Presentation at a working group meeting at ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36, Melbourne, June 2017

1. Smart Learning Environments
– a potential framework for
standardisation?
Tore Hoel
Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences
Norway
WG6 Melbourne meeting June 2017

2. The Challenge – what has changed?
• Is technology the problem - or the way we conceive technology in
relation to our domain?
• Lack of progress in SC36 – we have not produced much of value!
• Lack of stakeholder involvement
• Have SC36 left the CD-ROM era?
Is ‘SMART’ going make the difference?

3. From AR/VR study group

4. Recommendation to SC36
• Human factor guidelines for AR and VR content in LET domain
Note: this may be categorized to school or age levels.
• Interaction model in AR and VR content for educational usage
Note: meta tagging in terms of library interoperability is included in this area.
• Cataloging models that bring together the curriculum and AR/VR learning
resources (from metadata perspectives)
• Packaging standards for adding AR and VR contents to existing learning
platforms (LMS/VLE);
• Learning analytic systems that reflect the use of AR and VR contents, etc.
Note: data capturing standards in term of multi-model learning analytics
We captured potential standardization items which can be covered
in SC36. SC36 may consider project sharing between new WGs.
SlidefromtheStudyperiodereport
Very few technical issues identified
– it’s mostly about how AR&VR are used in education
How to connect to the agendas that gives
visibility and energy to our work?

5. The problem with Smart
• To define Smart Learning as the counterpoint to Stupid Learning is
not so smart!
• A is, what B is not: Mathematically, this gives an indefinite space of A
– you will never be able to know what the boundaries of A are
• We have the same problem defining Scope when developing
standards!
Smart StupidSmart

6. Smart should be
grounded…
So should also our
standards work!
What is the implied theoretical and
empirical model behind
Smart Learning Environments?
What theoretical and empirical model of
learning technologies should inform LET
standardisation?

7. Conceptualizing the field
• Zhi-Ting Zhu
• Jonathan Michael
Spector
• Gwo-Jen Hwang
• Rob Koper

8. SLE
framework
(Koper 2014)

9. Where do Zhu, Spector, Hwang requirements fit?
• Location-Aware
• Context-Aware
• Socially Aware
• Interoperability
• Seamless
Connection
• Adaptability
• Ubiquitous
• Whole Record
• Natural
Interaction
• High
Engagement
• Scalable
• Flexible
• Personalized
• Conversational
• Reflective
• Innovative

10. Should SC36 work
be led according to
a SLE model?

11. What are we looking for?
• Ideas to structure our work, i.e., getting new work items addressing
market needs
• Visibility of our work
• Engagement of new experts with the competencies we need

12. How would standards
development
according to Koper’s
SLE framework look
like?
26

13. Physical Environments
• CCNU project on developing metrics
for describing Learning Space

14. Situations and Events
• Curricula standards
• Competency frameworks
• Vocabulary for contexts (LA activity
specifications - xAPI)
• Nomadicity and Mobile Learning

15. Interventions
• What types of interventions?
• Question management
• Task management
• Provisioning of learning resources
• Conditioning of learning environment
• What digital support for pedagogical
interventions?

16. Digital Devices
• Learning Technology Architecture
• Types of devices
• MOOCs
• Augmented and virtual reality tools

17. Observations
• All aspects of learning analytics
• Metics
• Activity stream formats
• Collection
• Storing
• Analysing
• Assessments and tests

18. Context-Awareness
• Need for vocabularies describing
contexts

19. Adaptiveness
• Support for setting up learning
instances based on observations

20. Identification
• Competency descriptions
• Learning targets
• Tasks
• Problem descriptions

21. Socialization
• Social learning support
• Peer learning
• Group learning
• Role Negotiation

22. Creation
• Support for all types of externalisation
of learning activities

23. Practice
• Storage and retrieval
• Performance targets
• Self-monitoring systems
• Drill & practice
• Serious games

24. Reflection
• Create and present representations
of representations

25. Project approach
• What's in scope?
• Stop doing framework standards – answer the needs of the market
• Smaller pieces of work - e.g., facilitator model, classroom..
• 9 months development cycle

26. The ideal world
• Smart learning, smart education, smart learning environments, etc.
should to be grounded in a verified theory
• A coherent framework model of Smart Learning Environment
• When a new element is identified and being run through the model
you see where it fits, and if not, where the model needs to be fixed
• Smart Learning Environment Framework: Model for structuring
learning technology standardisation

27. The real world
• We will not have one framework guiding our standards development
• ‘Smart’ is part of a language game serving ‘political’ positioning
rather than providing the scientific rigour needed to develop
standards
• Go for a more pragmatic approach where SLE models are used to
develop & evaluate NWIs – refraining from doing large framework
(multipart) standards, but start doing self-containedm, smaller
standards

28. 谢谢您的关注
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
tore.hoel@hioa.no
WeChat: Tore_no