1 / 14

Authoring Adaptive Hypermedia and IMS Learning Design: A possible understanding?

This paper delves into the distinct yet related realms of Adaptive Educational Hypermedia (AEH) and IMS Learning Design (IMS LD). The authors, Alexandra Cristea and Daniel Burgos, aim to bridge the knowledge gap between these disciplines to create optimal learning environments. Key aspects discussed include the differences and similarities in authoring practices, adaptation models, and user roles. The paper also addresses potential mutual benefits by integrating adaptive behaviors from AEH with structured learning activities from IMS LD. The goal is to enhance learner experiences through improved pedagogical strategies.

simon-tyson
Télécharger la présentation

Authoring Adaptive Hypermedia and IMS Learning Design: A possible understanding?

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. Authoring Adaptive Hypermedia and IMS Learning Design: A possible understanding? Alexandra Cristea* and Daniel Burgos** * Information System Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Computing Science Eindhoven University of Technology ** Open University of The Netherlands PO BOX 2690, 6401 DL Heerlen

  2. Outline • Motivation • Issues • Conclusion

  3. Motivation • Adaptive Educational Hypermedia (AEH) and IMS Learning Design (IMS LD) are different disciplines, and at present, there is little shared knowledge between them. • goal is the same: create the best possible environment for a learner to perform his/her learning activities in. • issue of differences and similarities in AEH (especially, in Authoring thereof), and IMS LD

  4. LAOS • Domain model • Goal and Constraints model • Presentation model • User model • Adaptation model

  5. Adaptation Model: LAG • Adaptation assembly language • Adaptation language • Adaptation strategies

  6. IMS LD • Level A: basic structure: activities & roles • Level B: properties, conditions, calculations, global elements and a monitoring service • Level C: notifications

  7. LAOS at work: • Players: • AHA!, WHURLE, Blackboard • Authoring: • MOT, LAG language, LAG-XLS • Engines: • AHA!, WHURLE, Blackboard

  8. IMS LD at work: • Players: • Reload project, CopperCore, Sled • Authoring: • Reload project, CopperAuthor • Engines: • netUniversité, CopperCore

  9. Roles LAOS • Author of DM / GM/ PM/ UM/ AM • Manager of Authoring environment (less developed) • User (Learner/ Buyer, etc.) of Product • Manager of Learning environment (less developed)

  10. Roles IMS LD • Author • Manager • Player

  11. Lifecycle LAOS • Authoring DM, GM, PM, UM, AM • Converting • Playing

  12. Lifecycle IMS LD • Modelling • publishing • playing

  13. Mutual benefits • LAOS (most AEH authoring models) don’t provide for explicit multiple roles for authors and learners (5 roles but: pedagogical rooting -> technical). • IMS LD can benefit from a more explicit formulation of the adaptive behavior borrowed from LAOS, and especially, LAG • IMS LD is believed to benefit from a clear distinction between LO contents and LO behavior (i.e., allowing the same object to behave differently in different settings; allowing pedagogical strategies to be exchanged the same way learning objects are)

  14. Questions … ?

More Related