[PDF] Document-Oriented E-Learning Components

View - Download Document-Oriented E-Learning Components

Previous PDF

Next PDF

OTTO-VON-GUERICKE-UNIVERSITÄT MAGDEBURG

FAKULTÄT FÜR INFORMATIKOTTO-VON-GUERICKE-UNIVERSITÄTMAGDEBURGDocument-Oriented

E-Learning Components

Dissertation

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades

Doktoringenieur (Dr.-Ing.)

von Michael Piotrowski, M.A. geb. am 5. Juli 1972 in Aachen

Gutachter:

Prof. Dr. Anne Brüggemann-Klein

Prof. Dr. Helmut Schauer

Promotionskolloquium:

Magdeburg, den 17. April 2009

Document-Oriented

E-Learning Components

© 2009 Michael Piotrowski

Design by Michael Piotrowski. Typeset with L

ATEX in Bitstream Zapf

Elliptical 711, Linotype Basic Commercial, and Bitstream Prestige

12 Pitch.

Abstract

This dissertation questions the common assumption that e-learning requires alearning management system(LMS) such as Moodle or Black- board. Based on an analysis of the current state of the art in LMSs, we come to the conclusion that the functionality of conventional e-learn- ing platforms consists of basic content management and communica- tions facilities (such as forums, chats, wikis, etc.) and functionality for assessment (such as quizzes). However, only assessment functionality is actually specic to e-learning. Furthermore, the content management and communication functionality in e-learning platforms is typically restricted and often inferior when compared with the more general implementations available in Web content management systems. Since content management systems (CMS) offer more general and more robust functions for managing content, we argue that e-learning platforms should be based on content management systems. Only assessment functions are actually specic to e-learning and need to be added to a CMS; this requires the architecture of the CMS to be modular. As a proof of concept, we have designed and implemented the eduCom- ponents, a component-based e-learning system architecture, realized as software components extending a general-purpose content manage- ment system with facilities for course management and assessment. The eduComponents have been successfully used since several se- mesters at Otto von Guericke University and other institutions. The experience with the eduComponents gives practical evidence for the theses we have put forward in this dissertation and of the feasibility of the eduComponents approach. The research done for this dissertation has also resulted in practical denitions fore-learningande-learning platform, terms which are notoriously ill-dened. Based on these denitions, we have developed an innovative way to assess and to visualize the areas of functionality of e-learning environments.3

Zusammenfassung

ning Management System(LMS) wie Moodle oder Blackboard eine Voraussetzung für E-Learning ist. Gestützt auf eine Analyse des aktuel- len Stands der Technik bei LMS kommen wir zu dem Schluss, dass die genen Content-Management- und Kommunikationsfunktionen (Foren, Chats, Wikis usw.) und zum anderen aus Funktionen für Leistungsüber- lich e-learning-spezisch. Darüber hinaus ist die Content-Management- nen in Content-Management-Systemen (CMS) oft schwach. Da CMS allgemeinere und ausgereiftere Funktionen für die Verwaltung von Inhalten bieten, fordern wir, dass E-Learning-Plattformen auf CMS gen ist e-learning-spezisch und muss zum CMS hinzugefügt werden; dies erfordert eine modulare CMS-Architektur. Als Machbarkeitsnachweis haben wir die eduComponents entworfen und implementiert, eine komponentenbasierte E-Learning-Systemarchi- tektur, die in der Form von Softwarekomponenten für ein allgemeines tung und Leistungsüberprüfung erweitert. Die eduComponents sind seit mehreren Semestern an der Otto-von- satz. Die Erfahrungen mit den eduComponents sind der praktische Nachweis für die in dieser Dissertation aufgestellten Thesen und die

Tauglichkeit des eduComponents-Ansatzes.

In dieser Dissertation stellen wir außerdem praktische Denitionen für die notorisch unklaren BegriffeE-LearningundE-Learning-Platt- formauf. Auf der Basis dieser Denitionen haben wir einen neuen

