1 / 15

David Griffiths, Phillip Beauvoir, Mark Baxendale, Paul Hazlewood, Amanda Oddie

Implementing an editor for IMS Learning Design: Technical and Usability issues in the development of Reload. David Griffiths, Phillip Beauvoir, Mark Baxendale, Paul Hazlewood, Amanda Oddie. Overview. The Reload Learning Design Editor Use of the Reload Learning Design Editor with practitioners

lorne
Télécharger la présentation

David Griffiths, Phillip Beauvoir, Mark Baxendale, Paul Hazlewood, Amanda Oddie

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implementing an editor for IMS Learning Design: Technical and Usability issues in the development of Reload David Griffiths, Phillip Beauvoir, Mark Baxendale, Paul Hazlewood, Amanda Oddie

  2. Overview • The Reload Learning Design Editor • Use of the Reload Learning Design Editor with practitioners • Towards a new Reload Learning Design Editor

  3. The Reload Learning Design editor • General purpose editor • Close to Learning Design specification • Similar to Metadata and Content Package editor • But specification more complex- poses challenges

  4. Challenges posed by the specification • LD editor initially based on Reload CP editor • XML schema based approach • LD demanded major changes to interface • Complexity of the specification • Not following the conventional tree-based schema

  5. The Eclipse framework • Flexible plug-in architecture • Extensive set of UI features • Speeded up development for level B/C editor • From Swing to Eclipse in 6 weeks • From level A to levels B and C in 6 weeks

  6. Adoption • Resulting software widely used • as a reference to experiment with the specification • In real teaching situations • Fully compliant with the specification • Others have built on the Editor • E.g. Collage • Adoption as client software within TENCompetence

  7. The development approach • High level of continuity within the team and development of expertise in application domains • Involvement of various user groups • Iterative development • Team develops prototypes, users feed back • "release early and often"

  8. Use of the Reload LD Editor with teachers • Currently presentsentire specification to the user • Target group was technical staff/researchers • Liverpool Hope University used Reload to author real UoLs • Best available editor

  9. User evaluation • Workshops in Higher Education (HE) and Further Education (FE) • Use of real examples set in users’ own context • Users from a range of subjects

  10. User evaluation • Generally positive about • Usefulness • Understanding different sections (of editor) • Generally negative about • Usability • Knowing how to work through the software • Regular users able to produce UoLs to level A • Required support to produce level B • Underlying metaphors of Learning Design seem accessible to practitioners • Valuable to provide an interface designed for practitioners, as well as for technical experts

  11. Towards a new Reload Learning Design Editor • Recommendations from user evaluation • Layouts (panels, menus, icons) which are more visual • Provision of a code view • The use of visual cues • Provision of a “catalogue” of resources • Developing a prototype • Further evaluation with users

More Related