Educational design language

From EduTech Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

1 Definition

An educational design language is a notation system for creating educational designs, e.g. courses, modules, or scenarios.

An educational design language is “ a tool that designers use to communicate designs, plans, and intentions to each other and to the users of their artifacts” (Botturi, 2006: 268). “Notational systems, used in mature fields of study, are closely related to design languages. The future of a technological field depends on the ability to communicate ideas and changes with others in the field. Instructional technology is one field that can benefit from a notation system enabling designers to duplicate, execute, and communicate their ideas” (Waters & Gibbons 2004: 57).

See also: educational modeling language, design pattern and pedagogical vocabulary. These entries partly look at the same issue under a different perspective.

2 History

Daniel K. Schneider doesn't know much about the history of educational design languages. I have the impression that their emergence is tied to computer-based training (Bork, 1984) and in particular drill and practice programs where flow-charts were used to define educational sequences.

Implicit design languages also were defined by authoring environments and that culminated in systems like (the now dead) Authorware that supported a visual design/programming environment. There exists also a link to instructional design methods, in particular Instructional systems design methods like ADDIE where at some point designers create scripts and/or flowcharts.

An earlier formal design language, i.e. educational modeling language was defined by Eckel (1998). : “The immediate aim of Instruction Language is a clear-cut written representation of preconceived instruction. Clear-cut implies that the instructional script written on the basis of Instruction Language, from now on referred to as instructogram, is uniequivocal as well as fully readable, criticizable and improvable. This is possible since instruction is very simple in its core [...] Instruction Language is based on the understanding of instruction as a mere alternative sequence of teaching and learning activities (Eckel, 1993:XV).

His book defines a written notation, but also used flow diagrams. E.g. he defines the flow of Minimum Instruction with the following kind of diagram:

This is a graph with borders and nodes that may contain hyperlinks.
About this image

The rest of his model concerns management of different kinds of answers, i.e. R:right, W:wrong, P:Partially right, I:Inadmissible, V:Vague, U:Unexpected, N:Neutral. Flow of instruction must deal with all kinds of possible answers.

IMS Simple Sequencing (IMS SS) can be considered as being in that tradition, but we are not aware if there exist attempts to use a visual design language to define simple sequencing modules. Despite that fact that IMS SS is part of SCORM 2004 profile, we didn't find any authoring tools...

More recent trends (since the early 2000's) are much more oriented towards a model based on a "play" (theatre) metaphor. IMS Learning Design (IMS LD) is today's most popular formal language in research and it is based on Koper's Educational Modelling Language (EML) informally published in the early 1990s. Several visual design languages create within research projects compile into IMS LD. Other design languages either do not rely on a formal language or adopt another formal representation. A joint information model of EML-like approaches was proposed in a workshop document (Koper, 2002)

Proposed joint information model for educational modeling languages, (Koper, 2002).

This UML diagram basically states that educational modeling means defining activities where persons playing a role produce outcomes using resources. Some of these resources are environments (tools). The activity can be divided into objectives, prerequisites, sub-activities (the activity structure). Support, learning, other and outcome are kinds of activities.

Such diagrams are are specifications, but not design languages that are usable by end users. They represents the formal foundations on which design languages could be built. Also at this level of specification, it remains open if/how design languages "à la Eckel" or very specialized formalisms such a quizzing languages like IMS QTI could be integrated within an activity defined in a "EML"-like framework.

Most current educational design languages adopt some kind of "activity flow" approach. Designs for educational sequences then can be defined with several notations, for example:

In practice, design languages are rarely used. Several factors could explain this: Tools are difficult to use and at the same time there is a lack of training opportunities, in particular in teacher schools. Most tools are badly maintained and difficult to find. Tools that can exectute designs barely exist or again, they hardly work. Finally, industrial designs are simple (both in industry and academia) and more complex designs are put in place informally by individual teachers.

3 Types of design languages

Botturi, Derntl,Boot & Figl (2006) propose a classification system to describe educational design languages. See also Developing design documents (3D) model.

