IMS LD Best Practices Implementation CaseStudy :

CanadaSchool of Public Service (EFPC-CSPS)

Karin Lundgren-Cayrol, Diane Ruelland, Ileana de la Teja,

TheCanada School of Public Service(EFPC-CSPS) has participated in this research by lending a context in order to shed some light on how to implement and deploy the IMS Learning Design Specification. An instructional designer expert, a training manager and a project manager were involved in this case study. Here is an account of the implementation process as applied in this case, where one main model generated 7 sub-models or nuggets.

1.Title of the model

Communauté de pratique G244 - Relations humaines

Community of practice- G244 - Human Relations

2. The Context

The model describes a unit of learning that represents the third part of a blended learning scenario called “G244 - RELATION DE TRAVAIL : PRINCIPES ET PRATIQUES” producedby the Canada School of Public Service (EFPC-CSPS) to respond to the demands put forth by the Public Service Modernization Act (PSMA) of the Canadian Federal Government.

The learning scenario aims at familiarizing the managers with requirements according to the competency profile in the field of Human relations management. The face-to-face course material is designed in Ottawa in both official languages (French and English) and is then adapted regionally to fit each provincial context, in this case the French Quebec context.

The first part of the scenario consists of a set of documents to be consulted online from the School platform (Campus Direct) as a self-pacedpreparation activity. The second part is a course comprising 8 sessions given during a three day period in a face to face setting.The third part, representing the LDdescribed, is an online follow-up unit in the form of a Community of Practice (CoP) containing several parallel events spread over as much time as needed for the participants, who are operational managers in public functions.

The CoP is meant to support the practice of knowledge acquired during the face-to face sessions.Essentially, learning is achieved by discussing and solving real time events and problems occurring to participants during work. However, all problems are rewritten in a generic and fictive form to keep information confidential, and thus the need to include a unit to train these editors. The animator from the face-to face part of the scenario is the online facilitator, who can also call in an expert from whatever domain that is needed. The ‘learners’, here called “participants”, in this model are public servants having manager status and having participated in the face-to face course. There are no tests or official evaluations in this learning scenario. An appreciation is provided by the manager’s supervisor.

3. The implementation process

The implementation process was entirely collaborative between IMS LD experts from CICE ?and Instructional expertsfrom EFPC- CSPS. Our approach to implement and deploy IMS Learning is summarized in the procedure model as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Model of the main implementationsteps

  1. Main IMS LD concepts and paradigms were explained and the editor MOT+LD was demonstrated (CICE). All basic information was transferred from the Chair CICE to the CSPS-EFPC representatives.
  2. Discussions were held to clarify the context in which the Canada School of Public Services (CSPS-EFPC) aimed at implementing and deploying IMS Learning Designs as Learning Objects.
  3. A list of existing courses was scrutinized and in collaboration with the Instructional Designers adapting courses for the Quebec context, the decision to apply the IMS LD concepts on the Community of Practice part of the G244 RELATION DE TRAVAIL was made. This part of the course responded well to criteria suggested by the IMS LD Best Practices document:
  4. Constructivist paradigm, putting the learner in the center, relying on collaborative learning strategies in a blended learning setting.
  5. Multi-actor design
  6. Generic and/or easily adapted learning scenarios

Moreover, the structured narrative was (see Appendix 3 in PALOM@) used to facilitate the transposition from the existing design into a compliant IMS LD Unit of Learning. Many of the IMSLD concepts (i.e., Method, Play, Act, Environment, Support activity, role-part, etc.) were clarified bytransposing them into a real life context.The narrative also helped decomposing the course into smaller units or nuggets.

The result of this step was a consensus on the main Unit of Learning ‘G244 - Relations humaines’ containing 7 ‘External Units’ or nuggets that were classified as online or blended Units of Learning (*Unit of Learning that were modeled):

CoPOnline Units of Learning

  • CoP Tutorial Unit (generic – can be used as is in any province) *
  • Training Editors Unit(generic – can be used as is in any province)) *
  • Question of the Week Unit(generic structure, province dependent resources)*
  • Case Study Unit (generic structure, province dependent resources) *

CoPBlendedUnits of Learning (This type refers here to the mix of online coordination and face to face activity in small groups.) The following Units are to be modeled:

  • Lunchtime Training Unit(generic structure, province dependent resources)
  • Periodical Workshop Unit(generic structure, province dependent resources)
  • Periodical EventUnit (generic structure, province dependent resources)
  1. The elaboration of the IMSLD Model includedseveral iterations between the EFPC Instructional Designers and the IMS LD experts in order to produce compliant LD UoLs with the MOT+LD editor, first graphically and then in xml format.
  2. A first draft of the generic CoP model was constructed by the CICE peoplefrom the structured narrative supplied by the EFPC people.
  3. Then a workshop was held to validate this model and to demonstrate advanced uses of the MOT+ editor. This activity resulted in several units, used as external units in the main model.
  4. Using email, PALOMA and the EFPC Community of Practice space to exchange information, the ID experts refined their models of several external units by forwarding their questions and models to the IMSLD experts, who in turn commented on the models, explaining how to construct an IMS LD compliant model.
  5. Five of the 7 External Units were modeled and exported as an imsmanifest file. These files were then validated in the RELOAD editor.
  1. The last workshop served to summarize impressions in the life cycle of constructing an IMS LD compliant unit:
  2. Collect and documentpedagogical and standard issues raised during the experience.
  3. Referencingthe UoLs in Palom@, a LOM compliant LO repository.
  4. Simulation of reusing the imsmanifest of the Case Study Unit using the RELOAD player with several actors.
  5. Demonstrating an instructional designer’s validation activity by constructing the HTML version of the Case Study Unit using the MOT+LD editor.

4. Highlights

The paragraphs below summarizethe key success factors and challenges.

Key success factors

-Using known and existing courses seems to facilitate the comprehension of the concepts applied by the specification.

-The

-The instructional designers involved in this experience had a lot of experience with information and communication tools and were apt to use new tools and understand new techniques.

-The motivational level was very high because this project responds to one of the objectives put forth by the School, namely to explore ways to incorporate learning objects into a blended learning competency based approach.

-The fact that the implementation process included all elements in the life cycle of a learning object, from creation, to referencing, to reusing, facilitated the vision of the IMS LD specification as well as resulting in 5 Units of Learning reusable in a CSPSpan-Canadian perspective.

-The top down approach to finding smaller units or nuggets seemed to work well when the course is well known by the interpreters.

Key Challenges

-To provide accurate and precise guidelines use of the IMS LD concepts and the modeling editor.

-To clearly explain the issues of reusability, such as

  • Technical interoperability and metadata tagging
  • Storing of the learning object
  • Complementary documentation including the structured narrative

-To provide accurate support during modeling

Main recommendation from the participants

-Make tools much more transparent and intelligent in the sense of built-in error messages and advice or ‘mouse-over’.

-Add a glossary of terms more explicit than the one provided by IMS LD Information Model Document

-Provide a variety of examples including explanations on how it could be adapted

-Provide evaluation and adaptation principles to facilitate reuse

To complete these recommendations, it appears important to include evaluation opportunities in the implementation process, such as carrying out a focus group to further reflect on both processes and products.

1

Lundgren-Cayrol, Ruelland & De la Teja