1. print-version
standardization for highschool e-learning
1
didactical-scenario-based suggestions for interoperability-standards for e-
learning-sequences to support highschool-teachers as authors
2. introduction
...just show me a website!
Authoring tool
2 | 30
3. introduction
...just show me a website!
Firefox 6.0
Authoring tool
2 | 30
4. introduction
...just show me a website!
Firefox 6.0
Authoring tool
Internet Explorer 9
2 | 30
5. agenda

learning-technology-standards

overview

state-of-the-art

the interoperabilty-problem

ideas

„functionalities“ in learning platforms

specialization – enhancement – modification

substandard-clustering

issues

cluster-criteria

didactical scenarios

grid of functionalities | did. scenarios

approach

possible research questions

next steps
3 | 30
6. learning technology standards
technical standards – definition and example
definition:
“A technical standard is an established
norm or requirement about technical systems.
It is usually a formal document that establishes
uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods,
processes and practices.” Source: [wits2011]
example:
create: .pdf-file view:

Adobe Acrobat 
Adobe Reader

Open/LibreOffice 
Evince

MS Office (> 2003) 
FoxitReader

... 
...
4 | 30
7. learning technology standards
why learning technology standards?
e-learning export
e-learning platform
sequence import
pu
bllts import use
ish
authoring tool repository
might already be a
learning platform
5 | 30
8. learning technology standards
learning-technology-standards - state-of-the-art
“established” e-learning standards
version / last
type title
released
1.2
content Content Package (CP)
(03/2007)
Question and Test 2.1 PD
tests (QTI)
Interoperability (06/2006)
2004 4th
Shareable Content Object
(SCORM) Edition
Reference Model
(03/2009)
“hybrid“ 1.0
Learning Design (LD)
(01/2003)
1.1
Common Cartridge (CC)
(01/2011)
6 | 30
9. slide not in
presentation learning technology standards
version !!! content aggregation (e.g. SCORM content aggregation model)
assets
repository
+metadata
content aggregation shareable
content
content element objects
block element
content element
references
SCO
content element SCO
content element SCO
7 | 30
11. learning technology standards
overview learning-technology-standards
SCORM Common Cartridge
content and CAM CP*
Content Aggregation IMS Content
organization Model Package
tests, test items QTI***
! IMS Question and
assessments Test Interoperabilty
communication RTE BLTI
Runtime Basic Learning
package ↔ LP Environment Tools Interoperabilty
learning flow S/N**
Sequencing and !
management Navigation
content AWS
Authorization
authentification Webservice
... ...
* just one organization possible
** only in Level C
9 | 30 *** not all question types
12. slide not in
presentation learning technology standards
version !!! overview learning-technology-standards
SCORM Learning Design Common Cartridge
content and CAM CP CP*
Content Aggregation IMS Content IMS Content
organization Model Package Package
tests, test items QTI QTI***
! IMS Question and IMS Question and
assessments Test Interoperabilty Test Interoperabilty
communication RTE BLTI
Runtime Basic Learning
package ↔ LP Environment Tools Interoperabilty
learning flow S/N** SS
Sequencing and IMS Simple !
management Navigation Sequencing
content AWS
Authorization
authentification Webservice
... ... ... ...
10 | 30
13. learning technology standards
issues – summary

existing learning technology standards are
technically determined and have no pedagogical
focus.

“established“ standards are either outdated or
lack important elements (for highschool-
scenarios).
11 | 30
14. learning technology standards
issues I
import of e-learning sequences / tests
successfully imported not fully supported
encoding problems no import possible
Source: [koeh2010] (01/2011)
12 | 30
15. learning technology standards
issues II
export of e-learning sequences / tests
successfully exported no export possible
encoding problems
Source: [koeh2010] (01/2011)
13 | 30
16. slide not in
presentation learning technology standards
version !!! issues III
praxis of interoperability
(WebCT/Blackboard→ OPAL via SCORM & QTI)
14 | 30
17. learning technology standards
issues – summary

existing learning technology standards are
technically determined and have no pedagogical
focus.

