SELEAC 2003-4715 / 001-001
Standardization and using didactical metadata within the project SELEAC
Topics of the current trends and suggestions to optimize didactical metadata of the CustomDP-System
Fraunhofer IAO
1
Table of contents
1 Introduction 3
2 General survey of current trends concerning metadata and standardization organisations in the field of e- learning 3 2.1 Metadata 3 2.2 Standardization organisations 4
3 General survey of current trends concerning standardization and quality of didactical concepts 8 3.1 Learning Object Metadata (LOM) 8 3.2 Limitations of LOM and conclusions for CustomDP 10 3.3 Ariadne 14 3.4 Educational Modelling Language (EML) 16 3.5 Essener-Lern-Modell (ELM) 17 3.6 Features of the Educational meta-data management toolkit EM2 23 3.7 UK Learning Object Metadata Core 24
4 Summary of the suggestions for modifications of metadata within CustomDP 25 4.1 Metadata in CustomDP 25 4.2 Synopsis of metadata in LOM and CustomDP 25
References 28
Appendix 1: Survey on Vocabulary Usage of Learning Resource Type 29
Appendix 2: Synopsis of educational metada in LOM and CustomDP 31
2
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
1 Introduction
An abundance of methods to develop and to standardise e-learning offered in different contexts makes it quite difficult to find the right information for specific questions concerning the development and design of e-learning content. One ambition within the project Seleac is to improve the didactical metadata for the content of the CustomDP System.
The following text deals with current questions and discussion concerning the design of metadata, especially didactical metadata. Chapter one starts with some basic information on the field of metadata and a survey of standards developed by different committees that deal with standard-related issues, each with different background and focus points. Subsequently three of these models – Learning Object Metadata (LOM) based on SCORM, ARIADNE and the so called Essener Lern-Modell (ELM) - especially including pedagogical and didactic data are discussed more precisely in Chapter two. In a third step (chapter three) different approaches to describe didactical aspects of learning objects are summarized and checked regarding their applicability for a transfer to the CustomDP system
2 General survey of current trends concerning metadata and standardization organisations in the field of e-learning
2.1 Metadata
Metadata are structured data about resources. The term metadata emanates from the librarianship and was used a long time before the web was created. Their main aim is to describe and to categorise contents for making them available. The main goal for the future is to make learning objects retrievable as easy as a book in the library. But not only for facilitating effective search, also for supporting re-use of educational material metadata plays a crucial role. Especially in the field of education via internet different organisations are working intensively to develop specific metadata patterns. Central categories to describe didactical aspects of learning material are the subject (which topic is discussed), the didactical kind of knowledge (which questions the content will
3
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
answer), the didactical type of media (which kind of demonstration is used), and the attainable competence (what will be the benefit for capability after working on the subject). In the field of didactical metadata a deficiency in experiences and implementation is discussed among experts. Some ideas of current models will be explicated in chapter three.
The current discussion about metadata will continue, since the supply of electronic information will grow as well as the importance of an efficient use of this offer. Therefore a set of organisations work on the field of standardization of metadata. In the following section the most influential standardization organisations are described.
2.2 Standardization organisations
In the 90s many groups started working on various additional aspects of metadata and standardization not only in the web but also in the field of e- learning environments and digital data bases. Most of them are related with the DCMI. For a better understanding of the metadata landscape, the following picture will give a survey about the most famous consortia and standardization organisations, that determinate the current proceedings. Their background, main focus and their ideas concerning pedagogical metadata will be briefly summarized.
Figure 1: Overview of consortia and standardization organisations
ISO SC 36* International Standards Organisation Subcommittee number 36
IEEE-SA* CEN / ISSS* Centre de European Normalisation / Institute of Electrical and Information Society Electronic Engineers Standardization System Standards Associaton
ADL / SCORM IMS ARIADNE EUN Advanced Instructional Management Systems Distributed Learning Association of Remote Initiative, Instructional Authoring and Distribution Networks for Europe organisation
Aviation Industry AICC DCMI Dublin Core Metadata Initiative CBT Committee
*considered as major bodies for technology standard accreditation
4
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
DCMI
One of the first initiatives was the so called Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI). With this organization, founded in Dublin, Ohio, in 1995, an interdisciplinary discussion started to promote the widespread adoption of interoperable metadata standards and developing specialized metadata vocabularies for describing resources that allow for a more intelligent information discovery system. Individuals from many different backgrounds and disciplines committed to building and developing metadata standards, practices, policies and technologies. Dublin Core does not contain any elements of pedagogical relevance.
http://dublincore.org
ISO SC 36
The International Standards Organisation (ISO) is a network of national standard institutes from 140 countries and works in partnership with international organisations, governments, industry, business and consumer representatives. ISO IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission has set up a Subcommittee, SC number 36 on “Information Technology for Learning, Education and Training”. This committee has invited the IEE LTSC to submit the LOM specification when it is finalized, so that the formal process for accepting LOM as a standard at ISO level can be substantially shortened (usually the process of ISO-certification takes about ten years).
http://www.iso.ch
IEEE LTSC
The Institute of Electric and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Inc. is a non- profit, technical professional association with more than 360.000 individual members in approximately 175 countries, set up in 1996. It works in 20 different areas of information technology for learning education and training and has adopted a general strategy to standardize the “smallest, useful, doable, specification that has technically feasibility, commercial viability and widespread adoption”. IEEE is a global organisation, but rather U.S. centric.
http://www.ieee.org
CEN / ISSS / LTWS
5
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
The Centre Européen Economic Community (CEN) was founded in 1961 by the national standard bodies in the European Economic Community and EFTA countries. The CNN Information Society Standardisation System (ISSS) works on seeking to ensure that any standards reflect European need, that they can be internationalised and localised.
