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





Call for Research
E-commerce vs. E-learning
Web Technology
Teacher’s Challenges
Meeting the Challenge – TuLiP
Call for Research to Support the
Use of Technology in Education
 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” (US DEd, 2000)
Observations:
 Educational uses lag behind applications for
e-commerce.
 Tools can be developed that capitalize on
advances in e-commerce.
Definitions:
 Template: Empty markup page
 Object: Self-contained archive file with markup
pages, resources, metadata to allow use.
 XML: Extensible Markup Language
 XSL: Extensible Scripting Language
 Product: Automatically generated Web pages
 Cocoon2: Web publishing framework project
under the Apache/Jakarta
Advances in Technology
 XML allows semantic content storage and
retrieval.
 XSL scripting language integrates logic and
presentation with the content
 Portal Technology provides relevant
storage, retrieval and community services
within a web-based environment.
 Web frameworks allow rapid development
of web environments.
Teacher’s Challenges





Recent Laws Impacting Workload
Existing Responsibilities
Tools Available
Hurdles to Technology
Observed Problems with Learning Environments
Laws impacting Workload
 Federal laws and mandates:
 “Leave No Child Behind Act”
[PL 107-110, 2002]
 “National Education Technology Plan”
[e-Learning, 2000]
 “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act”
[IDEA - PL 105-17, 1997]
As a result of the Laws:
 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 Training:

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response
Survey System, "Survey on Professional Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 19992000," FRSS 74, 2000.