„established“ standards are either outdated or
lack important elements (for highschool-
scenarios).

import and export-functionalities of learning
technology standards are poorly implemented in
learning platforms.
15 | 30
18. ideas
„functionalities“ in learning platforms
wiki conditional
discussion
forum release
typographical
user data convention
tracking data
learning flow
management discussion forum
selftest assessment
content
test for
consolidation glossary
functionality: storeable data in the learning-platform
belonging to the e-learning-sequence (and user?).
16 | 30
19. ideas
examples: I – specialization
HTML-content and typographical conventions:

math-examples: definition, theorem, corrolar,
cite, ...

HTML (incl. CSS) can do this already, but not in a
standardized way.

suggestion: fix elements and use xml-namespaces
or defined css-classes in the standard.
17 | 30
20. ideas
examples: II – enhancement
glossarys:

is also possible at the moment: e.g. using
JavaScript popup-glossaries.

also: not included in any standard

suggestion: store package-wide glossary /
glossaries.
18 | 30
21. ideas
examples: III – modification
meshed organization of content:

possible is just a tree-structure.

suggestion: alter standard to make meshed
organization possible
organization
content element
block element
content element
content element
content element
19 | 30
22. ideas
specialization – enhancement - modification
specialization:

adds functionalities to the standard that could be
represented before, but not in the standard itself.

compatible with the standard (?)
enhancement

adding new features to the standard it did not
represent before.
modification

alters things the standard does already represent
(in another way).

not compatible with the standard at all.
20 | 30
23. ideas
suggestions for a possible solution
1
2
n
da -
da -
da -
...
rd
rd
rd
an b
an b
an b
st su
st su
st su
spezialisation –
enhancement – –
modification – –
21 | 30
24. slide not in
presentation issues
version !!! „functionality“-clustering
option:
technical cluster-criteria
e.g. set of multiple/single-choice questions:
+ question-based feedback
+ test-based feedback
no feedback
but keep in mind:
would be good for implementation!
22 | 30
26. slide not in
presentation issues
version !!! „functionality“-clustering
Requirements of a cluster-criteria
manageable number of dimensions
pre-planning arbitrable (avoid “ping-pong-effect”)
planning preparation execution evaluation
Source: [pete2000]
Recursive- and “black-hole”-free (bijective)
24 | 30
27. issues
„functionality“-clustering
grid of functionalities / scenarios
functionalities
didactical
function
did. scenarios
“prosa”
description
25 | 30
28. issues
„functionality“-clustering
preferable grid
functionalities
one sub-
standard
did. scenarios
scenarios have
“something” in common
26 | 30
29. approach
possible research questions

are there attributes – and if yes, which – so that
didactical scenarios can be mapped to
functionalities in learning-platforms?

how must technical functionalities be described, in
order that the mapping of scenarios to
functionalities is bijective? possibl
e?

what kind of consequences can didactical
standardization have for e-learning scenarios in
schools?
27 | 30
30. approach
next steps

further research on existing learning-technology-
standards

build collection of did. Scenarios (e-learning and
school – capable)

