Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:
Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.
Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at
PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.
https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits
L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.
10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT)
[Proceedings], 2010-08-01
READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE. https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright
NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC :
https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=488cc425-f4ea-4c71-935d-9be3fee75c95
https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=488cc425-f4ea-4c71-935d-9be3fee75c95
NRC Publications Archive
Archives des publications du CNRC
This publication could be one of several versions: author’s original, accepted manuscript or the publisher’s version. / La version de cette publication peut être l’une des suivantes : la version prépublication de l’auteur, la version acceptée du manuscrit ou la version de l’éditeur.
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at
Simple Learning Design 2.0
Simple Learning Design 2.0
Guillaume Durand, Luc Belliveau, Benjamin Craig
National Research Council of CanadaInstitute for Information Technology Moncton, Canada
firstname.lastname@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Abstract—Contemporary learning design specifications are
rarely implemented in learning platforms even though they would bring value to end-users. Unlike its predecessors, Simple Learning Design 2.0 (SLD 2.0) proposes a straight-forward and cost effective approach to learning design. SLD 2.0 was de-signed and implemented in a course management system by experienced learning systems developers, instructional design-ers and learning designdesign-ers. SLD 2.0 proposes an XML binding usable as an unofficial add-on to the IMS-CC v1.0 specifica-tion.
Keywords-component; learning design; implementation; learning management system.
I. INTRODUCTION
When people talk about learning design they rarely share the same definition. Some of them consider learning design to be the IMS-LD specification while others consider learn-ing design to be a broader concept [1]. In this document learning design is meant as the preparation of a course,
in-cluding the selection of learning material and the sequencing of learning activities, a broader concept as old as teaching.
The computational implementation of this concept is however much more recent. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, implementations such as PALO [2], EML (Education Modeling Language) [3], IMS-LD (Instructional Manage-ment System Learning Design) [4], IMS-SS (Instructional Management System Simple Sequencing) [5] and LDL (Learning Design Language) [6] appeared. These initiatives have not been widely successful however, for reasons de-scribed in a previous paper [7] introducing SLD 2.0.
In short, learning design specifications are not widely used by commercial applications because they are too com-plex to implement, too comcom-plex to handle, and most of the time not embedded in or clearly interoperable with a well known standard. SLD 2.0 (Simple Learning Design 2.0) is intended to address these issues [7].
II. SLD2.0APPROACH
A. Overview
SLD 2.0 is designed to be easily implemented by devel-opers in a commercial e-learning application. Since IMS Common Cartridge [8] is the most promising content specifi-cation in commercial use at the moment, SLD 2.0 was de-signed as an add-on to it, respecting and reusing the features
of IMS-CC 1.0 [8] and IMS-CP 1.2 [9]. The intent was to find a good balance between the expressivity of the specifi-cation and the simplicity of its implementation; all features that might have been deemed too complex to implement were systematically avoided. The initial functional features of the language came from use-cases designed by instruc-tional design and learning design experts. The technical con-straints came from a well known LMS vendor’s platform developed in the .NET framework.
B. SLD 2.0 Requirements
Once several SLD 2.0 use cases were clearly defined, the instructional / learning designers and developers defined the functional and implementation requirements.
1) Functional requirements:
In learning design, a learning activity is often seen as a sequence of activities performed by users according to their role(s).
a) Roles
Each SLD 2.0 scenario requires a set of roles. These roles are defined solely in SLD 2.0 and are used to assign different activities to participants in the learning activity. For example, the “teacher” actor could monitor the discussion forum while the “student” actors could communicate within the forum.
b) Sequencing
In the learning design community the term “sequencing” is not particularly popular, however all learning design speci-fications do specify some form of learning sequence (steps, activities, etc). SLD 2.0 supports sequencing using 2 con-cepts: activities and choices (both are explained in more de-tail in the specification section).
