A Study of E-learning Design Principles with IMS Learning Design

A Study of E-learning Design Principles with IMS Learning Design Lim, Cheolil (Seoul National University, Korea) Kim, Sunyoung (Seoul National University, Korea) Choi, Soyoung (Seoul National University, Korea) Han, Shinhye (Seoul National University, Korea) Abstract The purpose of this study is to investigate the design principles of e-learning contents with IMS Learning Design (IMS LD). IMS LD is an open standard as framework and meta-language, and it is focused on learning activities. The design principles with IMS LD are important to have learning effects. However, the most studies related to IMS LD have focused on technical aspects such as standards, systems, authoring tools, or players. In addition, the studies did not explore the design principles for e-learning content with IMS LD. We proposed an eight design principles of e-learning contents with IMS LD, and we designed and developed and e- Learning contents which applied the design principles. The e-learning content with IMS LD was about needs analysis in educational technology, and it was developed for supporting the environment of Problem-Based Learning (PBL). The e-learning content was evaluated by nine graduate students who were majored in educational technology to confirm the validity of design principles. Keywords: learning design, IMS Learning Design, design principles, e-learning environments Introduction Educational paradigm is changing from instruction-focused paradigm to learning-focused paradigm. The learning-focused instructional design which reflects the learning-focused paradigm, the changes from standardization to customization, from a focus on presenting material to a focus on making sure that learners needs are met, from a focus on putting things into learners heads to a focus on helping learners understand what their heads are into, to instructional design (Reigeluth, 1999). Problem-Based Learning (PBL), Goal-Based Scenario (GBS) and so on are the examples of learning-focused instructional design. Learning design is the new concept of instructional design focused on learners, especially the sequence of learning activities that learners undertake to attain some learning objectives, including the resources and support mechanisms required to help learners to complete these activities (Koper & Bennett, 2008). It is similar to learningfocused instructional design. There are attempts to apply the idea of learning design to e-learning. e-pbl, e-gbs, and simulation are the examples of learning design in e-learning environments. These attempts that are learning design for e-learning design support learning activities in e-learning environments. But most e-learning programs are based on specific theories or models on learning design. So there are many difficulties to support several e-learning programs which have distinctive backgrounds. Therefore, there is the need for the framework that can integrate diverse theories and models. IMS Learning Design (IMS LD) is a good example to apply the concept of learning design for e-learning and to support diverse theories and models. IMS LD is an application of a pedagogical model for a specific learning objective, target group and a specific context or knowledge domain (Koper & Olivier, 2004). In addition, IMS LD specification is an open standard as a framework and meta-language (IMS GLC, 2003a) that is used to design and develop a wide variety of e-learning contents and systems in a formal, semantic, interoperable and machine readable way (Koper & Miao, 2009). IMS LD is focused on learning activities, including the resources and supports to help learners to complete those activities. It is based upon the premise that learning is different from content consumption, and learning happens when learners cooperate collectively to solve problems in social and work situations (Tattersall & Koper, 2003; Lukasiak et al., 2005). In this point of view, IMS LD is quite distinct from traditional e-learning standards such as Sharable Contents Object Reference Model (SCORM). The prior studies related to IMS LD could be classified into the following three themes: 1) Learning Design and ontologies, 2) developing Learning Design in terms of methods, patterns, and integration with other standards, and 3) Learning Design engines (Koper, 2006). In short, the main aspect of these studies with IMS LD focused on technical aspects such as standards, systems, authoring tools, and players, not the aspects of instructional design or 164

