

Scardamalia M., Bereiter C. and Lamon M. (1994). “The CSILE Project: Trying to bring the classroom into World”. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory & classroom pratice. MIT Press. 201-228

Semmens P. (2004). “The potential for learning objects to support flexible learning in higher education”. IEEE Learning Technology newsletter, Vol 6. No 2. (available

at

http://eprints.comp.utas.edu.au:81/archive/00000179/01/Semmens-

LearnTech.pdf) Shepherd,

C.

(2000)

“Objects

of

interest”,

(available

at

http://www.fastrak-

consulting.co.uk/tactix/features/objects/objects.htm).

Sicilia M., García E., Sánchez S. y Rodríguez E. (2004). “Describing learning objects types in ontological structures: towards specialized pedagogical selection”. In Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2004 – World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications. Lugano, Switzerland. Soto, J., García, E. y Sánchez S. (2006). “Repositorios semánticos para objetos de aprendizaje”. Virtual C@mpus, V encuentro de universidades & e-learning. Barcelona, España.

(available

at

http://www.cc.uah.es/ssalonso/papers/VirtualCampus2006SotoGarciaSanchez.pdf) Smith R. (2004). “Guidelines for authors of learning objects”. NMC: The New Media Consortium,

May.

(available

at

http://www.nmc.org/guidelines/NMC%20LO%20Guidelines.pdf) Tavangarian D., Leypold M., Nolting K., Roser M., and Voigt D. (2004). “Is e-Learning the Solution for Individual Learning?”. University of Rostock. Electronic Journal of eLearning.

Vol

2.,

Issue

2.,

December,

Germany.

(available

at

http://www.ejel.org/volume-2/vol2-issue2/v2-i2-art4-tavangarian.pdf)

Tortora, G., Sebillo, M., Vitiello, G., and D'Ambrosio, P. (2002). A multilevel learning management system. In Proceedings of the 14th international Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (Ischia, Italy, July 15 - 19, 2002). SEKE '02, vol.

27.

ACM

Press,

New

York,

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/568760.568856)

- 25 -

NY,

541-547.

(available

at

Vinha A. (2005). “Reusable Learning Objects: Theory to Practice”. ITiCSE’05, ACM 159593-024-8, Junio, Monte de Caparica, Portugal.

Verbert, K., Gašević, D., Jovanović, J., and Duval, E. (2005). “Ontology-based learning content repurposing”. In Special interest Tracks and Posters of the 14th international Conference on World Wide Web (Chiba, Japan, May 10 - 14, 2005). WWW '05. ACM Press, New York, NY, 1140-1141. ( http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1062745.1062908)

Wagner E. (2002). “The New Frontier of Learning Object Design”. Learning Solutions e-Magazine.

The

eLearning

Developers

Journal.

(available

at

http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/2/061802dst-h.pdf)

Wiley D. (2002). “Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy”. in Wiley, D.A. ed. Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Washington DC: Agency for Instructional Technololgy & Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (available at http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc). Yang, D. and Yang, Q. (2005). “Customizable distance learning: criteria for developing learning objects and learning model templates”. In Proceedings of the 7th international Conference on Electronic Commerce (Xi'an, China, August 15 - 17, 2005). ICEC '05, vol.

113.

ACM

Press,

New

York,

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1089551.1089691

- 26 -

NY,

765-770.

(available

at

a model for generating learning objects from digital ...

In e-Learning and CSCL there is the necessity to develop technological tools that promote .... generating flexible, adaptable, open and personalized learning objects based on digital ... The languages for the structuring of data based on the Web. .... Courses can be built using components from a wide range of sources.

411KB Sizes 3 Downloads 253 Views

Recommend Documents

a model for generating learning objects from digital ...
7.2.9 Tools for generating Learning Objects. ....................................................... ... 9 Schedule of activities . ..... ones: Collaborative Notebook (Edelson et. al. 1995) ...

A Simple Stochastic Model for Generating Broken ...
Jan 5, 2009 - cloud-top height retrieved from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). .... data. Schmidt et al. (2007) used cloud fields simulated by the last ..... President's program Leading Scientific Schools (Grant.

