ahelios.licef.ca/reslornet/23/id_pract_and_lo_050118.doc · web viewmoreover, it facilitates...

Research Network

Report X - Theme 6.3ID processes, Pedagogical Objects and the

eLearning Reality

Principal authors:Karin Lundgren-Cayrol

Diane RuellandIleana de la Teja

Contributors:France HenriMarc Couture

Marcello Maina

Janvier 18, 2005

Lundgren, K., Ruelland, D. et de la Teja, I. (2004) 1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...................................................................................................................32. Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................4

2.1. Instructional Design Methods...................................................................................42.2. Learning Object Reconceptualized...........................................................................62.3. Research Rationale and Objectives..........................................................................6

3. Method...........................................................................................................................73.1. Subjects...................................................................................................................73.2. Procedures...............................................................................................................7

The analysis was carried out in five stages:............................................................................74. Results from Transcript Analysis....................................................................................8

4.1. Pedagogical Case Profiles.........................................................................................84.2. List of inferred needs...............................................................................................84.3. List of potential Pedagogical Objects........................................................................9

5. Results from MISA Mapping Exercise...........................................................................105.1. The MISA Method Axes...........................................................................................105.2. the MISA method Phases........................................................................................115.3. Mapping Practitioners ID Processes to the MISA Phases.........................................135.4. Tendencies.............................................................................................................145.5. Recommendations for TELOS Development Teams................................................14

6. Future Research Venues..............................................................................................157. References...................................................................................................................168. Acknowledgement:......................................................................................................179. Appendice A – Case Profiles.........................................................................................1810. Appendice B – Summary table of contextual factors....................................................23


ID processes, Pedagogical Objects and the eLearning Reality

Abstract: Given the increased importance of learning objects for designing, producing and delivering online courses, concerns arise about reusability and more specifically how practitioners could effectively use them to facilitate the design process. To shed some light on practitioners’ use of existing learning resources and how these may potentially affect their ID processes, transcripts of six interviews with practitioners were analyzed from this point of view. Key results from this study provide a list of potential learning objects and how their use might facilitate the ID process. Further, five main tendencies could be discerned from these transcripts. These are discussed in light of general recommendations that can be made in terms of ID processes using pedagogical objects in innovative eLearning contexts. This report presents a conceptual framework, research objectives, the method, followed by results, ideas for future research perspectives and a general conclusion.

1. IntroductionMost educational institutions of today have their own websites, in many cases their own portal offering all kinds of services as well as online courses and most often managed through the use of commercial Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS), such as e.g., WebCT and Blackboard. This new reality offers a wide variety of tools, but it also necessitate new instructional design methods relying on readily available learning resources, which can easily be adapted to new contexts (see e.g., JISC1; LORNET2, Douglas, 2001; Lowerison, Gallant & Boyd, 2003; Wiley, 2000; Duval, 1999 ). For this to happen, not only must machines be able to talk to each other, which they do through standards, but also these environments must entail new instructional design methods and instructor competencies (Klein, Spector, Grabowski & de la Teja, 2004).

Given the increased importance of learning objects for designing, producing and delivering online courses (Wiley, 2000; Pernin, 2003) concerns arise about reusability and how practitioners could effectively use them to facilitate the design process. As expressed by Paquette, Lundgren-Cayrol, Miara & Guérette (2004), the main challenge for the acceptance of learning objects by practitioners lies in understanding their instructional design processes so as to be able to propose solid instructional design support (Flamand, 2004) rather than only proposing methods and tools on how to reference learning objects. Initially, work on learning objects focused on metadata standardisation initiatives aiming at how to reference (object metadata tagging) and categorize objects in order to make them readily available through repositories (c.f., ARIADNE, MERLOT, CanCore, DublinCore, EdNa, eduSource.). However, the practitioners’ instructional design process has often been overlooked. This study pursues the idea that a systemic and systematic instructional design method must be meaningful (Tozman, 2004) for practitioners to embrace a learning object design approach. To elaborate such a method, we must start by investigating practitioners’ practices, their needs and problems as well as how best to remedy them, whether by tools or methods.

This report presents the conceptual framework, research objectives, the method followed by results, ideas for future research perspectives and a general conclusion. 1 http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=home 2 http://www.lornet.org


http://edusource.licef.teluq.uquebec.ca/ese/en/index.jsp

http://www.edna.edu.au/edna/go/pid/1

http://dublincore.org/

http://www.cancore.ca/en/

http://www.merlot.org/Home.po

http://www.ariadne-eu.org/

http://www.lornet.org/

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=home

2. Conceptual Framework

2.1.INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN METHODSUsing an instructional design method increases coherence and quality of courses, which in turn improves the conditions for learning, whether online or not. According to Paquette (2004, p. 61) Instructional Design is based on “a collection of theories and models permitting to understand, improve, and apply instructional methods that favor learning.” Further, if the course design aims at eLearning, many more factors add to the design complexity. For example, innovative media, production and delivery tools require many types of expertise and cater more to team work than when designing face to face courses. For this reason, a systemic and systematic design method is essential to ensure good eLearning design.

The general idea of instructional design can be illustrated by the ADDIE model, which in its simplest form, takes on the following procedures3:

Analysis and Description – Identify target group, training problem, content and main activities; Design – Elaborate objectives, instructional strategies, tactics, assessment, motivation; Development – Produce materials, tools, tests; Implementation - Pilot test with end-users, provide tutor & learner technical training; Evaluation – Provide diagnostic, formative, summative evaluation logistics and materials.

Morrison (2004) describes instructional design from four points of view, namely as a process, a discipline, a science and a reality, further adding that “if properly used, ID ensures our efforts to create learning that is learner centric, engaging relevant and performance oriented result in a form and structure that leverage both the best practice and creativity.”

For the purposes of this study, the MISA Learning System Engineering Method was chosen, since it caters to the design of complex learning and teaching situations integrating new communication and information technologies. This method will serve as the reference to describe pedagogical practices carried out by practitioners in the field. MISA applies cognitive science principles to the field of pedagogical design, which involves learning systems design to produce blueprints facilitating the development, implementation and upgrading of Learning Systems (LS). The MISA method is innovative; it applies management principles to the field of education; it uses cognitive modeling techniques to represent knowledge, pedagogical scenarios, media processing and delivery planning. MISA leads to the production of 35 documentation elements distributed among 6 phases and 4 axes. The phases cover the didactic engineering process, from analysis to learning system implementation, while the axes cover: 1) Knowledge modeling defining and organizing content or learning topics; 2) Pedagogical design focusing on activities and instruments that are required for learning to take place efficiently; 3) the Material design providing the learning system with the pedagogical materials and tools ; 4) the Delivery planning providing a description of the LS actors, their roles and resources. The notion of axes permits the designer to focus on different aspects of the course to be delivered, which is how this method differs from other methods and is an added value when designing online complex learning environments. Moreover, each axis refers to a different but essential role in the instructional design process, such as content expert, project manager, media producer and delivery manager, requiring some type of domain expertise, and therefore is not necessarily performed by the same person. The table below shows the MISA method in phases and axes.

