The discussion regarding the applicability of learning design (LD) continues apace. As the authors observe, "Much current IMS LD research seems to accept the assumption that a key barrier to adoption is the specification’s conceptual complexity impeding the authoring process." Because it's so hard to use, people are less likely to use it. This is a position Guillaume Durand and I argued. So the authors conducted a small empirical study to test this assumption. "Study participants were asked to transform a given textual design description into an IMS LD unit of learning using (a) paper snippets representing IMS LD elements and (b) authoring software." It's interesting to note that nobody worked with raw LD code. Probably a good thing. "The results show that teachers with little or no previous IMS LD knowledge were able to solve a design task that required the use of all IMS LD elements at levels A and B." But how useful is this study? As the authors acknowledge, "most participants had a high technology affinity regarding their teaching backgrounds."
Today: 6 Total: 100 [Direct link] [Share]
