1. Using IMS Learning Design Tools in UK Higher Education Mark Barrett-Baxendale Liverpool Hope University, UK

2. Background Using IMS Learning Design (IMS LD) tools in a real Higher Education context Tutors drawing up and using IMS LD with support

3. Learner Tutor Publishes designs Runs designs Discovers/shares designs SLeD Interface Learning Design repository (OpenDocument.net) A Learning Design System Reload Editor Creates/modifies designs Learning Design server (CopperCore/SLeD)

4. The Learning Designs Level B Used properties to control progress e.g. –Tutor monitors activities and allows to progress –File upload triggers progression Group work QTI Granularity of UoLs was an issue –Flexibility –Global properties used to link UoLs (e.g. can’t start week 3 until completed week 2)

5. The authoring process Tutors attend an authoring workshop Subsequently author designs to IMS LD level A using Reload –Some support Designs authored to level B (properties & conditions) using Reload

6. Case: Mythologies of Loss English tutor at Liverpool Hope University (LHU) Supported in drawing up an IMS LD unit of learning (UoL) Using the Reload IMS LD editor UoL supports a six-week topic: “Mythologies of Loss” within a second year HE module “Twentieth-Century Readings” –Run using SLeD/Coppercore

7. Demonstration: authoring

8. Authoring to level B Reload well suited to tasks Collaborative authoring was a problem –Reference clashes - used XML editor - time consuming Viewing/setting properties- producing form in XML –“form builder” within editor would have been useful Scripting (conditions) was easier in XML editor

9. Tutor experience “The advantage [of LD] is that both the tutor and the student can see an overview of the route through the course” Sebastian Groes, English Tutor “… the most pedagogical sound method I have used …” - Amanda Oddie, Computer Science tutor “I like the way we can structure the learning so that students have to respond to feedback before progressing” – Chris Beaumont, Computer Science tutor

10. Running with students UoL published to the SLeD/Coppercore IMS LD player Running on a server at LHU Made available to learners attending the tutor’s module.

11. Demonstration: running

12. Learner experience Generally positive about: –Guidance offered –Ease of navigation –Ease of use –Usefulness

13. Learner experience “SLeD much better than [the institutional VLE], but would be even better if there was a forum” “I have contributed to discussions set by the lecturer and was able to download readings for class, after some difficulty at first”

14. Developing the tools JISC LD4P (Liverpool Hope University, University of Bolton) –New user interface for the Reload IMS LD editor. JISC D4LD (UK OU) –Improving IMS LD runtime for institutional use JISC DesignShare (Liverpool Hope University, University of Bolton) –Sharing, discovery & re-use of IMS LD

15. D4LD project (run-time) SLeD/Coppercore DesignShare project (discovery and sharing) OpenDocument.net LD4P project (authoring) Reload The Valkenburg architecture

16. Specifying environments (e.g. learning objects, services) Setting up properties and conditions Reload interface

17. Improved administration Users Runs Roles Groups

18. DesignShare plug-in Sharing

19. Summary Need more usable authoring tools for experts Non-experts need to use these tools with less support. –Maybe through simpler tools such as LAMS –Need to be able to make use of more sophisticated tools when they need them Need (more) services –Widget server Need more flexible tools- especially when running courses