1. © 2007 An alternate classification of LD authoring approaches TENCompetence Workshop, Barcelona Tim Sodhi, Yongwu Miao, Francis Brouns, Rob Koper Bottom-up and Top-down

2. © 2007 Outline ­Introduction ­Existing classification ­Alternate classification ­Bottom-up ­Top-down ­Salient features of the approaches ­Conclusions and discussion

3. © 2007 Introduction ­Today‘s LD tools too complex for non-experts ­No concept of support with ­Learning Design rules ­Specification formalisms and constructs ­Modeling based on educational scenarios ­Need for authoring tools for non-experts in spec. ­Domain specific knowledge of their fields ­No knowledge of the specification ­Relatively low IT Skills

4. © 2007 Existing Classification ­(Griffiths et al., 2005) ­General Purpose vs. Specific Purpose ­Those targeted at experts, vs those at novices ­Does not take into account how design actually takes place ­Does not classify tools on the basis of support offered ­Large corpus of tools that belong to either classification

5. © 2007 An Alternate Classification ­Classification based on ­how authors approach the design task ­Guidance and support afforded by the tool ­We classify these approaches as ­Bottom-up ­Top-down

6. © 2007 Bottom-up Approach ­Emphasis on emergence of design from lower level details ­Does not emphasize on the type of learning to be modeled ­For instance for IMS LD ­Relies on the author being fully cognizant of underlying pedagogies ­Design activity is relegated to mere editing UoLs ­Support offered is minimal ­At most with the specification constructs. ­No higher level support

7. © 2007 Bottom-up Approach (contd.) ­Potential users ­Authors with considerable design experience ­Authors with clear idea at the inception about the design

8. © 2007 Top-down approach ­Emphasis on elicitation and selection of learning scenario, and guidance based on that. ­Provision of learning design rules (Koper, 2005) ­Choice from among educational scenarios encapsulating sound educational principles and learning theories ­Flexible modeling order, starting point of design ­With regard to IMS LD ­Support offered throughout the design process ­Targetted support with design rules ­Context sensitive support & support with specification

9. © 2007 Top-down approach (contd) ­Potential users ­Non-experts in the specification ­Non-experts in learning theories ­High IT skills not a requisite

10. © 2007 Salient features of the approaches ­Scenario-based modeling ­Underlying learning design theories taken into consideration? ­Inception of the design activiy ­Where does the activity start – blank learning design or tweaking existing designs, etc ­Support and guidance during the design phase ­What kind of support is provided to the non-expert ­Specification constructs and formalisms ­Learning design rules, etc

11. © 2007 Salient Features (contd) ­Proximity to the IMS LD specification ­Close to the specification in metaphors and structure? ­Authoring approach followed ­Overall learning design to lower level details, or vice versa?

12. © 2007 Conclusion & Discussion ­An alternate classification presented ­Views creation of UoLs as a conglomeration of processes ­Basis for evaluation to clearly demarcate today‘s IMS LD authoring tools on the basis of their suitability for non-experts ­Inform the development of a new generation of IMS LD authoring tools

13. © 2007 Questions?