E-Learning-Umgebungen entwickelt.5

Contents

List of Figures 11

List of Tables 13

Acknowledgments 15

1 Introduction 17

1.1 Why E-Learning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

1.2 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

1.3 Theses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

1.4 Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

2 Foundations and State of the Art 25

2.1 E-Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

2.1.1 What Is E-Learning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

2.1.2 Corporate and Academic E-Learning . . . . . . .30

2.1.3 E-Learning: A Practical Definition . . . . . . . . .35

2.2 Software for E-Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

2.2.1 What Is an E-Learning Platform? . . . . . . . . . .37

2.2.2 Some Historical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

2.2.3 E-Learning Platforms: A Practical Definition . . .39

2.3 Do We Really Need Special Software for E-Learning? . .43

2.4 Content Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

2.5 State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

2.5.1 E-Learning Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

2.5.2 Content Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . .53

2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

7

3 The eduComponents Approach 59

3.1 Design and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

3.1.1 Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

3.1.2 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

3.2 Short Description of the Individual Components . . . .66

3.2.1 ECLecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

3.2.2 ECQuiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

3.2.3 ECAssignmentBox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

3.2.4 ECAutoAssessmentBox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

3.2.5 ECReviewBox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

3.3 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

3.3.1 Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

3.3.2 Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

3.3.3 Educational Uses of Plone . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

3.3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

4 Assessment 77

4.1 Bloom"s Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

4.2 Newer Taxonomies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

4.2.1 Revised Bloom"s Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

4.2.2 Marzano"s New Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

4.2.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

4.3 E-Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

4.3.1 Early Automatic Testing Systems . . . . . . . . .84

4.3.2 Audience Response Systems . . . . . . . . . . . .85

4.3.3 Computer-Aided Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . .86

4.3.4 Web-Based Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

4.3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92

4.4 Design and Implementation of the Assessment-Related

eduComponents Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

4.4.1 ECQuiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

4.4.2 ECAssignmentBox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

4.4.3 ECAutoAssessmentBox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112

4.4.4 ECReviewBox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

4.5 Authoring and Interchange of Multiple-Choice Tests . .119

4.5.1 File Formats for Authoring . . . . . . . . . . . . .120

4.5.2 Test Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143

8

5 Practical Use, Experience, and Evaluation 145

5.1 Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145

5.2 Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147

5.3 Student Questionnaire Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150

5.3.1 Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151

5.3.2 Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152

5.3.3 Influence on Learning Processes . . . . . . . . . .152

5.4 Comments from Instructors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155

5.5 User Questionnaire Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155

5.6 Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158

6 Outlook 161

6.1 eduComponents and the Plone roadmap . . . . . . . . .161

6.2 Plone as a Learning Object Repository . . . . . . . . . .163

6.2.1 What are Learning Objects? . . . . . . . . . . . .163

6.2.2Excursus: Learning Objects - A Critical Discussion165

6.2.3 Learning Object Repositories vs. CMSs . . . . . .167

6.3 Using Plone and the eduComponents for E-Portfolios . .168

6.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170

7 Summary and Conclusion 171

7.1 Component Synergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173

7.2 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175

A Glossary 177

B Student Questionnaire 181

C User Questionnaire 185

Bibliography 187

Author"s Publications in the Context of this Dissertation 205 Theses Supervised by the Author in the Context of this Disserta- tion 2079

