A Teacher’s Tool for
Lesson Planning (TuLiP)
Design of a tool for the rapid
development of educational and
instructional environments.
R. Gabrielle Reed
Fall, 2002
Topics





Call for Research
E-commerce vs. E-learning
Web Technology
Teacher’s Challenges
Meeting the Challenge – TuLiP
Call for Research to Support the
Use of Technology in Education
 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” (US DEd, 2000)
Observations:
 Tools designed for educational uses lag
behind applications for e-commerce.
 Tools can be developed that capitalize on
advances in e-commerce.
Definitions:
 Template: Empty markup page
 Object: Self-contained archive file with markup
pages, resources, metadata to allow use.
 XML: Extensible Markup Language
 XSL: Extensible Scripting Language
 Product: Automatically generated Web pages
 Cocoon2: Web publishing framework project
under the Apache/Jakarta
Advances in Technology
 XML allows semantic content storage and
retrieval.
 XSL allows the presentation of content in a
wide variety of output formats.
 Portal Technology allows relevant storage,
retrieval and community services within a
web-based environment.
 Web frameworks allow rapid development
of web environments.
Teacher’s Challenges





Recent Laws Impacting Workload
Existing Responsibilities
Tools Available
Hurdles to Technology
Observed Problems with Learning Environments
Teacher’s New Responsibilities
 Federal laws and mandates:
 “Leave No Child Behind Act”
[PL 107-110, 2002]
 “National Education Technology Plan”
[e-Learning, 2000]
 “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act”
[IDEA - PL 105-17, 1997]
Recent Requirements
 Integrating technology in the classroom
 Providing accessible information to parents
of disadvantaged individuals
 Using scientifically based teaching
techniques
 Accommodating disabilities and student
diversity
Professional Development


