Individualized E-Learning

Anastasia Cheetham

Jutta Treviranus

ATRC, University of Toronto

“AccessForAll” Approach

Each Learner Learns Differently

• Varies for the same learner: with context and discipline

• The major value added by on-line learning is the ability to personalize learning

• On-line learning gives us the ability to scale the individualized learning experience to a large group of learners

Disability in Learning Context

• Disability= Mismatch between learner needs and education offered

• Not a personal trait but artifact of relationship between the learner and the learning environment or education delivery

• Accessibility= The ability of the learning environment to adjust to the needs of all learners

Accessibility =

• Flexibility of education environment, curriculum and delivery

• Availability of adequate alternative-but-equivalent content and activities

Serving…

• Learners with disabilities• Learners with diverse learning approaches• Learners with diverse hardware and software• Learners in disabling environments• Learners with diverse cultural or linguistic

requirements• Anyone who diverges from the hypothetical norm

Must avoid..

• Stereotypes and assumptions of requirements

• Labeling or classifying users/learners in politically sensitive ways

• Collecting irrelevant private information

Must Address Critical Interoperability

• Restricted interface choices and flexibility• Each person with a disability is potentially a

unique external system that needs to interoperate• Must respond to a huge array of interfaces, which

change frequently• Essential that these personal access systems can

find information in a consistent place, stated using a consistent vocabulary, structured in a consistent way

Take advantage of ability to:

• Transform user interface of resource (display and control)

• Re-aggregation of learning resources

Advances Response to Equal Access Requirements

• Addresses legislative and regulatory requirements• Does not compromise the experience of the

student majority• Does not unduly burden education provider• Facilitates cumulative and collaborative authoring• Respects unique individual requirements (learner-

centric)

Support

• IMS recommended specifications (participation by DC, IEEE, CEN-ISSS, Cancore and other groups)

• Broad stakeholder input and review• Industry Association endorsement (ATIA)• Several implementations• Dublin Core encapsulation• CEN-ISSS application profile and binding to

LOM

Specifications to Support Accessibility(IMS “AccessForAll” Specifications):

• A way to state what you need/prefer as a learner or user (ACCLIP)

• A way to match up what you need with the right resources (ACCMD)

• Can be used independent of LIP and IEEE LOM Metadata

AccessForAll Element

Accessibility for LIP (Learner information Package) or ACCLIP

– How do I want/need things to be displayed?– How do I want/need things to be controlled?– What content alternatives, equivalents or helpful tools

do I want/need?– In what context?

Three Main Trunks

• Control: How the user interface is controlled

• Display: How the user interface and content is displayed

• Content: Specific requirements regarding content structuring, content types, and content equivalents or alternatives.

Generic and Specialized Elements

• Generic: a set of settings common to most alternative access systems within the category

• Special: settings specific to certain technologies within the category

Context

• When I’m tired

• When I’m using my portable

• When I’m at work...

Accessibility Metadata

Information about:

1. The Primary Resource– Can the display be transformed, is the method

of control flexible (EARL statement)?– Does it require hearing, site or text literacy?– What are the locations of any known

equivalents?

Accessibility Metadata

Information about..

2. The Equivalent Alternative– Pointer to the primary resource this is an equivalent for

– A description that parallels the content requirements of ACCLIP

TILE

E-learning environment that enables learner-centric transformation of learning content and delivery

• Authoring support for transformable content and Metadata

• Browser

• Learning Object Repository

• Learner Preference System

http://inclusivelearning.ca

TILE

Cross-sector, Pan-Canadian Community of Practice

• Creators of transformable learning objects and activities

• Re-users of transformable learning objects• Evaluators of the tools and the process• TILE Potlucks

TransformAble

• Modularize TILE functionality as a service that can be called by any Sakai application

• Three Modules:– PreferAble– StylAble– SensAble

Additional Requirements

• User interface and content amenable to restyling

• Metadata on resources

• Equivalent alternative content

Demonstration

• http://inclusivelearning.ca