Smart Learning Environments
a potential framework for
Tore HoelOslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences
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
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.
Very few technical issues identified
its 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
Smart should be
So should also our
What is the implied theoretical and
empirical model behind
Smart Learning Environments?
What theoretical and empirical model of
learning technologies should inform LET
Conceptualizing the field
Where do Zhu, Spector, Hwang requirements fit?
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
Visibility of our work
Engagement of new experts with the competencies we need
How would standards
according to Kopers
SLE framework look
CCNU project on developing metrics
for describing Learning Space
Situations and Events
Vocabulary for contexts (LA activity
specifications - xAPI)
Nomadicity and Mobile Learning
What types of interventions?
Provisioning of learning resources
Conditioning of learning environment
What digital support for pedagogical
Learning Technology Architecture
Types of devices
Augmented and virtual reality tools
All aspects of learning analytics
Activity stream formats
Assessments and tests
Need for vocabularies describing
Support for setting up learning
instances based on observations
Social learning support
Support for all types of externalisation
of learning activities
Storage and retrieval
Drill & practice
Create and present representations
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
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
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).