In 1999 the European Commission gave a mandate to Centre Européen de Normalisation (CEN) to identify a work-plan for Europe in the area of learning technology interoperability; they set up the Learning Technologies Workshop (LTWS). The basic idea is to encourage the effective development and use of relevant and appropriate standards for learning technologies for Europe. In the specific case of LOM, LWTS has evaluated a number of related specifications.
http://www.cenorm.be/isss
ADL
The Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative (ADL) is an initiative sponsored by the US federal government. As part of its objective, ADL produced the SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model), a specification for reusable learning content. The firs version was published in 1999. ADL has integrated LOM in SCORM. Version 1.2 of SCORM will also incorporate the IMS Metadata and Content Packaging specifications.
http://www.adlnet.org/
IMS
The Instructional Management Systems Global Learning Consortium is the most advanced group developing learning technology interoperability specifications. Since its formation in 1997 it has become an independent, subscription-based non-profit organisation that recently launched a subsidiary, IMS Europe. In 1997 work similar to the ARIADNE metadata developments was taking place in the IMS Consortium. When both groups became aware of each others existence, they decided to make a joint submission to the IEEE LTSC. That was the so-called ‘base-document’, which is the origin of the current LOM specification. The IMS metadata include educational objectives, prerequisites and a comment for the pedagogical method, intended by the resource. According to Prof. Erik Duval, President of the ARIADNE foundation, only LOM enables end users to identify and locate in a more effective and efficient way those learning objects that my be of relevance to them.
http://www.imsglobal.org
6
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
ARIADNE
The Association of Remote Instructional Authoring and Distribution Networks for Europe organisation started as a European research and development work on the sharing and reuse of educational documents. It aims providing a mechanism for sharing learning resources. Its most significant contribution has been the development of a learning content metadata scheme, which was harmonised with the IMS metadata specification and submitted jointly to IEEE. Ariadne also worked out special metadata categories for pedagogical resources. Metadata are structured hierarchical, there are schemata, sub-schemata and elements of data. Last ones can have the attribute mandatory, optional or conditional.
http://www.ariadne-eu.org
EUN
The European Schoolnet is a unique international partnership of 26 Ministries of Education developing learning for schools, teachers and pupils across Europe and beyond. EUN provides insight into the use of ICT (information and communications technology) in Europe for policy-makers and education professionals. This goal is achieved through communication and information exchange at all levels of school education using innovative technologies, and by acting as a gateway to national and regional school networks.
http://www.eun.org
AICC
The Aviation Industry CBT (Computer-Based Training) Committee is an international association that develops guidelines for the aviation industry in the development, delivery and evaluation of CBT and related training technologies. The AICC works with IEEE, IMS and ADL.
In 1993 AICC produced its best-known CBT guideline, which specified a standard mechanism for computer-managed instruction (CMI). CMI is the predecessor of today’s learning management system (LMS).
The term standard as it is commonly used actually refers to accredited standards, which have been processed and approved by an accredited standard body such as ISO or the IEEE. There are three major bodies in the world that are viewed as responsible for technology standard accreditation: IEEE-Standards Association, ISO and CEN / ISSS which is responsible for accredited standards for the European Union. SCORM as Norm of the initiative ADL comes from the
7
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
Department of Defence in USA, tracking a very consequent format. On European level there’s an attempt to find methods for standardization that allow and support more individuality. Especially the organisation of CEN tries to convert this idea.
http://www.aicc.org
3 General survey of current trends concerning standardization and quality of didactical concepts
This section gives an overview of current efforts concerning the integration of pedagogical and didactic data into e-learning specifications. The most prominent one is the Learning Object Metadata, the first accredited e-learning standard. Since it has been integrated into the SCORM it is of special importance for the SELEAC Project, and thus is discussed here in some detail. It is followed by an overview of some points that appear to be problematic from a pedagogic point of view. Some conclusions are drawn for the CustomDP project. Subsequently, some ideas of the ARIADNE Foundation concerning didactical metadata will be presented. Furthermore two initiatives will be introduced that specifically dedicate themselves to aspects not or hardly covered by the LOM: the Education Modelling Language (EML) and the Essener-Lern-Modell (ELM). Finally an Environment for Editing and Management of Educational Metadata (EM2) and the new draft of the UK Learning Object Metadata Core (UK LOM Core) is mentioned to get more ideas that can be transfered to CustumDP.
3.1 Learning Object Metadata (LOM)
LOM is a specification of the IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee, derived from work done by ARIADNE and IMS. LOM is the world’s first accredited standard for e-learning. It is the basis of the current IMS Learning Resource Meta-Data Information Model which has been included in the SCORM.
LOM has been devised to enable end users to identify and locate in a more effective and efficient way those learning objects that may be of relevance to
8
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
them. It provides a set of meta-data categories with which learning objects (LOs) can be characterised.
The general structure of the LOM specification consists of nine categories that group characteristics of learning objects:1
1 The General category groups general information that describes the learning object as a whole. This category includes elements that indicate an identifier for the learning object, its title, the language it uses to communicate to the end user, a textual description, keywords, etc.
2 The Lifecycle category comprises the features related to the history and current state of the LO. It includes information on the status and version of the LO, as well as on contributions of individuals and organisations.
3 The Meta-Metadata category groups information about the descriptive metadata itself. This category mirrors the lifecycle one in the context of the metadata: for instance, the origin of the metadata description, as well as its potential validator, etc. can be identified.
4 The Technical category specifies the technical requirements and characteristics of the learning object. This includes data elements that cover its format, size, location, as well as technical requirements for using the LO.
