Transcript Tulip a Teacher`s Lesson Planning Tool

TuLiP- A Teacher’s Lesson
Planning Tool
Design of a tool for the rapid
development of educational materials
and instructional environments.
R. Gabrielle Reed
Fall, 2002
Topics
 Motivation
 E-commerce use of Web Technologies vs.
E-learning
 Teacher’s Challenges
 Meeting the Challenge – A design for
TuLiP- A Teacher’s Lesson Planning tool
 A Proposed XML based language for
Learning Environment and Planning
(LEAP)
 TuLiP Tool Components and Benefits
Motivation
 In “e-learning: Putting a World Class Education
at the Fingertips of All Students”, research in
engineering and technology is mandated to
provide tools for teachers to meet the “National
Technology Goals”
– “All students will have technology and information
literacy skills.
– Research and evaluation will improve the next
generation of technology applications for teaching and
learning.
– Digital content and networked applications will
transform teaching and learning." (US DEd, 2000)
E-commerce vs. E-learning
 The use of Extensible Markup Language
(XML), Web services and architectures has
fueled recent changes in e-commerce.
 Educational uses lag behind applications for
e-commerce.
 Tools can be developed that capitalize on
advances in e-commerce, in particularly
Internet Protocol (IP) Technologies.
Teacher’s Challenges
 Recent Laws Impacting Workload
 Barriers to the use Technology
Increased Workload Due to
Recent Laws and Mandates:
 Integrating technology in the classroom
 Providing accessible information to parents
of disadvantaged individuals
 Using scientifically based teaching
techniques
 Accommodating disabilities and student
diversity
Teacher’s Dilemma
 A teacher may spend up to 20% of the time
planning
 Less than10% of teachers use technology
for planning (NCES 2001)
 Barriers to the use of technology, cited by
teachers (NASA 1998)
–
–
–
–
time to learn
complexity of the software
lack of training
lack of support
Current Solutions:
 Technology Literacy Challenge Fund
(TLCF) provides grants for equipment.
 National Science Foundation (NSF)
provides grants for research in determining
effective teaching methods and technologies
 Preparing the Teachers of Tomorrow to use
Technology (PT3) provides grants for
teacher education programs
Meeting the Challenge - The TuLiP
Solution:
 Lower the teacher’s technology hurdle
– Simplify the teacher-centered application
– Deal with the day to day requirement of
planning and reporting.
– “Write once, Automate Upon Request” with the
use of Cocoon2 Web Architecture
TuLiP A Lesson Planning Tool
 Planning Process
 Comparison of Lesson Planners
 Structured Content using XML
 Time-Saving Criteria
 Teacher-Centered Tool
 Cocoon 2 Web Architecture
 Organizing Instructional Content
 Portal/Repository Design
 TuLiP Benefits
Planning Process
 Prepare student activities, evaluations,
homework, and the equivalents in
alternative formats.
 Assure instructional materials meet
curriculum guidelines.
 Provide copies to administration.
 Provide parents with supplemental
materials.
Comparison of Lesson Planners
Description
Examples
Format
Sharability
Reusability
Journal/
Calendar
Scholastic
Lesson
Planning
Book
Palm Lesson
Planner
Weekly/ Daily/
Class Period
Paper/ Bound
Limited due to
everyday use,
may be copied
Used as a reference,
but new dates
require rewriting.
Palm/ PDA
Files are not designed
to be separate from
calendar
Office
production
software
WebQuest
student
activities
Applications in
proprietary
formats
Website – some
html template
pages available
Planner
Curriculum
Guides and
Lesson Plans
Web and
Multimedia
Designer
Software
Applications
Java applets
and programs
No standard
format
Learning
Objects
e-learn
(Microsoft),
SCORM
No standard
format
Digital copy of
lessons can be
copied to next year
calendar
Must have same
Easier to update
applications
from year to year
than paper
Format and navigation Due to the scope of
must be acceptable for
site, files are not
reuse. Unloadable
easily located or
bundled. Need
HTML editing skills.
Packaging and ease of Ease of use
incorporation
determines
determines use.
reusability.
Directories, catalogs
Used as is.
or search engines are
Size or format of the
needed.
object may not
May need proprietary match need.
applications
Sample Lesson Planning Page
Source: Ohio Schoolnet. Lesson Planning Template.
http://tlcf.osn.state.oh.us/blueprint/index.html.
What If Teachers Could Use
XML?
 Use an XML language that uses educational
terminology.
 Fill in the educational content.
 Use predefined XSL pages to display the
plan content in a variety of formats.
 Upload XML file to a designated location to
be used as the source of the XSL
transformations.
How Will This Help?
 The content in one Lesson Plan can be
transformed automatically to provide:
– Administrative curriculum reporting
requirements
– Information for parents
– Homework for children
– Information in alternative modes for lesson or
review
– Instructional plan
– Instructional web environment
Gains Using Structured Content
 Same information across Print, WWW, and
CD-ROM.
 Rapid development with templates and
consistent instructional design
 More learner options by profile with
multiple paths or views for learners
 Re-purposing and updating of content
 Portability and long-term use
Perceived Costs of Using Predefined
Styles
 Relinquish the desire to “publish”.
 Customization is restricted to the defined
structure of the elements. This would be an
ongoing process to cover the need.
 The widely accepted styles options.