learning design. The other aspect of them was definitely about designing e-learning contents or systems, but these have led to the development of products. Therefore, most of the studies related to learning design for IMS LD were about the development procedures of e-learning contents. However, it is important to develop principles for designing e-learning contents with IMS LD, because the learning effects come from designing models and ideas which can be applied to e-learning contents and systems development, not the product itself. In this study, we proposed an eight design principles of e-learning contents with IMS LD, and we developed the e-learning content by those design principles. The e-learning content with IMS LD was evaluated by graduate students who are majored in educational technology to confirm the validity of design principles. Overview IMS Learning Design IMS LD is the standard which is based on Educational Modeling Language (EML) in Open University of the Netherlands (OUNL). It provides a framework of elements that can be used to describe formally the design of any instruction-learning process (IMS GLC, 2003a). Because IMS LD is described as XML format, the instructional designers and learning designers who don t know the language may feel uncomfortable. But the specification of IMS LD liberates from the use of non e-learning specific or proprietary scripting languages to create learning processes (Olivier & Tattersall, 2005). IMS LD specification is the document which describes IMS LD, and supports design and development of e-learning content and system based on IMS LD. It consists of three documents: IMS Learning Design Best Practice and Implementation Guide which represents design examples using IMS LD(IMS GLC, 2003a), IMS Learning Design Information Model which describes the elements and structures of IMS LD(IMS GLC, 2003b), and IMS Learning Design XML Binding which explains language rules(ims GLC, 2003c). IMS LD specification consists of three levels: A, B, and C, where a learning designer and developer can choose the level. Level A is the basic, and level B consists of elements of level A, property, and condition. In addition, level C consists of elements of level B, and notification. Property contains the value of learning contents, learners, staffs, and so on. Property can be personalized by the results from conditions. Finally, notification means announcement on learning process. Elements Table 1 lists the major elements IMS LD. As Table 1 represents, IMS LD specification consists of title, learning-objectives, prerequisites, components, method, and metadata. The most prominent elements are components and method, the rest of them are optional. Table 1. The major elements in hierarchical order adapted from IMS LD level A specification (superior) learning-design title learning-objectives prerequisites components roles learner staff activities environments learning-activity support-activity activity-structure environment (subordinate) method play act role-parts metadata 165

Components are the content elements of Learning Design which consist of roles, activities, and environments. Roles are learner and staff such as instructor, tutor, and manager. Activities are learning-activity and support-activity, and activity-structures. And environments support activities, and they are not only technical support also learning material. Method is the structural and procedural element of Learning Design. That is, method is related to learning process, and it has the metaphor of play. So the method consists of play, act which is part of play, and role-parts which connect act to roles and activities of components. Besides the elements of IMS LD level A in table 1, IMS LD has property, condition, and notification as the elements of IMS LD. Property and condition are the parts of level B, and notification is the part of level C. Conceptual Model Figure 1 is the model which represents the relations of IMS LD major elements. Table 1 is focused on technical aspects, but figure 1 is focused on conceptual aspects. So, it has not only IMS LD terms but general terms such as person, outcome. In addition, the model includes subordinate elements such as learning object, service. Figure 1. The conceptual model of IMS LD level C Characteristics The characteristics of IMS LD are as follows. Learning designer designs based on learning activities of learner. Instructional design focuses on following pre-determined pathway, but IMS LD which reflects learning design considers more complex processes between teachers, learners, contents, and so forth (Sims, 2006). It can maximize the interaction. Because learning designer can design cooperative learning through roles in e-learning environments, it can make increase the interaction between learner and learner. And it makes adaptive web-based learning possible through the interaction between learner and learning system. Design and development of e-learning progress in pedagogical context. IMS LD consists of the terms and the contents related to learning. That is, design and development are based on the concepts of learning. So designing is highly correlated to development. Reusability extends. IMS LD can reuse not only learning objects, but learning activities, and structure. 166