Technology Integration 74% of the teachers, 61% received training less than 8 hrs
Existing Responsibilities
 Writing and submitting lesson plans
 Teaching core curriculum
 Grading Papers
 Supervising halls and classrooms
 Assessing disabilities
 Keeping abreast of new teaching strategies
 Encouraging parental participation
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
TuLiP Solution:
 Lower the teacher’s technology hurdle
– simplify the teacher-centered applications
– deal with the day to day requirement of
planning and reporting.
– Automate the dissemination of information,
with “write once, automate display” when and
how it is needed.
TuLiP :
A Lesson Planning Tool
 Planning Process
 Characteristics
 Comparison of Existing Tools
 Benefits
Teacher Activities in Lesson
Planning
 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.
Characteristics:
 Simplified interface
 Sharing and reusing components and
Lesson Plans.
 Automating reporting requirements and
alternative student 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.
TuLiP - Possible IP 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 an XML 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.
How Will This Help?
 The content in one Lesson Plan can be
transformed automatically:
– Administrative curriculum reporting
requirements
– Information for parents
– Homework for children
– Information in alternative modes for lesson or
review
– Instructional plan
– Instructional web environment
Using Structured Content
 Delivers same information across Print,
WWW, and CD-ROM.
 Provides consistent instructional design and
rapid development process with the use of
templates
 Provides for different learner profiles with
multiple paths or views for learners
 Facilitates re-purposing and updating of
content
 Ensures portability and long-term use
Perceived Costs of Predefined Styles
 Relinquish the desire to “publish”- to “control the
way things look”, to be satisfied with minimal but
acceptable “look”. The functionality to customize
a product is a cause of increased complexity of a
tool.
 Customization when available is restricted to the
defined structure of the elements.
 The style must be a widely accepted design. A
compliant template form uses existing style
templates based on presentation methods to
facilitate information distribution research.
TuLiP Components
 Time-Saving Criteria
 Teacher-Centered Tool
 Fundamental Learning Objects
 Web Architecture
 Portal/Repository Design
TuLiP Tool- Time-Saving
Criteria:
 Limited in scope and functionality.
 Readily accessible resources, by domain and age group,
free of charge and easy to review.
 Information stored in a useful format that is portable,able
to be bundled or "cut and pasted, "
 Internet technologies allows for sharing and distribution.
 Graduated help (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
Demonstrations of use
Components Facilitate Use.
 Portal Design
– facilitates catalogue and search of resources
– supports a community of users
– enhances teacher participation & collaboration
 Repository
– simplifies saving and retrieval of files
Organize Instructional Content
 Metadata and files packaged for sharing
 Use of Learning Objects
 A markup language that describes the Learning
Environment and Planning (LEAP) content
Types of Template
 Planning Templates facilitate complete
teacher planning information
 FLO Component templates to assist in
producing complete components
 Diverse KTT Component templates provide
suggestions for a range of objectives
Cocoon2 Framework
 A rapid-development web-site platform
 Uses XML, XSL, XSP, Java Servlets
Web interface for administration of
lesson plans and learning environment
Cocoon2
 Uses an architecture that allows dynamic
generation of webpages: a script describes the
servlets, sources and transformation information
needed to process a certain request.
 A generator converts the text input into the XML
using the Simple API for XML (SAX) creating
events, which are then processed and transformed
according to XSL script to serialize the output.
Cocoon2 Sitemap Example
Cocoon2 Pipeline
 Source at the right is
an XML page.
 Style sheet is in XSL.
 Multiple processed
pages of XML may be
aggregated in “one
page”.
 Output is specified
format like html, PDF,
WML or Vox ML.
Aggregation
 Assembling of
component pages
 Differs from cinclude;
parts are processed
then assembled.
 Informative page
followed by
Illustrative, then
Cognitive FLO’s
Learning Environment And Planning
(LEAP) Markup Language
 XML Language development
 Current Markup Languages for Educational
Content
 Characteristics of LEAP
XML Markup Languages
 Document Marked with Semantic Elements
 Document Type Definitions (DTDs) and
Schema define the Elements, sequence and
order of the elements and Attributes
 XML Schema allow Modularization by the
use of Namespaces
Existing Markup Languages
 Publication Languages such as Standard
Generalized Markup Language (SGML)
 Learning Material Markup Language (LMML)
[http://www.lmml.de]
 Tutorial Markup Language (TML)
[http://www.ilrt.bristol.ac.uk/netquest/about/lang/]
 Missing Semantic Elements with respect to the
“Lesson Planning Process”.
What Are XML’s Advantages?
 Plan is coded with
 Plan can be designed
semantic elements.
 Reusable translation
instructions are used
to filter, format and
display information
for each product.
 XML content can be
catalogued and
searched.
with reusable parts.
 Translation
instructions are used
for instructional
control and
sequencing.
 Instructor has more
instructional control.
Characteristics of 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
 Allows aggregation of components to be
used in creating the Web environment
 Based on Categories of Use and a Grammer
LEAP Characteristics
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
Features
LOM/SCO Metadata
RM
HTML
Static web pages; easy to use
in the Classroom,
independent of platform
JSP, ASP, Dynamic functionality with
PHP
"types of pages" and variable
content
RIO/RLO
LMML
TML
SGML
Drawbacks
Not used for educational
content description
Not easily reused;
Incorporates navigation
and lesson control
Typically a one-pass
process with logic and
style together
LEAP Solution
Include instruction and teacher-specific metadata.
Output product in HTML, but store content, style and
logic in different structures.
Develop the logic and style to be applied
independently.
Produce "types of objects" consistent with the FLO
attributes and functionality.
Standardized Content
Includes element labels
Use lesson planning and teaching terminology,
from extraneous domains consistent with the FLO design. Allow plan templates
in DTDs;
to be parsed into usable sizes of objects for reuse.
Limited to teaching facts, Develop structure for experimentation, exploration
skills and processes;
and experiences.
Size too large for easy
reuse
Course or Unit templates used Many of the terms based Use templates of the most common set of FLO
for consistent design;
mostly on presentation
(teaching task) and KTT(teaching objective).
Built-in alternative materials style information.
Develop FLOs to use agent, web services and servlet
Incorporates logic with
technologies.
style
Incorporate the alternative materials structure.
Fundamental Learning Objects
(FLOS)
Classes of FLO’s
Metadata Requirements
Fundamental Learning Objects
 FLO’s are defined as
the smallest object
containing educational
information.
 Educational Lesson
Information is
categorized into
classes, based on
Instructional
Functionality.
 The classes contain
content described as:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Informative
Illustrative
Collaborative
Cognitive
Evaluative
Cooperative
Adaptive
Lesson Plan Objects
 Characteristics
Characteristics
 Contains Descriptions of:
– 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
Knowledge Type Templates (KTTs)
Templates for the most common
objectives by type of knowledge being
taught
Knowledge Type Templates
(KTTs)
 Aggregation of a
variety of FLOs
 The proposed KTT’s
include:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Fact
Event
Skill
Process
Experience
Analysis
Experimentation
Cognitive Process
XSP and XSL Pages
 Logic and display formats need be designed
only once: pages are reusable with different
content.
 Examples are:
– Test Logic may be re-used for many tests
– Practice/homework sheets may be designed to
provide immediate feedback
– Lesson Plans use teacher-preferred format
– Administrative or Parental information can be
provided by date
Components
 Facilitate Reuse, Sharing, Completeness and
Orthogonality (FLOs)
 Learning Objects,
 MetaData,
 Portals,
 Web Communities and
 Repositories
Definitions:
 Learning Objects: Educational materials in various formats
 Repository: Location for storage and retrieval of Learning