3 (See http://ed.isu.edu/addie/research/Research.html ; http://et.sdsu.edu/wschutt/addie/addieindex.htm.)


http://et.sdsu.edu/wschutt/addie/addieindex.htm

http://ed.isu.edu/addie/research/Research.html

Figure 1 MISA Broken Down by Axes and Phases

All aspects of learning system engineering can be described and planned using this method; however, it does not include the actual production phase nor project management. Its iterative nature is illustrated by its many feedback loops, which take into account necessary modifications completed during the production and delivery phases. The advantage of this method is twofold:

It facilitates the development of complex blended and online environments. It documents all original as well as modified versions of a system.

Moreover, it can be used as a checklist for course designers developing, for example, only one online course or learning event. As such it provides details on the many facets of eLearning environments, thus ensuring coherence and quality of design. Figure 1 below shows the relationship between ID processes, documentation elements and main roles intervening in the ID process.


Figure 2. External and Internal ID process in the MISA Learning System Engineering Method

This approach promotes a structured graphical engineering process that facilitates quality control of resulting products. It also contributes to a better understanding of the various specialists’ roles in online design as well as to the documentation and reusability of a learning system’s components. Moreover, it facilitates progressive delivery of an online course or module, while ensuring efficient co-ordination of the development axes. It is those characteristics that may enhance ID processes.

2.2.LEARNING OBJECT RECONCEPTUALIZEDBased on the IEEE and the LORNET (http://www.lornet.org/eng/glossaire.htm ) Learning Object definitions, we propose to use the term pedagogical object (PO), modifying the original LORNET definition by both restricting it and by extending the definition to include objects supporting the instructional design process. We thus define a pedagogical object as:

“Any resource or asset, digital or otherwise that has been used in a learning or learning design context, and has potential for reuse. Furthermore, it must have metadata, be discoverable through a digital repository, and it can – by itself or through its representation – be displayed using an eLearning application.” (Couture, Henri, Ruelland & Chabour, 2003).

This definition of pedagogical objects is adopted for the purpose of our study; it is highly compatible with other existing definitions (cf. Mills, 2002). We want to draw attention to the fact that this definition embraces the idea of reusable Units of Learning (Koper & Olivier, 2004). Both the SCORM4 and the IMS Learning Design5 specifications propose standardized schema for creating interoperable learning scenarios.

2.3.RESEARCH RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES Using pedagogical objects have not yet really permeated ID practices or methods, nor has appropriate tools been designed for this purpose. Since one of the aims of this study is to provide guidelines to tool developers, it is essential to investigate what practitioners’ actually do, since they are the ultimate users. This type of investigation will eventually

4 See http://www.rhassociates.com/scorm.htm for more information on SCORM5 See IMS Global Consortium http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/


http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/

http://www.rhassociates.com/scorm.htm

http://www.lornet.org/eng/glossaire.htm

result in a thorough understanding of their day to day practice, which in turn will provide indicators on how to develop a user-friendly ID method and supporting tools. Adhering to this perspective, our research intends to:1) Describe ID processes carried out by practitioners and how they correspond to a

recognized ID method: a) Which phases or components of the MISA method are applied by practitioners? b) Which phases or components of the MISA method need revision or transformation in

order to implement ID processes from a PO perspective?2) Identify potential pedagogical objects:

a) What types of existing learning resources did practitioners use? b) How do they use existing resources? c) What needs could be inferred from the analysis of their practice regarding

pedagogical objects?

3. Method

3.1. SUBJECTSThis study relies on practitioners in the field having no or some pedagogical background, designing online learning events. Six subjects were found and interviewed. Two of the 6 practitioners were designing their first online course and 4 had little or more experience, 5 were subject matter experts and course facilitators (3 at university level, 1 at college level, 1at high school level) and one was an instructional designer in the work place. Four of them produced courses describing a blended learning approach complementing face-to face teaching, 1 designed a set of self-directed learning modules and 1 designed an online course with tutor assistance and online collaboration.

In five of the contexts an online learning environment was provided by the institution, imposing some design constraints and many help features. Only in one case, the teacher had to learn FrontPage and construct her own website. Five out of six appear to be favorable towards exchange of learning resources, strategies and tips and have already made use of existing pedagogical resources. Three of teachers have established ways of sharing their course material and expressed a need for a tool that would make this process easier.

3.2.PROCEDURESThe analysis was carried out in five stages:

1) Description of a structured case profile. For of each case, a grid was used to gather the following data: expertise (domain, online and pedagogical), roles (e.g., teacher, professor, instructional designer, etc) and training sector. To describe the final course product the following descriptors were used: title (subject-matter), target audience, scope, intervention type, certification (yes/no), collaboration (yes/no), type of support (none, machine, human), delivery mode (blended, online) delivery system, type of instructional materials (printed, multimedia, video, etc.). In terms of their ID processes, the type and order of execution was noted.

2) Mapping practitioners’ ID processes onto the MISA method’s axes and phases, based on the graphical representation of each subject’s ID process

3) Analysis of practitioners’ expressed needs. A list of problems and needs was extracted from the transcripts and from former attempts to identify all kinds of needs (Henri, Gagné, & Maina, 2004).

4) Identification of types of pedagogical objects. From the list of problems and needs, we identified the pedagogical objects that appear to remedy some problem or respond to the needs declared.

5) Synthesis of practitioners’ experience to identify some common tendencies and formulate recommendations on methods and reusability of pedagogical resources.


4. Results from Transcript Analysis

4.1. PEDAGOGICAL CASE PROFILESThe table below attempts to give a quick overview of the characteristics describing the practitioners and the learning system that they developed. Shaded area refers to the product of the design process. The last category synthesizes the main ID processes carried out by each of the participants.