  • Stratification: flat or layered. Is there unique representation or are there several "tools" to describe various objects like in coUML ?
  • Formalization: between formal or informal. E.g. UML and XML-based vocabularies are both formal languages.
  • Elaboration: conceptual, specification or implementation. These levels are based on the UML model (Fowler, 2003): the conceptual level allows to gain a global view of a design and its rationale, the specification includes all the details, and the implementation level includes includes sufficient precision to create executive code. E.g. CompendiumLD is a concept map editor, coUML can be considered a set of specification languages, the LAMS editor produces directly executable code.
  • Perspective: singular or multiple. Is there a same view or different views to describe a design? E2ML for instance allows to model both structural and temporal relations between activities.
  • Notation system: none, textual, visual. If there is a notation system, it can be either visual (e.g. like in the informal CompendiumLD editor or a formal UML-derived language) or textual like the typical XML-based educational modeling languages like IMS Learning Design.

4 A list of systems for educational design

This list lists systems for educational design through more or less "natural" categories. We don't include just design languages or design tools, but all kinds of systems that in one way or another support pedagogical design.

4.1 IMS Learning Design and basic editors

IMS Learning Design is a formal language (UML and XML) that is standardized. Designers are not really expected to directly use this language, it's rather expected that they use a high-level editor that then can export to IMS LD. In the same way the e-learning content editors don't need to understand SCORM 1.2.

4.2 Design tools that can export to IMS-LD or another executable formalism

There exist several variants. This category includes both visual design tools and form-based editors. Some of them can export to IMS LD. Some are general purpose and some like Collage are specialized. Some tools are operational, some just research systems.

4.3 Visual design/modelling languages

Some designers use one or several UML languages like UML activity diagrams. Other extend the UML framework and others use their own notational system. Most of these systems are only used by a very small population. Except for the UML tools which are popular in computer science, these languages are all very recent. Usually, they don't produce executable code.

  • BPMN (Business process modeling notation) and BPEL (Business Process Execution Language, used in Model-Driven Learning Design)
  • UML (in particular UML class diagrams and UML activity diagrams)
  • E2ML Visual scenario design language
  • coUML Visual scenario and content design language
  • PALO Visual scenario design language
  • poEML Visual collaborative scenario design language
  • MoCoLaDe Visual scenario design language, LD compatible
  • SCY-SE Visual scenario design language

4.4 Visual design languages

Same as above, but easier to use, since not formal. Doesn't produce executable code.

  • CompendiumLD. A concept map editor for learning design. Compendium LD maps also could be given to learners.
  • Table éditor (does it have a name?). See Sobreira and Tchounikine (2014).

4.5 Formalisms and tools different from IMS LD

Attempts to enlarge or to modify the IMS-LD framework. These projects include their own meta-model (i.e. their representation of what a pedagogical scenario is) plus a toolkit for design and execution. Most are still very much under development.

4.6 Design and execution systems in production

This category includes operational online authoring and execution systems that support learning design. LAMS has a visual design editor, CeLS a forms-based interface.

  • LAMS (see also LAMS) (système d'édition/exécution learning design)
  • CeLS

4.7 CSCL research

The Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) community also started to work modelling what they called scripts and to develop notational systems, e.g. see Kobbe et al. (2007) or Dillenbourg & Tchounikine (2007).

  • See CSCL script) for the concept
  • CPM (a UML profile and system somewhere in between CSCL and learning design) - dead project ?
  • Collage A macro-script configuration tool (based on the idea of flow patterns) - was distributed at some point
  • Cool Modes A system that includes several visual design tools for learners (and teachers). There exist also other microworld systems that include visual design languages. - live project, tools are available
  • S-COL (Wecker, 2010) - probably never distributed ?
  • XSS framework (Streng, 2011) - probably was never distributed
  • T2 (Sobreira & Tchounikine, 2012). According to the authors (p. 586), 25 CSCL macro-scripts collected from the literature could be represented. - not distributed ?

4.8 Traditional sequencing

IMS Simple sequencing is a formalism that supports mastery learning. It is included in the SCORM 2004 profile (version 3 and later), but it is very difficult to find an LMS and design tools that support this standard.

