Transcript

Smart Learning Environments

– a potential framework for

standardisation?

Tore HoelOslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences

Norway

WG6 Melbourne meeting June 2017

The Challenge – what has changed?

• Is technology the problem - or the way we conceive technology in

relation to our domain?

• Lack of progress in SC36 – we have not produced much of value!

• Lack of stakeholder involvement

• Have SC36 left the CD-ROM era?

Is ‘SMART’ going make the difference?

From AR/VR study group

Recommendation to SC36

• Human factor guidelines for AR and VR content in LET domain

Note: this may be categorized to school or age levels.

• Interaction model in AR and VR content for educational usage

Note: meta tagging in terms of library interoperability is included in this area.

• Cataloging models that bring together the curriculum and AR/VR learning

resources (from metadata perspectives)

• Packaging standards for adding AR and VR contents to existing learning

platforms (LMS/VLE);

• Learning analytic systems that reflect the use of AR and VR contents, etc.

Note: data capturing standards in term of multi-model learning analytics

We captured potential standardization items which can be covered

in SC36. SC36 may consider project sharing between new WGs.

Slid

e fro

m t

he

Stu

dy p

erio

de

re

po

rt

Very few technical issues identified

– it’s mostly about how AR&VR are used in education

How to connect to the agendas that gives

visibility and energy to our work?

The problem with Smart

• To define Smart Learning as the counterpoint to Stupid Learning is

not so smart!

• A is, what B is not: Mathematically, this gives an indefinite space of A

– you will never be able to know what the boundaries of A are

• We have the same problem defining Scope when developing

standards!

Smart StupidSmart

Smart should be

grounded…

So should also our

standards work!

What is the implied theoretical and

empirical model behind

Smart Learning Environments?

What theoretical and empirical model of

learning technologies should inform LET

standardisation?

Conceptualizing the field

• Zhi-Ting Zhu

• Jonathan Michael

Spector

• Gwo-Jen Hwang

• Rob Koper

SLE

framework

(Koper 2014)

Where do Zhu, Spector, Hwang requirements fit?

• Location-Aware

• Context-Aware

• Socially Aware

• Interoperability

• Seamless

Connection

• Adaptability

• Ubiquitous

• Whole Record

• Natural

Interaction

• High

Engagement

• Scalable

• Flexible

• Personalized

• Conversational

• Reflective

• Innovative

Should SC36 work

be led according to

a SLE model?

What are we looking for?

• Ideas to structure our work, i.e., getting new work items addressing

market needs

• Visibility of our work

• Engagement of new experts with the competencies we need

How would standards

development

according to Koper’s

SLE framework look

like?

26

Physical Environments

• CCNU project on developing metrics

for describing Learning Space

Situations and Events

• Curricula standards

• Competency frameworks

• Vocabulary for contexts (LA activity

specifications - xAPI)

• Nomadicity and Mobile Learning

Interventions

• What types of interventions?

• Question management

• Task management

• Provisioning of learning resources

• Conditioning of learning environment

• What digital support for pedagogical

interventions?

Digital Devices

• Learning Technology Architecture

• Types of devices

• MOOCs

• Augmented and virtual reality tools

Observations

• All aspects of learning analytics

• Metics

• Activity stream formats

• Collection

• Storing

• Analysing

• Assessments and tests

Context-Awareness

• Need for vocabularies describing

contexts

Adaptiveness

• Support for setting up learning

instances based on observations

Identification

• Competency descriptions

• Learning targets

• Tasks

• Problem descriptions

Socialization

• Social learning support

• Peer learning

• Group learning

• Role Negotiation

Creation

• Support for all types of externalisation

of learning activities

Practice

• Storage and retrieval

• Performance targets

• Self-monitoring systems

• Drill & practice

• Serious games

Reflection

• Create and present representations

of representations

Project approach

• What's in scope?

• Stop doing framework standards – answer the needs of the market

• Smaller pieces of work - e.g., facilitator model, classroom..

• 9 months development cycle

The ideal world

• Smart learning, smart education, smart learning environments, etc.

should to be grounded in a verified theory

• A coherent framework model of Smart Learning Environment

• When a new element is identified and being run through the model

you see where it fits, and if not, where the model needs to be fixed

• Smart Learning Environment Framework: Model for structuring

learning technology standardisation

The real world

• We will not have one framework guiding our standards development

• ‘Smart’ is part of a language game serving ‘political’ positioning

rather than providing the scientific rigour needed to develop

standards

• Go for a more pragmatic approach where SLE models are used to

develop & evaluate NWIs – refraining from doing large framework

(multipart) standards, but start doing self-containedm, smaller

standards

谢谢您的关注

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

[email protected]

WeChat: Tore_no