List of Figures

2.1 PLATO V terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

2.2 Activities supported by e-learning platforms . . . . . . .42

2.3 Demarcation of Web content management . . . . . . . .46

2.4 Typical CMS user interface (Contenido) . . . . . . . . . .48

2.5 Screenshot of Moodle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

2.6 Screenshot of OLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

2.7 Plone user interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

3.1 Zope architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

3.2 eduComponents architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

3.3 Example course homepage realized with ECLecture . . .67

3.4 A multiple-choice test in ECQuiz . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

3.5 Student"s view of an assignment box . . . . . . . . . . .69

3.6 Automatic feedback from ECAutoAssessmentBox . . . .70

3.7 ECReviewBox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

4.1 Pyramid of learning objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

4.2 Pressey Testing Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

4.3 Screenshots from PLATO I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

4.4 PLATO IV multiple-choice test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

4.5 ECQuiz quiz options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95

4.6 ECQuiz question types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

4.7 Editing view of an ECQuiz question . . . . . . . . . . . .98

4.8 Editing view of an ECQuiz answer . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

4.9 ECQuiz instant feedback option for self-assessment tests99

4.10 Student"s view of an assignment box . . . . . . . . . . .102

4.11 ECAssignmentBox editing view . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

4.12 Relation of ECAssignmentBox and ECAssignmentTask .106

11

4.13 ECAssignment workflow states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108

4.14 Assignment box evaluation view . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

4.15 Assignment box analysis view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

4.16 ECFolder statistics view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110

4.17 Comparing two submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

4.18 A screenshot of PlagDetector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

4.19 Editing information required for automatic testing . . .114

4.20 Automatic feedback from ECAutoAssessmentBox . . . .115

4.21 Student"s view of ECReviewBox . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118

4.22 MC Frog test editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121

4.23 Quick Edit view of a test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128

4.24 Example test structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

4.25 ECQuiz question groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132

5.1 Submissions during summer semester 2008 . . . . . . .146

5.2 Submissions times during summer semester 2008 . . . .146

5.3 Students using eduComponents at WDOK . . . . . . . .150

5.4 Student responses: Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152

5.5 Student responses: Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153

5.6 Student responses: Learning process (diligence) . . . . .153

5.7 Student responses: Learning process (elaborateness) . .154

5.8Student responses: Learning process (automatic feedback)154

5.9 User responses: Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156

5.10 User responses: Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157

7.1 Activities supported Plone with eduComponents . . . .172

7.2 "Lecture view": An example of component synergy . . .174

7.3 Portlets area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174

12

List of Tables

2.1 Corporate vs. academic e-learning . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

4.1 Revised Bloom"s Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

4.2 Comparison of original and Revised Bloom"s Taxonomy80

4.3Revised Bloom's Taxonomy annotated with "action verbs"81

4.4 Marzano"s New Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

4.5 Evolution of technologies for multiple-choice tests . . .92

13

Acknowledgments

The research described in this dissertation was performed in the WDOK research group during my employment at Otto von Guericke University WDOK and doctoral mentor, for his support and his enthusiasm for the eduComponents. I would like to thank Dipl.-Wirtsch.-Inf. Mario Amelung, my colleague at WDOK, for the excellent, enjoyable, and effective collaboration. It was a pleasure to work with him on the eduComponents. We spent many hours discussing the design and jointly developed key parts using pair programming. We collaborated on almost all of the publi- cations on the eduComponents, often in "extreme writing" sessions. I would like to thank Dipl.-Inf. Wolfram Fenske, then my student assis- tant, for his outstanding programming work and the long conversations about fine points of the implementation, UNIX, Lisp, and XEmacs. Most of the actual writing of the dissertation was done while I worked at the Institute of Computational Linguistics at the University of Zurich. I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Michael Hess, head of the institute, for being able to reconcile my project work with the work on my disserta- tion. I would like to thank my Zurich colleagues for creating a pleasant working environment, and in particular Martin Warin, lic.phil. Maya Bangerter, and Dr. des. Simon Clematide for their diligent proofreading. I would like to thank the reviewers, Prof. Dr. Anne Brüggemann-Klein and Prof. Dr. Helmut Schauer, who graciously and promptly agreed to act as reviewers when I contacted them. I would like to thank my parents and my sister for their constant support and encouragement during all those years. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my sweetheart, lover, and best friend, Cerstin, for all her support - and for the gentle prodding when I needed it. Her assistance in every respect has been invaluable. As a fellow computational linguist and e-learning expert, her advice has been priceless. I do not know what I would have done without her.She"s there to remind me she believes in me.15 1 IntroductionNo magical improvement of material occurs simply because of presentation by a computer-based educa- tional system. -Avner and Tenczar:The TUTOR Manual.1.1 Why E-Learning? E-learning is an "unprecedented chance" for universities, according to theVirtusD Memorandum, issued in 2007 by a group of twenty-two

German politicians, scientists, and entrepreneurs:E-Learning gibt uns endlich die bisher nie da gewesene Chance

zur Öffnung neuer Wege für die Bildung, zur Steigerung der Rationalisierung des Ressourceneinsatzes in den wesentlichen

Bereichen des Bildungswesens.

1[73, p. 2]

In fact, universities are under pressure, from various sides, to update their teaching and learning technologies from chalkboard and paper to something callede-learning. Universities have to compete with each other for students and for funding, while they face shrinking budgets and reduced staff sizes, and, at the same time, the German government (among others) is trying

to increase the number of university graduates in order to meet the1."E-learning nally offers us the as yet unprecedented chance to blaze new trails

for education, to raise the quality of education, and, at the same time, to signicantly and sustainably rationalize the use of resources in the key areas of education." This and all subsequent translations from German are by the author.17 demands for highly qualied skilled labor and to keep the country competitive in the global marketplace.

2As the introductory quotation

shows, e-learning is seen as a way to make more efcient use of the available resources. On the other hand, pressure comes from policy makers, who recognize that "the complexity of the world today requires employees to have extensive knowledge and skills, more than at any other time, to meet the demands of industry and society." [89] In the light of globalization governments see the necessity for a highly qualied workforce to enable their country to compete as a center of research and technology and as a business location on a global level. In Germany, one visible result is the Excellence Initiative of the federal of 1.9 billion euros for the three lines of funding in two rounds in 2006 and 2007 with the aim of "promoting excellent research in German universities." 3 Besides increased funding for "clusters of excellence," e-learning is also seen as a crucial factor for success. A call for proposals of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) from 2004 urges:Die systematische Nutzung dieser neuen Technologien ist über- dies erforderlich, um das Innovationspotenzial, das sich für Bil- dungs- und Wissensdienstleister aus dem Trend hin zur Wis- sensgesellschaft und zur Tertiarisierung ergibt, umfassend auszu- 4[51] Pressure also comes directly from industry, which demands that gradu- ates be better educated and more highly skilled after shorter studies. Finally, pressure comes from students: The "Net Generation" [127] de- mands the same level of service that they know from online businesses, and the availability of e-learning (and integrated e-administration) becomes a selection criterion for potential students and a factor in university rankings. Ulrik Schroeder

5formulated the following hypo-

thetical questions and demands of "Net Generation" students:

6§Why should I have to stand in line to enroll in a course?

