Educational modeling language

The educational technology and digital learning wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Definition

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

See also learning object (since these can be modeled with such languages).

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:

Executable "standardized" vocabularies

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

Design languages

Such languages formally describe a pedagogical design. Some (e.g. MISA) can then be compiled into an executable format, e.g. MISA to IMS LD, Level A.

  • MISA / MoTD
  • 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,
  • Merrill's

Executable vocabularies in production

  • 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.

Vocabularies used in research systems

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

  • PALO
  • LDL (Martel et al., 2006)

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.

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.


Links

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
  • Friesen, Norm, (2004). The E-learning Standardization Landscape, HTML , retrieved 12:42, 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 12:42, 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
  • 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
  • Wilson, S. (2001) "Europe Focuses on EML's" Report from CETIS Research Centre, UK. HTML
Retrieved from "https://edutechwiki.unige.ch/mediawiki/index.php?title=Educational_modeling_language&oldid=8338"