CaseFeature

A B C D E F

Online Course ID Experience

Novice Advanced Intermediary Novice Novice Intermediary

Situation Subject-Matter expert/Profess

or

Subject-Matter expert/Profess

or

Instructional Designer

Subject-Matter expert/Teacher

Subject-Matter expert/Teacher

Subject-Matter expert/Professor

Training Sector University University Enterprise High School College UniversitySubject-matter Learning

TheoriesEducational Technology

Product Information

French Grammar

Chemistry Physics

Scope 3 months 15 weeks 6 modules, 5-10

minutes

1 semester 15 weeks 15 weeks

Intervention Type

Initiation/Obligatory

In-service Training/Optio

nal

Initiation / Optional



Initiation

Certification Yes Yes No Yes Yes YesCollaboration Yes Yes No Yes Yes NoHuman Support Teacher Teacher No Teacher Teacher Online TutorDelivery Mode Blended Blended Online Blended Online OnlineDelivery System

University Portal

University Portal

Learning Space

College Web College web Personal Web

Instructional Materials

Online Multimedia Materials



Print materials Online

Multimedia Materials and

exercicesWeb site

Print materials, video Online

Multimedia testsWeb site, glossary

Multi-media materials

Target Audience Master Students

Master Students

International Girls 12 ot 16 Cegep students, Chemistry teachers

B.A. students in Science

Main ID Processes

Revise ContentPedagogical ScenarioMedia ScenarioDeliveryMaintenance

Reorganize contentPedagogical ScenarioMedia ScenarioPlan course evolution through built-in evaluations

Design LMS scenarioCollaborate with media designersMaintain site

Content designDesign scenarioMedia scenarioDelivery and Maintenance

Content DesignPedagogical scenarioMedia Scenario Revision

Content DesignPedagogical scenarioMedia Scenario Revision

Table 1. The Six Participant Profiles

4.2.LIST OF INFERRED NEEDS Course Examples to stimulate instructional, subject-matter and delivery design Community of Practice by discipline with a Resource Management to support team

work and exchange of resources Media support to facilitate the use of innovative technology to produce the course

(Phase 3 to 5) Learning Management Tools to monitor the learning process in order to improve the

next delivery Tools and models to design collaborative learning scenarios (Pedagogical Model)


Tools to protect and understand Resource Copyright and Restrictions Personal Resource Repository to classify their course material

4.3. LIST OF POTENTIAL PEDAGOGICAL OBJECTS It was possible to categorize the needs expressed by the practitioners or inferred from the narrative of their experiences into the four axes of the MISA method, allowing us to focus on potentially useful pedagogical objects referring to specific ID processes. It is, however, important to mention that none of these pedagogical objects were recognized as such by the practitioners, but rather inferred by us.

The table below shows, for each MISA axis, the main needs identified and the associated types of pedagogical objects that may be considered when designing user-friendly Instructional Design tools for LCMS. Categories according to the MISA Axes

Type of pedagogical objects corresponding to difficulties and needs

Content Design Revise and find new

content Discuss subject-matter

with peers Elaborate domain content

and outline

PO Repository with search engines to have faster access to new content

Competency Referential by domain to assist in defining content matching course objectives.

Knowledge models, concepts maps and structured content schemas to inspire content description.

Domain Glossaries that can be easily adapted to the targeted course

Community of Practice by domain to keep up, discuss concerns and share resources

Pedagogical Scenario Design Define pedagogical

structure Match content with

learning strategy Manage versions of

learning materials Find specialized material

within the learning domain

Repository of instructional scenarios classified according to main learning strategy or learning theory

Repository of generic instructional and learning strategies that might be easily adapted to new contexts.

Community of Practice by domain ‘My Repository’ with personal classification tool Pedagogical Information Graphics Bank

Media Scenario Design Define general look and

course metaphor Define font, color, style Add pictures, photos,

images, tables Add hyperlinks and

animations

User-friendly Web design that non-computer experts can use

Course design authoring tools that allows the user to view and test final product before putting it online

Repositories specialized in images and simulations

Delivery and Quality Control Obtain usage statistics Obtain user (designer,

teacher, student) feedback on problems

Manage materials

Broken link detector software to keep site up to date Evaluation and Tracking tools to report usage statistics Webpage Annotation tools to get students/tutors

feedback Online Interactive Presentation tools to easily add new

content Table 2 Listing types of potentially useful pedagogical objects according to MISA Axes

5. Results from MISA Mapping Exercise

5.1. THE MISA METHOD AXESAs mentioned the MISA method can be carried out according to its axes or its phases. As a first step, we identified the practitioners ID processes according the four MISA axes and secondly we mapped them onto the MISA phases to shed on light on which axes, phases and


documentation elements (DE) appear to be useful when using existing resources to design online learning units.

Each axis refers to an Instructional Design role, such as content expert, project manager, media producer and delivery manager, requiring some type of domain expertise, and therefore is not necessarily performed by the same person. In general, all axes could be discerned from their field practices, although it appears that due to innovative technology, the media and delivery axes are merged and produced simultaneously. According to our case study all practitioners had access to delivery systems that contained editing and material production tools.

Figure X below shows that five of the six practitioners created some type of Knowledge Model (Table of contents, concepts maps, tree structures, etc.) for their course, whereas one of the participants was provided with the content model by subject matter experts in the institution. All created an Instructional Model which they implemented directly, without really planning a media and delivery model. Rather, the material and the delivery model were created simultaneously and in a “trial and error fashion”. New technology allows taking a kind of Rapid Prototyping approach to media and delivery design, through their editors that allows viewing the final product before it is put online.

Figure 3 MISA Axes and Practitioner’s ID processes

In terms of the MISA Axes our analysis revealed the following practices:Content Axis. Five of the six practitioners created some type of Knowledge Model (table of contents, concepts maps, tree structures, etc.) for their course, whereas the other was provided with the content model by subject matter experts in the institution.Instructional Axis. All created an Instructional Model which they implemented directly, without really planning a materials and delivery model. Material and Delivery Axes. In all cases, the material and the delivery models were created simultaneously and in a “trial and error fashion”. New technology allows taking a kind of Rapid Prototyping approach to media and delivery design, through authoring tools allowing viewing the final product before it is put online.

5.2.THE MISA METHOD PHASESThe table below summarizes observations made from the interview transcripts about practitioners’ practices in the left hand column, and the right-hand column provides comments and recommendations that could be used to revise the MISA method in the light of a learning objects approach and practitioners’ needs.

Observations Comments and Recommendations


Phase 1 - Problem Definition (DE 100, 102, 104,106 & 108)* Course designers being teachers and

content experts did not need to carry out processes related to tracing the organizational profile, describing target audience and to describe present context, because these were already identified.

* Nobody formally described the desired situation other than it was an online course. The online course was a decision taken by the practitioner as a manager or as a request by the institution.

* The course designer in the job context felt it necessary to describe target audience characteristics (DE 104)

* All course designers proceeded to investigate and list existing resources (DE 108) to stimulate designing and teaching processes as well as support learning.

* DE 100, 102, 106 appear not to be necessary elements for content-experts in an organization, because these features are already decided upon. They can be recommended to external content-experts and/or designers or even for a manager of a small unit. These DEs are part of the Project Definition and could be used before starting the instructional design process.

* DE 108 needs updating; each index card describing a pedagogical object should have the same elements as one of the Metadata Schemes to allow interoperability.

* DE 104 can be accepted as is, but an addition could be considered to satisfy requirements of LMS systems, that is standardized information such as VCard and ePortfolios for the individual, group and organizational level.

Phase 2 – Define a preliminary solution (DE 210, 212*, 214*, 220, 222*, 224*, 230, 240*, 242* )

* Once their project was accepted, all started by defining or revising the content of the course, often using a tree structure (Table of Content model) and thus performing tasks related to DE 212.

