Personal tools
You are here: Home Events Past Events Summer School 2006 WORKSHOP Summaries

WORKSHOP Summaries

by onusa last modified Jul 03, 2006 03:48 PM

SUMMERSCHOOL 2006, Bled Slovenia

How do you know if your research is successful?

by  Eric Duval, Monday, 5.06.06, 14.00-15.30

Following question should be answered by the PhD students: what is success for you?
Answers:
  • Answering research question;
  • Getting good feedback from other experts which is satisfying enough for me
  • Getting respect from the community
  • Used in Real live and practical usability
  • Become an expert
  • Having fun
  • If one day I finish it
  • Added value
  • Explainable to lay people
  • Collaborate
  • It pays importance for others
  • If it would be read by somebody

Fazit out of this session: None of the items are really under your control. What is really necessary is to have fun with your research topic; otherwise it will become really difficult.

Second question to answer in this session: what is you equivilant challenge for learning? What if you would advice the prime minister on a 1000m€ programme for education?

By answering this question, priorities in eLearning got extracted by the individual working teams.

Artificial Tutoring with Latent Semantic Analysis

by  Fridolin Wild, Monday, 5.6.2006, 16.00 – 17.30

Abstract

In his talk Fridolin Wild presented the algorithmic and mathematical foundations behind Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), a technique for finding out about the similarity of given text documents. After that he presented the audience with an application of LSA to essay scoring. Essay scoring is a way of automatically producing estimations of the quality of students’ essays. In the final discussion a number of possible applications of LSA were discussed among them the application of LSA for finding similar human persons according to the contents of a specific person’s portfolio, the utilization of ontology-concepts and bags of words for building up Latent Semantic Spaces and the absence of a standard, reference corpus for evaluating differing algorithms and parameter sets for LSA.

Concept Modelling Learning Café

by  Ambjörn Naeve, Tuesday, 6.06.06, 14.00-15.30
The workshop was interactive set and the PhD students were asked to work in clusters. Following task was given:
  • Write down main modelling concepts with definitions on a postit
  • Put all post it on an A0 paper
  • Discuss the modelling concepts and their relationships
  • Connect the concepts with the ULM-Syntax
A presentation to the other clusters and a discussion on each outcome concluded the workshop.

Security in eLearning

by  Edgar Weippl, Tuesday, 6.06.06, 11.00-12.30

The Security workshop turns around the concept of “threat modelling”, and how to apply this concept during the construction of an e-learning application, at least to the sensitive parts of the application like the database. To sum up the idea behind it is to determine the threats, then rank them, and finally propose some counter-measures. To carry out this work first it is needed to understand the adversary modelling her/his attacks using “threat trees”; once we have modelled these attacks, these are evaluated taking into account the potential damage and the probability it would happen.

Social Software

Tuesday, 6.06.2006, 14.00

Participants:
Armin Ulbrich,  Katrina Leyking, Malik Koné, Markus Specht, Mathias Lux, Oliver Bohl, Patrick Jonscher, Ralf Klamma, Sean Mehan

After a short introduction on Web 2.0, which was given by Mathias Lux, everybody in the group gave a small introduction of himself and his / her intentions. Afterwards the question which Web 2.0 concepts and buzzwords are relevant for technology enhanced learning. A certain amount of Web 2.0 concepts was discussed and put into context of learning. The problem that collaborative learning is not targeted in the topic of institutional learning was addressed. Furthermore the quality assurance and trust are problems when applying Web 2.0 technologies to institutional learning.

Future Lab Interoperability

by  Fridolin Wild, Wednesday, 7.06.06, 11.00-12.30

In this Workshop open questions, unsolved problems, and emerging trends and  upcoming advances in interoperability in technology enhanced learning were discussed:

Content:
1.overview of interoperability field
2.participations experience, interests and expectations,
3.answers to participators questions.

Overview Different approaches
1.Information (data) integration
2.Remoting - service orientation
3.Presentation integration – eg portlets collect applications from other servers

SQI
1.www.prolearn-project.org/lori
2.LORinterop@yahoogroups.com
3.LORinterop-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Portlet (loosely collection of LO-s) technology vs orchestration (collection of LO-s structured with learning structure [timeline, network chart, ...]).

Open unsolved topics:
  • Patterns - What are patterns?
  • Learner centred patterns are missing.
  • Most of the patterns are teacher and institution centred.
  • Interoperability usually from developers viewpoint
  • IMS TI is different (contains teachers and students viewpoints)
  • How to make teachers use (increase the use) LO-s created by other teachers?
  • Alard Strijker?
  • Search what kind of tools (in VLI or in LMS) students really use (and how do they use those in same way than authors or teachers had planed)?

eLearning Content Production

by  Volker Zimmermann, Thursday, 8.06.06, 16.00-17.30

We talked about industrial content production processes. Therefore we  focused especially on tipps and tricks, discuss the requirements of industry (such as BMW, Daimler, UBS) and talked about best practise samples. We also used the time work together on creating a small sample content. Therefore we compared different procedures - rapid learning content creation, authoring-tool based processes and hand-made creative processes.

How to realize adaptive Units of Learning in IMS Learning Design

by  Daniel Burgos, Thursday, 8.06.06, 14.00-15.30

The workshop focused on playing some units of learning focused on adaptation. During the lecture in the morning, more information was provided and the PhD students got an overview of what can be expect. If the students wanted to experience with the examples, they need to have installed and running an IMS LD player BEFORE the workshop started. They  could choose between:

  • RELOAD LD Editor. Install it in your local hard drive, with no blank spaces and punctuation symbols in the path, www.reload.ac.uk
  • CopperCore, www.coppercore.org
  • SLED, http://sled.open.ac.uk. A step-by-step installation guide is in here. Don´t forget that you need to link SLED to CopperCore

Online support at Learning Network for Learnign Design can be found at: http://moodle.learningnetworks.org. This website was also used to support both, installing and playing-editing, after the workshop.