Generating Sentences from a Continuous Space
May 12, 2016 - interpolate between the endpoint sentences. Be- cause the model is trained on fiction, including ro- mance novels, the topics are often rather ...

Digital Learning Model-2016.pdf
Mapping A STEAM. Pathway. Expanding. Computer Science. & Technology. Course. Opportunities. Change Team. Student Help Desk. Preparing Students.

A Proposed Approach for Generating Arabic from ...
(ana arghabu fi hagzi ghurfatun fardiyah). A major problem ... allows for a flexible integration of software modules for languages that differ in their realization of ...

A Hybrid Prediction Model for Moving Objects - University of Queensland
for a data mining process. ... measures. • We present a novel data access method, Trajectory Pat- ..... node has free space, pk is inserted into it, otherwise it splits.

A Hybrid Prediction Model for Moving Objects - University of Queensland
a shopping center currently (9:05 a.m.), it is unreasonable to predict what her ..... calls, hence, the computing time is significantly reduced. ..... an eight hour period. .... 24. 26. 28. 30. 32. 34. 36. 38. Eps. ( a ) number of patte rn s. Bike. C

A data model for knowledge content objects
(what the user or the broker has to pay); Negotiation (the protocol that is being used to ... Component number eight holds the actual access semantics for the ...

Learning from Click Model and Latent Factor Model for ...
H.3.3 [Information Storage and Retrieval]: Retrieval. Models ... [7, 9, 16, 15] for Web search and [17] for Online advertising. .... ments to queries as free parameters that can be adaptively ..... There are two major components of a learning to rank

Learning the structure of objects from Web supervision
sider for example the notion of object category, which is a basic unit of understanding in .... parts corresponding to the “bus” and “car” classes. Webly supervised ...

Learning Lexical Alignment Policies for Generating ...
eration choices online to the users' domain knowledge as it encounters them. We ap- proach this problem using policy learning in Markov Decision Processes ...

A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns
(1) Which elements in a sentence can be used to gener- ... in verb-final languages), deferring expectations until the verb seems inefficient. .... One possibility, consistent with the two-stage serial ... Page 3 ..... guities to knowledge of the mean

Distribution of Objects to Bins: Generating All Distributions
has the lowest level i.e. 0. The level ... the sum of one or more positive integers xi, i.e., n = x1 + x2 + . ..... [7] A. S. Tanenbaum, Modern Operating Systems, Pren-.

Generating Semantic Graphs from Image ...
semantic parser generates a unique semantic graph. G representing the descriptions of .... pseudo-code 1, shows that if Gcomb is empty then Gnext,. i.e. the next ...

Generating Arabic Text from Interlingua - Semantic Scholar
Computer Science Dept.,. Faculty of ... will be automated computer translation of spoken. English into .... such as verb-subject, noun-adjective, dem- onstrated ...

a constructivist model for thinking about learning online
networks [10] representing relationships among ideas. All of these characterizations tell ... Constructionists maintain that computers have the unique capacity to represent abstract ideas in concrete and malleable forms. ... personal history are cruc

A Learning Goals Driven Design Model for ...
Grant ESI-0227557, and by National Science Foundation grants ESI-0101780, ..... First, all three teachers participated in weekly phone conversations where we asked them for their ...... the total mass of all the substances in the system remains.

A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns
Because verbs follow their arguments in many constructions (particularly in verb-final ..... or a synonym or near synonym of the best response. From these norms ...

Subsidies for FDI: Implications from a Model with ...
from a selection effect, whereby the subsidy induces only the most productive ...... For the purpose of illustration, let us examine the case of a fixed cost subsidy. ..... to 55 units of labor, the share of exporting firms decreases from 50% to 13%.

Generating Arabic Text from Interlingua - Semantic Scholar
intention rather than literal meaning. The IF is a task-based representation ..... In order to comply with Arabic grammar rules, our. Arabic generator overrides the ...

Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age
Apr 5, 2005 - All of these learning theories hold the notion that knowledge is an .... power grids, and social networks all function on the simple principle that ...

Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age
Apr 5, 2005 - Constructivism suggests that learners create knowledge as they attempt to understand ... pursue their own learning. ... 'I store my knowledge in my friends' is an axiom for collecting .... Online self-organizing social systems: The.