5 The Educational category is devoted to the educational and pedagogical characteristics of the learning object. These data elements indicate:
a. the interactivity type, i.e. whether the LO is more suited for active or expository learning b. the resource type, like for instance exercise, simulation, questionnaire, etc. c. the interactivity level (on a scale from low to high) d. the semantic density (idem) e. the intended end user role (teacher, author, learner or manager) f. the context (school, higher education, training or other) g. the typical age range h. the difficulty level (again on a scale from low to high)
1 This overview follows: Duval, Erik. “Learning Technology Standardization: Too Many? Too Few?” Reader zum Workshop Standardisierung im eLearning: Begleitveranstaltung zum Förderprogramm Neue Medien in der Bildung 10./11. April 2002 Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main, pp. 5-13.
9
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
i. a description of how the learning object is to be used in education or training j. the language of the intended end user (which may be different from the language of the learning object itself, for instance in the context of language learning)
It will become clear in section 3.2 that the category “educational” has been criticised as not being sufficient for modelling pedagogical data.
6 The Rights category groups the intellectual property rights and conditions of use for the learning object. This includes information on whether or not any costs are involved with the use of the learning object, and whether or not any copyright restrictions apply.
7 The Relation category combines features that define the relationship between the learning object and other related learning objects. This category includes information on the nature of the relationship (e.g. ‘is based on’, ‘is part of’, etc.).
8 The Annotation category provides comments on the educational use of the learning object and provides information on when and by whom the comments were created.
9 The Classification category describes the LO in relation to a particular classification system. The classification category may be used to provide certain types of extensions to the LOMv1.0, as any classification system can be referenced.
Collectively, these categories form the LOM standard.
3.2 Limitations of LOM and conclusions for CustomDP
3.2.1 Ambiguous Categories
One problem that arises with the LOM standard stems from the fact that categories that are provided by LOM are not unambiguous. The category learning resource type (cf. section 3.1, point 5 b) is an example.
Although there may be no full consensus yet on how many types of educational material there are, there is a need for providing an appropriate classification. In LOM this issue is covered with the category Learning Resource Type for which a vocabulary of the following values has been defined: Diagram, Exam, Exercise, Experiment, Figure, Graph, Index, Narrative Text, Problem Statement, Questionnaire, Self Assessment, Simulation, Slide, Table.
10
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
This vocabulary has some weaknesses:
• The values seem to be a somewhat arbitrary selection compared with the variety of values used by exchange platforms for learning material. A synopsis of values for Learning Resource Type as used in different project specifications is available at http://nm.wu-wien.ac.at/e-learning/lr- types.htm; included in the appendix of this paper.
• Since the values are not clearly defined, there is no guidance on how to use them. Yet some of the values are ambiguous: For example, what exactly is the difference between a figure and a diagram? Or between a problem statement and a narrative text? Different interpretations may be affected by cross-cultural influences.
• LOM’s value space for the characterisation of Learning Resource Type mixes o media type (graph, figure, slide) o educational material type (narrative text, problem statement) o educational activity type (self-assessment, questionnaire)
For media type it is proposed to have a predefined set of media types based on the Dublin Core Type Vocabulary. A list with terms was developped, recommended to be used as values for describing the Resource Type elements: Collection, Dataset, Event, Image, InteractiveResource, Service, Sound, Text, PhysicalObject, StillImage, MovingImage). The definitions of the DCMI Type Vocabulary (2003-11-19) can checked up in the internet 2.
Each of these media types could then be classified by differentiating the media types in educational material types. Such an approach has been applied by the Digital Library of the Florida International University and is thus presented here as one possible example. Following educational material types are listed under the media type text:3 abstract, article, commentary, correspondence, postcard, dictionary or encyclopaedia, fact sheet, proceedings, journal, monograph, newsletter, newspaper, poem, script, doctoral thesis, master’s thesis.
The category educational activity type would include characterisations as these: case study, exam, exercise, experiment, group work, lecture, presentation, project, etc.
Conclusions for the CustomDP project:
2 Cf. http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-type-vocabulary/ 3 Cf. http://nm.wu-wien.ac.at/e-learning/lr-types.htm or appendix 1 of this document
11
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
The vocabulary of values for the category Learning Resource Type (corresponding to the ‘resourceType’ in the document type definition of CustomDP4) should be as comprehensive as necessary to cover all relevant information.
The vocabulary of values for the category Learning Resource Type should be defined comprehensively and should be documented accordingly in a ‘manual’ or ‘guide’ providing all necessary information, illustrated by examples where necessary. Such a documentation would provide a set of rules and guidelines that serve as a consensus on how to use a given category and its associated values in order to avoid ambiguities. On the one hand such a documentation would enable content authors to characterise their content/LO as comprehensively and precisely as necessary. On the other hand instructors seeking to aggregate a more complex unit from a variety of SCOs can be confident that there are no diverging interpretations for a given category.
It may be most useful to separate the categories media type, educational material type, and educational activity type into distinct categories drawing on existing vocabulary by Dublin Core where available. Instructors would benefit greatly by being able to explicitly search for SCOs within these three categories when assembling aggregations. This way, it would be possible, for example, to search for a specific media type, say, ‘graph,’ in order to aggregate a set of the educational activity ‘exercise’, in which a number of graphs are to be interpreted by prospective students in order to deepen their understanding of certain phenomena and their graphical representation. More searchable categories allow for a finer granularity when building aggregations.
3.2.2 Neglected Meta-Data Categories in LOM
Two fields, which educators regularly consider when designing educational activities, are especially important: educational objectives and method of instruction. LOM does not provide either category.
Educational objective refers to teaching-related objectives instructors aim to achieve by using the provided educational material in an educational environment. On an abstract level the types of objectives relate to basic functions of instruction such as:
• motivation • communication of information • information processing
4 Cf. DOHA System: wp02_System_updates/CustomDP documents/Sc025.dtd
12
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
• information storing an recalling • information application and transfer • controlling and supervising learning, etc.
Note that this concept of educational objectives is taken to mean abstract educational functions rather than – probably more intuitive – content-oriented goals of instruction like, for instance, choosing the right type of paper for poster.