The workshop turns around the concept of adaptation using IMS-LD. Development with IMS-LD is divided into there are three steps: design, publish and run. During the workshop we have concentrated on the publishing and running steps using Reload LD Player. We have experimented with three different learning designs adapting the units of learning: from (1) user point of view (2) from the Engine point of view (3) from Tutor point of view.

Authoring and Engineering Adaptive eLearning Systems

by  Alexandra Cristea, Thursday, 8.06.06, 14.00-15.30

This workshop centred around the “My Online Teacher” system (MOT), which allows course creators to create adaptive courses based on the LAOS adaptive conceptual framework. Firstly Alexandra demonstrated how MOT is used to create an adaptive course and then showed how it can be loaded into AHA!

A round table discussion then proceeded where the group discussed MOT, AHA!, LAOS, and Adaptive Hypermedia in general. The general consensus was that LOAS offered an excellent base standard for AH authoring. Some concerns were raised regarding the usability of the MOT system.

Community and Organised Learning Content Creation

by  Ralf Klamma, Thursday, 8.06.06, 14.00-15.30

Ralf Klamma talked about the Communities of Practice (Lave / Wenger 1991): 
  • Characterization of learners
  • Participation (mutual engagement/Legitimation)
  • Informal learning/situated learning
  • Interests
  • Novices/expert /Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LLP)
  • Goals? (Joint enterprise)
  • Reification/externalization

Books you should read if you are dealing with this topic: CoP and Business: <<Net Gain: Expanding Markets Through Virtual Communities>> a book by John Hagel III, Arthur G. Armstrong (Mckinsey)

SECI Model: Nonaka 95
Implict – socialization -> implicit – externalization -> explicit - combination (data mining) -> explict – internalization (visualization) ->implict
Knowledge, knowledge process

Expection:

  • Technical algorithms
  • Inspiration
  • Cross-communities
  • Visualization
  • Simulation

Social Software for Professional Learning

by  Klaus Tochtermann, Thursday, 8.06.06, 16.00-17.30

Discussion of Web 2.0 / e-learning 2.0

During this workshop following points were discussed:
1. Culture-independent vs. culture-dependent
2. Structure vs. chaos ;Implicit structure Ad-hoc structure Personalization and Adaptation issues Organization/community needs structure to communicate.
3. (Openness) voluntary vs. controlled (third party control) Minimal structure to maintain voluntary Each individual needs the structure to get along with the organization

ELearning supports knowledge intensive work. (vs. task oriented work)
Question: Will some traditional eLearning targeted PhD work give any scientific contribution? Data migration vs. system interoperability

Business model of Holz-holz (jet engine)
Service-oriented
4. Science vs. industry/freaks

Triggered by industry
Trust problem of scientific work area, out-of-date index

Web 2.0 is new to knowledge management community

Industry-guided phD work: it is possible for Prolearn to offer the chance?

5. Desktop vs. WebTop “GoogleTop”
eLearning Service

CLUSTER

Learning Repositories and Infrastructure for Learning

by  Michael Meier

In the first general pre-summerschool flashmeeting, several people mentioned that they were actually interested in both the "Semantic Web", and "Learning Repositories and Infrastructure for Learning" cluster, meaning that both clusters contained topics of interest. Therefore the idea was to first merge those 2 clusters, to find out what exact topics we wanted to talk about. In a second step, we would then see whether we should split up the groups again, in the same way, or some other way.

In the workshop on conceptual modeling, we tried to draw a first conceptual model concerning the topics and concepts that are related to the clusters. In our first private cluster-meeting, we continued this model, after having introduced ourselves, to know what we are each working on in our Phd. Because we were a bit too many to work all on the same model, we split it up into 2 parts: one about the learner, and one about the (learning) object. The idea was to then merge those 2 together afterwards, and identify common groups of interest in order to be able to make a split-up of the group.

In the final conceptual modeling session on Thursday, we achieved some "finalized" version of our conceptual model. Due to the lack of time, we did not make a split-up in the conceptual model. However, just talking about it, led to finding some common topic of interest for some people (although of course not for everyone...). For example Frederik and Stefan are considering writing something together about deriving the learning need from the context.

To conclude, I would like to state again that the clustering sessions were a really good idea by itself, and have a lot of potential value. 

CLUSTER: Workplace Learning

by  Oliver Bohl

We started to discuss the terms related to workplace learning to narrow down the fields we are interested in. The aim of this process was furthermore to cluster our specific fields of interest, which we had already defined the weeks before by using a gliffy diagram and to find interfaces to other working groups like for instance the web 2.0 group. Based on our first ideas we started to discuss and create an improved diagram to clarify the context we will discuss and the connections between some of the fields and terms we have identified.

Among the topics we discussed are the following:
  1. How to differentiate between life long learning, professional learning and workplace learning?
  2. What are elements that constitute workplace learning?
  3. What is the relation between learning at the workplace and the sharing of knowledge within a company?
  4. Is the existing literature on workplace learning influenced by concepts of technology-enhanced learning?
  5. What are key elements/definitions of elearning, blended learning, technology enhanced learning etc.?

We also defined our goals for this summerschool and the further cooperation. As a first step we prefer to work on a collaborative article for the EC-TEL06 conference. The above described questions can serve as preliminary cornerstones for such an article. Furthermore we aim on establishing/finding fields in which we can cooperate in the long term (e.g. in workshops, joint publications, proposal writing activities).

Document Actions