Educational modeling language

This article or section is currently under construction

In principle, someone is working on it and there should be a better version in a not so distant future.
If you want to modify this page, please discuss it with the person working on it (see the "history")

Definition

Educational modelling language (or educational modeling language) formally describes educational materials and contents.

Purposes of modeling languages

Dessus and Schneider (2006) defined 4 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 differents sorts of institutions:

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

Executable "standardized" vocabularies

• IMS Simple Sequencing imcarnates typical behaviorist/cognitivist aproach (e.g. mastery learning)

• IMS Learning Design and its ancestor EML incarnates a cognitivist main-stream instructional design model

• IMS Content Packaging (i.e. its default organization) implements simple tell or tell-and-ask strategies.

Executable vocabularies in production

• EML - Educational Modelling Language

• eLML, ETD-ML Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Markup Language

• LMML - Learning Material Markup Language Framework LMML

• PTM - The Passau Teachware Model

Research systems

• PALO

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.

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 developping 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.

References

• Breuker, J., Muntjewerff, A., and Bredewej, B. (1999) "Ontological modeling for designing educational systems" In Proceedings of the AIED 99 Workshop on Ontologies for Educational Systems, Le Mans, France. IOS Pressp

• 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

• 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

• 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.

• 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

• 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

• 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

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