Method of instruction distinguishes between directed learning, self-directed learning, and collaborative learning. Directed learning occurs in an instructor- centred environment, the learning situation is rather simple and all information is provided by the instructor (“learning by telling”), the learner’s role being rather passive. Self-directed learning refers to an environment in which learners have a more active role (“learning by doing”) while the instructor’s changes from ‘leader’ to that of ‘facilitator.’ Collaborative learning can be considered as a team-centred approach aiming at addressing complex learning situations in which reflection and discussion play a prominent role and where the instructor acts as coach and moderator. So these three basic learning and teaching methods strongly imply changing roles for both teacher and learner.
Method of instruction Teacher role Learner role
directed learning active leader rather passive ‘consumer’
self-directed learning facilitator active recipient
collaborative learning coach, moderator agent, committed to active acquisition of knowledge
LOM does not provide any means to specify the educational objective in the form depicted above. Furthermore it lacks the means to account for the method of instruction, and it does not provide a vocabulary which is rich enough for describing contributor roles of persons engaged in educational activities.
Conclusion for the CustomDP Project
How does CustomDP address the topic ‘educational objective’? The DTD currently used by the CustomDP project provides two separate metadata entries related to learning objective: ‘learningGoal’, and ‘edulntention’.
13
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
The category ‘learningGoal’ provided by the DTD is designed as an XML element – a metadata field – whose content model specifies PCDATA5, i.e. appropriate text to be entered by an author; consequently, no formal vocabulary is specified. In fields with free text any description can be entered. As thus textual description is not formalised, it is difficult to search and retrieve for an instructor for terms and concepts different from those which the author originally entered. Also an open description is not restricted to learning objectives from a pedagogical perspective.
The second metadata category provided by the CustomDP DTD that relates to learning objectives, and which was mentioned above, is designed as the attribute value ‘eudIntention’ of another XML element termed ‘scoinfo’. Its two possible values (‘theroretical’ and ‘practical’) are very general categories.
A defined set of values mapping learning objectives from a pedagogical point of view would enable instructors to aggregate SCOs according to pedagogical functions, for example to focus on information transfer. A possible vocabulary could include values such as information storing and recalling, information application and transfer, controlling and supervising learning.
In the same way, if it was possible to map instructional methods with CustomDP metadata, it would enable instructors first, to focus on methodological aspects of teaching and teaching material, and second to build more coherent aggregations for SCOs. In traditional classroom settings, teaching based on deliberate methodological considerations and decisions is a matter of course. It would certainly enhance web-based teaching/learning if the same methodological-didactic considerations were available in this field, too.
3.3 Ariadne
The plan of Ariadne was to establish an Europe-wide pool of information with educational material. Also, lots of tools were developed to produce and administrate multimedial learning systems. The main goals of Ariadne are
- to index material as simple as possible - the search for pedagogical material should be as simple and efficient as possible
5 parsed character data in XML speak (complies with „text“)
14
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
- the metadata-system shall be implemented in a multilingual and multicultural system. This is ensured through a neutral language concerning the original document as well concerning the language of the metadata.
The following table shows the ARIADNE-categories with their elements (if they are mandatory, optional or conditional) and some comments by ARIADNE.
Table : Categorizations of ARIADNE (according to Redeker, G., S. 13-15)
ARIADNE Name Explication and Obligatory or ARIANDE comment values optional General Information about the resource obligatory Semantic attributes obligatory Pedagogical attributes obligatory End User Type Learner or Author obligatory Document Type Expository or active optional Expository documents are received by the learner. Active documents demand an output (as a text or through manipulating the Interface). Document Format e.g. hypertext and optional Video for expository material. Exercises and simulation, questionnaire for active material Usage Remarks Hint for the usage of optional the material put in by the metadata-author. Didactical Context Description of the optional learner target group (choice of a list) Course level Numeric value, This value is formed e.g. with independent of a combination of country national educational code and national school system level. Difficulty level Low / medium / high optional In relationship to the school level Interaction quality of Low / medium / high optional semantic density The semantic density refers to expository documents, the level of interactivity to active resources Pedagogical Duration Estimation of minutes obligatory needed by an average learner to work through the resources Technical attributes obligatory Conditions for usage obligatory Meta-Metadata obligatory Annotations optional
15
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
As advantages of the ARIADNE-System Redeker sees it as favourably that some elements are generated automatically, that the predetermined vocabulary support stability and also that the further development occurs with IMS and IEEE.
Conclusion for the CustomDP Project
A stimulus for CustomDP could be to add information about the document type in terms of expository documents received by the learner and active documents that demand an output). This is a quite rudimental information within the LOM-category “interactivity”, but could be helpful for learners and teachers to filter material for different didactical needs.
Also some more information about the target group e.g. particulars about the previous knowledge (standard of knowledge). In CustomDP now there is information about the typical age range (students, young Workers elder Workers, other), that could be enlarged.
The idea of a Numeric value for courses independent of national could be attractive amongst other things in the course of quality assurance, although it is not very realistic in view of the different educational systems.
3.4 Educational Modelling Language (EML)
Work on EML started at the Educational Technology Expertise Centre of the Open University of The Netherlands in 1998. EML 1.0 was released in December 2000 as an open specification. It is based on a meta-data model aiming at modelling the pedagogic data of units of learning. Embedding LOs in a didactic context is at the centre of EML. The meta-model consists of four components:
• The Theories of Learning and Instruction describe learning and teaching theories, principles and models. Available categories for classifying theories are empiricist, rationalist, pragmatist/socio-historic, eclectic.
• The Learning Model describes ways of consensus-based learning. The Learning model consists of the description of Interactions in given learning situations.
• The Domain Model maps the application domain for which learning processes are initiated.
16
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
• The Units of Study Model describes how learning units can be devised with given learning theories, learning models and domain models.