Table A.—Percent of public school teachers who participated in professional development
activities during the last 12 months that focused on various content areas, by number of hours
spent on the activity: 2000
NOTE: Percentages for total hours spent in the activity are based on public school teachers who
participated in professional development over the 12 months preceding the survey. Percents are
computed across each row, but may not add to 100 because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response
Survey System, "Survey on Professional Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 19992000," FRSS 74, 2000.
Existing Responsibilities
 Writing and submitting lesson plans
 Teaching core curriculum
 Grading Papers
 Supervising halls and classrooms
 Assessing disabilities
 Keeping abreast of new teaching strategies
 Encouraging parental participation
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
Proposed Solution:
 Lower the teacher’s technology hurdle by
developing simplified teacher-centered
applications to help with the day to day
requirement of planning and reporting.
 Automate the dissemination of information,
with “write once, automate display” when
and how it is needed.
Proposal :
A Lesson Planning Tool
 Characteristics
 Comparison of Existing Tools
 Benefits
Characteristics:
 Simplified interface with sufficient but
minimal functionality.
 Sharing and reusing Lesson Plans.
 Sharing and reusing components of the
Plan.
 Automating routine parental and
administrative reporting requirements.
 Automating alternative student materials.
Teacher Activities in Lesson
Planning
 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.
Available Planning Tools and Characteristics
in Sharing and Reusing Lesson Plans
Description
Examples
Format
Sharability
Reusability
Journal/Calendar
Weekly/ Daily/
Class Period
Scholastic
Lesson
Planning Book
Paper / Palm
Limited due to everyday
use,
may be copied
Used as a
reference, but new
dates requires
rewriting.
Curriculum Guides
and Lesson Plans
using office
production software
Word
processors,
spreadsheets,
presentation
Computer
applications
with proprietary
formats
Must have same
applications
Easier to update
from year to year
Web and
Multimedia
Designer Software
Web Quest
student
activities
Website – some
html template
pages available
Format and navigation
must be acceptable for
reuse.
Due to the scope of
site, files are not
easily located or
bundled. Need
HTML editing
skills.
Learning Objects
e-learn
(Microsoft),
SCORM
No standard
format
Search engines used to
find them.
May need proprietary
application to run it
Used as is.
Size of the Object
may not match
need.
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.
Perceived Costs of Predefined Styles
 Customization of the use forms are restricted to
the defined structure of the elements. A compliant
template form uses existing style templates.
 Foremost importance is the use of research based
style and presentation methods to facilitate
information distribution.
 Teachers have to give up the desire to “publish”to “control the way things look”. The functionality
to customize a product is a cause of increased
complexity of a tool.
 To offset this, the style must be a widely accepted
design
How Many Different Products
Are Needed?
 The content in one Lesson Plan may be
transformed to meet various needs:
–
–
–
–
–
Administrative curriculum requirements
Evaluation of technology effectiveness
Information for parents
Homework for children
Information in alternative modes for lesson or
review
– Instructional plan
– Instructional web environment
Effectiveness of Structured Content
 The "structured" approach is seen to have the following benefits:
– allows the same courses to be delivered across multiple media and
delivery environments (Print, WWW, CD-ROM)
– supports a consistent instructional design and development process
– provides a definitive view, including meta-data, of the components of well
constructed educational resources responsive to different learner profiles
– provides opportunities for learners to approach the course material
through multiple paths or views
– facilitates the re-purposing and updating of content
– conforms to Information Technology standards to ensure portability and
long-term use”
 Paille, G., Norman, S., Klassen, P. and Maxwell, J. "The effect of
using structured documents (SGML) in instructional design“
 source: http://naweb.unb.ca/proceedings/1999/paille/paille.html
TuLiP Components
 Web Architecture
 Portal/Repository Design
 Fundamental Learning Objects
 Teacher-Centered Tool
Technological Components of the
Tulip Tool
 Cocoon 2 Web Architecture
– Uses XML, XSL, XSP, Java Servlets
 Portal Design
– facilitates catalogue and search of resources
– enhances teacher participation & collaboration
 Learning Objects
– packages metadata and files for sharing
 Repository
– simplifies saving and retrieval of files
Designs in the Full Implementation
of the TuLip Tool
 A simplified “minimal but sufficient” interface
 A markup language designed for Learning
Environments And Planning (LEAP)
 A set of Knowledge Type Templates (KTTs) for
the types of knowledge based on objective
 Components that facilitate reuse, sharing,
completeness and orthogonality (FLOs)
Simplified “Minimal but Sufficient”
Interface
Teacher-centered design
Set up of custom plan template
Web based form
Step by step completion
Templates
Characteristics of a Simplified
Interface
 Minimal but sufficient functionality
 Teacher-centered
 Includes examples and demonstrations of
use
 Provide an assortment of templates for use.
 The needs of the teachers are to be
determined by user studies and surveys
through the use of the Portal
Types of Template
 Planning Templates facilitate complete
teacher planning information
 FLO Component templates to assist in
producing complete components
 Diverse KTT Component templates provide
suggestions for a range of objectives
Rapid Development of Web Sites
using the Cocoon2 Framework
Web interface for administration of
lesson plans and learning environment
Cocoon2
 Uses an architecture that allows dynamic
generation of webpages: a script describes the
servlets, sources and transformation information
needed to process a certain request.
 A generator converts the text input into the XML
using the Simple API for XML (SAX) creating
events, which are then processed and transformed
according to XSL script to serialize the output.
Cocoon2 Sitemap Example
Cocoon2 Pipeline
 Source at the right is
an XML page.
 Style sheet is in XSL.
 Multiple sources of
XML may be used in
“one page”.
 Output is specified
format like html, pdf,
WML or Vox ML.
Learning Environment And Planning
(LEAP) Markup Language
 XML Language development
 Current Markup Languages for Educational
Content
 Characteristics of LEAP
XML Markup Languages
 Data Type Definitions (DTDs) define the
Elements and Attributes to be used in the
files.
 Modularization and Namespace DTDs are
used to assure uniqueness of element names.
Existing Markup Languages
 Publication Languages
 Learning Material Markup Language (LMML)
[http://www.lmml.de]
 Tutorial Markup Language (TML)
[http://www.ilrt.bristol.ac.uk/netquest/about/lang/]
 These are incomplete languages with respect to the
“Lesson Planning Process”.
What Are XML’s Advantages?
 Plan is coded with
 Plan can be designed
semantic elements.
 Reusable translation
instructions are used
to filter, format and
display information
for each product.
 XML content can be
catalogued and
searched.
with reusable parts.
 Translation
instructions are used
for instructional
control and
sequencing.
 Instructor has more
instructional control.
Characteristics of 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
 Allows aggregation of components to be
used in creating the Web environment
 Categories/ and Grammer
Document Type Definition (DTD)

A DTD is a file (or several files to be used together), written in XML, which contains a formal definition of a
particular type of document. It sets out what names can be used for element types, where they may occur, and how
they all fit together. For example, if you want a document type to be able to describe <List>s which contain <Item>s,
part of your DTD would contain something like
<!ELEMENT List (Item)+>
<!ELEMENT Item (#PCDATA)>

This fragment defines a list as an element type containing one or more items (using the plus sign), and items as
element types containing just text. XML is the formal specification language which processors read to automatically
parse the DTD and then use that information to identify where every element type comes and how each relates to the
other, so that stylesheets, navigators, browsers, search engines, databases, printing routines, and other applications can
be used. The above fragment lets you create lists which get stored as:
<List>
<Item>Chocolate</Item>
<Item>Music</Item>
<Item>Surfing</Item>
</List>




