Educational modeling language

<pageby nominor="false" comments="false"/>

Definition

A Educational modelling language (or educational modeling language) formally describes educational materials and/or pedagogical scenario. It is a kind of design language that may or may not be executable.

See also learning object (since these can be modeled with such languages) and the standards page which provides an overview on various specifications and languages used in education.

Purposes of modeling languages

Objectives

Dessus and Schneider (2006) identify four kinds of objectives:

• Define pedagogical scenarios
• Exchange learning units (learning objects, scenarios)
• Execute a unit in a platform (see LMS)
• Sketch, design, plan and discuss pedagogical scenarios

Typology of modeling languages

Modeling languages are developed by different sorts of institutions:

• Real standardization bodies like IEEE
• De facto standardization bodies like IMS or SCORM
• International research networks like Ariadne or Kaleidoscope
• Various research laboratories

Categories that might be used to describe a modeling language:

• Formality: Strictly formal (e.g. an XML grammar) vs. semi-formal (e.g. ideas on how to make use of UML or verbal description)
• Executability: Modelling only / execution (or compilation in executable code / or both
• Status: Formal standard / standard-like / experimental (see standards.
• Scope: Global / specialized / in between (Note: DSchneider doesn't think that there is a single language that has truly global scope)
• Pedagogic orientation (see pedagogic strategy).

Representational Frameworks

According to Rodriguez-Artacho and Verdejo (2004),

• Learning material is composed by pedagogical and instructional information that can be represented using an abstract information model and binding in an specification.
• The different elements of the specification are classified /grouped into categories called layers.
• As a formal specification, each element has an associated pedagogical meaning or operational semantics that require a process of interpretation or compilation by the LMS.

Rodriguez-Artacho M. and Verdejo (2004): Representational Framework of an Educational Modeling Language

Layer	Functionality
Management Layer	LMS interoperability
Sequencing Layer	Scheduling, prerequisites, dependences
Structure Layer	Navigational model, Table of contents
Activity Layer	Activity, community, Roles, resources, tools
Content Layer, RIO, RLO's, Conceptual Domains, Multimedia Assets	Learning content, Learning Objects, Ontology-based instructional Knowledge

See also how this is implemented in PALO

Executable "standardized" languages

• IMS Simple Sequencing incarnates typical behaviorist/cognitivist approach (e.g. mastery learning). It is part of SCORM 2004.

• IMS Learning Design and its ancestor EML (Educational Modelling Language) incarnates a cognitivist main-stream instructional design model

• IMS Content Packaging implements simple tell or tell-and-ask strategies by default, i.e. the design is menu of resources.

IMS Simple Sequencing and IMS Learning Design organizations are supposed to be embedded in IMS Content Packs, but in November 2006 we didn't find any production-ready player for IMS Learning Design and only commercial products for Simple Sequencing.

Other design languages

Such languages formally describe a pedagogical design, usually with a visual language. Some (e.g. MISA) can then be compiled into an executable format, e.g. MISA to IMS LD, Level A. Yet others are integrated within an LMS

• MISA / MOT (Paquette et al.). Note that MOT can export to IMS LD Level A.
• UML, the modelling language for software engineering is sometimes used, e.g. Roku et al. (2004).
• CPM, a UML Profile to design cooperative PBL situations (Nodenet et Laforcade,
• E2ML - Education Environment Modeling language (Boturi et al.)
• Merrill's ??
• EML - Educational Modelling Language
• eLML is an open source XML framework for creating eLessons using XML. It is a "spin-off" from the GITTA project: GITTA is a Swiss e-Learning project about GIS and it is the abbreviation for Geographic Information Technology Training Alliance. For more information about GITTA have a look at www.gitta.info., a Swiss GIS e-Learning project.
• LMML - Learning Material Markup Language Framework LMML based on the PTM - The Passau Teachware Model.

Vocabularies used in research systems

(there are many more, ... to be inserted)

• PALO
  • PALO
• LDL - Learning Design Language (Martel et al., 2006), an EML-like language adapted to modeling collaborative activities.

Older or less known attempts

... not sure if these systems have been used or are still in use - Daniel K. Schneider 16:34, 29 May 2007 (MEST)

• Hyper-Text Tutorial Markup Language (HTTML), by Brian L. Stuart. An HTML extension to include quizzing plus lessons structuring.

• Mentoring Activity and Query-Response Ontology (MAQRO). An RDF ontology for describing query and response scenarios.

• QuizzIT, by Lucio Cunha Tinoco, Virginia Technical Institute

• QML, by Robert Bamberger, Christopher Shorey and Richard Simpkinsson, Washington State University.

• PML (Procedural Mark-up Language)

• Tutorial Markup Language (TML/Netquest) by Daniel Brickely, University of Bristol. An interchange format designed to separate the semantic content of a question from its screen layout or formatting.