Methods The design principles were developed by following two steps: 1) finding out design principles from reviewing the relevant literature, 2) modifying design principles by designing and developing e-learning content with IMS LD. The e-learning content with IMS LD was about needs analysis in educational technology, and it was developed for supporting the environment of Problem-Based Learning (PBL). The reasons why we chose PBL were 1) PBL is effective learning model for improving learners active participation and it can foster learners intrinsic motivations and develop their self-learning skills (Barrows, 1985; Duffy & Cunningham, 1995; Savery & Duffy, 1995), 2) PBL is an appropriate learning model that can represent the characteristics of design principles with IMS LD. Workshop and interview for evaluating the design principles with IMS LD were held, and nine graduate students participated with the workshop or interview. They are majoring in educational technology, six of them have experienced designing or evaluating e-learning contents, and two of the rest have experienced studying using e- Learning contents. That is, eight of nine participants have experienced e-learning contents. The participants evaluated the design principles in e-learning content with IMS LD as e-learning designer, and their responses of the survey and interviews were analyzed to investigate the strengths, weaknesses, and improvements of the design principles. Eight Design Principles Results Reviewing the relevant literature, designing and developing e-learning content with IMS LD led to identify eight design principles (Lim & Kim, in press). Design learning content and learning activity together. The existing e-learning contents were focused mostly on learning contents, and learning activities were accomplished on another spaces or tools like bulletin board, chatting room, and so on. However, the e-learning contents with IMS LD included both learning contents and learning activities. That is, designing e-learning contents with IMS LD means not only designing learning contents but also designing learning activities. Design adaptive learning about learners characteristics. IMS LD is a standard for adaptive learning, so designing e-learning contents with IMS LD should be focused on adaptive learning by analyzing contents and learners. Especially, IMS LD had standardized variables: property and condition. Therefore, the variables could be used in another e-learning contents with IMS LD. Learning designer could set the learners characteristics as property, and design and present learning activity, learning contents, and control as condition. Design learning activity which are appropriate to roles. The existing e-learning contents were based on individual learning, so they were not good at supporting collaborative learning or cooperative learning. But e-learning contents with IMS LD were based on collaborative or cooperative learning as well as individual learning. In order to support collaborative or cooperative learning, IMS LD had the variable roles. Through roles, learning designer could set the roles of learner and staff that supported learner, and he/she could design the learning activity, learning contents, learners control, and function by roles. Set the range of each activity considering learning activity, content, and screen composition. When the existing e-learning contents were designed, instructional designer designed considering topic and amount of learning contents. However, IMS LD was based on learning activity as well as learning contents, learning designer should design each learning activity with IMS LD considering learning activity, content, and screen composition. Design the activity which is devided between activity-description as main-activity and environment as sub-activity that support main-activity. Activity of IMS LD related to two main elements: activity-description and environment. Activity-description meant main-activity, and environment meant to support main-activity such as supplementary resources and supporting 167

tools. When learning designer designed e-learning contents with IMS LD, he/she needed to devide main-activity and sub-activity. In addition, he/she should design activity-description as main-activity, and environment as sub-activity. Design the activity considering reusability or reproducibility. IMS LD was focused on learning-activity, and the elements including learning-activity were similar to learning object in terms of applying reusability or reproducibility. Specific guidelines from this design principle were as follows. Present the names of programs and lessons separated from activity-description and environment. Design the menus of activity-description and environment separately. Design activity-description and environment considering similarity and inclusion of their contents. Design the expected notification included. The existing e-learning contents did not include notification, and notification was accomplished by instructor or tutor using tools such as Learning Management System (LMS) or Short Message Service (SMS) in implementing time. However, e-learning contents with IMS LD could be designed to send the expected message automatically. Therefore, learning designer could design notification, and instructor or tutor only needed to notify the exceptional message using tools. In order to apply this design principle, IMS LD had the elements: property, timelimit, and notification. Design the timeline considering class type such as online-only class or blended class. The existing e-learning contents were needed additional management. However, e-learning contents with IMS LD could be designed to open and close the class automatically. Using the characteristic of IMS LD, blended class could be managed easily. Learning designer could make the e-learning content opened when need automatically. Reponses of Respective Design Principles Most participants responded that each design principle was helpful for designing e-learning contents with IMS LD. However, there were also some weaknesses and improvements for each design principle. Participants responses of each design principles were listed in Table 2. Table 2. Responses of respective design principles Design principles Participants responses strength weakness Improvement Design learning content and learning activity together. ㆍIt could expand the range of learning activity. ㆍIt enabled learner to learn intensively. ㆍHelpful for increasing learning attitude ㆍIt enabled to design the e-learning contents that were similar to practical instruction. ㆍHelpful for studying easily ㆍThere was doubt whether it was effective. ㆍIt could limit learning activity as macroscopic concept. ㆍIt was difficult to learn only learning contents after class. ㆍ It is needed to provide guidelines to design learning activity. 168