The Units of Study Model shows, how the learning units can be designed, if the other categories are known. Table 2 summarizes the most important elements for describing:
Table 2: Elements of EML
Element Description Unit-of-study Specification of different granularity (Curriculum, Course, learning unit) Metadata metadata Roles Roles of actors within the learning process. Differentiating between learner and staff. Learning-objectives Learning goals / desired output of the learning process Prerequisites Precondition of a learning unit (characteristic of persons, activity) Content Contents, described by activities and environment Activity Separate steps of a learning process Environment Describing the learning situation with different objects (tools-, questionnaires-, knowledge-, communication-, index-objects) Method Flow of the learning process (sequence, conditions), allocation of rules
Conclusions for CustomDP
Although the EML-Model has been criticised missing integration in a process model and missing analysis of context, missing mapping to other standards (SCORM) etc. , it provides representation of content and pedagogical concepts. For Custom DP the idea to integrate more information concerning prerequisites and environment should be discussed further.
3.5 Essener-Lern-Modell (ELM)
The ELM is a generic process model. It ensures the quality of the development process of learning environments on different levels concerning didactic, economic and professional aspects. The ELM combines content components (LOs) with didactic components (description of contexts, learning objectives, methods). The model is a modular system supporting development processes as well as the system’s use on different levels: the support of curriculum design (C-level), the development of learning sequences (D-level), and the
17
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
development of learning units (E-level) (Adelsberger, Bick, Pawlowski 2000; Pawlowski 2001).
Table 3: Overview about the content and planned results of the levels of ELM
Module Result Implementation
ELM-C CURRICULUM ARIS process Contain the design of education through • Network of learning goals models / data an analysis of the context, the • Learning processes models development of the curriculum and the • Course structures organisation of courses.
ELM-D LEARNING SEQUENCES ARIS process Contain the development of learning • knowledge base models / data sequences (e.g. courses, lectures) • methods base models / XML • user model ELM-E LEARNING UNIT ARIS process Regards the design of separate learning • communication models / data units as smallest usable units. With this • presentation6 models / XML step components of communication, • evaluation7 presentation and evaluation are designed.
The Essener Learning Model includes technical, organisational and didactical aspects and integrates them in one framework. The Methods of the Essener Learning Model are shown in Figure 2.
6 Design of presentation concern the production of learning contents and their presentation. For the concrete content in ELM is suggested a representation through LMML (other formats are possible). One learning unit is representated as LMML document and exist of a group of media. This group subsume media objects belonging together. One mediaobject correspond assets of SCORM. LMML-types are: paragraph, conclusion, definition, example, exercise, motivation, remark, illustration, task, solution, bibliography
7 The following mechanisms are suggested to support teachers and learners to estimate learning success: questionnaires, interviews (synchronous objects of communication), technics for observing (tracking information) , tests, exercises (integrating external applications), hints (to present events)
18
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
Figure 2: Main elements of a method schema of the ELM8
context
consists of setting space
is used in time
is assigned to is suggested for course METHOD objectives
consists of acts in is assigned to learning unit phase agent
determines
presentation evaluation communication role
The following explications also are taken by Pawlowski, Jan M., 2001:
The modelling of methods aims at mapping didactic knowledge to allow reusability and adaptations of methods to learning content and participating roles. The formal modelling of learning methods pursues the following goals:
• Description of a method: A learning method is modelled in such a way that users can follow the necessary working steps, the objects of information and experiences. The formal description allows for a comparison of methods. A purely textual, non-formal description leads to a differing terminology and thus to misleading interpretations.
8 Taken from Pawlowski, Jan M. Das Essener-Lern-Modell (ELM): Ein Vorgehensmodell zur Entwicklung computerunterstützter Lernumgebungen. Diss. Universität Essen, 2001, p.165
19
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
• Simplified concept and implementation: The model of a method describes substantial aspects of a learning method. These descriptions can be seen as an aid for implementation. The method model is structured into phases which can serve as a basis for the navigation or for a logical sequence of a course.
• Use of templates: Reusable templates can be designed for a learning method. A template may include both the logical sequence of a method and design aspects. They are intended as an aid for authors.
• Knowledge basis: The model of a method comprises experiences that have been made with a method in a given context. Thus the model serves as a tool for authors to select a learning method.
Modelling pedagogical concepts mainly consist of three components in ELM:
Context Modelling: Learner cannot be separated from the context. The context includes the environment of the learner (e.g., institution, organization, company) and the learner’s experiences and knowledge. The context is analysed on tow levels: A description of the learner’s characterics and preferences and the organization the learner is involved in.
Content Modelling: The content of a learning environment is described on three levels: learning sequences, composite leaning units and learning units. These levels correspond to the structure of SCORM (Content, Block, Sharable Content Object).
Didactical Modelling: Didactical concepts are directly related to the learner (actor), learning objectives, learning setting and the description of a method. The description of a method consists of phases (activities) which can be grouped to phase blocks. Furthermore, experiences and the usability of a method for certain content, settings, or learning objectives is described.
The information model9 “Curriculum” (table 3) and the information “Model for methods” (table 4) give some examples for differentiate information for different categories.
Table 3: Information Model “Curriculum” (Pawlowski, Jan M., 2001, S. 138)
9 an information model summarizes the categories and the attributes of specifications, but not the implementation. That means that individual rules, sepcifications and values can be defined individually. On this way it’s possible to adopt the categories to specific projekt needs (Pawlowski, 2001, p. 129).