• TArgeted Reuse and GEneration of TEAching Materials (TargeTeam) by Gunnar Teege et al., Technische Universität München. Based on TeachML, a system for supporting the preparation, use, and reuse of teaching materials.

Packaging languages

• By definition, packaging languages are not educational modeling languages per se, but can wrap up for distribution "executable" bricks defined with modeling languages.

• However, IMS Content Packaging for example does include some simple sequencing information.

Tools

Please have a look at the various modelling languages, in particular:

• IMS Learning Design

See also tools that implicitly define modeling languages or that can export to these formats, e.g.

• LMSs,
  • in particular more creative systems like LAMS and CeLS implement scenarization through activity planning and can enact these scenarios.
  • the most popular open source system only do IMS Content Packaging or tricky SCORM 1.2 extensions
  • Some commercial systems are SCORM 2004 compatible and claim to implement IMS Simple Sequencing (none tested - Daniel K. Schneider 14:55, 30 January 2007 (MET))
• Lesson planning tools (not many go far)
• Pedagogical scenario tools like OASIF, MISA/MOT, Dialog Plus Toolkit

Discussion

Both general utility and utility of currently popular modeling is of hotly debated. E.g. According to Rodríguez-Artacho (2004), “a) Firstly, current specifications do not provide authors of learning material with a pedagogical authoring layer based on instructional elements, originating -therefore- a tight dependence between the learning content and the final delivery format, mainly internet-based technology; b) secondly, specifications themselves are currently isolated representational frameworks, which provide a fragmented view of certain aspects of learning material; c) Thirdly, there is no room for cognitive approaches or instructional and pedagogical knowledge representations;”

There are also more principled interrogations, like interrogations about situatedness of teaching (good teachers decide a lot of things on the fly)

In brief, DSchneider believes (see also Dessus & Schneider, 2006) there are several advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages

• Rationalization, formalization and standardization of design processes
• Information and materials sharing between teachers and content producers
• Reuse on different platforms (no vendor lock-in)

Disadvantages

• Political and ethical problems (fear of industrialization of the school system, recolonization of developing countries through content domination, dumbing down of teachers)
• Cost (unless production and distribution is large scale, nothing can be gained by investing a lot of time into formalization)
• Technical (adaptability, lack of good implementations and tools for most standards)
• Pedagogical (tools are not neutral, lack of affordances can kill design goals)
• Teachers create while they teach and this "situated act" can not as easily be transcribed into a formalism as some instructional designers believe.
• Break downs. Formal computerized systems tend to break down when unplanned events occur. Current execution environments are not flexible enough to allow for quick and easy run-time modifications.

Links

• EML, at Learning Networks (Dutch-led consortium)
• JISC e-Learning Focus (The British JISC program is one of the key actors in promoting modeling languages and design for learning).
  • e-learning pedagogy programme
  • Innovating e-learning conference 2006. See in particular the Design for learning: Proceedings of Theme 1 (PDF).
• Topic: Education Modelling Language (EML), Stephen's Web (collection of postings by Stephen Downes).

References

• 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 www.ask4research.info/icalt/2006/files/82_Bot.pdf here).

• Botturi, L., Stubbs, T. (eds.) (forthcoming in 2007). Handbook of Visual Langauges in Instructional Design: Theories and Pratices. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

• Botturi, L. (2006). E2ML. A visual language for the design of instruction. Educational Technologies Research & Development, 54(3), 265-293.

• 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

• Brabazon, T (2002) Digital Hemlock: Internet Education and the Poisoning of Teaching, Sydney: University of New South Wales Press

• 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

• 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)

• 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

• Friesen, Norm, (2004). The E-learning Standardization Landscape, HTML , retrieved 17:52, 5 October 2006 (MEST).

• 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).

• 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.

• 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., 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 ...)

• Rawlings, Adrian; Peter van Rosmalen, Rob Koper,Miguel Rodríguez-Artacho, and Paul Lefrere (2002). Report on Educational Modeling Languages (October 2002)

[www.cen.eu/cenorm/businessdomains/businessdomains/isss/activity/emlsurveyv1.pdf PDF]. Probably the best overview

• Koper, R. Educational Modelling Language: adding instructional design to existing specification, unpublished paper (?), 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.

• 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 Christian, Laurence Vignollet, Christine Ferraris, Guillaume Durand (2006), LDL: a Language to Model Collaborative Learning Activities, ED-MEDIA 2006 PDF Preprint

• Martel C., Vignollet L., Ferraris C., David J.P., Lejeune A. (2006), Modeling collaborative learning activities on e-learning platforms, ICALT 06, (PDF)

• 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

• 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

• 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.

• 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

• 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

• Süss, C., Freitag, B and P. Broessler (1999) "LMML: Metamodelling for Web-based Teachware Management" in Proc. Intl. ER '99 Paris, France LNCS 1727 Springer Verlag http://daisy.fmi.uni-passau.de/db/literatur.php3?key=SFB99

• 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).

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