2) Implementation requirements: a) Workflow engine
Several approaches could be adopted to “play” learning activities defined using SLD 2.0. A workflow engine is a natural choice to execute these activities; the workflow en-gine can be developed internally or adopted off the shelf.
b) SLD 2.0 to workflow engine translation
For any workflow engine, a mechanism for translating the SLD 2.0 learning design into the engine’s native lan-guage will be required. In this way an SLD 2.0 learning de-sign shared from one system to another will be interoperable across different workflow engines. Each workflow engine
will require an XSLT (Extensible Style Transformation) or XML libraries to dire XML in the application code. Depending engine used, the SLD 2.0 scenario may crea workflow (e.g. one workflow for each role scenarios, or one file for each rule within sce
c) Interoperability and diffusion
IMS-CC [8] is becoming a well-establish As argued in the introduction, it would b (from an interoperability perspective) to de fit within the IMS-CC specification. Furth will support IMS-LTI1 in the future which i IMS-LTI allows the sharing of learning tool An SLD 2.0 scenario using tools from o played by another LMS. Obviously, both o to adhere to the IMS-LTI specification.
However, tools interoperability is not th to address for SLD 2.0 interoperability and 2.0 has to define a clear API to bear no ambi
III. SLD2.0SPECIFICATIO
A. Information Model/XML Binding
SLD 2.0 defines a learning activity wit
activities and choices (see Fig. 1).
Figure 1. SLD 2.0 XML schem
An activity is defined by a set of roles, a
information on the activity and a set of const
1 IMS-LTI http://www.imsglobal.org/toolsinteroperabil
esheet Language ectly handle the on the workflow ate more than one e within SLD 2.0 enarios). hed specification. be advantageous esign SLD 2.0 to ermore, IMS-CC is a great asset as s between LMSs. one LMS can be f the LMSs have he single element d diffusion. SLD iguities. ON th a sequence of ma a learning object, traints. lity2.cfm
Roles define who will have acc
not having a role allowing them ac will instead perform the next activ supporting several roles, SLD 2.0 ca
ties for each role. The set of availa
according to the choices and the co ecution.
In order to define constraints on for choices, a set of predefined va 2.0:
• $actorsAccessedCount: Th
have accessed the current a
• $actorsParticipatedCount:
who have participated in they posted a comment to a
• $totalActors: The number o
current activity. (If the n mined due to branching, an riable in a constraint must r leading to the current activi
• $activityResult: The resul
score, etc.)
• $activityDuration: The len spent on the current activity These variables define the API fully interoperable scenarios from on
Each activity may impose cons under what circumstances an activi on the list of predefined variables an A choice is a component of SLD ing in learning sequences based on a quiz could direct users to differen or to another choice allowing compl
The element learning object in sively defined, the definition is rel Cartridge.
B. SLD 2.0 and IMS Common Cart
Every Common Cartridge pack file, which is an XML file defining age. An IMS-CC 1.0 manifest file different sections (see Fig. 2):
• The metadata section con schema used, schema versi scribing the contents of car • The organizations section
structure of the cartridge’s • The resources section descr
available (an external URL side the package).
The IMS-CC standard is extens of new elements at the end of the m added in the manifest file after res element called scenarios. A link to t is also referenced in the metadata e ject elements of SLD 2.0 referenc item.
cess to an activity. Users ccess to a certain activity,
vity their role allows. By
an define different activi-able activities can evolve
onditions met during
ex-n activities aex-nd coex-nditioex-ns riables is built into SLD he number of users who
activity.
The number of users the current activity (i.e. a blog).
of users that will enter the number cannot be
deter-ny attempt to use this va-return false until all paths
ity are known.)
lt of an activity. (Quiz ngth of time a user has
y.
I of SLD 2.0 and ensure ne platform to another.
straints such as defining ity can start or end based
nd the role of the user. D 2.0 that allows
branch-a condition. The result of nt activities for example, lex sets of conditions.
SLD 2.0 was not exten-legated to IMS Common
tridge
kage contains a manifest the structure of the pack-e is organizpack-ed into thrpack-epack-e ntains information on the ion, and the metadata de-rtridge.
defines the hierarchical contents.
ribes where the content is L or a link to an object
in-ible and allows additions manifest file. SLD 2.0 is ources element in a new the SLD 2.0 specification element. The learning
Figure 2. SLD 2.0 in IMS-CC 1
A common cartridge manifest file may c one SLD 2.0 scenario. Scenarios can be see for the use of the cartridge elements; the used with or without the SLD 2.0 scenarios. Cartridges containing SLD 2.0 scenario using official IMS-CC validation tools; the sion of SLD 2.0 should not break existing sy IV. SLD2.0IMPLEMENTAT
The first implementation of SLD 2.0 w ing an LMS developed in Microsoft’s .NET workflow engine used was Windows Workf In order for the workflow engine to run a no a declarative XAML3 definition is required crosoft’s XML language used for declarativ A declarative (no-code) workflow definitio that requires no compilation to execute, an i because SLD 2.0 scenarios are dynamically in the process of translating SLD 2.0 to X transformation was used.