20
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
Category Description General data Dublin Core Dublin Core-Elements for curriculum Reference Reference to another information model Learning goals Name of the goal Name of a learning goal Dimension Dimension of a goal: cognitive, affective, social complexity Complexity of a learning goal Kind Kind of a learning goal: facts / context free rules. Context depending rules, problem solving, recognition of pattern, complex situations Abstraction Level of abstraction of a learning goal Relation Relation to other learning goals Catalogue Integration in a catalogue of learning goals Status Status of a learning goal Appraisal Appraisal of a learning goal Learning object Reference to the learning object Reference Reference to other specifications Programms Description Description of a programme Learning goals Learning goals of a programme Competence Competences of a programme Certification Certification of a programme Reference Reference to other specifications Competences Competence Name, description, content of a competence Learning goal Reference to learning goal Certificate Certificates for programmes / competences Learning object Reference to learning object Reference Reference to other specifications
Table 4: Information Model for methods (the other two main components of ELM are the components context and content, s.a.)
Category Description General data Dublin Core Dublin Core-Elements for learning unit Reference Reference to another information modell Description Name Name of the method Source Source of the method Recommendation Recommendation for context, learning objectives, content, actor Template Reference to a template, template format Setting
21
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
Context Reference to context specification Location Location, Distribution Time Period, temporal restrictions Phases Phase Name of a phase of a method Kind Kind of a phase (grouping to phase blocks) Sequence Relation to other phases, sequence, schedule, sequence operator (linear, parallel, free) Runs Repetitions of phase Interaction Description Description of intended / possible interactions Role Role of participating actors, description of role Type Type of interaction Topology Unidirectional, bidirectional Kind synchronous, asynchronous Applications Communication applications / systems Reference Reference to external interaction specification Presentation Type Type of presentation object Applications Presentation application Reference Reference to external presentation specification Evaluation Kind Kind of evaluation (Test, Scenario,…) Applications Reference to evaluation application Evaluation Reference to learning object evaluation
Conclusions for Custom DP
The EML model could be helpful to map pedagogical specifications and other existing standards into a common framework.
Further on it inspires to integrate differentiated information about some categories like - learning goal (kind of learning goal, relation to other learning goals, integration in a catalogue of learning goals) - Competences (part of a certification, references to other learning objects) - Setting (reference to context: e.g. which information was produced in which special context for which target group, information about distribution: e.g. information about other users, their goals and their experiences)
22
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
3.6 Features of the Educational meta-data management toolkit EM2
EM2: An Environment for Editing and Management of Educational Metadata10
EM2 aims to facilitate the effective and efficient search, accessibility and navigation of educational resources through e-learning applications and services
Services supported by EM2:
- Creation of educational metadata documents: The proposed environment can offer a user-friendly interface with the ability to choose the desired metadata specifications form a pre-selection list.
- Creation of semantic educational metadata: The proposed tool provides the feature of data validation wherever this is possible.
- Mapping of metadata specifications: The proposed tool provides the ability to create and maintain metadata documents, and to map each document to any other number of related content metadata offering harmonisation.
- Support of all educational metadata specifications: The proposed tool provides the ability, to the vertical leaner manager, to import in the pre- selected list all the newly created educational metadata specifications. In result, educational metadata editors can select their preferred standard form an updated list. In addition, the tool allows creation of a new standard by the user, by extending / modifying the ones already available.
- Metadata document management: The proposed tool offers the ability to manage the exiting metadata documents. Repository managers can find, update, delete, sort and group metadata documents through multiple document selections, multiple editing in metadata documents and with the help of a graphical interface including drag & drop features. Therefore the metadata application is enhanced form a simple educational-metadata authoring-tool to an educational-metadata management-too.
Conclusions for CustomDP
It could be discussed if it’s possible to offer features worked out by EM2 such as e.g. the creation and modification of educational metadata, data and structure
10 http://ifets.ieee.org (Educational Technology & Society 5 (4) 2002, ISSN 1436-4522
23
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
validation, mapping between specifications and creation of these maps. A special feature is the providing of metadata management features, enabling the user to manipulate (update, edit, sort, search) existing metadata documents.
EM2 can be used as a standalone tool in real-world scenarios or it can be integratie to more complex e-learning scenarios. External agents can access and benefit from the EM2 services in an automated way, without the need for human participation.
3.7 UK Learning Object Metadata Core
The aim of the UK LOM Core is to identify common practice and provide guidelines for metadata implementors, creators and users. The UK LOM Core is one of many application profiles of the IEEE LOM standard. It narrows down the metadata standard for use in a particular area; UK education in this case. Since the profile is designed for all of the UK, it is fairly general, and can be profiled in its turn for a specific application.
Therefore the new draft of the UK Learning Object Metadata Core (UK LOM Core) of May 200411 is worth to be scanned for ideas suitable to transfer to CustomDP. The part “Educational” of the Core Elements and Implementaion Guidelines should be compared with the actual elements of Custom DP. The document is available in the internet adress http://www.cetis.ac.uk/content2/20040506013116/printArticle
Conclusions for CustomDP
Especially more information to Learning context and to the Interactivity type seems to be useful. The appendix of the draft contains a wide range of UK and European Type and Learning Resource Type vocabularies, that also can be used to give more ideas to differentiate categories in CustomDP e.g. the fiel “Content includes” of the Meatdata form.
11 This version of the IEEE LOM standard is scheduled to become a full release in the summer, after a consultation period.
24
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
4 Summary of the suggestions for modifications of metadata within CustomDP
4.1 Metadata in CustomDP
The Metadata in CustumDP are based on SCORM / LOM. Although some didactical metadata exist in LOM, the metadata should be complemented to make the use of Learning objects more variegated, easier and more efficient for teachers and learners and not to forget for authors.
General it makes sense to take over as many ideas as possible of proved standardization organisations and recommendations of expert communities. As the systems developed by Dublin Core Initiative does not contain elements of pedagogical relevance and also other organisations do not have models for ‘the one best way’ especially concerning didactical aspects, every situation must be analysed a new according to the need of the different context and different target groups.
