Implementing an editor for IMS Learning Design: Technical and Usability issues in the development of

1
Implementing an editor for IMS Learning Design
Technical and Usability issues in the development
of Reload

• David Griffiths, Phillip Beauvoir, Mark
  Baxendale, Paul Hazlewood, Amanda Oddie

2
Overview

• The Reload Learning Design Editor
• Use of the Reload Learning Design Editor with
  practitioners
• Towards a new Reload Learning Design Editor

3
The Reload Learning Design editor

• General purpose editor
• Close to Learning Design specification
• Similar to Metadata and Content Package editor
• But specification more complex- poses challenges

4
Challenges posed by the specification

• LD editor initially based on Reload CP editor
• XML schema based approach
• LD demanded major changes to interface
• Complexity of the specification
• Not following the conventional tree-based schema

5
(No Transcript)
6
The Eclipse framework

• Flexible plug-in architecture
• Extensive set of UI features
• Speeded up development for level B/C editor
• From Swing to Eclipse in 6 weeks
• From level A to levels B and C in 6 weeks

7
(No Transcript)
8
Adoption

• Resulting software widely used
• as a reference to experiment with the
  specification
• In real teaching situations
• Fully compliant with the specification
• Others have built on the Editor
• E.g. Collage
• Adoption as client software within TENCompetence

9
The development approach

• High level of continuity within the team and
  development of expertise in application domains
• Involvement of various user groups
• Iterative development
• Team develops prototypes, users feed back
• "release early and often"

10
Use of the Reload LD Editor with teachers

• Currently presents entire specification to the
  user
• Target group was technical staff/researchers
• Liverpool Hope University used Reload to author
  real UoLs
• Best available editor

11
User evaluation

• Workshops in Higher Education (HE) and Further
  Education (FE)
• Use of real examples set in users own context
• Users from a range of subjects

12
User evaluation

• Generally positive about
• Usefulness
• Understanding different sections (of editor)
• Generally negative about
• Usability
• Knowing how to work through the software
• Regular users able to produce UoLs to level A
• Required support to produce level B
• Underlying metaphors of Learning Design seem
  accessible to practitioners
• Valuable to provide an interface designed for
  practitioners, as well as for technical experts

13
Towards a new Reload Learning Design Editor

• Recommendations from user evaluation
• Layouts (panels, menus, icons) which are more
  visual
• Provision of a code view
• The use of visual cues
• Provision of a catalogue of resources
• Developing a prototype
• Further evaluation with users

14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)