collect capabilities in learning-platforms for
functionality-collection

describe needed information for each functionality

build xml-scheme or class-diagram for
functionalities
28 | 30
31. references
[baum2004] Baumgartner, P.: Didaktik und Reusable Learning Objects (RLO's). In: Campus 2004 - Kommen die digitalen Medien an
den Hochschulen in die Jahre? 2004
[baum2006] Baumgartner, P.: E-Learning-Szenarien. Vorarbeiten zu einer didaktischen Taxonomie. In: Gesellschaft fĂĽr Medien in der
Wissenschaft (Hg.): E-Learning - alltagstaugliche Innovation? Münster: Waxmann, S. 238–247.
[baum2007] Baumgartner, P.: Didaktische Arrangements und Lerninhalte - Zum Verhältnis von Inhalt und Didaktik im E-Learning. In:
Ăśberwindung von Schranken durch E-Learning, 2007
[bhm2002a] Baumgartner, P., Häferle, H., Maier-Häferle, K.: E-Learning Standartds aus didaktischer Perspektive. In: Campus 2002:
Die virtuelle Hochschule in der Konsolidierungsphase. G. Bachmann, O. Haeferli und M. Kindt. MĂĽnster, Waxmann. 18:
277-286.
[bhm2002b] Baumgartner, P., Häferle, H., Maier-Häferle, K.: E-Learning-Praxishandbauch: Auswahl von Lernplattformen.
Studienverlag, Inssbruck, 2002.
[czap2008] Czaputa, C.: Didaktische Szenarien und IMS Learning Design - Analyse zur Einschätzung einer Koppelung Didaktischer
Szenarien nach Baumgartner mit der Spezifikation IMS Learning Design. Master Thesis, Krems, 2008.
[cpim2007] IMS GLC: IMS Content Packaging Information Model. Version 1.2 Public Draft v2.0, 2007.
[ccim2011] IMS GLC: IMS Common Cardridge Profile: Overview. Version 1.1 Final Specification. 2011.
[ehle2006] Ehlers, U. D.: E-Learning-Standards nachhaltig anwenden - Potenziale ausschöpfen durch Qualitätskompetenz. In:
Zeitschift fĂĽr e-learning, 2007
[glah2002] Glahn, C.: Wie Bildungsprozesse standardisiert beschrieben werden können. Konzepte, Perspektiven und Grenzen von
IMS Learning Design. Innsbruck, 2002.
[goan2009] Gonzales-Barbone, V.; Anido-Rifon L.: From SCORM to Common Cartridge: A Step Forward, Computers & Education 54,
2009.
[heye2006] Heyer, S.: Didaktische Szenarien und deren Verhältnis zu Lernmaterialien. CampusContent (Forschungsprojekt), 2006.
[kerr2001] Kerres, M.: Multimediale und telemediale Lernumgebungen: Konzeption und Entwicklung. Oldenbourg, 2001.
[koeh2010] Köhler, R.: Untersuchung von Komponenten und Standards freier Lernmanagementsysteme sowie Entwicklung und
Umsetzung einer geeigneten Darstellungsform fĂĽr Standards. Belegarbeit. Dresden, 2011.
[ldim2003] IMS GLC: IMS Learning Design Information Model. Version 1.0 Final Specification, 2003.
[obhe2007] Oberhuemer, P., Heyer, S.: Probleme bei der Umsetzung didaktischer Modelle in IMS Learning Design: eine
Anwenderperspektive, In: Zeitschift fĂĽr e-learning, 2007.
[pawl2001] Pawlowski, J. M.: Das Essener-Lern-Modell (ELM): Ein Vorgehensmodell zur Entwicklung comnputergestĂĽtzter
Lernumgebungen. Dissertation, Essen, 2001.
[pete2000] PeterĂźen, W. H.: Handbuch Unterrichtsplanung. Ehrenwirth, MĂĽnchen, 2000.
[ried2004] Riedl, A.: Grundlagen der Didaktik, Franz Steiern Verlag, MĂĽnchen, 2004.
[scor2006] ADL, SCORM 2004 3rd Edition Overview, Version 1.0, 16.11.2006.
[schul1997] Schulmeister, R.: Grundlagen hypermedialer Lernsysteme, 2., aktualisierte Auflage, MĂĽnchen, Wien, 1997.
[wits2011] English Wikipedia, „technical standard“, 20.08.2011. PermaLink: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Technical_standard&oldid=436201979
29 | 30 [zech2007] Zech, B.: Ist IMS Learning Design "pädagogisch neutral"? In: Zeitschift für e-learning, 2007.
32. thank you for your
exit kind attention!

are there attributes – and if yes, which – so that
didactical scenarios can be mapped to
functionalities in learning-platforms?

how must technical functionalities be described, in
order that the mapping of scenarios to
functionalities is possible?
functionaliaties
SCORM Common Cartridge
CAM CP*
content and
Content Aggregation IMS Content
organization
Model Package
QTI***
tests, test items
! IMS Question and
assessments
Test Interoperabilty
RTE BLTI
communication did.
Runtime Basic Learning
package ↔ LP
Environment Tools Interoperabilty
scenarios
S/N**
learning flow
Sequencing and !
management
Navigation
30 | 30