V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE
SLD 2.0 was prototyped and implemen commercial course management system. SL to handle and should be easier to implemen cessors in other course management system SLD 2.0 was initially designed to be embe 1.0 should facilitate its diffusion as well. F challenge for SLD 2.0 will be to go beyo step and to be fully implemented in a comm tion. In the meantime, it needs to be diffused
2
Windows Workflow Foundation http://msdn.microso us/netframework/aa663328.aspx
3 Extensible Application Markup Language http://msdn us/library/ms752059.aspx
1.0
contain more than en as suggestions cartridge can be os are still valid erefore, the diffu-ystems.
TION
was performed us-T framework. us-The flow Foundation2. o-code workflow, d. XAML is Mi-ve programming. on is a workflow important feature y created. To aid XAML, an XSL E WORK nted in a popular LD 2.0 is simple nt than its prede-ms. The fact that edded in IMS-CC For now, the next nd the prototype mercialized solu-d ansolu-d solu-discussesolu-d. oft.com/en-
In addition to this paper, a set the specification is freely available IMS-CC, especially with the arriva LTI in IMS-CC 1.1, should widely the interoperability of IMS Common sharing of tools between LMS platf be a turning point in e-learning. Th compliant, simple to implement lea possible through SLD 2.0 for exam value added functionality.
ACKNOWLEDGM
This work is part of the Synergi tially funded by the Atlantic Canada Atlantic Innovation Fund (AIF), a courage partnerships among privat ties, colleges and other research ins products and services. The Synergi and Development collaboration be search Council of Canada, the Un Desire2Learn Incorporated.
REFERENCE [1] S. Britain, A Review of Specifications and Tools, a rep Pedagogy Programme, May 2004. [2] M. Rodríguez-Artacho, M.F. Ve Calero, Using a High-Level langua based learning scenarios, In Proc Education Conference FIE ‘99 San [3] R. Koper, Modeling units of perspective: the pedagogical meta-Report, Open Univ. of the Netherla [4] IMS Learning Design. Informati
Implementation Guide, Version Global Learning http://www.imsglobal.org/learning 2010.
[5] IMS Simple Sequencing. Informa Implementation Guide, Version Global Learning http://www.imsglobal.org/simplese 2010.
[6] C. Martel, L. Vignollet, C. Ferrari LDL: An Alternative EML, Procee Conference on Advanced Learni pp. 1107-1108, 2006.
[7] G.Durand and S. Downes, Toward 4th IEEE International Conferen Education, 2009. ICCSE '09. 25-28 [8] IMS Common Cartridge Version schema, IMS Global Le http://www.imsglobal.org/cc, Last [9] IMS Content Packaging Version v2.0, IMS Global Lea http://www.imsglobal.org/content/ March, 2010.
4 SynergiC3 http://www.synergic3.com/
t of documents including online4. The evolution of al of IMS-LTI with basic y extend the capacity and n Cartridge. Allowing the forms, LTI could prove to he addition of a standard arning scenarios, as made mple, would augment this
MENT
C3 project10which is par-a Opportunities Agency’s
program designed to en-te sector firms, universi-stitutions to develop new iC3 project is a Research etween the National
Re-iversité de Moncton and
ES
Learning Design: Concept, port for the JISC E-learning
erdejo, J. Mayorga, and M.Y. age to describe and create web-ceedings of IEEE Frontiers In n Juan de Puerto Rico, 1999.
study from a pedagogical -model behind EML, Technical ands, 2001.
ion Model, Best Practice and 1.0 Final Specification IMS
Consortium Inc., gdesign, last visited March
ation Model, Best Practice and 1.0 Final Specification IMS
Consortium Inc., equencing, last visited March
is, J.-P. David and A. Lejeune, edings of the sixth International ng Technologies (ICALT’06),
d Simple Learning Design 2.0. nce on Computer Science & 8 July 2009, Nanning, China. n 1.0 Final specification and earning Consortium Inc.,
visited: March, 2010. 1.2 Public Draft Specification arning Consortium Inc.,
/packaging, Last visited:
