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

Overview

• The Reload Learning Design Editor• Use of the Reload Learning Design Editor

with practitioners• Towards a new Reload Learning Design

Editor

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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

Participants in trials of Reload with practitioners

IT Lecturer in HE 1

Participants in workshop at ALT-C conference 21

Participants in workshop in FE 5

Participants in workshop in HE 5

Users in FE after 3/4 weeks 2

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

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