4.9 Systems that focus on the semantics of contents

These formalisms and associated tools allow to create pedagogical documents with semantic structure (and therefore markup).

4.10 Light-weight systems

These systems are often included under "teacher tools", i.e. tools that allow a teacher to prepare lessons without too much insisting on detailed scenario design.

4.11 Alternatives and anti-models

4.12 Visual multimedia authoring languages

There exist other products, e.g. hypercard revival systems.

4.13 Microworld design languages

Most of these microworlds are considered to be an expressive digital medium for the learners themselves. Nevertheless, the teacher also can create pedagogical designs like simulations or CSCL scenarios for use by learners. Or he can use these as demonstration tool. He also can create half-baked models that are then given to the learners for further work. Some examples are:

4.14 Repositories

Web sites to share designs and scenarios. There exist several types. Some tools just point to an associated learning object repository. Sometimes the tool integrates direct access to the repository. Here are some examples

  • Cloudworks is repository for designs (in simple verbal form)
  • Systems like LAMS point to a community page where registered users can upload and download executable and editable LAMS packages.
  • Systems like CeLS include the repository in the interface.

4.15 Non-educational languages

  • BPMN, the business process Modeling Notation. As of 2010, the current version is the BPMN 1.2 design language and can be translated to BPEL. BPMN 2, under preparation, is both a design and an execution language and partial implementations exist.
  • SCUFL, an e-science format (see Taverna workbench)

5 Evaluation schemes

Since most design languages and systems are recent as of 2009, evaluation criteria and methods may yet be open to debate. Most evaluation schemes are designer-oriented, i.e. proposed by people who invent design languages and implement design systems.

Botturi (2005:335) proposed an issues- and elements-based evaluation framework for instructional design languages:

1. Issues are critical aspects that should be considered in the definition of the experimental setting. They are: context sensitivity, eclectic benefits, course quality, and time.
2. Elements are indications for the identification of key variables in the study. They are: impact on sub-activities, communication events, institutional changes, and expressive power.”

LeJeune et al. (2009) summarize the following vital issues and challenges:

  • Comprehensibility: how can EMLs be made usable for educational practitioners ? (Pernin & Lejeune, 2006; Hernãndez-Leo et al., 2007) ?
  • Pedagogical neutrality: how can an EML realize one unified, pedagogical neutral notation for supporting a large variety of pedagogically sound scenarios (Miao et al, 2005, Miao et al., 2008) ?
  • Flexibility: how can EMLs support design of wellsupported, but flexible environments (Dillenbourg, 2002; Dillenbourg & Tchounikine, 2007) ?
  • Interoperability: how can EMLs build on existing learning platforms and contents (Ardito et al., 2006).

To that we would like to add another most important one: To what extent is the system available, operationable, documented and maintained ?

Finally, we would like to argue that such top-down evaluation schemes should be complemented by idiographic methods, e.g. repertory grid technique based analysis.