§Why should I have to run from one notice board to the next to

learn about my grades or get other information?2.See, for example, [52] or the OECD press release "Deutschland verliert bei

der Ausbildung von Hochqualizierten international weiter an Boden" (Septem- ber, 9 2008); available online athttp://www.oecd.org/document/15/0,3343,de_

34968570_35008930_41277711_1_1_1_1,00.html(accessed 2008-12-09).

2008-10-17)

4."Systematic use of these new technologies is essential to fully realize the potential

that arises for education and knowledge providers from the development towards the knowledge society and towards tertiarization."

5.Head of the Computer-Supported Learning Research Group and of the Center for

Integrative eTeaching and eLearning Concepts at RWTH Aachen University.

6.From slide 5 of the presentation "eLearning-Einstieg leichtgemacht: L2P", given

in Zurich on 2007-10-31, author"s translation.18 §Why should I have to go to the examinations ofce to get some certificate?§Why should I have to borrow materials and copy them at the copy shop?§I want to determine time, place, and speed of learning myself! §I want modern and efcient collaboration with my fellow stu- dents! All this puts pressure on universities to set up infrastructure and to implement institution-wide e-learning. Since most universities in Europe are government-funded, public funding policies play a signicant role as well. The funding policy for university e-learning projects in Germany can be divided into two phases. 7 During the rst phase, from ca. 2000 until 2004, grants were primarily given to single, mostly isolated projects that focused on content cre- ation, especially multimedia-enhanced courseware. The creation of multimedia content is costly - the production of videos and animations, for example, is labor-intensive and requires expensive hardware - and the content is quickly outdated, especially in rapidly evolving subjects. Furthermore, after the end of the project funding, there were typically neither funds nor personnel available for continued maintenance and development of the content produced. Hence, most of these projects had little or no long-term impact. Consequently, evaluations of this rst phase of funding [see12,92,95] highlighted the lack of sustainability as the main problem. Since about 2005, a new phase of funding policy has begun, which largely follows the recommendations made in the audit report [12]. It was recognized that in order to achieve the sustainable integration of e-learning into universities, it is necessary to consider it as a part of the university development process. The goal is therefore to achieve sustainability by integrating e-learning into the university structures. Universities have responded to the pressure and to the demands for sustainability by considering e-learning as an issue of high-level strate- gic planning and devisinge-learning strategies[see93]. Thus, as Collis and van der Wende[35]put it, "institutions are now transferring from a period of rich and mostly bottom-up experimentation to a phase in which institution-wide use of ICT [information and communication technology] is being encouraged." We should note that traditional universities are not aiming at replacing face-to-face courses and trans- forming themselves into distance universities - the use of e-learning is rather envisaged in ablended learningapproach in which e-learning is conceived as "both complementing and enhancing the overall student learning experience"

87.While we only describe the funding policy in Germany, the development in other

European countries has been similar [see 36].

8.From the e-learning strategy of the University of Lancasterhttp://www.lancs.

quotesdbs_dbs33.pdfusesText_39

[PDF] http://programme-mercure.over-blog.org

[PDF] Hydro One Acquisition de biens et services

[PDF] hygiène sécurité environnement Hygiène et sécurité guide de la formation 2003-2004 Délégation Alsace Délégation Nord-Est

[PDF] HYGIENE, SANTE, SECURITE AU TRAVAIL

[PDF] I - Initiative Melun Val de Seine & Sud Seine-et-Marne, une Plateforme Initiative France répondant aux besoins du Sud Seine et Marne

[PDF] I - Pour créer un site web

[PDF] I Buts, Composition et Ressources de l'association

[PDF] I Contentieux du contrôle URSSAF. II Contrat de travail à temps partiel. III Procédure conventionnelle

[PDF] I N V I T A T I O N Cycle de formation

[PDF] I. - LES FAITS NÉCESSITANT LA MISE EN ŒUVRE DE LA PROCÉDURE SPÉCIFIQUE D URGENCE A.

[PDF] I. CADRE D'ACTIO E MATIÈRE DE CLIMAT ET D'ÉERGIE À L'HORIZO 2030

[PDF] I. DEFINITION DE NOTRE MISSION

[PDF] I. Démarches administratives et documents à produire

[PDF] I. Inscription en licence de psychologie - Bacheliers Autres candidats - Candidats étrangers

[PDF] I. Marché du travail et emploi salarié privé. Evolution du nombre de demandeurs d emploi (cat ABC) à fin octobre 2012. Oct. 2011 Oct.