Making Courseware Reusable Institute for Program Structures and Data Organization Universität Karlsruhe Germany Khaldoun Ateyeh, Jutta Mülle

Making Courseware Reusable

Institute for Program Structures and Data OrganizationUniversität Karlsruhe

Germany

Khaldoun Ateyeh, Jutta Mülle

www.ipd.uni-karlsruhe.de/SCORE www.vikar.de

Making Courseware Reusable 2/24

Outline

Motivation: Why Courseware Reuse

Requirements

Our ApproachAtoms, Modules, CoursesAspectsModule Types Ontology

A Course Development Process

Summary


Motivation

The development of multimedia courseware

• is a very difficult and costly process• is an interdisciplinary process• has high requirements on creativity• has to take psychological and

ergonomical aspects into consideration

Why do we need to reuse Courseware?


Motivation: Current Situation

• Current courseware tends towards a monolithic structure mixing content, structure, and presentation

• Current courseware is difficult to:• extend• maintain• update• reuse


Outline


Requirements



Summary


Requirements: Courseware

• Modular courseware• Adaptable courseware

• Adaptability to different university types • Adaptability to students • Adaptability to educators • Adaptability to learning form

• Support for cooperation• Support for open standards • Effective search and discovery mechanisms


Outline


Requirements



Summary


Our Approach

To meet our goals our approach proposes to:• Divide courseware into self-contained

learning modules • Separate different aspects such as

content, structure, and presentation• Use Standardized Metadata• Create community and domain specific

ontology


Our Approach: Atoms, Modules & Course

• The basic building blocks of our solution are learning atoms

• Each learning atom contains a specific learning unit, say a definition, an example, a proof

• Learning atoms that deal with a semantically closed set of contents form learning modules

• a course is composed of modules and deals with a specific context


Our Approach: Aspects

Which aspects should be adaptable?

Content Structure Presentation


Our Approach: Module Types

Thus, technically a learning module has three variations:

Content Structure Presentation

IntegrationModule

StructuralModule

PresentationalModule


Our Approach

Views of single authors

Presentational modulePrint view

Presentational moduleDistance learning view

Presentational modulePrint view

Group of authors

Learning Subject

Integration Module

Learning ModuleLearning Module Learning Module

Structural module Structural module Structural module

Presentational moduleFace-to-face view

cooperation + content

choice, structure, didactics

presentation


Our Approach: Metadata

• Metadata is used to describe the various aspects of a learning object

• Metadata Standards “Learning Object Metadata LOM”


Nr Gruppe Name Bemerkung Vielfältigkeit Typ Domäne

1 General Allgemeine Eigenschaften des Lernobjekts1_1 General Identifier Eindeutiger Schlüssel des Zielobjekts einfach String1_2 General Title Titel des Lernobjekts einfach LangString1_4 General Language Sprache des Lernobjekts Liste, max 10 Eintr. String ISO639/ISO31661_5 General Description Inhaltsbeschreibung des Lernobjekts Liste, max 10 Eintr. LangString1_6 General Keyword Keyword-Beschreibung der Ressource Liste, max 10 Eintr. LangString1_9 General Aggregationlevel Funktionelle Größe des Objekts einfach Vocabulary 1=Atom, 2=Modul, 4=Kurs

2 Lifecycle Lebenszyklus der Ressource2_1 Lifecycle Version Versionsnummer des LO einfach LangString2_2 Lifecycle Status Bearbeitungsstatus des LO einfach Vocabulary Draft, Final, Revised, Unavailable2_3 Lifecycle Contribute Person oder Org. die zu LO in Bezug steht Liste, max 30 Eintr.

2_3_1 Lifecycle Role Art der Beteiligung einfach Vocabulary Author, Editor, Graphical Designer, ...2_3_2 Lifecycle Entity Beteiligte Entitäten Liste, max 40 Eintr. String vCard2_3_3 Lifecycle Date Datum der Beteiligung einfach DateType

4 Technical4_1 Technical Format Datentyp der Ressource Liste, max 40 Eintr. String MIME4_2 Technical Size Größe der Ressource einfach Number4_3 Technical Location Zugriffspfad für Ressource Liste, max 10 Eintr. String

