e learning fitness methodologies & technologies uniroma1 marco temperini

2011.02.3/5 Project eLF --- elearning methodologies and technologies --- Marco Temperini

1/9

eLearning Metodologies & Technologies

Marco Temperini

eLearning Fitness

www.elearningfitness.eu

http://www.elearningfitness.eu/


2/9

eLF – elearning Methodologies & Technologies

eLF: A hybrid system composed by web-based subsystems

designed to comply with … the aims


3/9

- elearning Personalization- Social and collaborative elearning- Standards for e-learning- LMSs (with René )

elearning M&T issues


4/9

- Student model = {what she knows, how well, what are the learning preferences}- the course is personalized to the individual model

TKSK

initial knowledge

knowledge imparted by the course

target knowledge

elearning personalization - 1/2

knowledge domain KD


5/9

- very dynamic management of the LEARNING OBJECT REPOSITORY

- Course = {set of learning objects}- sometimes a sequence: LOS = {LO1, ..., LOn}- sometimes something less organized - conditions to step from a LO to the “next”

- The course is adapted to learner’s progress

- CHANGES in Content / ways of moving through LOs

elearning personalization - 2/2

This is research work

LMSs are immature in this respect;

We have prototypes and not production platforms

Learning content construction needs care …


6/9

Vygotskij (1978): learning happens through social interaction in the ZPD

APS: Autonomous Problem SolvingZPD: Zone of Proximal DevelopmentUPS: Unreachable Problem Solving

Social Collaborative elearning (one way to see it) - 1/2


7/9

Students cooperate on learning activities (indirectly and directly)

Social interaction through discussions and FAQ Products (e.g. solutions for exercises) are reused and peer evaluated Group projects are managed with interactions between groups

Peer and self assessment of groups Students gain reputation, which is made of:

Involvement - Usefulness Competence - Critical appraisal Judgment - Self judgment Group reputation

Social Collaborative elearning (one way to see it) - 2/2

Basically … same conclusion as earlier


8/9

Need for it, to foster Reuse, Durability, Interoperability, Accessibility

of learning objects

- Learning object = learning content and activities, plus their “specification”

- They are modular (more or less “finely grained”)- They can be grouped to make lessons, modules, courses- They are … Java applet, Flash animation, audio/video clip,

web page, pdf documents, ppt/odp, doc/odt (office/openOffice documents)

through standard functionalities (API) of the LMSs- There are services in the LMS, to administer learning

objects during the course (activate, present, let interact, join in sequences, make available on conditions …)

Standards for e-Learning – 1/2


9/9

An LMS that has the services to manage standard-defined learning objects and … things is a Standard Compliant LMSs

Suitable authoring systems (not necessarily embedded in LMSs) allow to build standard learning objects (…and things)

SCORM- is a standard; as well as IMS, LOM, AICC, Dubliln Core, Ariadne …- Following it a learning object can be

- Specified (wrapping one or more learning resources/contents)- Joined with other learning objects to build a package- (a lesson; and lessons compose modules, that compose courses that …)

its components- Content Aggregation Model (CAM): the format of things- RunTime Env. (RTE): content behavior/treatment in the LMSs- Sequencing and Navigation (SN): the student travel through the

course’s LOs

Standards for e-Learning – 2/2

Making eLF “modules” as (collection of) standard learning objects makes them independent of platform

(well, if it is a compliant LMS);

an authoring tool should be used for our learning objects ( with assistance)


10/9

Conclusion of the first part …We can do very good job with some (not too much on

the frontier) tools (CMS, LMS, …)

eLF – elearning Methodologies & Technologies

E-L Registry

Social information exchange

Free access information

LMSCMS

Augmented CMS


11/9

10 minutes – We have to ...1) design the portal and the subsystems

- on the basis of requisites coming from …- what can be done by whom?- Feasibility of the application mentioned, for the

LMS/CMS roles?2) Implement a prototype - What can be done by whom3) Create a workflow, to feed the portal with

- Information- Learning content for the eL- Information for the Registry

4) Support a pre-experimental phase, to finalize implementations5) Support the pilots


12/9

10 minutes – We need1) Deeper presentation of the partners, to confirm or spot roles2) Consideration of the dependencies on

- WP5: they manage the integration of learning content in the LMS, and the definition of courses: Do they have requisites for us? What interaction with them?

- WP4: they are interested in the authoring factors. Do they have requisites for us? What interaction with them?

- WP6: requisites for the Registry design &implementation- WP7: do we need to state criteria for them to evaluate

the portal?- WP8: They have access to the information delivery

areas. Do they have requisites for us? What interaction with them?

(ambassadors)


13/9

10 minutes – Agenda for the 75 minutes1) Other initiatives known?2) Suggestions about software applications that may be used

for the portal

3) Description sheets (to devise now and collect later)1) for the suggestions about software, to prepare a decision2) Sufficiently advanced requisites for e-L, after

consultation 3) Idem for Registry

4) Localization related issues1) What for e-L, besides translation2) Idem for the Registry (and that’s probably more crucial)

e learning fitness methodologies & technologies uniroma1 marco temperini

Documents