Presented at IEEE ICALT 2012, July 4-6, 2012, Rome, Italy

1. Interactions for Learning as
Expressed in an IMS LD Runtime
Environment
Michael Derntl1 Susanne Neumann2 Petra Oberhuemer3
1 RWTH Aachen University, Advanced Community Information Systems
2 University of Vienna, Center for Teaching and Learning
3 University of Vienna, Educational Affairs
derntl@dbis.rwth-aachen.de
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
1 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

2. Advanced Community Information Systems
(ACIS)
Responsive
Web Engineering Community
Web Analytics
Open
Visualization
Community
and
Information
Simulation
Systems
Community Community
Support Analytics
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
Requirements
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
2
Engineering

3. Motivation
 IMS Learning Design (LD) was developed as a
specification supporting any pedagogical approach [1]
 Separation of environments for designing units of
learning (i.e. the authoring environment) and running
units of learning (i.e. the runtime environment)
 Challenge: unclear how a deployed package will appear
in a VLE
 Much previous research (and tools) about conceptual
and authoring issues; little research about expression of
pedagogical aspects at runtime
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
3 [1] IMS Global: IMS Learning Design Information Model, Version 1.0. http://is.gd/imsldv1 (2003)

4. IMS LD Structure in a Nutshell
Components are weaved into a method following a
stage-play metaphor
Act 1 Act 2 Act n
Role-Part 1 Role-Part 2 Role-Part n Method
Components
Role Activity Environment Activity Structure
Tasks LOs Tools
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
4

5. Objectives
 Analyzing the expression of pedagogical aspects in
IMS LD runtime with focus on multi-role settings
(interaction)
– Visual presentation
– Interaction metaphors
 Identifying shortcomings and recommendations for
IMS LD runtime developers
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
5

6. Methodology (1)
 Player selection
– Several players are available, e.g. GRAIL, SLeD, CLIX,
Astro Player, …
– Original plan: SLeD and AstroPlayer
– But: AstroPlayer lacked support of some features (e.g.
display multiple activity descriptions)
– So: SLeD!
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
6

7. The SLeD Player
Navigation Content Area
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
7

8. Methodology (2)
 Selection of framework for pedagogical aspects
– Several candidates like Reeves‟ pedagogical dimensions
[2] or Reigluth/Moore framework for comparing
instructional strategies [3]
– Reigeluth/Moore allow precise and multi-faceted analysis
of learning interactions [2] Reeves, T.: Evaluating What Really Matters in
Computer-Based Education. (1997)
– Types of interactions: [3] Reigeluth, C.M., Moore, J.: Cognitive Education
and the Cognitive Domain. In: Reigeluth, C.M. (ed.),
Instructional- Design Theories and Models, pp. 51-68.
Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ (1999)
Human Non-human
Student Student Student Student Student
– – Other – – – Other
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Teacher Student Tools Information Environment
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
8

9. Methodology (3)
 Selection of IMS LD Units of Learning (UoLs)
– Solicited real-world UoLs from ICOPER consortium members
– Selection based on diversity and feature coverage
UoL Features
Deconstructivism Learner & teacher roles; Support activities, Project exploration
Modern architecture Learner & teacher roles; Brainstorming, reading, preparation of
presentation; Resource and tool usage; Support activities
Skyscrapers & Homes A Two learner & one teacher role; Reuse of learning objects and
activities; Two plays
Skyscrapers & Homes B Only learner role; Path selection; Interaction with content; Reflection
and summarizing
Shared outcome Five roles: teacher, two teams (members + coordinators); Split paths;
Role selection; Conditional activity completion; Support activities
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems) Blog collaboration Learner & teacher roles; Content selection; Blogs; Discussion; Final
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
9
reports

10. Methodology (4)
 UoL analysis
– Play all paths through each UoL with all roles
– Record support and obstacles for any interaction type
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
10

11. Student – Student
 Awareness of interaction only when
– explicit instructions (e.g. in the activity description)
– use of services like chat or forum
 Forum
– Missing instructions
– Unclear which roles are assigned
 When individuals assigned to multiple team roles
– Unclear when to act in what role
– Roles and UoL selection meshed single drop-down list
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
11

12. Student – Teacher
 Key interaction; typically teacher in a support role
 Problems during runtime
– Separate views on the UoL
– Unclear when to support which role
– Unclear status of supported roles (if known) – e.g. support
required, learners„ status of completion …
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
Student (l) vs. teacher (r) view in SLeD
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
12

13. Student – Teacher
 UoL portion in Astro Player – more structure but no better
 Phases (IMS LD act) provide a hint but:
– Matching e.g. in Phase II (1 vs 4 activities)? – Requires guessing, but:
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 – No way to see the other role„s view – Guessing impossible
Supported roles have no idea that there is any support
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
13


14. Student – Teacher
 IMS LD mechanism: learning vs support activity
– Support activity optionally (!) has supported role(s)
– From the IMS LD spec: “When the optional role-ref element is
set, […] the same support activity is repeated for every user in
the role(s). When the role-ref is not available, the support
activity is a single activity (like the learning-activity)” [1]
 Problems
– Activity distinction known to be difficult to understand [4]
– Same display as learning activities
– If role-ref not set the only instruction can come from the
description
– Strict separation of role views hampers understanding of
supporting and supported role
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
[4] Neumann, S., Oberhuemer, P.: User Evaluation of a Graphical Modeling Tool for IMS Learning Design. Advances in Web Based
14 Learning – ICWL 2009, pp. 287-296 (2009)

15. Student – Tool / Environment
 Difficult distinction tool – environment/manipulatives
– In a VLE context, the tool is and provides the “environment”
 In some UoLs there will be VLE external tools
 Common practice: show the
hierarchical structure in the XML
package in the UI
– Problematic with Activity Structures
(selection, sequence)
– Note: “SEQUENCE” / “SELECTION”
are part of the titles (by designers)!
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke – Where does what end?
15

16. Student – Tool / Environment
 Even more problematic with Role-Part (within Act)
Activity Structure
multiple activity descriptions Learning Activity
and environments Activity Description
Item
 Beware of conditions! Item
Activity Structure
– Unexpected appearance / Learning Activity
disappearance of activities Activity Description
Item
– Hard to discern these activities Item
(only the icon distinguishes) Environment
Learning Object
– Impossible to anticipate the Item
upcoming path Item
Learning Activity
– No qualitative info presented on Activity Description
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
UoL design Item
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
Item
16

17. Student – Information
 Here: interactions with activities and learning objects
 Difficult to understand difference between activity
descriptions (AD) and learning objects (LO)
– AD attached to activity
– LO attached to environments linked to activity
– LOs mentioned in the ADs need manual lookup in the
navigation tree; activity as referencing element only
– In SLeD multiple ADs appear awkwardly
 Solutions?
– Integrate LOs more tightly with the activity GUI
– SLD 2.0 does not consider environments at all [5]
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
17 [5] Durand, G., Belliveau, L., Craig, B.: SLD 2.0 XML Binding. http://tinyurl.com/sld2-0-xml (2010)

18. Wrap Up
 No explicit linkage between activity description (main area) and
environment objects (navigation)
– Requires LD authors to provide this info  contradicts the design/runtime split
Provide in-place access to information within an activity
 Roles and their interaction poorly represented
– Unclear “impersonation” status
– Missing info on currently collaborating and supported/supporting roles
Explicitly display this info (USP of IMS LD?!)
 Tree based navigation
– Little process-related hints in a tree
Depict the process, the current status, and the changes
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
18