* Most used existing course content in the form of tree structures, table of contents and concepts maps to adapt to the new course.

* None identified the gap between entry and target competencies (DE 214) because their designs did not rely on a competency based approach.

* Four defined pedagogical orientations and learning unit properties (DE 220 and 224) as single process. No clear distinction was made between tasks defining LEN, Instructional Scenarios (DE 320) and Learning Activity Properties (DE 322).

* Tasks linked to DE 230 and 240 were basically not carried out since 5 of the 6 participants either worked in teams with course producers / programmers or used a LMS editor.

* Three mentioned that they had to estimate certain costs and benefits, but not in a structured manner. (DE 242).

* DE 210 can be used if a theoretical framework is needed, but is not required for practical purposes.

* DE 212 might be a useful alternative for defining course content, where the model itself can serve as a guide LO search.

* DE 214 must be validated in the light of competency approach based course design.

* DE 230 and DE 240 appear to be unnecessary to some designers, because these principles depend on the authoring and production tools used, such as DreamWeaver and Learning Space. Tasks related to these DE’s have to be revised in view of new course authoring systems.

* DE 242 is useful for big productions and might be enhanced by project management tools.

Phase 3 – Build the Learning System Architecture (DE: 310*, 320*,322, 330, 340)

* All course designers assigned content by linking a resource (chapter, article, book, simulation, picture etc) to each activity in the activity structure using their authoring tool (tasks related to DE 310).

* DE 320 and DE 322 see phase 2. * Tasks related to DE 330 and DE 340 are

built-in the organization administrative system. These course designers did not have to take any decisions on these issues.

* It appears that DE 310, DE 320 and DE 322 are good methodical tools to support structuring of content and activities. The goal is not to produce a concrete outcome, like an authoring tool. These DE’s can be seen within a quality control context, especially when the course is to be considered as a pedagogical object. In this sense, these DE’s must be updated to respect international standards in order to be interoperable and reusable objects.

* DE 330 and DE 340 appear not to be necessary elements, because related information is provided by the organisation. They can be recommended for complex projects.

Phase 4 – Design Instructional Materials (DE 410, 420, 430, 432, 436, 440, 442, 444, 446) * Tasks related to DE 410 to DE 436 were

carried out directly in the chosen authoring tool, and thus these tasks were merged and guided by the functionalities of the tool. Despite all these possibilities 4/6 designers expressed the need to

* New LCMS/LMS systems have built-in editors providing tools to organize the pedagogical structure and its resources.


have access to technical help. * Most did not have to think about the online

environment’s architecture, either it was supplied by a LMS system or a site embedded in the portal of the institution. Only one was allowed to choose any system (DE 440).

* Accordingly, DE 410 to DE 436 need to be merged and revised in order to simplify and focus more on how to communicate information to production teams (media and delivery).

* These DEs were designed to assist multi-disciplinary teams in developing large complex productions. They could be helpful for designers, because they provide detailed documentation, which in turn facilitates validation procedures among multiple teams.

* Even though none of the practitioners described their delivery model, the DE 440 provides an essential link with the instructional model insuring design quality between planning and production. Each LCMS provider should supply its delivery model to facilitate choice of tools and roles of actors.

* DEs 440 to 446 are important documentation elements for big and complex projects employing multi-disciplinary teams.

Phase 5 – Produce and Validate Materials (DE 540 & 542) * Two of the 6 designers built in validation

instruments into the course design in order to elicit information from the students during delivery to improve any aspect of the course (content, activities, tools, etc.) on a continuous basis.

* Pedagogical materials were mostly designed and validated by content-experts, only one involved students from one year to the next in the validation process.

* Some expressed the need to have more information from the actual learning experience by monitoring the delivery to get more feedback from students and tutors.

* DE 540 can be an excellent guide for course designers to construct their own assessment units, may it be for revision of content, instructional scenario, material or delivery features, if adapted to a rapid prototype design approach. It would be interesting to see whether evaluation scenario templates would be used by practitioners.

* DE 540 would gain from updating its information model by adding elements to also fit a Rapid Prototype ID approach (see phase 6).

* DE 542 caters only to, again, big complex multi-team ID projects.

Phase 6 – Prepare the Delivery of the Learning System (DE 610, 620, 630 & 640) * They all had some personal system of

searching, updating and reusing the course content.

* No information on practitioners responsibilities on Actor and Group Management

* They all archived and managed their digitized material in their own fashion.

* Three of the practitioners designed their blended learning by applying a Rapid Prototyping approach, where the design process merges with the delivery process on a continuous basis to provide maintenance and quality management of course components (activities and resources).

** DE 610 can be used as a guide to create the

designer’s personal database / table to facilitate the search, update and reuse of existing content structures.

* It appears that DE 620 could serve as a guide to organize group management during delivery.

* DE 630 is a good guide on what to archive although it would benefit from an update to respect international standards.

* DE 640 deals with how to maintain and insure quality of learning and learning resources through planned periodic revision again for large complex online learning systems.

* DE 640 would benefit from an addition catering to a Rapid Prototying approach used for designing software components in the learning units, that is, a course having small complementary online learning units.

Table 3 MISA Phases observation of practitioners’ ways and recommendations for change

5.3. MAPPING PRACTITIONERS ID PROCESSES TO THE MISA PHASESThis part summarizes observations made from the interview transcripts about practitioners’ practices mapped on to the specific tasks prescribed by the MISA method for each of the phases. This analysis aimed at identifying what tasks are carried out and how a systemic and systematic method can potentially facilitate and improve practitioner’s work.

Phase 1 - Problem Definition


Only the course designer in the job context felt it necessary to describe the target audience, whereas all others felt they already knew their students very well. Further, the decision to deliver an online course or module was mainly taken by the practitioner as the manager; only in one case was it imposed by the institution. All course designers proceeded to investigate and list existing resources, both their own resources and those of others, to stimulate their teaching processes as well as for learning support.

Phase 2 – Define a preliminary solution Once their project or mandate was accepted, all started by defining or revising course content. Most used existing course content in the form of tree structures, table of contents and concepts maps aiming at adapting it to the new course. None of the practitioners identified the gap between entry and target competencies because their designs did not rely on a competency-based approach. Four defined pedagogical orientations, learning unit properties and pedagogical scenarios as one single process, as opposed to two processes, planning and producing. Tasks linked to material production and delivery development were basically not carried out since 5/6 participants either worked in teams with media producers or programmers using an authoring tool. Only three mentioned that they had to estimate certain costs and benefits.

Phase 3 – Build the Learning System Architecture All practitioners associated content by linking some type of resource (chapter, article, book, simulation, picture, etc.) to each pedagogical activity using their authoring tool. The practitioners did not have to take any decisions on the resources needed to support the development and delivery of the online course as these resources are usually built-in to the LCMS.

Phase 4 – Design Instructional MaterialsDesign tasks related to the production of instructional material were carried out directly in the chosen authoring tool, guided by the functionalities of this tool, and thus merging these tasks with the development tasks. Most did not have to think about the online delivery environment’s architecture, either it was supplied by the institution’s LCMS system or a site embedded in the institutional portal. Only one of the practitioners was allowed to freely choose any system.

Phase 5 – Produce and Validate Materials In the production phase, pedagogical materials were mostly designed and validated by content-experts, only one integrated student feedback from one year to the next in the validation process. Two of the 6 practitioners integrated validation instruments into their course design in order to elicit information from students during delivery to improve any aspect of the course (content, activities, tools, etc.) on a continuous basis.

Phase 6 – Prepare the Delivery of the Learning System This phase mainly aims at providing quality control and designing plans for the maintenance of the Learning System and its components in the context of the organization. In general, practitioners had a personal system for archiving, searching, updating and reusing the course content for but didn’t seem to have access to a formal method for managing their digitized materials in order to ensure their integration in the organization. Practitioners’ responsibilities on Team Management and Actors participating in the delivery phase of the instructional design process remain unknown and require further research.

5.4. TENDENCIESFive tendencies were identified concerning the ID processes described by the practitioners, their relationship to learning objects and the MISA method. Practitioners ID processes correspond largely to MISA phases

Designers seem to use their own personal experience to design and develop an eLearning system. No formal ID methodology or vocabulary is used but they advance in


phases largely corresponding to those of the MISA method. For designers, these phases are not as clear-cut as in the method but often appear intermingled and are thus difficult to distinguish.

Subject matter issues come first Designers start their ID process by embarking on the content aspect of the course. Those who are content experts begin by updating their content knowledge and online materials. Non-content experts call on the content experts to revise course material or they search for similar courses in order to acquaint themselves with the content and vocabulary. Designers’ preferred tool to find new material or similar courses is Internet Search Engines; however there is a manifested desire to rather exchange ideas and experiences with peers in the same domain.

Instructional, media and delivery processes merge Contrary to numerous instructional design methodologies, designers do not separate instructional, media and delivery planning issues. In the MISA method this distinction is clearly made through its axes perspective, but in online courses design innovative technology (ex. WebCT, FrontPage, DreamWeaver, Explor@ etc.) allows for simultaneous planning and production, making it difficult to separate the different axes.

Pedagogical objects appear to be neededIn general, designers feel the need for sharing their own pedagogical resources as well as using other course designers’ resources. This suggests a certain “readiness” for sharing pedagogical objects among designers. Nevertheless, some concerns exist regarding the quality of the resources to be shared, intellectual property and copyright issues as well as the reliability of the classification and referencing techniques.

Technological innovations require interdisciplinary teamworkInstructional design of eLearning seems to call upon interdisciplinary expertise. Designers with technical skills are prone to conduct an online learning project all by themselves using technological innovations. However, designers lacking appropriate technical competencies call on others’ expertise to help them with technical or media design problems. In general, support required by designers depends on the roles they take on (e.g,. instructional designer, manager, content expert and facilitator) and those that are complementary.

5.5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TELOS DEVELOPMENT TEAMS Certain general ideas could be put forth. Basically, designers have expressed needs for TELOS to provide:

a) A comprehensive instructional design planning tool. For example, ADISA II containing the following DE: 102, 104,108, 212, 214, 222, 224, 310, 320 which would allow the designer to plan and document the content and instructional models of a learning unit. This tool should further provide automatically generated metadata as well as URI for each of the documentation elements. The metadata record should be automatically added to a repository.

b) It is suggested to replacing DE 108 with direct access to a meta-tagging tool in a repository, allowing for storage and retrieval of pertinent resources.

c) A specialized repository containing generic scenarios including instructional principles explaining why a design is collaborative, project-based, problem-based, competency based etc…

d) A tool which would allow personal classification and storage of resourcese) User-friendly instructional scenario editors, which would permit the designer to easily

simulate the state of the course, while being built. f) A Community of Practice tool integrating forums and knowledge management tools

Given the observations above, a pedagogical object oriented methodology should: Provide practitioners with a flexible methodology allowing him/her to advance according

to his/her own preferences and controlling the quality of the processes; Take into account the fact that innovative technology allows the user to plan and

produce at the same time;


Provide online resources and communities of learning to update or find new content Provide the possibility of starting with content issues; Include different role attributions, including several specialists, such as content,

pedagogical, media or delivery specialists and multidisciplinary work Insure coherence between instructional strategy, media production and delivery when

using innovative technologies that treat those processes in parallel; Provide the opportunity to treat instructional and delivery scenarios separately (for

quality control and for enhancing learning objects reusability); Ensure use of evaluation tools and methods to measure the quality of a pedagogical

resource; Include processes and rules to protect and manage intellectual property and copyrights

of pedagogical resource; Insure proper referencing and indexing of pedagogical objects by involving several

specialists, such as librarians, programmers and managers; Provide tools allowing practitioners to focus on a pedagogical object approach (producing

and reusing pedagogical objects) rather than on indexing and referencing, which should be covered by other specialists.

6. Future Research VenuesThis study has shed some light on the new reality that practitioners are facing in terms of ID processes and competencies required to design, produce and deliver online courses. The importance of developing an appropriate ID methodology based on practitioners’ practice has been emphasized. Our analysis shows that practitioners have new ways for dealing with ID issues and suggests that a pedagogical object-oriented ID approach creates new roles and tasks including classifying, referencing and tagging pedagogical objects. The MISA method proved useful in categorizing practitioners’ spontaneous practices in a systematic and systemic way according to the four axes: Domain knowledge and competencies, Instructional strategies, Material and Delivery.

Results of this study provide useful information to adapt the MISA method to the practitioners’ needs and problems in order to implement quality control and standardization processes, which are required to bring about valuable exchange and reuse of pedagogical objects.

Further research is necessary in order to ensure that an appropriate ID method encompasses feedback links between practitioners and tool developers as well as learners and online teachers. The LORNET project provides the opportunity to pursue research in these directions.

7. References Berlanga, A. & Garcia, F. (2004) Towards REsuable Adaptive Rules. Conference Paper… find

address. IMSLD Buckley, C. Donert, K. (2004). Evaluating e-Learingin courses for continuing professional

development using the Conversational Model: A Review of UNIGIS. http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Buckley_Donert.html

Buzza, D., Bean, D., Harrigan, K. and Carey, T. (2004 i.p. ). Learning Design Repositories: Adapting Learning Design Specifications for Shared Instructional Knowledge. Submitted to Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology.

Couture, M., Henri, F., Ruelland, D., & Chabour, S. (2003). Towards learning object-based instructional design (LORNET Project 6.3 – Year 1 Report). Montreal: Télé-université.

Douglas, I. (2001). Instructional Design Based on Reusable Learning Objects: Applying Lessons of Object-Oriented Software Engineering to Learning System Design. Paper


http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Buckley_Donert.html

presented at the 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 10-13, Reno, NV, USA.

Duval, E. (1999). An open infrastructure for learning (the ARIADNE project): Share and reuse without boundaries. In E. Ramo (Ed.), Proceedings of Enabling Network- Based Learning, Helsinki, Finland, June 2-5.

Flamand, P. (2004). Les objets d’apprentissage : au-delà de la technologie, la pédagogie. Clic, 54. Retrieved December 17, 2004 from http://clic.ntic.org/clic54/objets.html

Henri, F., Gagné, P. et Maina, M. (2004). Base de connaissances sur le téléapprentissage. Cadre de développement et résultats d’une étude d’usages du téléapprentissage. Rapport de recherche préliminaire.

Klein, J.D., Spector, J.M, Grabowski, B., & de la Teja, I. (2004). Instructor Competencies. Standards for Face-to-Face, Online and Blended Setttings. CT, USA: AECT, Information Age Publishing.

Koper, R., & Olivier, B. (2004). Representing the Learning Design of Units of Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 7 (3), 97-111.

Lowerison, G., Gallant, G., & Boyd, G. (2003). Learning objects in distance education: Addressing issues of quality, learner control and accessibility. In CADE-ACED Conference Proceedings. Retrieved December 20, 2004 from http://www.cade-aced2003.ca/conference_proceedings/Gallant.pdf

Maina, M., Gagné, P., & Henri, F. (2003b). Énoncés des besoins - CONCEPTION/MÉDIATISATION: catégorisation – généralisation. (Research Report). Montréal: LICEF Research Centre.

Mills, S. (2002). Learning about Learning Objects with Learning Objects. Paper presented at the SITE 2002 Conference, Nashville, TN. Retrieved December 20, 2004 from AliveTek Website, http://www.alivetek.com/learningobjects/site_paper.htm

Morrison, D. (2004). What Do Instructional Designers Design? Paper presented at the eLearning Network, London, January. Retrieved Defrom e-Learning Center WebSite, http://www.e-learningcentre.co.uk/eclipse/Resources/isd.htm

Paquette, G. (2004). Instructional Engineering in Networked Environments. Collection: Instructional Technology and Training Series, USA: Pfeiffer.

Paquette, G., Lundgren-Cayrol, K., Miara. A., & Guérette, L. (2003). The Explor@-2 Learning Object Manager. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online education using learning objects. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Pernin, J-P. (2003). Quels modèles et quels outils pour la scénarisation d’activités dans les nouveaux dispositifs d’apprentissage? Paper presented at Séminaire TIC, nouveaux métiers et nouveaux dispositifs d’apprentissage, Lyon, France, November 19.

Tozman, R. (2004). The New Paradigm for Instructional Design. Retrieved December 17, 2004 from http://www.thinkingcap.info/content/PDF/NewParadigmInstructionalDesign.pdf

Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. Retrieved December 20, 2004 from http://www.reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

8. Acknowledgement: All Theme 2 members have been invaluable help in this investigation and report writing.


http://www.reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

http://www.thinkingcap.info/content/PDF/NewParadigmInstructionalDesign.pdf

http://www.e-learningcentre.co.uk/eclipse/Resources/isd.htm

http://www.alivetek.com/learningobjects/site_paper.htm

http://www.cade-aced2003.ca/conference_proceedings/Gallant.pdf



http://clic.ntic.org/clic54/objets.html

9. Appendice A – Case Profiles=========================================================

SUJET A- COURS UNIVERSITAIRE - NOVICE EN ELEARNING

Ampleur : Cours de longue durée (3 mois )Secteur de formation : Formation scolaire générale – universitaire dans le cadre de la formation des maîtresType d’intervention : InitiationType de modèles de connaissances: Processus et méthodes (Théories d’apprentissageDomaine de compétences visées : Cognitif Certification : ouiCollaboration : travail en équipe en classe; et communication par courriel ; incitation d’apporter des suggestions pour améliorer le site et son contenu.Assistance : oui (formateur en classe et animateur en ligne); Encadrement à distanceMode de diffusion : Formation en classe et consultation de document et travail personnel sur le webLieu de diffusion : Sur la page Web du groupe XXX, il y a les matériels pour téléchargement ou consultation ainsi qu’un forum de discussion pour faciliter une collaboration émergeante et non formellement demandée. Matériels pédagogiques : diffusé en ligneLangue du cours : français Public : étudiants à la Maîtrise, mais tous le matériel est accessible pour des étudiants du niveau bac au doctorat. Responsabilités : Conception du cours ainsi que professeur universitaire (facilitateur); Encadrement à distanceRéutilisation/ Approche par Objets d’apprentissage : oui, tout le matériel pédagogique en ligne; mise en commun des matériels ainsi que la conception et l’utilisation du site WEB. Besoins/problèmes exprimés : assistance technique et pédagogique pour concevoir et valider le site WEB; banque d’exemples de cours ou scénarios générique laissant la possibilité d’adaptation les besoins du professeur, la discipline et situation; communauté de pratique du concepteur; ePortfolio pour faire leur bilan d’apprentissage; Animateur Forum; outils de scénarisation et de conception et d’environnement de partage ; politique ou outil permettant de s’informer et d’assurer les copyright et d’autres restrictions (Métadonnées) ; sauver de temps, la créativité et les nouvelles théories pédagogique ; essayer de catégoriser les ressources pour p.ex. classifier les travaux des étudiants ou en fonction de sa table de matières(outils de classification personnelle)Méthode de conception : scénarisation pédagogique; Travaille en équipe avec :Prof université pour contenu et scénarisation, matériels péd et interfaceinformaticien : discuter interface; L’environnement techno-pédagogique est toujours en

construction pour retenir l’intérêt et la motivation, pour assurer la qualité pédagogique ;

=====================================================================SUJET B – EXPERT EN PÉDAGOGIE EN LIGNE Ampleur : Cours 15 semaines MAÎTRISESecteur de formation : Formation scolaire général - universitaireType d’intervention : PerfectionnementType de modèles de connaissances: Processus et méthodesDomaine de compétences visées : Cognitif et Social Certification : oui avec examen Collaboration : travail en équipe à distance Assistance : professeur en classe et facilitateur en ligne