How the list appears in print or on the screen depends on your stylesheet: you do not normally need to put anything in
the XML to affect formatting in the way that had to be done with HTML before stylesheets.
In effect, a DTD provides applications with advance notice of what names and structures can be used in a particular
document type.
Using a DTD means you can be certain that all documents which belong to a particular type will be constructed and
named in a conformant manner.
Source: http://xml.coverpages.org/xmlFAQ15.html#FAQ-DOCTYPE
Fundamental Learning Objects
(FLOS)
Classes of FLO’s
Metadata Requirements
Fundamental Learning Objects
 FLO’s are defined as
the smallest object
containing educational
information.
 Educational Lesson
Information is
categorized into
classes, based on
Instructional
Functionality.
 The classes contain
content described as:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Informative
Illustrative
Collaborative
Cognitive
Evaluative
Cooperative
Adaptive
Lesson Plan Objects
 Characteristics
Characteristics
 Contains Descriptions of:
– 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
Knowledge Type Templates (KTTs)
Templates for the most common
objectives by type of knowledge being
taught
Knowledge Type Templates
(KTTs)
 Aggregation of a
variety of FLOs
 The proposed KTT’s
include:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Fact
Event
Skill
Process
Experience
Analysis
Experimentation
Cognitive Process
XSP and XSL Pages
 Logic and display formats need be designed
only once: pages are reusable with different
content.
 Examples are:
– Test Logic may be re-used for many tests
– Practice/homework sheets may be designed to
provide immediate feedback
– Lesson Plans use teacher-preferred format
– Administrative or Parental information can be
provided by date
Components
 Facilitate Reuse, Sharing, Completeness and
Orthogonality (FLOs)
 Learning Objects,
 MetaData,
 Portals,
 Web Communities and
 Repositories
Definitions:
 Learning Objects: Educational materials in various formats
 Repository: Location for storage and retrieval of Learning





Objects, Plans and Teacher Materials
Reusability: The object can be easily used or incorporated
into an existing learning environment.
Sharability: Sufficient information is provided for
confirmation of validity and allows use.
Orthogonality: Components are independent of others.
Completeness: The educational intent of one basic
objective is contained in one object.
MetaData: Information stored to describe an object
Examples of Learning Objects
Uses(LOs)
 Instructional Architect (IA) currently uses
the LO’s stored in SMETE and other
repositories to produce web pages.
(reusabiltiy.org)
 Learning Objects, however, are packaged
with logic, format and content that is
difficult to modify and limits its reuse.
IEEE Learning Object (LO)
Initiatives
 Standardize the metadata associated with
LO’s
– LOs are limited to objects containing
educational content.
– LOs can be readily shared and reused in whole,
due to the metadata markup language used in
describing the content.
Dublin Core Metadata Element Set
(The Dublin Core)
 “a 15 element metadata set that is primarily intended to aid resource
discovery on the Web …
 The metadata elements fall into three groups which roughly indicate
the class or scope of information stored in them:
1. elements related mainly to the Content of the resource
•
Title, Subject, Description, Type, Source, Relation, Coverage,
2. elements related mainly to the resource when viewed as Intellectual
Property
•
Creator, Publisher, Contributor, Rights
3. elements related mainly to the Instantiation of the resource
•
Date, Format, Identifier, Language.”
 Source:
– http://dublincore.org/documents/1999/07/02/dces/
 Qualifiers are documented in :
– http://dublincore.org/documents/2000/07/11/dcmes-qualifiers/
SCORM
 "The SCORM spec is going to be successful almost by
default, but unless all e-learning specifications turn the
focus from infrastructure to pedagogical soundness, they
are in danger of becoming instructionally irrelevant." So
says Thor Anderson, director of developer support at the
Instructional Management System Global Learning
Consortium (IMS) in Burlington, Mass.
 Source: Welsch, Edward, “SCORM: Clarity or Calamity?”
Online Learning Magazine, August, 2002
http://www.onlinelearningmag.com/onlinelearning/magazi
ne/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1526769
Portals
 An adaptive environment:
– Displays information of interest, which is
gathered and made available for use.
• National, Core and State Curriculum Requirements
• Planning Tools and Teacher Resources
– Provides a facility for sharing, using a
Repository
– Enables collaboration in Lesson Planning
Web Communities
 Learnitivity
 BlackBoard
 Moose Crossing
 ERIC
Educational Repositories
 ERIC
 SMETE
References
 LMML (lmml.org)
 TML(
 Instructional Architect ( reusabiltiy.org)
 Steps (UWF)
 IEEE Learning Object Initiative
 XML, XSLT
 Cocoon2 web development framework
 http://www.saxproject.org
Descargar

Tulip a Teacher's Lesson Planning Tool