LMS vs Remote experiments

Integrating Learning Management
Systems and Practical Learning
Activities: The case of Computer
and Network Experiments
Amine Bouabid, Philippe Vidal, Julien Broisin
IRIT, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse

Context
 Computer Engineering Education
 Practical learning activities based on remote
hands-on lab works
 Not reinventing the wheel: reuse of existing
systems
Learning Management Systems to deliver activities
Test bed systems based on virtualization technologies
(vmware, xen, …)
 Synchronous and asynchronous tutoring
 Collaborative learning

Amine Bouabid, Philippe Vidal, Julien Broisin, ICALT 09, July 17, 2009, Riga, Latvia 2

Objectives
 Integrate test bed systems into learning
management systems :
Practical activities as others types of learning activities
Remote labs as others pedagogical resources
 Allow an efficient (distant) synchronous /
asynchronous tutoring
 Allow collaborative learning around practical
activities
 Transparently offer practical activities
 Ensure Learning Effectiveness of this type of
learning activities

Issues to solve [IEEE09]
 Ensure transparent communication
between learning environments and
remote labs

 Collect tracking information about
learners’ activities, but also data related
to remote labs

 Retrieve/Share this tracking information
between heterogeneous tools to allow
their reuse by teachers, learners, etc..

Outline
 Test bed environments: the state of the art
 Communication between learning environments
and remote experimentation environments
 Collecting learners’ activities and monitoring
evolution of remote experiments
 A distributed architecture to gather, retrieve and
share tracking information
 Conclusion and future work


Existing Test Bed environments

Internet Internet

Remote
users Remote
users

Physical server (Test Bed System)

Existing control tools for remote
experiments

≠ Learning tools


Outline
 Communication between learning
environments and remote
experimentation environments
 A distributed architecture to gather, retrieve
and share tracking information

Communication between Learning
Environments and Remote experiments
Proposal: Introducing an intermediate layer
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT INTERMEDIATE LAYER EXPERIMENTATION ENVIRONMENT

M
A
L
N
E
A
A
G
R
E
N
M
I
E
N
N
G
T
I
S N O
Y T F
S E
MiddleWare VIRTUALISATION
T R E
F SYSTEM
E X
M A P
C .
E
TEST BED


Outline
 Communication between learning environments
and remote experimentation environments
 Collecting learners’ activities and
monitoring evolution of remote
experiments
 A distributed architecture to gather, retrieve and
share tracking information


A Model Driven Approach to
monitor learners’ activities AND
experiments
 Modeling based on the DMTF's WBEM
standard offering:
The CIM meta model (Common Information
Model): representation of entities to monitor
(experiments + learners activities)
The CQL language to interact with the model
A distributed architecture and communication
protocols to ensure interoperability between
heterogeneous components


Modeling of Experiments

 Reuse of the existing DMTF's models:

Computer Systems modeling (Operating System,
h
hardware, Software, configuration, etc.)

Networking modeling (interfaces, protocols, etc.)
N

Network topology and architecture modeling


Modeling of learners’ activities

 Based on previous works of our research
team, related to the observation of learners'
activities in a Technology Enhanced
Learning environment
 Extension that takes into account specific
activities operated on computer and network
experiments:
“Command line” activities
“Graphical User Interface” activities

Learners activities modeling

DMTF
Broisin & Vidal, 07
Our extension


Outline
 Test bed environments: the stat of the art
environments and remote experimentation
environments
 A distributed architecture to gather,
retrieve and share tracking information

A distributed architecture to gather,

 A centralized system (WBEM Server) to
store classes and instances of the
models: tracking repository
 A component integrated into the test bed
environment responsible for extraction
and sending of traces to the tracking
repository
 A component part of the learning
environment able to capture and forward
learners’ activities

A distributed architecture to gather,
EXPERIMENTATION ENVIRONEMENT
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT INTERMEDIAITE LAYER

O
L B I T
E S M
S N R
A
R
B
E
R
E
R W W
T
E
A
C
N OpenPegasus
N D B B A
I O V V R K
A E E G
A A I F I
N S M M E TRACKING
R T C A N
G S H R REPOSITORY
D I E C G
Y O E
M S N
A T
N E
A M I E
I I
G N A X N
O N V
E T F G P T CIM PROVIDER
T I
M E E E E
E R
E R E N R R
R T
N F X T I F VIRTUALISATION
F U
T A P. M A SYSTEM
A A
C E C
C L
E N E
E
T
TEST BED

C++ based WEB SERVICES MLN

Outline
environments and remote experimentation
environments
 A distributed architecture to gather, retrieve
and share tracking information

Conclusion
 Standardized approach for transparent integration
of Learning Environment and Test bed
Environment
 Enhancement of learning and tutoring processes:
Abstract modelling of experiment
Abstract modelling of activities on experiments
 Architecture validated through an open source
based prototype
 A three-tier architecture scalable to N-tiers
architecture to ensure scalability and high
availability


Future Works

 Dashboard implementation
 Experimentation with a group of students in
computer science curriculum (ex. configuring
n
network's components)
 Reuse and share of experiments' models
through a learning knowledge pool
 Supporting GUI mode based activities
 Applying this approach to other disciplines
(
(Physics, Chemistry, etc.)

Questions ?
Contacts:
{bouabid,vidal,broisin}@irit.fr


LMS vs Remote experiments

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen (20)

LMS vs Remote experiments