Mode de diffusion : hybride6 (Formation en classe avec l’utilisation du site web, complémenté d’un forum de discussion) Un site web avec forum de discussion, et documents à lire pour les 3 semaines sans rencontre F à FEn classe : période de retour sur les lectures et les activités, questionnements, compléter, intégrationMoyen de diffusion : site WEB du prof sur le portail de l’universitéMatériels pédagogiques : Langue du cours : françaisPublic : cible les étudiants à la maîtrise en éducation (semi-optionel) Responsabilités : conception contenu et pédagogique, réalisation et diffusion -- expert contenu, scénariste-pédagogueRéutilisation / Approche par Objets d’apprentissage : Gestionnaire de ressources (Donc l'idée, c'était de mettre mes contenus réorganisés sur le site. C'était aussi d'aller chercher les ressources Internet disponibles. C'était d'offrir plusieurs ressources – comme des liens avec des dictionnaires, des ressources comme ça.) Permet aussi de mettre les OA directement comme signets du cours. Besoins/problèmes exprimés : réalise qu’il aura besoin de nouvelles type de ressources tel que des liens, des dictionnaires pendant le cours, ce qui entraîne des outils et mettre à jours les consignes; détecteur de bris de liens Internet;Méthode de conception : actualisation (reingénierie) d’un cours face à face ; Monter un cours et adapter une interface, recycler les éléments graphiques ; organiser le recueil de textes en thèmes intégrateurs ; table de matière arborescence pour faire ressortir ces thèmes. Besoin d’une équipe pluridisciplinaire – expert contenu, scénariste-pédagogue; informaticien et graphiste. Outils : Outil de veille de contenu, recherche greffée à l’arborescence du contenu ; (recherche avancé avec un agent edusource) ; Banque de logo. Graphiques, webographies=========================================================================SUJET C- ENTREPRISE - Expertise = intérmédiaire

Ampleur : Activités de courte durée (15 à 20 minutes) Secteur de formation : Formation en milieu de travail – Formelle et générale, information sur la culture et les produits de l’entreprise.Type d’intervention : InitiationType de modèles de connaissances: Factuel Domaine de compétences visées : CognitifCertification : aucuneCollaboration : aucune Assistance : Pas de support humain mais un lexique Mode de diffusion : Autoformation Moyen de diffusion : Intranet et Learning Space Matériels : multimédia informatisé (audio narratif du texte sur l’écran)Langue du cours : Français Public : Employés/Travailleurs provenant de Canada (français/anglais), de Mexique et de la RoumanieProblèmes : Pas assez de ressources (humains, techniques).Responsabilités : Responsable de stratégie et design pédagogique ainsi que le maintien du site au point. Réutilisation Objets d’apprentissage : Gestionnaire de ressources ou elle avait des modèles semblables, nouveaux outils, outils de veille, pédagogie du WEB. Méthode de conception : Révision et élaboration des contenu pour adapter au clientèle, validation auprès des experts, scénarisation pédagogique et médiatique en collaboration avec une rédacteur de texte et un programmeur. Validation auprès les experts-contenu du premier module, par la suite maintient du site. 6 Il y a différents modèles de formation hybride parmi les 5 cas


=========================================================================SUJET : D - SECONDAIRE EXPERTISE = INTÉRMÉDIAIRE (EXPERT CONTENU QUI DONNE SES COURS EN CLASSE)Ampleur : longue duréeSecteur de formation : secondaire Type d’intervention : initiationType de modèles de connaissances: méthodes et procéduresDomaine de compétences visées : français, grammaireCertification : ouiCollaboration : les étudiants travaillent en équipe (2 ou 4) avec leur portable en classe puis Chat Msn pour les étudiantsAssistance : professeur magistral et facilitateur sur Internet pour le suivi Mode de diffusion Pendant deux semaine, de la théorie soit 50% en classe en Fà F magistral dont 25% d’utilisation de l’Internet (les élèves possèdent un portable – donc, ils apprennent à travers le portable – chaque enseignant a son site Web) ;. Pendant deux semaines, on ne fait que du portable (des projets) Lieu de diffusion : portail du collègeMatériels : multimédia informatisé; des cahiers d'exercices. Tout ce qui est dans la salle de cours, c'est en ligne ; les élèves ont leur agenda en ligneLangue du cours : françaisPublic cible : quatre groupes de 40 élèves. élèves bolés d’un collège privéResponsabilités ID : toutes les responsabilités du contenu à la diffusion : contenu, scénarisation, choix des textesRéutilisation Objets d’apprentissage : Banque d’image, Réutilisation d’imageUtilise des documents textes pour concevoir des fiches pour les étudiantsBesoins/problèmes exprimés :

Faciliter le transfert de portail pour les profs Besoins de formation sur la pédagogie et médiatique du web, des cours pour utiliser

les logiciels de production Besoins de politiques de propriété intellectuelle : Propriété intellectuelle pas reconnu. Voudrait déléguer la mise en page et la médiatisation à quelqu’un d’autre Uniformiser les pages web des profs du collège Pouvoir bloquer l’accès de ce qui est mis sur le site à l’avance pour les étudiants Conception de son site : aucune aide, elle réinvente la roue avec essai et erreur :

menu, mise en page des textes, etc.

Méthode de conception : Elle concevait à la fois son site web par essai et erreur tout en apprenant la scénarisation et la technologie du web. Dans ce sens il s’agit d’une démarche d’un projet de développement et non une démarche de design pédagogique seulement.

conception du projet Créatique la conception du cours

Parce que en mode hybride au quotidien : Démarche en interaction avec les étudiants au fur et à mesure qu’ils avancent dans l’activité ou le projet. l'ajustement continuel : conception et développement en interaction dans le temps Très près du magistral oèu tout s’ajuste au fur et à mesure (qu'on soit toujours en train de concevoir, d'inventer et de réorganiser, d'améliorerest positif, et négatif pour modifier, pour améliorer pour aller plus loin).Conception des textes et des documents, agenda et plan de travail sur le webMise en ligne des documents sur le webMise à jour et mise à date Conception du site web : menu Ajustement, adaptation, mise à jour à la fin du projet quand les résultats des étudiants ne sont pas à la hauteur de ses attentes


Conception de son site : aucune aide, elle réinvente la roue avec essai et erreurAprès 2 ans d’expérience : Maintenant elle y pense plus (planifie plus sa conception avant de se lancer Planification avant de concevoir. Ce qu’elle ne faisait pas avant. Elle connaît mieux les besoins de ses élèves à l’ordinateur

=========================================================================SUJET : E- COLLÉGIAL EXPERTISE = INTÉRMÉDIAIRE (EXPERT CONTENU QUI DONNE SES COURS EN CLASSE)Ampleur : 6 modules, Cours de 75h étalé sur 15 semaines (dans un programme DEC virtuel) en raison de 3h de cours et 2 h de lab par semaineSecteur de formation : CollégialeType d’intervention : InitiationType de modèles de connaissances: Méthode et procédures Domaine de compétences visées : CognitifCertification : ouiCollaboration : ouiAssistance : oui, tuteur en ligne qui corrigeait des exercices Mode de diffusion : en ligne Lieu de diffusion : CEGEP en ligneMatériels : site, exercices, testes formatives informatisés; manuel; vidéosLangue du cours : Français Public cible : Étudiants de CEGEP, Professeur de chimie; enseignants du domaineProblèmes :

