Educational modeling language

Definition

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

Purposes of modeling languages

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 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 incarnates 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.

Design languages and tools

• MISA / MoTD
• Merrill's

Executable vocabularies in production

• EML - Educational Modelling Language

• eLML is an open source XML framework for creating eLessons using XML. It is a "spin-off" from the termGITTA projectGITTA: 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.

Research systems

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

• 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