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
 Motivation
 E-commerce use of Web Technologies vs.
 Teacher’s Challenges
 Meeting the Challenge – A design for
TuLiP- A Teacher’s Lesson Planning tool
 A Proposed XML based language for
Learning Environment and Planning
 TuLiP Tool Components and Benefits
 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”
– “All students will have technology and information
literacy skills.
– Research and evaluation will improve the next
generation of technology applications for teaching and
– Digital content and networked applications will
transform teaching and learning." (US DEd, 2000)
E-commerce vs. E-learning
 The use of Extensible Markup Language
(XML), Web services and architectures has
fueled recent changes in e-commerce.
 Educational uses lag behind applications for
 Tools can be developed that capitalize on
advances in e-commerce, in particularly
Internet Protocol (IP) Technologies.
Teacher’s Challenges
 Recent Laws Impacting Workload
 Barriers to the use Technology
Increased Workload Due to
Recent Laws and Mandates:
 Integrating technology in the classroom
 Providing accessible information to parents
of disadvantaged individuals
 Using scientifically based teaching
 Accommodating disabilities and student
Teacher’s Dilemma
 A teacher may spend up to 20% of the time
 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
Meeting the Challenge - The TuLiP
 Lower the teacher’s technology hurdle
– Simplify the teacher-centered application
– Deal with the day to day requirement of
planning and reporting.
– “Write once, Automate Upon Request” with the
use of Cocoon2 Web Architecture
TuLiP A Lesson Planning Tool
 Planning Process
 Comparison of Lesson Planners
 Structured Content using XML
 Time-Saving Criteria
 Teacher-Centered Tool
 Cocoon 2 Web Architecture
 Organizing Instructional Content
 Portal/Repository Design
 TuLiP Benefits
Planning Process
 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
Comparison of Lesson Planners
D escrip tio n
E xa m p les
F orm at
S harab ility
Journa l/
C ale nda r
S cho lastic
L esson
P la nning
B ook
P a lm L esso n
P la nner
W eekly/ D aily/
C lass P eriod
P aper/ B o und
L im ite d d ue to
everyda y use,
m a y be cop ied
U sed as a refere nce,
but new dates
req uire rew riting.
P a lm / P D A
F iles are not des igned
to be separate fro m
cale ndar
O ffice
prod uctio n
softw are
W ebQ uest
stude nt
A pp licatio ns in
proprie tary
form ats
W ebsite – so m e
htm l te m p late
pages ava ilab le
M ust ha ve sa m e
applicatio ns
D igita l cop y o f
lesso ns can be
copied to ne xt year
cale ndar
E asie r to update
fro m year to year
tha n pape r
D ue to the scope of
site, files are not
easily located or
bund led. N eed
H T M L ed iting sk ills.
E ase of use
determ ines
reusab ility.
U sed as is.
S ize or for m a t o f the
object m a y no t
m atc h need.
P la nner
C urric ulu m
G uides and
L esson P la ns
W eb and
M ultim ed ia
D esigne r
S o ftw a re
A pp licatio ns
Java app lets
and pro gra m s
N o standard
form at
L earning
O bjects
(M ic roso ft),
N o standard
form at
F orm at a nd na viga tio n
m ust be acceptab le for
reuse. U nloadab le
P ackaging a nd ease of
inco rpo ratio n
determ ines use.
D irectories, catalo gs
or search e ngines are
M ay need prop rietary
applicatio ns
R eusab ility
Sample Lesson Planning Page
Source: Ohio Schoolnet. Lesson Planning Template.
What If Teachers Could Use
 Use an XML language that uses educational
 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
How Will This Help?
 The content in one Lesson Plan can be
transformed automatically to provide:
– Administrative curriculum reporting
– Information for parents
– Homework for children
– Information in alternative modes for lesson or
– Instructional plan
– Instructional web environment
Gains Using Structured Content
 Same information across Print, WWW, and
 Rapid development with templates and
consistent instructional design
 More learner options by profile with
multiple paths or views for learners
 Re-purposing and updating of content
 Portability and long-term use
Perceived Costs of Using Predefined
 Relinquish the desire to “publish”.
 Customization is restricted to the defined
structure of the elements. This would be an
ongoing process to cover the need.
 The widely accepted styles options.