Time-Saving Criteria:
 Scope and functionality needs to be limited
 Resources need to be readily accessible
 Directory should be available by subject and age
group
 Portable Information can be bundled or "cut and
pasted"
 Internet technologies allow for sharing and
distribution
 Graduated help provided (demonstrations, FAQ, a
community of users)
Teacher-Centered Tool
 A simplified “minimal but sufficient” interface
 Web based form
 Teacher-centered design determined by user
studies and surveys
–
–
–
–
Set up of custom plan template
Step by step completion
Assortment of templates with examples and
Adequate help including demonstrations of use
Cocoon 2 Web Architecture
 Web interface and rapid-development web-site platform
 Cocoon servlet uses sitemap to determine action.
 Uses extensible Markup Language(XML), eXtensible
scripting Language(XSL), eXtensible Server Pages (XSP),
JAVA Servlets
 Versatile output to various devices based on processing.
 Stores the valuable educational content from the
presentation.
 Apply navigation, presentation to content at time of use.
Organizing Instructional Content
 Review of current Markup Languages for
Educational Content and Metadata
 Use of Learning Objects(LO)
 A proposed markup language Learning
Environment and Planning (LEAP) for the
planning and distribution of educational content
 Templates for rapid development
Table 4.2: The Summary of a Review of Languages Used to Create Instructional Materials, their Features, Drawbacks and the Proposed
Solution in LEAP.
Language
LOM/
SCORM
HTML
JSP, ASP,
PHP
RIO/RLO
LMML
TML
SGML
Features
Metadata
Drawbacks
Lacking educational content
description
Static web pages; Not easily reused;
easy to use in the Incorporates navigation and
Classroom,
lesson control
independent of
platform
Dynamic
One-pass process with logic
functionality with and style together
"types of pages"
and variable
content
Standardized
Includes element labels from
Content
extraneous domains in DTDs;
Limited to teaching facts,
skills and processes;
Size too large for easy reuse
Course or Unit
Based mostly on presentation
templates used
style information.
for consistent
Incorporates logic with style
design;
Built-in
alternative
materials
LEAP Solution
Include instruction and teacher-specific metadata.
Output product in HTML, but store content, style and logic in XML
structures.
Develop the logic and style to be applied independently.
Produce "types of objects" consistent with the FLO attributes and
functionality.
Use lesson planning and teaching terminology, consistent with the FLO
design. Allow plan templates to be parsed into usable sizes of objects for
reuse.
Develop structure for experimentation, exploration and experiences.
Use templates of the most common set of FLO (teaching task) and
KTT(teaching objective).
Develop FLOs to use agent, web services and servlet technologies.
Incorporate the alternative materials structure.
LMML Example
Use of Learning Objects (LOs)
 Learning Objects are packaged with logic,
format and content that is difficult to
modify and limits its reuse.
 Problems with Aggregation of “Learning
Objects”
– lack of instructional control,
– lack of a uniform navigation and
– lack of cohesion in the presentation
Leap (Learning Environment and
Planning Language)
 Uses definitions for independent
educational task components
 Describes components to be created, edited,
stored or retrieved for inclusion in plan
 Includes Plan, FLO and KTT elements
using namespaces
 Allows aggregation of components to be
used in creating the Web environment
 Based on Categories of Use and a Grammer
of use
Types of Template
 Planning Templates facilitate complete
teacher planning information
 Fundamental Learning Objects (FLO)
Component templates assists in producing
complete components
 Diverse Knowledge Type Templates (KTTs)
provide suggestions for different objectives
Planning Template
 Metadata to allow retrieval
 Calendar information
 Lesson Sequence
 Activity, Evaluation and Homework Lists
 Resources needed for the Lesson
 Locations of Information, Illustrations,
Demonstrations, etc.
 Applications to be used by students to
complete lessons
Fundamental Learning
Objects(FLO)
 FLO’s are defined as
the smallest object
containing educational
information.
 Lesson Plan is
categorized into
classes, based on
attributes and
Instructional
Functionality.
 Functionality:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Informative
Illustrative
Collaborative
Cognitive
Evaluative
Cooperative
Adaptive
Knowledge Type Templates
(KTTs)
 Based on the most
common objectives
by type of
knowledge being
taught.
 Aggregation of a
variety of FLOs
 KTT’s include:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Fact
Event
Skill
Process
Experience
Analysis
Experimentation
Cognitive Process
KTT Aggregation
 Assembling of FLOs
 Differs from
“cinclude” or
“embed”; parts are
processed then
assembled.
 Informative page
followed by
Illustrative, then
Cognitive FLO’s
Portal
 An adaptive, customized environment:
– Displays information of interest
• National, Core and State Curriculum Requirements
• Planning Tools and Teacher Resources
– Repository for storage and retrieval, with sharing
options
– Catalog and search of resources
– Enhances teacher participation & collaboration through
the supports a community of users
– Communication tools for collaboration in Lesson
Planning
Repository
 A Physical/Virtual Data Store
 Simplifies saving and retrieval of files
 Set of Services
– Naming,
– Management,
– Discovery and Recovery,
– Security,
– Migration, and
– Reporting
 Source: Harvard University Library Digital Initiative (LDI),
<http://hul.harvard.edu/ldi/slides/repository/sld003.htm>
TuLiP - Benefits
 Dynamic selection of files, files formats, logic sheets




through a web interface using URI to control the display of
content to meet the needs of different audiences,
Storage of information by descriptive metadata making it
searchable and reusable,
Storage of content stored in the LEAP language based on
the needs of the teacher,
Web access to resources, databases and files through a web
portal, and
Web Forms and Services for easy upload to the server.