ecel 2009 keynote j. minguillón

Learner-centered learning object repositories:

personalization and interaction issues

Julià MinguillónUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya

ECEL 2009, 8th European Conference on eLearning, Bari, Italy

Table of contents• E-Learning is / is not …• Virtual Learning Environments• Learning Object Repositories• Case of study: Statistics• Improving interaction• Introducing personalization• Current project status• Summary

J. Minguillón ECEL 2009, 8th European Conference on eLearning, Bari, Italy

E-Learning is not…• …e + learning• …reproducing traditional learning• …leaving learners alone with technology• …technology replacing teachers• …delivering content through LCMS• …a collection of tools / services• …mail, chat or blog• …self-learning


E-Learning should be…• …promoting communication• …enabling deeper reflection• …technology supporting users• …personalized and adaptive• …interactive and engaging• …overcoming time / space barriers

• Learning anytime and anywhere!J. Minguillón ECEL 2009, 8th European Conference on eLearning, Bari, Italy

Adopting E-Learning• Three dimensions (Bates, 2005):

– Methodological– Technological– Organizational

• Not completely orthogonal: interconnected

• Challenge: European Higher Education Area


The “new” EHEA (I)• Methodological / organizational changes:

– ECTS– Learner centered model– Competence aimed instead of content driven

• Technological requirements:– Efficient management of educational resources– Virtual learning environments


The “new” EHEA (II)• Competence (not content) is the King:

– Evaluate already acquired competences– Competence development through activities– Activities involve the use of learning resources– Content becomes infrastructure

providing the learner with the appropriate learning environment for acquiring and developing the desired competences


Learning as a journeyDegree ≈Course ≈Activity ≈

Resource ≈Device ≈

Learning path ≈Previous experience ≈

VLE ≈Teacher ≈

ContinentCountryCityMap, guideVehicleItineraryAlready visited placesGPSExpert assistant


Virtual Learning Environments• E-Learning is de facto web-based learning• VLEs enable learner centered models


LearningProcess

LO

LO LO

LearningObject

Repository

VLE

UserInteraction

DataMining


LD+

play

er

userprofile

default itinerary

LOR

ontologies

personalized itineraries

LOs

itineraries

evidences

LearningProcess


Managing resources

Competences

Activities

Resources

Content is infrastructureLearning

ObjectRepository


Learning Object Repositories• Two main goals:

– Ensure preservation– Promote reutilization

• Other goals:– Dissemination → positioning (institutional)– Personal information management (users)

• These goals are somehow contradictory!


Key factors for LOR success (I)• Three dimensions (McNaught, 2006):

– Resources: what?– Actions: how?– Users: who?

• LOR design should include them all

• Top-down vs bottom-up approaches


Key factors for LOR success (II)• Genuine need of a community• Enthusiastic promoters• Clear direction and focus• Feedback from the community• Good management processes• Open access• Easy addition of new resources• Critical mass• Suitable granularity


Critical issues of LOR design• Methodological:

– Learning is more than just content• Technological (back-end + user interface):

– Learning is more than just accessing LOs• Organizational:

– Workflow– Licenses– Metadata– Policies


Traditional repositories• Library centered:

– Books, journals, works, … (mostly textual)• Everything has a unique title• Everything has one or more authors• Everything has a creation date• Almost everything is a PDF file

• Main goal: easily finding a resource by using a minimum set of common descriptors


Learning Object Repositories• LOs are diverse:

– Exercises PDF, QTI, …– Examples PDF, PPT, ODP, …– Multimedia elements JPEG, MP3, MOV, …– Simulations Applets, Flash– Source code C, Java, …– Data XLS, SPSS, …– Other (equations, …) LaTeX, MathML, …

• Title, author and year are not enough and useless


Ideal LOR• Basic premise: the act of browsing and/or

searching for resources should be a learning experience in itself– Contents are not isolated pieces– “Traveling” requires knowing “from” and “to”– Users should be able to organize contents– Connectivism (Siemens, 2005)

• Ideal UI: conceptual map + “social layer”J. Minguillón ECEL 2009, 8th European Conference on eLearning, Bari, Italy

What users want from a LOR• More exercises and examples (55.7%)• More simulations and interactive LOs (36.7%)• Submitting questions about a LO (50.6%)• Ranking LOs (43.0%)• Correcting small mistakes (41.8%)• Adding the LO as favorite (36.7%) by using:

– delicious (11.4%)– Other (51.9%)– None (26.6%)

• Just browsing and searching (16.4%)


System architecture


Sociallayer

PIM

InstitutionalLOR

PIM

PIM

UI

DSpace pros and cons

• Pros:– Solid, stable– Large community– Persistent handles– Preservation– Customizable– OAI PMH

• Cons:– Ugly user interface– 1.0 philosophy– Dublin Core– Multilingualism– Intricate– Mainly for e-prints


• Why DSpace? → already in use at UOC

Enhancing DSpace• Main idea:

– Use DSpace as an invisible back-end– Access LOs through persistent handles– Create a new user interface– Add 2.0 functionalities– Gather usage data

• Goal: allow learners to take control over LOs without using DSpace directly


Case of study: LOR on Statistics• Why Statistics?

– Basic competences for the Information Society– Compulsory course for several degrees– Thousands of students each semester (≈ 4000)– Large collection of heterogeneous resources

• Known problems:– “There are too many resources”– “I don’t know how to start”– “I can’t link concepts and tools”


Improving interaction

• Avoid Google-like searches• Contextualized browsing• Refine search results while being built• Return only a few relevant LOs• Visualize related LOs• Allow learners to use web 2.0 services• Widget-ize available services


• Three complementary elements:– List of competences– Tag cloud of keywords– Visual taxonomy

• Additional filters:– Resource type– Language

Competences

TaxonomyKeywords

LO

LO

New user interface


Ontology

LO

Introducing personalization

• Don’t constrain, always recommend• Tag cloud parameters:

– Which keywords– Sorting– Color– Size

• Context-aware (right-button pop-up)• Web 2.0 services: delicious, annorate, …



• To compare twoproportions• To select the righttest and hypothesis• To design a survey• To estimate theparameters of anunknown population• To create graphicsfrom data

mean

Competences Taxonomy Keywords

Filtering Results

test

variance

proportion

LO LO

LOLOLO

Student’s t test

box-plot

Type

Language LO

Current project status (I)

• DSpace repository online http://oer.uoc.edu• 200 resources (500 soon, >1000 expected)• Pilot course with 400 students (CS degree)• List of specific competences for Statistics• Visual taxonomy created with prefuse• Tag cloud created with tagcrowd• First stages of user-centered design


Current project status (II)

• But:– Different technologies (Java, PHP, HTML, …)– Complex process for adding resources– Our learners (and teachers) are not so “2.0”– Engaging activities must be designed– Accessibility issues

• Ideas, money and students are welcomed!!!


Summary

• LOs cannot be isolated pieces• Learners need to contextualize LOs• Learners need to “adopt” LOs• LORs cannot be just lists of LOs• LORs = back-end + front-end• DSpace as back-end: the “pyramid”• UI as front-end: the (personal) “museum”


Thank you!

• Contact information:

Julià Minguilló[email protected]


ecel 2009 keynote j. minguillón

Education

current project

8th european

minguilln

minguilln

minguilln

minguilln

minguilln

key factors