1. Developing an approach for Learning Design Players Patrick McAndrew, Rob Nadolski & Alex Little Open University UK and Open University NL Paper available at http://jime.open.ac.uk/2005/14

2. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU The move to learning design Resources Tools Design Play Author

3. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU CopperCore Reference LD Player Aims for the reference player: 1.a good test-bed for the developers of the CopperCore Engine 2.a way to prove the API design for a thin client. 3.a good demonstrator for using the engine. 4.web technology/XML based 5.able to play all LD constructs during runtime of a certain run, 6.able to show all LD constructs during runtime of a certain run, 7.able to show the runtime behaviour for all users and roles, 8.able to show the LD content (mainly (X)HTML) in a legible format, 9.pedagogically neutral, 10.conformance to the common GUI guidelines No Performance, Scalability or End-user requirements

4. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU Initial CopperCore release Part of installation Level A

5. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU Issues from CopperCore Player Three key issues a)The integration of services b)Management of units of learning. c)Player improvements: response, UI and security.

6. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU SLeD: Service-based Learning Design system 1.Overall aim to support and investigate the transfer and representation of learning using IMS Learning Design Validation of designs Generating variations in design Representing generic ways to use tools Modular architecture 2.Demonstrate that how the player can support existing designs 3.Produce a method for integrating tools tested on QTI, forum service and ePortfolio

7. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU SLeD Architecture

8. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU Enhanced CopperCore Reference Player Matched advances in CopperCore engine Level B/C Enabled Reload player

9. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU The SLeD player

10. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU Services

11. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU Demonstrator site Initial aims –Lower barrier of installation –Remove need for command line interaction –Allow exploration of collaboration and roles –Build on UNFOLD success –Provide information about units –Communicate with Moodle Site established –http://sled.open.ac.uk/http://sled.open.ac.uk/

12. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU Initial limited evaluation Appreciation for targeted scenarios Brief features summary useful Engagement in Units of Learning Own view emerges Demonstrator role is unclear – seen as real system Concerns about materials – are designs “good” More support needed during using the system User interface can confuse

13. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU Representing Design Patterns –Textual descriptions –Building up a collection – pattern language –Needs interpretation before reuse Activity tools –Software models –Engage people –Need to move towards transferability and standards IMS Learning Design –XML description –Computer managed –Can be reused automatically

14. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU James Dalziel – reuse principles Suggested new principles for fostering re-use and sharing: –Learning Designs/Learning Activities focus, rather than simply content –Community focus, rather than repository focus –Search based on free-text searching, not metadata searching –Automated usage tracking/rating systems, not complex peer review/approval systems (and not nothing on usage) –Small set of simple licenses, not complex licenses (and not nothing) –Learning software and learning content are free - no payment required –Resources can be easily adapted by others, not just fixed/static –Close integration of Learning Platform and the Community for sharing –Easy to share own work – short submission process, automated MD James Dalziel, 20 th September 2005. Presentation to appear: http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/pedagogy/articles/MetadataPedagogyMeeting200905

15. 8 th June 2005Patrick McAndrew, IET, OU Issues in Demonstrating Difficult choices How to handle different user/different roles? User interface changes in UoLs or in player? Overall design for the Player? What are the features of Units of Learning? How best to work with Moodle? What should we demonstrate?