Time-Saving Criteria:
 Scope and functionality needs to be limited
 Resources need to be readily accessible
 Directory should be available by subject and age
 Portable Information can be bundled or "cut and
 Internet technologies allow for sharing and
 Graduated help provided (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
Adequate help including demonstrations of use
Cocoon 2 Web Architecture
 Web interface and rapid-development web-site platform
 Cocoon servlet uses sitemap to determine action.
 Uses extensible Markup Language(XML), eXtensible
scripting Language(XSL), eXtensible Server Pages (XSP),
JAVA Servlets
 Versatile output to various devices based on processing.
 Stores the valuable educational content from the
 Apply navigation, presentation to content at time of use.
Organizing Instructional Content
 Review of current Markup Languages for
Educational Content and Metadata
 Use of Learning Objects(LO)
 A proposed markup language Learning
Environment and Planning (LEAP) for the
planning and distribution of educational content
 Templates for rapid development
T ab le 4 .2 : T h e Su m m ary of a R eview of Lan gu ages U sed to C reate In stru ctional M aterials, th eir Featu res, D raw b ack s and th e P rop osed
S olu tion in LE A P .
L a ng u age
LO M /
JS P , A S P ,
F ea tures
M etad ata
S tatic w eb p ages;
easy to u se in th e
C lassroom ,
ind ep end en t of
p latform
D yn am ic
fu nction ality w ith
"typ es of p ages"
and variab le
con tent
S tandardized
C on tent
C ou rse or U n it
tem p lates u sed
for con sisten t
d esign ;
B uilt-in
altern ative
m aterials
D raw b acks
Lack in g edu cation al con tent
d escrip tion
N ot easily reu sed ;
In corp orates n avigation and
lesson con trol
L E A P S olu tio n
In clu d e in stru ction an d teach er-sp ecific m etadata.
O n e-p ass p rocess w ith logic
and style togeth er
D ev elop th e logic an d style to b e app lied ind ep end en tly.
P rod u ce "typ es of ob jects" con sistent w ith th e F LO attrib utes an d
fu nction ality.
In clu d es elem en t lab els from
extran eou s d om ain s in D T D s;
Lim ited to teachin g facts,
sk ills an d p rocesses;
S ize too large for easy reu se
B ased m ostly on p resen tation
style in form ation .
In corp orates logic w ith style
U se lesson p lan nin g an d teach in g term in olog y, con sisten t w ith th e F L O
d esign . A llo w p lan tem p lates to b e parsed into u sab le sizes of ob jects for
reu se.
D ev elop stru ctu re for exp erim en tation , exp loration an d exp erien ces.
O u tp ut p rodu ct in H T M L, bu t store con tent, style an d logic in X M L
stru ctu res.
U se tem p lates of th e m ost com m on set of F LO (teach in g task ) an d
K T T (teach in g objective).
D ev elop F LO s to u se agen t, w eb services and servlet techn ologies.
In corp orate th e alternative m aterials structu re.
LMML Example
Use of Learning Objects (LOs)
 Learning Objects are packaged with logic,
format and content that is difficult to
modify and limits its reuse.
 Problems with Aggregation of “Learning
– lack of instructional control,
– lack of a uniform navigation and
– lack of cohesion in the presentation
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
using namespaces
 Allows aggregation of components to be
used in creating the Web environment
 Based on Categories of Use and a Grammer
of use
Types of Template
 Planning Templates facilitate complete
teacher planning information
 Fundamental Learning Objects (FLO)
Component templates assists in producing
complete components
 Diverse Knowledge Type Templates (KTTs)
provide suggestions for different objectives
Planning Template
 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
Fundamental Learning
 FLO’s are defined as
the smallest object
containing educational
 Lesson Plan is
categorized into
classes, based on
attributes and
 Functionality:
Knowledge Type Templates
 Based on the most
common objectives
by type of
knowledge being
 Aggregation of a
variety of FLOs
 KTT’s include:
Cognitive Process
KTT Aggregation
 Assembling of FLOs
 Differs from
“cinclude” or
“embed”; parts are
processed then
 Informative page
followed by
Illustrative, then
Cognitive FLO’s
 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
– Catalog and search of resources
– Enhances teacher participation & collaboration through
the supports a community of users
– Communication tools for collaboration in Lesson
 A Physical/Virtual Data Store
 Simplifies saving and retrieval of files
 Set of Services
– Naming,
– Management,
– Discovery and Recovery,
– Security,
– Migration, and
– Reporting
 Source: Harvard University Library Digital Initiative (LDI),
TuLiP - 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 the LEAP 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.

Tulip a Teacher's Lesson Planning Tool