Designing an Editorialization Environment for Repeatable Self-Correcting Exercises

Authors: M. Kobylanski, D. Buskulic, P.-H. Duron, D. Revuz, F. Ruggieri, E. Sandier, C. Tijus

Abstract:

In order to design a cooperative e-learning platform, we observed teams of Teacher [T], Computer Scientist [CS] and exerciser's programmer-designer [ED] cooperating for the conception of a self-correcting exercise, but without the use of such a device in order to catch the kind of interactions a useful platform might provide. To do so, we first run a task analysis on how T, CS and ED should be cooperating in order to achieve, at best, the task of creating and implementing self-directed, self-paced, repeatable self-correcting exercises (RSE) in the context of open educational resources. The formalization of the whole process was based on the “objectives, activities and evaluations” theory of educational task analysis. Second, using the resulting frame as a “how-to-do it” guide, we run a series of three contrasted Hackathon of RSE-production to collect data about the cooperative process that could be later used to design the collaborative e-learning platform. Third, we used two complementary methods to collect, to code and to analyze the adequate survey data: the directional flow of interaction among T-CS-ED experts holding a functional role, and the Means-End Problem Solving analysis. Fourth, we listed the set of derived recommendations useful for the design of the exerciser as a cooperative e-learning platform. Final recommendations underline the necessity of building (i) an ecosystem that allows to sustain teams of T-CS-ED experts, (ii) a data safety platform although offering accessibility and open discussion about the production of exercises with their resources and (iii) a good architecture allowing the inheritance of parts of the coding of any exercise already in the data base as well as fast implementation of new kinds of exercises along with their associated learning activities.

Keywords: Distance open educational resources, pedagogical alignment, self-correcting exercises, teacher’s involvement, team roles.

References:

[1] D. Callison, “Inquiry in Science and Math. The Evolution of Inquiry: Controlled, Guided, Modeled, and Free: Controlled, Guided, Modeled, and Free,” SLM Hot Topics, ABC-CLIO, 2015, p. 301.
[2] G. Karlsson, C. Johannesson, J. Thorbiörnson, and M. Hellström, “Net Based Examination: Small Group Tutoring, Home Assignments, and Large Group Automatic and Peer Assessment,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2007, 2(3), pp. 1-5.
[3] M. Kobylanski, “WIMS: Innovative Pedagogy with 21 Year Old Interactive Exercise Software,” In Technology in Mathematics Teaching Springer, Cham, 2019, pp. 123-144.
[4] C. B. Hodges, “Designing to motivate: Motivational techniques to incorporate in e-learning experiences,” The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2004, 2(3), pp. 1-7.
[W.-K. Chen, Linear Networks and Systems (Book style).]
[Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993, pp. 123–135.]
[5] D. A. Wiley, “Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy,” The instructional use of learning objects, 2000, 2830(435), pp. 1-35.
[6] J. J. Van Merriënboer, and P. A. Kirschner, “Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design,” Routledge, 2017.
[7] J.-F. Richard, “Logique du fonctionnement et logique de l'utilisation (Rapport de recherche n° 202),” in F. Le Chesnay, “INRIA,” 1983.
[8] D. A. Norman, “Some observation on mental models,” in D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Edit.), “Mental models,” Hillsdale (Nj), Erlbaum, 1983, pp. 7-14.
[9] C. R. Weir, “Models, Theories, and Research for Program Evaluation,” In N. De Ramona, and N. Staggers (Eds), “Health Informatics-E-Book: An Interprofessional Approach,” 2016, pp. 60-74.
[10] L. Lachaud, G. Erjavec, L. Lellouche, and C. Tijus (2018). Mise en place d’un référentiel pour le MOOC exemplaire. Rapport interne Projet Eiffel_a. France Université Numérique.
[11] D. Wiley, “The MOOC misstep and the open education infrastructure,” In MOOCs and Open Education around the world, Routledge, 2015, pp. 3-11.
[12] C. Vrasidas, “Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education,” International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 2000, 6(4), pp. 339-362.
[13] C. Vrasidas, and M. Zembylas, “Online professional development: Lessons from the field,” Education + Training, 2004, 46(6/7), pp. 326-334.
[14] J. Moore, “Is higher education ready for transformative learning? A question explored in the study of sustainability,” Journal of transformative education, 2005, 3(1), pp. 76-91.
[15] J. S. Brown, A. Collins, and P. Duguid, “Situated cognition and the culture of learning,” Educational researcher, 1989, 18(1), pp. 32-42.
[16] R. W. Tyler, “Basic principles of curriculum and instruction,” In Curriculum Studies Reader E2, Routledge, 2013, pp. 60-68.
[17] A. Newell, and H. A. Simon, “Human problem solving,” Vol. 104, No. 9, 1972, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[18] Y. Anzai, and H. A. Simon, “The theory of learning by doing,” Psychological review, 1979, 86(2), p. 124.
[19] J. F. Richard, S. Poitrenaud, and C. Tijus, “Problem-solving restructuration: Elimination implicit constraints,” Cognitive Science, 1993, 17(4), pp. 497-529.