6 Links

7 Bibliography

  • Ardito, C.; M.F. Costabile, M. De Marsico, R. Lanzilotti, S. Levialdi, R. Roselli, and T. Rossano, (2006). An approach to usability evaluation of e-learning applications. Universal Access in the Information Society, Springer, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 270-283.
  • Brabazon, T (2002) Digital Hemlock: Internet Education and the Poisoning of Teaching, Sydney: University of New South Wales Press
  • Abdallah, F., Toffolon, C., and Warin, B. 2008. Models Transformation to Implement a Project-Based Collaborative Learning (PBCL) Scenario: Moodle Case Study. In Proceedings of the 2008 Eighth IEEE international Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies - Volume 00 (July 01 - 05, 2008). ICALT. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 639-643. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2008.174
  • Boot Eddy W.; Jon Nelson, Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer, Andrew S. Gibbons (2007). Stratification, elaboration and formalisation of design documents: Effects on the production of instructional materials, British Journal of Educational Technology 38 (5), 917–933. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00679.x
  • Botturi, L. (2005). A Framework for the Evaluation of Visual Languages for Instructional Design: the Case of E2ML. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 16 (4), pp. 329-351. Norfolk, VA: AACE. Abstract/PDF
  • Botturi, L. (2006). E2ML. A visual language for the design of instruction. Educational Technologies Research & Development, 54(3), 265-293. Abstract/PDF (Access restricted)
  • Botturi, L. and S. Todd Stubbs (eds.) (2007). Handbook of Visual Languages for Instructional Design: Theories and Practices, Information Science Reference. ISBN 1599047292, Google books preview
  • Botturi, L., Derntl, M., Boot, E., & Figl, K. (2006). A Classification Framework for Educational Modeling Languages in Instructional Design. Proceedings of The 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 1216-1220 PDF (also here).
  • Brady, Aoife; Owen Conlan, Vincent Wade, and Declan Dagger (2008). Personalised Learning Objects, in Nedjl, Wolfgang; Judy Kay, Pearl Pu, Eelco Herder (eds.) Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Adaptive Hypermedia . Springer. ISBN 3540709843
  • Breuker, J., Muntjewerff, A., and Bredewej, B. (1999) "Ontological modeling for designing educational systems" I* PALO n Proceedings of the AIED 99 Workshop on Ontologies for Educational Systems, Le Mans, France. IOS Pressp
  • Burgos, D., Arnaud, M., Neuhauser, P., Koper, R. IMS Learning Design : la flexibilité pédagogique au service des besoins de la e-formation. In La Revue de l'EPI. France: L'association Enseignement Public et Informatique [1]. Available at and http://hdl.handle.net/1820/470.
  • Conole, Gráinne and Karen Fill (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities. Journal of Interactive Media in Education (Advances in Learning Design. Special Issue, eds. Colin Tattersall, Rob Koper), 2005/08. ISSN:1365-893X Abstract (PDF/HTML open access)
  • Del Cid, Jose Pablo Escobedo, Luis de la Fuente Valentín, Sergio Gutiérrez, Abelardo Pardo, Carlos Delgado Kloos (2007). Implementation of a Learning Design Run-Time Environment for the .LRN Learning Management System. Journal of Interactive Media in Education (Adaptation and IMS Learning Design. Special Issue, ed. Daniel Burgos), 2007/07. ISSN:1365-893X
  • Dessus, Philippe et Schneider, Daniel Scénarisation de l'enseignement et contraintes de la situation, In J.-P. Pernin & H. Godinet (2006). (Eds.), Colloque Scénariser l'enseignement et l'apprentissage : une nouvelle compétence pour le praticien ? (pp. 13-18). Lyon : INRP. PDF
  • Dillenbourg, P. & P. Tchounikine (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23 (1). DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00191.x
  • Dillenbourg, Pierre & Patrick Jermann (2007), Designing Integrative Scripts. In: Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., Haake, J. (eds.): Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Cognitive, Computational, and Educational Perspectives. Springer, New York.
  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed). Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL, Heerlen, Open Universiteit Nederland, 2002, pp. 61-91.
  • Dillenbourg P. and P. Tchounikine (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 23, no. 1, 2007, pp. 1-13.
  • Fowler, M., UML distilled: A brief guide to the standard object modeling language. Addison Wesley, Boston, MA, 2003.