5 Educational Bildungsrelevante Eigenschaften5_1 Educational Interactivitytype Art der Interaktivität einfach Vocabulary Active, Expositive, Mixed, Undefined5_2 Educational Learningresourcetype Art der Ressource, dominanteste zuerst Liste, max 10 Eintr. Vocabulary Excercise, Simulation, Diagram, ...5_3 Educational Interactivitylevel Ebene der Interaktivität einfach very low, low, medium, high, very high5_5 Educational Intendedenduserrole Benutzerrolle Liste, max 10 Eintr. Vocabulary Teacher, Author, Learner, Manager5_6 Educational Context Zielgruppe Liste, max 4 Eintr. Vocabulary University First Cycle, ...5_9 Educational Typicallearningtime Zeit zum Bearbeiten der Ressource einfach DateType ISO8601

5_10 Educational Description Beschreibung, wie Ressource genutzt werden solleinfach LangString7 Relation rein strukt. Bez. zu anderen Ressourcen Liste, max 100 Eintr.

7_1 Relation Kind Art der Beziehung einfach Vocabulary IsPartOf, IsBasedOn, Requires, ...7_2 Relation Resource Zielobjekt einfach

7_2_1 Relation Identifier Eindeutiger Schlüssel des Zielobjekts einfach String8 Annotation Kommentare zum Wert der Ressource Liste, max 30 Eintr.

8_1 Annotation Person Person einfach String vCard8_2 Annotation Date Datum einfach DateType8_3 Annotation Description Anmerkung einfach LangString

9 Classification Klassifizierung der Ressource Liste, max 40 Eintr.9_4 Classification Keyword Keyword-Beschreibung der Ressource Liste, max 40 Eintr. LangString

Extensions Moduletype Typ eines Lernmoduls einfach String 0-3(0 = Virtual, 1 = Integration, 2 = Structural, 3 = Presentational)

Structural Relationships to other Learning Objects

Content Relationship to other Learning Objects in the Ontology

Lifecycle of the Learning Object

Technical Aspects of the Learning Object

Educational Aspects

Type of a learning Module

Annotation Information

SCORE-Metadata-StandardGeneral characteristic of the Learning Object


Our Approach: Ontology

• A set of concept definitions and their relationships

• A common basis for cooperation and exchange within one community

• A browsing space


Outline


Goal of SCORE



Summary


Existing modules

Search modules

Suitable modules

Course with metadata

Define a course structure

Assemble course

Search

Metadata Editor

Presentation Generator

Release course

Uploader Structuring Tool

ExportModule Builder

Course Development: CourseBuilder

Ontology Browser

Define a course structure• The course structure defines at this stage a first outline or a concept of the course• It includes the separation of the course into modules and a specification of each module • This step could also be conducted later (after the “search modules“ step)


Existing modules

Search modules

Suitable modules



Assemble course

Search

Metadata Editor


Release course




Ontology Browser

Search modules• for every specified module search a suitable module in module repositories• the search could be conducted in form of queries or browsing an ontology space for the subject


Existing modules

Search modules

Suitable modules



Assemble course

Search

Metadata Editor


Release course




Ontology Browser

ModuleBuilderThis tool is used to deal with all aspects of a module

Assemble course•adapt found modules to specific needs• develop unavailable modules• connect modules by adding course specific (context specific) materials• add and extract metadata for the course• generate a presentation for the course


Existing modules

Search modules

Suitable modules



Assemble course

Search

Metadata Editor


Release course




Ontology Browser

Release course• upload and publish course• export course


Outline


Goal of SCORE



Summary


Summary (1)

• Basic Problem:• Courseware development is extremely costly

and time consuming

• Desirable:• Reusable courseware, i.e. create courseware

in a way that allows to use parts of it in other contexts, for other audiences and by other educators

• this is prevented by monolithic courses • that do not separate contents from structure

and presentation• do not identify semantic units of teaching


Summary (2)

• Our approach:• divide contents into smallest semantic units• combine related units to form modules• separate different aspects, in particular:

contents, structure, presentation• metadata standards and ontology• provide tools to help

• devise a course structure• find existing materials that cover the topics

needed• structure contents according to individual needs• adapt material to presentation requirements.


Thank you!

Thank you for your attention!

Additional information can be found athttp://www.ipd.uni-karlsruhe.de/SCORE

Documents

Making Courseware Reusable Institute for Program Structures and Data Organization Universität Karlsruhe Germany Khaldoun Ateyeh, Jutta Mülle