Responsabilités ID : Rédiger le cours en chimie est les associer aux activités pédagogiques en ligne. Réutilisation Objets d’apprentissage : Oui, le cours est destinée à aider tous les profs qui enseignent la même matière, contenu réutilisable, même si la structure pédagogique change. Il est modulaire et consiste donc en plusieurs d’objets d’apprentissage. Glossaire facile à réutiliser

Besoins/problèmes exprimés : Manque de façon à communiquer avec l’équipe d’informatique pour construire les deux laboratoires virtuelles (Modèle médiatique); coquille pour faire un glossaire, modèle pour des activités en groupe / équipe

Méthode de conception : par module – rédaction contenu, structure pédagogique, association contenu aux activités; rédaction des exercices; validation et révision; =========================================================================SUJET : F- PROFESSEUR EXPERTISE = EXPERT CONTENU, PÉDAGOGIE ET MÉDIATISATION WEBAmpleur : 135 h bacc en science. 3 cr/ 15 semainesSecteur de formation : UniversitaireType d’intervention : InitiationType de modèles de connaissances: Méthode et procédures Domaine de compétences visées : CognitifCertification : ouiCollaboration : nonAssistance : oui, tuteur en ligne qui corrigeait les activités Mode de diffusion : en ligne Lieu de diffusion : Université en ligneMatériels : unimédias; site, activités, tests et corrigés autoformations informatisés; animations interactives


Langue du cours : Français Public cible : Étudiants du bacc,

Responsabilités ID : expert contenu, concepteur pédagogique et médiatique et réalisateur et développeur médiatique. Gestionnaire du projet, il recourt aux services d’un agent de recherche et d’un graphiste.

Objets pédagogiques : pour réutilisation tel quel ou pour adaptation à un autre contexte d’apprentissage : ressources web existantes, coquille web existante, activités d’apprentissage, simulations interactives, livre du professeur

Besoins/problèmes exprimés : Pour la conception : Une personne familière avec le contenu pour travailler en

interaction plutôt qu en séquences dans a l élaboration des activitésPour la médiatisation : Dans le but de favoriser l’inspiration, modifier les

méthodes de travail avec l’équipe de médiatisation : multiplier les interactions avec une équipe multidisciplinaire, éliminer les intermédiaires et éviter le séquence des tâches. Le concepteur préfère d’avoir un contact direct et à quelques reprises.

Pour la maintenance : Une ressource pour vérifier la validité des liens url, avertir le responsable de la mise à jour du cours.

Les liens périmés sont de 5 à 10% par année, Comment assurer la pérennité d’un site si on a seulement les métadata (la représentation de la ressource) et non la ressource dans la banque. On a besoin d’un répertoire institutionnel (open url) pour archiver les OPIl utilise une approche par OP sans avoir accès aux technologies d’OP tel que :Référencement des OP, banque compatible, etc.Méthode de conception : Par prototypage rapide.Processus de conception pédagogique et de réalisation médiatique intégrés encouragés par le fait que le professeur joue tous les rôles de ID et que les outils utilisés sont aussi intégrés dans un même environnement technologique : word, html, coquille web. Outils LICEF pouvant utiliser : Gestionnaire de ressources (Gestionnaire de ressources pour les textes); Outil de Veille pédagogique (agent de recherche avancée édusource), outil de veille des liens url, assurer l’existence des OP par une banque de ressources institutionnelles


10. Appendice B – Summary table of contextual factorsTable 1. Summary of Practitioners Profile and Context

Course designer A - Subject Matter ExpertLearning Theories

B – Subject Matter Expert

Educational Technology

Course

C- Instructional Designer

Company info modules

D- Teacher

French Course

E- Teacher

Chemistry

FProfessor

Scope 3 months 15 weeks 6 modules, 5-10 minutes

1 semester 15 weeks 15 weeks

Education/Training Sector

University University Enterprise High School College University

Type of Intervention

Initiation/Obligatory In-service Training/Optional

Initiation / Optional Initiation/Obligatory Initiation Initiation

Type of Knowledge Model

Process and methods Process and methods Factual Process and methods Process and methods Process and methods

Targeted Skill Domain

Cognitive Cognitive/Social Cognitive Cognitive Cognitive Cognitive/Social

Certification yes yes No Yes Yes YesCollaboration yes Yes (forum) Non Yes Yes YesAssistance F2F Teacher, Online

moderator ; email advisor

F2F and online moderator

Glossary F2F Teacher; email advisor

Online corrector Online Tutor

Delivery Mode Blended Blended Self-directed Online Learning

Blended Online Online

Delivery System University Portal University Portal Learning Space College Web College web Personal Web PageInstructional Materials




Print materials Online Multimedia Materials and exercicesWeb site

Print materials, video Online Multimedia testsWeb site, glossary

Print materials Online Multimedia Materials

Course Language French French French French French FrenchTarget Audience Master Students Master Students in

EducationLearners from Quebec, English Canada, USA, Mexico and Romania

Secondary 1 girls 4 gr of 40

Cegep students, Chemistry teachers

Adults in the workplace

Main ID processes Revise Content model Design Instructional Scenario Carry out Media Design with technical Team Plan and carry out Delivery

Reorganize contentCreate and search for new themes Organize instructional activitiesPlan evolution and maintenance of the course through built-

Transform experts’ content and activities to online LMS modulesCollaborate with media designers Maintain the site

Content design Pedagogical scenarioMedia scenario Delivery and Maintenance

Content and pedagogical design of online activities Write exercises; Content validation and revision

Content and pedagogical design of online activities for Preliminary plan. Incomplete process


Plan Maintenance in evaluations

Roles Content designerInstructional designerTeam Media design player Teacher Manager

Content designerInstructional DesignerMedia Specialist Teacher

Instructional Designer(Not subject matter expert nor media designer)

Content ExpertInstructional DesignerMedia SpecialistSite Manager

Content expertInstructional DesignerMedia Designer

Content and instructional designerMedia designer Professor Project Manager

Learning Object Uses

All course material shared by links to the real object

All course material shared by links to the real object

Use online Texts to produce own material amd graphics, pictures

All course material accessible to other teachers

A simulation software, a distance learning course

Needs /Problems Course Examples (instructional strategy, subject-matter and delivery situation)

Community of Practice by discipline with Resource Management

Help to create the WEB page/course

Computerized Progress reports

Tools to design collaborative learning scenarios

Copyright Personal

Classification tools

Managing and renewing links

Efficient resource management

Renowned Domain/Theme Repositories

Technology

Not enough resourcesNeed to learn production skills

Guidance for . Media design to create web page, use media tools (Flash). Copyright restriction and policy (use of LO)

Help for web formating

Communication tools to reach computer team Tools to build a glossary Template for online team and group activities

Content model; collaborative learning scenario model; Domain Communities


ahelios.licef.ca/reslornet/23/id_pract_and_lo_050118.doc · web viewmoreover, it facilitates...

Documents