Breaking the Kubernetes Kill Chain: Host Path Mount
Interactions for Learning as Expressed in an IMS LD Runtime Environment
1. Interactions for Learning as
Expressed in an IMS LD Runtime
Environment
Michael Derntl1 Susanne Neumann2 Petra Oberhuemer3
1 RWTH Aachen University, Advanced Community Information Systems
2 University of Vienna, Center for Teaching and Learning
3 University of Vienna, Educational Affairs
derntl@dbis.rwth-aachen.de
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
1 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
2. Advanced Community Information Systems
(ACIS)
Responsive
Web Engineering Community
Web Analytics
Open
Visualization
Community
and
Information
Simulation
Systems
Community Community
Support Analytics
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
Requirements
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
2
Engineering
3. Motivation
IMS Learning Design (LD) was developed as a
specification supporting any pedagogical approach [1]
Separation of environments for designing units of
learning (i.e. the authoring environment) and running
units of learning (i.e. the runtime environment)
Challenge: unclear how a deployed package will appear
in a VLE
Much previous research (and tools) about conceptual
and authoring issues; little research about expression of
pedagogical aspects at runtime
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
3 [1] IMS Global: IMS Learning Design Information Model, Version 1.0. http://is.gd/imsldv1 (2003)
4. IMS LD Structure in a Nutshell
Components are weaved into a method following a
stage-play metaphor
Act 1 Act 2 Act n
Role-Part 1 Role-Part 2 Role-Part n Method
Components
Role Activity Environment Activity Structure
Tasks LOs Tools
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
4
5. Objectives
Analyzing the expression of pedagogical aspects in
IMS LD runtime with focus on multi-role settings
(interaction)
– Visual presentation
– Interaction metaphors
Identifying shortcomings and recommendations for
IMS LD runtime developers
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
5
6. Methodology (1)
Player selection
– Several players are available, e.g. GRAIL, SLeD, CLIX,
Astro Player, …
– Original plan: SLeD and AstroPlayer
– But: AstroPlayer lacked support of some features (e.g.
display multiple activity descriptions)
– So: SLeD!
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
6
7. The SLeD Player
Navigation Content Area
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
7
8. Methodology (2)
Selection of framework for pedagogical aspects
– Several candidates like Reeves‟ pedagogical dimensions
[2] or Reigluth/Moore framework for comparing
instructional strategies [3]
– Reigeluth/Moore allow precise and multi-faceted analysis
of learning interactions [2] Reeves, T.: Evaluating What Really Matters in
Computer-Based Education. (1997)
– Types of interactions: [3] Reigeluth, C.M., Moore, J.: Cognitive Education
and the Cognitive Domain. In: Reigeluth, C.M. (ed.),
Instructional- Design Theories and Models, pp. 51-68.
Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ (1999)
Human Non-human
Student Student Student Student Student
– – Other – – – Other
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Teacher Student Tools Information Environment
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
8
9. Methodology (3)
Selection of IMS LD Units of Learning (UoLs)
– Solicited real-world UoLs from ICOPER consortium members
– Selection based on diversity and feature coverage
UoL Features
Deconstructivism Learner & teacher roles; Support activities, Project exploration
Modern architecture Learner & teacher roles; Brainstorming, reading, preparation of
presentation; Resource and tool usage; Support activities
Skyscrapers & Homes A Two learner & one teacher role; Reuse of learning objects and
activities; Two plays
Skyscrapers & Homes B Only learner role; Path selection; Interaction with content; Reflection
and summarizing
Shared outcome Five roles: teacher, two teams (members + coordinators); Split paths;
Role selection; Conditional activity completion; Support activities
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems) Blog collaboration Learner & teacher roles; Content selection; Blogs; Discussion; Final
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
9
reports
10. Methodology (4)
UoL analysis
– Play all paths through each UoL with all roles
– Record support and obstacles for any interaction type
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
10
11. Student – Student
Awareness of interaction only when
– explicit instructions (e.g. in the activity description)
– use of services like chat or forum
Forum
– Missing instructions
– Unclear which roles are assigned
When individuals assigned to multiple team roles
– Unclear when to act in what role
– Roles and UoL selection meshed single drop-down list
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
11
12. Student – Teacher
Key interaction; typically teacher in a support role
Problems during runtime
– Separate views on the UoL
– Unclear when to support which role
– Unclear status of supported roles (if known) – e.g. support
required, learners„ status of completion …
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
Student (l) vs. teacher (r) view in SLeD
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
12
13. Student – Teacher
UoL portion in Astro Player – more structure but no better
Phases (IMS LD act) provide a hint but:
– Matching e.g. in Phase II (1 vs 4 activities)? – Requires guessing, but:
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5 – No way to see the other role„s view – Guessing impossible
Supported roles have no idea that there is any support
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
13
14. Student – Teacher
IMS LD mechanism: learning vs support activity
– Support activity optionally (!) has supported role(s)
– From the IMS LD spec: “When the optional role-ref element is
set, […] the same support activity is repeated for every user in
the role(s). When the role-ref is not available, the support
activity is a single activity (like the learning-activity)” [1]
Problems
– Activity distinction known to be difficult to understand [4]
– Same display as learning activities
– If role-ref not set the only instruction can come from the
description
– Strict separation of role views hampers understanding of
supporting and supported role
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
[4] Neumann, S., Oberhuemer, P.: User Evaluation of a Graphical Modeling Tool for IMS Learning Design. Advances in Web Based
14 Learning – ICWL 2009, pp. 287-296 (2009)
15. Student – Tool / Environment
Difficult distinction tool – environment/manipulatives
– In a VLE context, the tool is and provides the “environment”
In some UoLs there will be VLE external tools
Common practice: show the
hierarchical structure in the XML
package in the UI
– Problematic with Activity Structures
(selection, sequence)
– Note: “SEQUENCE” / “SELECTION”
are part of the titles (by designers)!
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke – Where does what end?
15
16. Student – Tool / Environment
Even more problematic with Role-Part (within Act)
Activity Structure
multiple activity descriptions Learning Activity
and environments Activity Description
Item
Beware of conditions! Item
Activity Structure
– Unexpected appearance / Learning Activity
disappearance of activities Activity Description
Item
– Hard to discern these activities Item
(only the icon distinguishes) Environment
Learning Object
– Impossible to anticipate the Item
upcoming path Item
Learning Activity
– No qualitative info presented on Activity Description
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
UoL design Item
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
Item
16
17. Student – Information
Here: interactions with activities and learning objects
Difficult to understand difference between activity
descriptions (AD) and learning objects (LO)
– AD attached to activity
– LO attached to environments linked to activity
– LOs mentioned in the ADs need manual lookup in the
navigation tree; activity as referencing element only
– In SLeD multiple ADs appear awkwardly
Solutions?
– Integrate LOs more tightly with the activity GUI
– SLD 2.0 does not consider environments at all [5]
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
17 [5] Durand, G., Belliveau, L., Craig, B.: SLD 2.0 XML Binding. http://tinyurl.com/sld2-0-xml (2010)
18. Wrap Up
No explicit linkage between activity description (main area) and
environment objects (navigation)
– Requires LD authors to provide this info contradicts the design/runtime split
Provide in-place access to information within an activity
Roles and their interaction poorly represented
– Unclear “impersonation” status
– Missing info on currently collaborating and supported/supporting roles
Explicitly display this info (USP of IMS LD?!)
Tree based navigation
– Little process-related hints in a tree
Depict the process, the current status, and the changes
Lehrstuhl Informatik 5
(Information Systems)
Prof. Dr. M. Jarke
18