  • Friesen, Norm, (2004). A Gentle Introduction to Technical E-learning Standards, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology Volume 30(3) Fall / automne 2004. HTML , retrieved 17:52, 5 October 2006 (MEST).
  • Friesen, Norm, (2004). The E-learning Standardization Landscape, HTML , retrieved 17:52, 5 October 2006 (MEST).
  • Gibbons, A. S. (2003). What and how designers design? A theory of design structure. TechTrends, 47(5), 22–27. PDF (Access restricted)
  • Gibbons, A. S., Nelson, J. & Richards, R. (2000). "The nature and origin of instructional objects" In D. A. Wiley (Ed.)," The Instructional Use of Learning Objects". Bloomington: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
  • Gibbons, Andrew, S. and Erin K. Brewer, (2005) “Elementary principles of design languages and design notation systems for instructional design”. In J.M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. Van Schaack, and D. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations to instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJ, pp. 111-129.
  • Giesbers, B., van Bruggen, J., Hermans, H., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., Burgers, J., Koper, R., & Latour, I. (2007). Towards a methodology for educational modelling: a case in educational assessment. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (1), 237-247. PDF
  • Griffiths, D. et Blat, J. (2005). The role of teachers in editing and authoring units of learning using IMS learning design. Advanced Technology for Learning, 2(4). PDF and PDF
  • D. Hernãndez-Leo, A. Harrer, A., J.M. Dodero, J. I. Asensio-Pérez, and D. Burgos (2007). A Framework for the Conceptualization of Approaches to "Create-by-Reuse" of Learning Design Solutions, Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 13, no. 7, 2007, pp. 991-1001.
  • Kobbe, L. Weinberger, A. Dillenbourg, P. Harrer, A. Hämäläinen, R. Hàkkinen, P. Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts, International Journal Of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2 (2-3) 211-224.
  • Koper R. (2001) "Modelling Units of Study from a pedagogical perspective: The pedagogical metamodel behind EML" Technical Report OUNL June, 2001 http://eml.ou.nl
  • Koper, R. (2000) "From change to renewal: Educational technology foundations of electronic learning environments" Technical Report, Open University of the Nederland (OUNL) http://eml.ou.nl
  • Koper, R. (2002) Educational Modelling Language: adding instructional design to existing specifications, Workshop Standardisierung im eLearning 10./11.4.2002 an der Universität Frankfurt/Main, PDF
  • Koper, R. and Manderveld, Jocelyn (2004). Educational modelling language: modelling reusable, interoperable, rich and personalised units of learnings, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol 35 No 5 2004, 537-551.
  • Koper, R., Rodr¡guez-Artacho, M., Rawlings, A., Lefrere, P., van Rosmalen, P. (2002) "Survey of Educational Modeling Languages" Technical Report of the CEN/ISSS Learning Technologies Workshop Available On-Line: HTML (dead link, it's amazing that the european standardization body can't keep URLs online ...)
  • Laforcade, P., Zendagui, B., and Barré, V. 2008. A Domain-Specific-Modeling Approach to Support Scenarios-Based Instructional Design. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning: Times of Convergence: Technologies Across Learning Contexts (Maastricht, The Netherlands, September 16 - 19, 2008). P. Dillenbourg and M. Specht, Eds. Lecture Notes In Computer Science, vol. 5192. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 185-196. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87605-2_21
  • LittleJohn, Allison (2005), From learning objects to learning design, AsciLite Newsletter. HTML
  • Maglajlic S., Maurer H., and Scherbackov N. (1998) "Separating structure and content, authoring Educational web applications" In Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA & ED-TELECOM 98., pages 880-884, 1998.
  • Martel C., Vignollet L., Ferraris C., David J.P., Lejeune A. (2006), Modeling collaborative learning activities on e-learning platforms, ICALT 06, (PDF)
  • Martel Christian, Laurence Vignollet, Christine Ferraris, Guillaume Durand (2006), LDL: a Language to Model Collaborative Learning Activities, ED-MEDIA 2006 PDF Preprint
  • Merrill, M. D. (2001) "The instructional use of learning objects, chapter "Knowledge objects and mental-models" D. Wiley, Ed. AIT Publishers ISBN: 0-7842-0892-1
  • Miao, Y.; K. Hoeksema, H.U. Hoppe, and A. Harrer (2005). CSCL Scripts: Modelling Features and Potential Use. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), Taipei, Taiwan, 2005, pp. 423-432.
