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 Topics Motivation E-commerce use of Web Technologies vs. E-learning 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 (LEAP) TuLiP Tool Components and Benefits Motivation 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 learning. – 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 e-commerce. 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 techniques Accommodating disabilities and student diversity Teacher’s Dilemma A teacher may spend up to 20% of the time planning 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 Solution: 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 materials. 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 activities 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 e-learn (M ic roso ft), SC O R M 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 needed. M ay need prop rietary applicatio ns R eusab ility Sample Lesson Planning Page Source: Ohio Schoolnet. Lesson Planning Template. http://tlcf.osn.state.oh.us/blueprint/index.html. What If Teachers Could Use XML? Use an XML language that uses educational terminology. 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 transformations. How Will This Help? The content in one Lesson Plan can be transformed automatically to provide: – Administrative curriculum reporting requirements – Information for parents – Homework for children – Information in alternative modes for lesson or review – Instructional plan – Instructional web environment Gains Using Structured Content Same information across Print, WWW, and CD-ROM. 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 Styles 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 group Portable Information can be bundled or "cut and pasted" Internet technologies allow for sharing and distribution 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 presentation. 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 / SC ORM H TM L JS P , A S P , PHP R IO /R L O LM M L TM L SGM L 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 Objects” – 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 Objects(FLO) FLO’s are defined as the smallest object containing educational information. Lesson Plan is categorized into classes, based on attributes and Instructional Functionality. Functionality: – – – – – – – Informative Illustrative Collaborative Cognitive Evaluative Cooperative Adaptive Knowledge Type Templates (KTTs) Based on the most common objectives by type of knowledge being taught. Aggregation of a variety of FLOs KTT’s include: – – – – – – – – Fact Event Skill Process Experience Analysis Experimentation Cognitive Process KTT Aggregation Assembling of FLOs Differs from “cinclude” or “embed”; parts are processed then assembled. Informative page followed by Illustrative, then Cognitive FLO’s Portal 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 options – Catalog and search of resources – Enhances teacher participation & collaboration through the supports a community of users – Communication tools for collaboration in Lesson Planning Repository 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), <http://hul.harvard.edu/ldi/slides/repository/sld003.htm> 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.