Scott Wilson has posted his views on the proposed Simple IMS Learning Design 2.0 from Guillaume Durand so I thought I’d just add my tuppence worth.
Like Scott and Durand I’m all in favour of anything that can simplify the current IMS LD spec. However before we go ahead with the technical ins and outs I would really like to ensure that any development is based on real needs – what teachers and learners actually need and what we can really expect our systems to do effectively and efficiently.
So, before we start debating what we keep in/out of scope, I’d really like to see the development of a robust and real set of use-cases. Let’s use those to engage teachers and vendors alike and build tools that do what teachers really need them too. Let’s be realistic about who is actually going to take the time to create a fully fledged UoL to use IMS speak. Not every teacher/ learning designer will or necessarily needs to. Let’s look at what people really want to do and where there is a real gap. We have a wealth of designs now that we can draw on now. What are the key things people need to do but can’t just now, or could be done more effectively by some automatic processes for example grouping, populating classes? And instead of showing the XML, let’s start with what the user wants to do and work backwards from there.
Hi Sheila,
Having spent a number of years researching into lecturers’ design practice, I couldn’t agree more!
Liz
What a refreshing concept considering what the people really want and whatthey will really use. Please continue with this thought process.
Sheila,
“Let’s look at what people really want to do and where there is a real gap. We have a wealth of designs now that we can draw on now. What are the key things people need to do but can’t just now, or could be done more effectively by some automatic processes for example grouping,populating classes?”
I have been voicing this for a while and am so glad you addressed this in your post.
Thank you,
Romona,
Publisher,kitchencarts360.com
Same thing. Keeping things simple is always better, whether it’s for teachers or learners. “It’s better to teach with examples instead of just feeding people some formulas” <- I can’t remember who said that but it definitely applies to every learning and teaching process.
IMS LD is not designed to be used by “teachers”. It’s based on UML and is designed to be used like a scripting language to produce on-line courses created by technical course developers. That’s why the OUNL use it.
And why does everything have to be made easy for “teachers”? I thought they were the ones with an education?
Hi Jon
Yes, but surely we should be aiming to build tools that allow the not so technical to use the spec. TBH I think the idea of LD is so attractive that people got very excited about the possibilities of using it but haven’t actually fully understood the scope of the specifications. So, a simplified version may well help overcome some of these barriers and allow the not-so-technical to use tools built on the spec.
Sheila
“what teachers and learners actually need and what we can really expect our systems to do effectively and efficiently.”“Let’s look at what people really want to do and where there is a real gap.”“So, a simplified version may well help overcome some of these barriers and allow the not-so-technical to use tools built on the spec. ”
I fully agree with Sheila.I am chinese. and I want to know LD deeply. I think it is difficult for teachers to understand LDS and make a UOL.
A typo in my last message – I meant “EML” (Educational Modelling Language) not “UML”.
OK, put it this way – you’re a teacher, you’ve just created a UOL using an LD creation tool, “EasyPeasy LD 1.0″. Now what? What are you going to do with it?