Using IMS Learning Design in Educational Situations

Abstract

IMS Learning Design (IMS LD) is a specification for describing a range of pedagogic approaches. It allows the linking of pedagogical structure, content, and services, whilst keeping the three separate, thus providing the potential for reuse as well as forming the basis for interoperability between learning activities and services. As such, this specification promises unprecedented opportunities to build effective tutor support and presence into e-learning systems. The tools that implement the specification have primarily been used for research purposes and have not been targeted at teaching practitioners or learners working in teaching and learning situations. There is a perception amongst practitioners and tool developers that the specification and tools are too technical or difficult for practitioner use. This chapter examines practitioner use of current tools for creating IMS LD and the use of IMS LD units of learning (UoLs) with learners through projects being undertaken at Liverpool Hope University (LHU). It presents some of the experiences and findings gained from these projects. The chapter also examines current technologies and tools for creating and running IMS LD UoLs, and finally discusses the potential and future for IMS LD.

The use of a visual learning design representation to support the design process of teaching in higher education

“…For example, Frizell and Hübscher (2009) and Garzotto and Retalis (2009) have argued for more research on design patterns to gain a better insight on user experiences and how design patterns can affect the design process. Some work that has reported on teacher experiences with various learning design representations includes: • Hazelwood, Oddie and Barrett-Baxendale (2009) This paper presents an empirical study on how the LDVS has been used by eleven participants in the university context. Some historical background and detailed description of the LDVS is provided below followed by the methodology of the study.…”

Prerequisite knowledge‐based automated course planning with semantics consideration

“…Sicilia et al [30] explore the applicability of common planners, which are mostly domain‐independent. In particular, Java implementation of SHOP (JSHOP) [26, 27] is used for partial automation of activity‐based learning design by assembling activities and resources using the IMS (Instructional Management Systems) LD (Learning Design) specification [17] for machine readability of learning objects. Note that learning objects [33] are defined as uniquely identifiable, atomic, self‐contained educational resources.…”

“…Figure 5 shows the objective function and constraints of the model. Formulation (1) defines the objective function, and Formulations (2) through (17) show functional and nonfunctional constraints. Functional constraints enforce prerequisite knowledges, while nonfunctional constraints limit the use of resources, such as budget or workload.…”

“…Formulation (48) exemplifies the budget constraints for the course plan, while Formulations (49) through (51) exemplify the workload constraints. The general formulation for the budget constraints and the workload constraints are defined in Formulations ( 16) and (17).…”