Design principles Participants responses strength weakness Improvement Design adaptive learning about learners characteristics. ㆍGood to apply learners characteristics ㆍHelpful for providing success opportunity ㆍ Difficult to choose and gather learners characteristics ㆍ It is needed to clarify what learners characteristics would be chosen. Design learning activity which are appropriate to roles. ㆍHelpful for designing collaborative learning or cooperative learning ㆍIt enabled to learners to interact and participate learning. ㆍ It should be emphasized to design and development the diverse learning models. Set the range of each activity considering learning activity, content, and screen composition. ㆍIt was learner-centered design. ㆍHelpful for finding out the information about learning activity ㆍ It was difficult to apply the principle, because it would be different according to learning models. ㆍ It is needed specific guidelines. ㆍ Easy to understand what to do Design the activity which is devided between activity-description as main-activity and environment as subactivity that support main-activity. ㆍ Helpful for paying attention the diverse tools as environment ㆍ There were some difficulties to understand the terms such as activitydescription, environment. Design the activity considering reusability or reproducibility. ㆍ Helpful for developing e-learning contents in terms of reusability ㆍ It was difficult to develop using the existing contents. ㆍ Effective at sharing good contents ㆍ It should precede to be standard. Design the expected notification included. ㆍIt could be immediate notification. ㆍHelpful for managing learning schedule ㆍHelpful for manager ㆍ It could be ineffective for learners, because automatical notification would be felt formally. ㆍ It is needed to provide not only e-mail, but also various device. ㆍ Helpful for developer Design the timeline considering class type such as online-only class or blended class. ㆍ It could reduce false click. ㆍ It could decrease learners leadership. ㆍ It is needed to clarify the terms of class. 169

Conclusion Learning design which is fundamental concept of IMS LD is focused on learner, especially the sequence of learning activities that learners undertake to attain some learning objectives, including the resources and support mechanisms required to help learners to complete these activities (Koper & Bennett, 2008). IMS LD is the main attempt to apply the concept of learning design for e-learning, and to support diverse learning theories and models. The prior studies related to IMS LD had focused only on technical aspects, not the aspects of instructional design or learning design. In addition, most of the studies related to learning design with IMS LD were about the development procedures of e-learning contents, not the design guidelines, principles, and models. This study aimed at investigating the design principles of e-learning contents with IMS LD. The design principles were developed by following two steps: finding out design principles from reviewing the relevant literature, and modifying design principles by designing and developing e-learning content with IMS LD. In addition, the strengths, weaknesses, and improvements of design principles were analyzed from the workshop and interview for evaluating the design principles. Through this study, major directions for improvements of the design principles were recommended, and an design-based research is suggested to examine the responses of learners for further study. Acknowledgement This research was funded by the Korea Ministry of Knowledge Economy (No. 10029965). References Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years. New York: Springer Publishing Co. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. (1995). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Telecommunications and technology (p. 170-198). New York: Macmillan. IMS GLC (2003a). IMS Learning Design Best Practice and Implementation Guide: Version 1.0 Final Specification. IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. IMS GLC (2003b). IMS Learning Design Informational Model: Version 1.0 Final Specification. IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. IMS GLC (2003c). IMS Learning Design XML Binding: Version 1.0 Final Specification. IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. Koper, R. (2006). Current Research in Learning Design. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 13-22. Koper, R., & Bennett, S. (2008). Learning design: Concepts. In H. H. Adelsberger, Kinshuk, J. M. Pawloski, & D. G. Sampson (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for education and training (2nd ed.) (pp. 135-154). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Koper, R., & Miao, Y. (2009). Using the IMS LD Standard to Describe Learning Designs. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennet, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning Objects: Issues, Applications and Technologies (pp. 41-86). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Koper, R., & Olivier, B. (2004). Representing the learning design of units of learning. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 97-111. Lim, C., & Kim, S. (in press). Design Principles and Procedures for E-learning Programs with the IMS Learning Design Specification in Higher Education in Korea. In T. Islam, O. Lee, J. Peterso, & M. Piscioneri (Eds.), Effectively Implementing Information Communication Technology in Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers Inc. Lukasiak, J., Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., Harper, B., Lockyer, L., & Powley, B. (2005). Learning objects and learning designs: an integrated system for reusable, adaptive and shareable learning content. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 13(2), 151-169. Olivier, B., & Tattersall, C. (2005). The Learning Design Specification. In R. Koper, & C. Tattersall (Eds.), Learning Design: A Handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training (pp. 21-40). Berlin- Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What Is Instructional-Design Theory and How Is It Changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models Volume II: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (pp. 5-47). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 170

Savery, F., & Duffy, T. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-38. Sims, R. (2006). Beyond Instructional Design: Making Learning Design a Reality. Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 1-7. Tattersall, C., & Koper, R. (2003). EML and IMS Learning Design: from LO to LA. Retrieved March 31, 2010, from http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/107. 171