Objects, Plans and Teacher Materials
Reusability: The object can be easily used or incorporated
into an existing learning environment.
Sharability: Sufficient information is provided for
confirmation of validity and allows use.
Orthogonality: Components are independent of others.
Completeness: The educational intent of one basic
objective is contained in one object.
MetaData: Information stored to describe an object
Learning Object:
Examples of Learning Objects
Uses(LOs)
 Instructional Architect (IA) currently uses
the LO’s stored in SMETE and other
repositories to produce web pages.
(reusabiltiy.org)
 Learning Objects, however, 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
 A Solution:
– Separate the valuable educational content from
the presentation.
– Apply navigation, presentation to content at
time of use.
IEEE Learning Object (LO)
Initiatives
 Standardize the metadata associated with
LO’s
– LOs are limited to objects containing
educational content.
– LOs can be readily shared and reused in whole,
due to the metadata markup language used in
describing the content.
Dublin Core Metadata Element Set
(The Dublin Core)
 “a 15 element metadata set that is primarily intended to aid resource
discovery on the Web …
 The metadata elements fall into three groups which roughly indicate
the class or scope of information stored in them:
1. elements related mainly to the Content of the resource
•
Title, Subject, Description, Type, Source, Relation, Coverage,
2. elements related mainly to the resource when viewed as Intellectual
Property
•
Creator, Publisher, Contributor, Rights
3. elements related mainly to the Instantiation of the resource
•
Date, Format, Identifier, Language.”
 Source:
– http://dublincore.org/documents/1999/07/02/dces/
 Qualifiers are documented in :
– http://dublincore.org/documents/2000/07/11/dcmes-qualifiers/
SCORM
 "The SCORM spec is going to be successful almost by
default, but unless all e-learning specifications turn the
focus from infrastructure to pedagogical soundness, they
are in danger of becoming instructionally irrelevant." So
says Thor Anderson, director of developer support at the
Instructional Management System Global Learning
Consortium (IMS) in Burlington, Mass.
 Source: Welsch, Edward, “SCORM: Clarity or Calamity?”
Online Learning Magazine, August, 2002
http://www.onlinelearningmag.com/onlinelearning/magazi
ne/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1526769
http://www.fiu.edu/~fcarra01/definition.html
Important Portal Characteristics:
 Creating community
 Personalization
 Web-based e-mail
 Directory search
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
– Communication tools for collaboration in
Lesson Planning
Web Communities
 Learnitivity
 BlackBoard
 Moose Crossing
 ERIC
Repository
 A Physical/Virtual Data Store
 Set of Services
– Naming,
– Management,
– Discovery and Recovery,
– Security,
– Migration, and
– Reporting
Educational Repositories
 ERIC
 SMETE
References
 LMML (lmml.org)
 TML(
 Instructional Architect ( reusabiltiy.org)
 Steps (UWF)
 IEEE Learning Object Initiative
 XML, XSLT
 Cocoon2 web development framework
 http://www.saxproject.org
 Paille et al, "The effect of using structured documents (SGML) in
instructional design“ source:
http://naweb.unb.ca/proceedings/1999/paille/paille.html