  • Miao, Y; M. van der Klink, J. Boon, P. Sloep, and R. Koper (2008). Enabling Teachers to Develop Pedagogically Sound and Technically Executable Learning Designs, Ten-Competence publications, http://hdl.handle.net/1820/1605.
  • Nodenot Thierry & Laforcade Pierre CPM: a UML Profile to design Cooperative PBL situations at didactical level, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'06) 0-7695-2632-2/06 PDF
  • Pantano Rokou, F., Rokou, E., & Rokos, Y. (2004). Modeling Web-based Educational Systems: process Design Teaching Model. Educational Technology & Society, 7 (1), 42-50. PDF
  • Paquette, G. (2006). Introduction à la spécification IML-LD d’une perspective d’ingénierie pédagogique. Récupéré le 7 septembre 2007 du site IDLD (Déploiement et implantation de la spécification pour les designs d’apprentissage), http://www.idld.org/Methodology/tabid/174/Default.aspx
  • Pernin, J.-P. et Godinet, H. (2006). Scénariser l’enseignement et l’apprentissage : une nouvelle compétence pour le praticien? Actes du colloque Scénario 2006. INRP
  • Pernin,J-P. and A. Lejeune, (2006) Learning design: models for computers, for engineers or for teachers, Workshop Learning Networks for Lifelong Competence Development, Project TEN-Competence, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2006.
  • Reigeluth, C. M. & Nelson, L. M. (1997). A new paradigm of ISD? In R. C. Branch & B. B. Minor (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 22, pp. 24-35). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
  • Ritter, S. and Suthers, D. (1997). "Technical Standards for Education" Working Paper, Educational Object Economy site, The EOE Foundation."
  • Robson, R. (2000). "Report on Learning Technology Standards", in J. Bourdeau and R. Heller, Eds., Proceedings of ED-MEDIA'00, the Association for the Advancement of Computing Education, Charlottesville, Virginia.
  • Rodriguez-Artacho, M. (2002) "PALO Language Overview" Technical Report STEED Project (LSI Dept. UNED) February, 2002. HTML
  • Rodr¡guez-Artacho, M. and M.F. Verdejo (2001) "Creating Constructivist Learning Scenarios Using an Educative Modelling Language" in Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education 2001 Conference, Reno NV Oct 2001. Available on-line at PDF
  • Rodríguez-Artacho, M., & Verdejo Maíllo, M. F. (2004). Modeling Educational Content: The Cognitive Approach of the PALO Language. In Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 7 (3), 124-137. PDF
  • Sampson, D., Karampiperis, P. et Zervas, P. (2005). ASK-LDT: A Web-based learning scenarios authoring environment based on IMS learning design. Advanced Technology for Learning, 2(4), 207-215.
  • Savard, E. (2007). Scénario 2007, le 2e colloque international sur les scénarios pédagogiques. html (Profetic)
  • Péricles Sobreira, Pierre Tchounikine, Table-based representations can be used to offer easy-to-use, flexible, and adaptable learning scenario editors, Computers & Education, Volume 80, January 2015, Pages 15-27, ISSN 0360-1315, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.002.
  • Streng, S., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Hussmann, H. From Graphical Learning Designs To Computer-Supported Collaboration Scripts: A Rapid Development Process, ICTEL 2011. PDF preprint
  • Teege, Gunnar; Jürgen Koch, Pamela Tröndle, Wolfgang Wörndl, Johann Schlichter (2000). ModuVille: Komponenten für virtuelle WWW-basierte Lehrveranstaltungen, PIK - Praxis der Informationsverarbeitung und Kommunikation, pp. 148-155. (this is a TargeTeam/TeachML publication).
  • Villiot-Leclercq, E., David, J., and Lejeune, A. 2006. Expressing Learning Scenarios with Computer Independent Models. In Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE international Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (July 05 - 07, 2006). ICALT. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 520-522.
  • Waters, Sandie, H. & Andrew, S. Gibbons (2004). Design languages, notation systems, and instructional technology: A case study: Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 57-69. PDF (Access restricted)
  • Wecker, C.; K. Stegmann, F. Bernstein, M. J. Huber, G. Kalus, S. Rathmeyer, I. Kollar and F. Fischer, “S-

COL: A Copernican turn for the development of flexibly reusable collaboration scripts”, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 2010, pp. 321-343.

  • Wilson, S. (2001) "Europe Focuses on EML's" Report from CETIS Research Centre, UK. HTML

Acknowledgement: This article or part of this article has been written during a collaboration with the EducTice group of INRP, which attributed a visiting grant to DKS in january 2009.