Comments on: Relating IMS Learning Design to web 2.0 technologies http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/sheilamacneill/2009/10/12/relating-ims-learning-design-to-web-20-technologies/ Cetis blog Mon, 07 Oct 2013 10:54:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.22 By: Web 2.0 Design http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/sheilamacneill/2009/10/12/relating-ims-learning-design-to-web-20-technologies/#comment-884 Tue, 18 May 2010 04:47:28 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/sheilamacneill/?p=237#comment-884 Superb article. Many thanks for sharing informative resource.

]]> By: Forex Robot Review http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/sheilamacneill/2009/10/12/relating-ims-learning-design-to-web-20-technologies/#comment-883 Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:05:48 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/sheilamacneill/?p=237#comment-883 nice summary! thanks!

]]> By: Dr_Guigui http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/sheilamacneill/2009/10/12/relating-ims-learning-design-to-web-20-technologies/#comment-882 Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:51:02 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.org.uk/sheilamacneill/?p=237#comment-882 Thank you Sheila for this very interesting summary.
I would like to comment Rob’s statement:
“there’s no point trying to use a coffee machine to make pancakes”
This statement would make sense if the coffee machine wasn’t sold as a fry pan, a toaster, a bathroom, a space shuttle, etc…

In the “IMS Learning Design Information Model” (http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ldv1p0/imsld_infov1p0.html) we can read in the section 2.1:

Objective of Learning Design Specification

” R1. Completeness: The specification must be able to fully describe the teaching-learning process in a unit of learning, including references to the digital and non-digital learning objects and services needed during the process. This includes:

* Integration of the activities of both learners and staff members.
* Integration of resources and services used during learning.
* Support for a wide variety of approaches to learning.
* Support for both single and multiple user models of learning.
* Support mixed mode (blended learning) as well as pure online learning.

R2. Pedagogical Flexibility: The specification must be able to express the pedagogical meaning and functionality of the different data elements within the context of a unit of learning. It must be flexible in the description of all different kinds of pedagogies and not prescribe any specific pedagogical approach.

R3. Personalization: The specification must be able to describe personalization aspects within a learning design, so that the content and activities within a unit of learning can be adapted based on the preferences, portfolio, pre-knowledge, educational needs, and situational circumstances of users. In addition, the control over the adaptation process must be given, as desired, to the student, a staff member, the computer, and/or the designer.

R4. Formalization: The specification must describe a learning design in the context of a unit of learning in a formal way, so that automatic processing is possible.

R5. Reproducibility: The specification must describe the learning design abstracted in such a way that repeated execution in different settings with different persons is possible.

R6. Interoperability: The specification must support interoperability of learning designs.

R7. Compatibility: The specification uses available standards and specifications where possible, mainly IMS Content Packaging, IMS Question and Test Interoperability, IMS/LOM Meta-Data and IMS Simple Sequencing.

R8. Reusability: The specification must make it possible to identify, isolate, de-contextualize and exchange useful learning artefacts, and to re-use these in other contexts. “

]]>