Concerning the pedagogical perspective the most promising model to integrate content and didactical metadata seems to be the Essen Learning Model (ELM). This model could be inspiring for the design of education general (curriculum and organisation of courses), the development of learning sequences (courses, lectures) as well as for the design of separate learning units.
4.2 Synopsis of metadata in LOM and CustomDP
The actual demand for Custom DP is
- to define elements understandable for everyone,
- do define certain values within the categories.
Finally this should help to account better learner’s demand, skills and learning as well as teacher’s demand to realise different educational styles.
This document tried to give an overview about some existing standards and approaches to develop reasonable metadata. On this common ground in a further step the actual existing metadata of Custom DP should be compared with existing suggestions for didactical metadata.
25
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
Therefore the table “Synopsis of metadata in LOM and CustomDP” gives a synopsis of
• the educational category in LOM (with explanations) • the corresponding categories in the SCO-DTD (with explanations) 12 • the corresponding CustomDP metadata fields in DB API13 • comment / suggestion for enrichment on base of the above described ideas of existing models
The table is set in the appendix 2.
Outlook
On base of this document the actual draft of the “Metadata form” document14 should be discussed to change or complement the categories ‘General’, ‘Meta- Metadata’, ‘Resource Type’ and especially the category ‘Educational’.
12 according to DOHA System: wp_02_System_updates/CustomDP documents/Sco25.dtd 13 according to DOHA System: wp_02_System_updates/New workflow/Comments_to_metadata_elements.xls 14 DOHA System: wp_02_System_updates/New workflow/proposals_for_sco_metadata.htm
26
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
Glossary
ARIADNE Alliance of Remote Instructional Authoring and Distributed Networking for Europe URI: http://www.ariadne-eu.org/ DCMI Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, It is an open forum engaged in the development of interoperable online metadata standards that support a broad range of purposes and business models. URI: http://dublincore.org/ ELM Essener-Lern-Modell (Essen Learning Model) EML Educational Modelling Language URI: http://eml.ou.nl/eml-ou-nl.htm IEEE/LTSC Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Learning Technology Standards Committee URI: http://ltsc.ieee.org/ IMS Instructional Management Systems Global Learning Consortium URI: http://www.imsglobal.org/ LO Learning object LOM The full name is “Standard for Information Technology – Education and Training Systems -- Learning Objects and Metadata,” but is usually shortened to “Learning Object Metadata” URI: http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/index.html SCORM Sharable Content Object Reference Model. Specification developed by ADL. It incorporates results from other standardisation initiatives (ARIADNE, IMS). SCORM currently has the best chances to become an accredited international standard. SCO Sharable content object. Within the framework of the SCORM, SCO is the term for what is generally called a learning object (LO).
27
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
References
Adelsberger H.H., Bick M., Pawlowski, J.M. (2000), The Essen Learning Model – A Step towards a standard Model ol Learning Processes. In Bordeau, J., Heller, R. (Eds.): Proc. of ED-MEDIA 2000, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Charlottesville, VA:AACE.
Duval, Erik. “Learning Technology Standardization: Too Many? Too Few?“ In: Reader zum Workshop Standardisierung im eLearning: Begleitveranstaltung zum Förderprogramm Neue Medien in der Bildung 10./11. April 2002 Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main, pp. 5-13.
Fallon, C. , Sharon B. E-Learning Standards: A Guide to Purchasing, Developing, and Deploying Standards-Conformant e-Learning. Boca Raton: St. Lucie Press, 2003.
Pawlowski, Jan M., Adelsberger H.H. „Standardisierung von Lerntechnologien.“ Wirtschaftsinformatik 43 (2001) 1: 57-68.
Pawlowski, Jan M. „Zu Stand und Perspektiven der Standardisierung im E- learning.“ Interview conducted by Joscha Remus 22.11.2002. (Available online at: http://www.global-learning.de/g-learn/cgi- bin/gl_userpage.cgi?StructuredContent=m060810)
Pawlowski, Jan M. “Das Essener-Lern-Modell (ELM): Ein Vorgehensmodell zur Entwicklung computerunterstützter Lernumgebungen. Dissertation. Dezember 2001. S. 115-156.
Redeker, G. „Didaktische Ontologien – Stand der internationalen Forschung“. Available online at: http://www.bonn.iz-soz.de/wiss-org/beitraege/Redeker.doc
Simon, B. „Do e-learning standards meet their challenges?“ Reader zum Workshop Standardisierung im eLearning: Begleitveranstaltung zum Förderprogramm Neue Medien in der Bildung 10./11. April 2002 Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main, pp. 14-22.
28
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
Appendix 1: Survey on Vocabulary Usage of Learning Resource Type
This is a survey on the vocabulary usage of the attribute “learning resource type” of exchange platforms for educational material.
ARIADNE Metadata Field Document Format Vocabulary expositive documents: essays, video clips, all kinds of graphical material and hypertext documents active documents: simulations, questionnaires and exercises This field takes a value from a list whose content depends on the document type. (This field can take one of two values: 'expositive' or 'active'. Expositive documents are typically used in learning by reading or by being told, while active documents require the production of semantically meaningful output by the learner, either in the form of text input or trough the reasoned manipulation of the application interface.
Florida International University – Digital Library Metadata Field Resource Type Vocabulary Image: Activity, Animal, Antiquities, Art object, Book illustration, Building, Event, People, Place, Plant, Vehicle Sound: Commentary, Interview, Music, News story, Speech Text: Abstract, Article, Commentary, Correspondence, Postcard, Dictionary or Encyclopedia, Fact sheet, Proceedings, Journal, Monograph, Newsletter, Newspaper, Poem, Script, Doctoral Thesis, Master's Thesis Video: Art Film, Athletic event, Documentary, News story, Performance, Dramatic, Performance, Musical, Speech
Gateway to Educational Material Metadata Field Resource Type Vocabulary Activity, Artefact, Best practice, Catalog record, Collection, Community, Course, Curriculum, Curriculum support, Data set, Educator's guide, Environment, Event, Form, Image set, Lesson plan, Literature, Primary source, Project, Realia, Reference, Research study, Secondary source, Serial, Service, Story, Study guide, Tool, Unit of instruction
Learning Objects Metadata Metadata Field Learning Resource Type Vocabulary Diagram, Exam, Exercise, Experiment, Figure, Graph, Index, Narrative Text, Problem Statement, Questionnaire, Self Assessment, Simulation, Slide, Table
ILUMINA – Educational Resources for Science & Mathematics
29
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
Metadata Field Learning Resource Type Vocabulary Lesson, Presentation, Lab, Assessment, Teacher Tool, Syllabus, Example, Exercise, Course, Project, Learner Tool, Book, Demonstration, Simulation, Dataset, Lesson Plan, Manager Tool Media Type Audio & Video Files, Web Pages, Executable Files, Images, Chemical Structures, Word Processing Documents, Portable Document Applications, Presentation Files
MERLOT Metadata Field Type of Material Vocabulary Animation, Collection, Drill and Practice, Lecture/Presentation, Quiz/Test, Reference Material, Simulation, Case Study, Tutorial
EducaNext Metadata Field Media Type Vocabulary The vocabulary "Text, Image (Video), Sound, Data Set, Software, Interactive, Physical Object, Unknown, Other" was replaced by an automated MIME Type detection. Metadata Field Learning Resource Type Vocabulary Educational Material: refers to sharable chunks of reusable learning content. Educational material can be any support material, which can be used in an educational activity.
Educational Activities: have properly defined objectives, identify the educator(s) involved and take place according to a schedule at a specific (virtual) meeting place. In Universal educational activity refers to distributed educational and training activities which follows these prerequisites. Metadata Field Educational Material Type | Educational Activity Type Vocabulary Educational Material Type: Case Study, Case Study Guide, Collection, Data Set, Demonstration, Educator’s Guide, Exam, Exercise, Experiment, Figure, Lecture Notes, Narrative Text, Presentation, Problem Statement, Questionnaire, Recorded Lecture, Reference Material, Research Paper, Research Study, Self Assessment, Simulation, Text Book, Thesis, Tutorial Educational Activity Type: Case Study, Course, Course Unit, Exam, Exercise, Experiment, Group Work, Lecture, Presentation, Project
EDNA Metadata Field DC.Type Vocabulary DCMI (http://dublincore.org/documents/2000/07/11/dcmi-type-vocabulary/) Edna Document: Bibliography, Dissertation, Guidelines, Index, Manuscript, Policy, Presentation, Reference, Report, Research Report, Serial Edna Curriculum: Activity, Assessment, Course, Curriculum/Syllabus, Exemplar, Lesson Plan, Online Project, Training Package, Unit/module
Source: http://nm.wu-wien.ac.at/e-learning/lr-types.htm
30
Fraunhofer IAO - Seleac 2003-4715 / 001-001
Appendix 2: Synopsis of educational metada in LOM and CustomDP
Comments LOM Explanation SCO DTD Explanation CustomDP metadata fields in Educational Empty element: DB API Category educationalData 4. Educational, characteristics commemts_to_metadata_element Attributes and Values s.xls (Timo H. Jarvinen, 14.5.04) 1. Interactivity i.e. more suited for ------Integration of information type active or expository “expository” or “active” learning 2. Learning e.g. exercise, Element: resourceType Describes the SCO content in general. A LearningResourceType Categorization resource type simulation, attribute: type unspecified, SCO may include different content types questionnaire narrativeText, exercise, and, in such case, the element must be media type questionnaire, slideshow, repeated once for each type. E.g., if the educational material type table, exam, experiment, SCO includes both narrative text and educational activity type problemStatement, exercise, tow resource Type elements For elements of media type selfAssessment, caseStudy, are to be included in the document, for vocabulary of DublinCore simulation, the first one, value “narrativeText” is could be used. frequentlyAskedQuestions, chosen for the type attribute, and the diagram, figure, graph, value “exercise” for the second one. index, other 3. Interactivity on a scale from low interactivity: Defines the degree of interactivity. InteractivityLevel Difficult to find a reference level to high veryLow, low, medium, high, point. veryHigh 4. Semantic Stands for the ------Meaning not clear, difficult to density relation of content find an understandable complexity to definition as reference point content extension 5. Intended end teacher, author, userRole: describes the principal environment IntendedUserRole More information about the user role learner or manager teacher, learner, author, within which the learning and use of Roles, e.g. Learner: beginner / other this SCO is intended to take place intermediate / advanced. From the trait / not from the trait. 6. Context school, higher learningContext: principal environment within which the LearningContext Perhaps numeric value for education, training vocationalTraining, learner courses (developing codes to university, uniPostgrade be independent from national continuousFormation other educational systems)
7. Typical age learnerAge: age of typical intended learners TypicalLearnerAge Other information about level range students, youngWorkers, of experiences and previous elderWorkers, other knowledge could be interesting (s. 5) 8. Difficulty level scale from low to difficulty: Describes how hard it is to work Difficulty Difficult to find a reference high veryEasy, easy, medium, through this resource for the typical point difficult, veryDifficult target audience 9. Description description of how ------Key words and specification of the LO is to be used learning goals: in education or Educational objectives and training functional learning goals (content) 10. Language language of Element metalang The language of metadata and the --- On this way SCOs can be used intended user Element bodylang language of body are separated for directed use in different elements. countries. 11. Typical Learning -- learningTime Desribes the approximate or typical time TypicalLearningTime Difficult to find a common Time to work with this resource. Time is given sense about this in minutes .
12. Not as category in --- Element: readingGuide content creator can give advice to the ReadingGuides LOM Can only have two values: users of the resource The content creator can give learner, teacher advice to the users of the resources with the