Workflow services can support learning with multimedia objects in eLearning environments. to the innovation of our approach is to embed intra multimedia object navigation into the workflow. As a result, it is possible to define an overall learning workflow based on interpretation and interactions of learners and tutors with multimedia objects. A learning process can now be defined as a flow of instructions using interpretation of multimedia objects and interactivity by navigation within the multimedia learning objects. 1. Multimedia Content Management Nowadays, when an eLearning environment makes use of multimedia objects to enhance the knowledge transfer to the learner, we talk about using new learning technologies with multimedia. (Guttormsen-Schär and Krueger 2000) give an overview of five possible definitions of multimedia as an informal explanation of what multimedia objects are: • Medium as representation: image, movie, sound, text • Medium as context of a representation: diagrams, text, graphs, animation, video • Modality of communication or multisensory interaction: visual (eyes), auditory (hearing), haptic (touch), olfactory (smell), gustatory (taste) • Static or dynamic (time varying) representations • Physical medium for storing information: CD-ROM, hard drive, DVD formats for storing information It is commonly accepted that using various multimedia objects in computer based eLearning environments can have many advantages compared to the traditional learning styles, e.g. face-to-face learning. However, traditional learning styles cover some (traditional) values, which computer aided learning will possibly never achieve, e.g. carrying a book wherever you go and reading it without additional tools or devices. Still, we recognize an increasing use of multimedia objects in computer aided eLearning and therefore some questions arise such as how to cope with the growing amount of multimedia objects or how to integrate them more efficiently into the learning workflow. The management of multimedia objects, especially digitally represented multimedia objects, can be supported by a vast amount of tools including multimedia presentation software, graphic editors, digital audio or video production systems, audio/video servers or digital broadcast systems. Multimedia Content Management Systems (Kleinberger and Müller 2000) can be used to manage large amounts of multimedia objects to facilitate the reuse by content related documentation, automatic content analysis and to support the acquisition, archiving and production workflow for distribution. These systems provide a logically centralized storage and access in multimedia repositories (Kleinberger, Schrepfer et al. 2001). The repositories comprise appropriate search and retrieval functionalities and define interfaces to other systems within the entire eLearning environment, e.g. automation systems for acquisition and broadcast, audio/video servers, newsroom systems and digital production systems. It is widely recognized, that the production and management process of multimedia objects is highly sophisticated and properly integrated in the content value chain for collection and provision of multimedia. What we recognize as an aspect that can be improved is the usage of multimedia objects and their embedding in the usage workflow. Multimedia objects are mostly accessed as BLOBs (binary large objects) which are transferred, accessed or presented by downloading, streaming or executing in an appropriate player. They provide integrated navigation facilities like jumping along a timeline or backwards and forward playing, A common drawback, however, is that they are embedded in the learning workflow as elementary objects in a probably more or less higher instruction flow. To overcome this shortcoming, we describe the educational workflow and multimedia objects in eLearning in a little bit more detail in the next chapters. We then define a workflow support that makes a more extensive use of multimedia learning objects. 2. Educational Workflow Educational workflow support learners and tutors in their activity to transfer information to the learner and to let the learner learn this information, which in the end generates new knowledge. The guideline how this is processed has to be defined within the context of an overall learning strategy (such as behaviouristic, cognitivistic or constructivistic) and will be executed and controlled by instruction flow models that implement learning protocols. This is referred to as instructional design. Various methods and concepts support this workflow such as a predefined course design, cooperation tools, adaptive responses to learner requests or interaction facilities that allow learners to get in contact with other learners or tutors. The current trend is to replace the tutor more and more by a system component, which allows the learner to learn on his own. The general point to transfer information and to turn it into knowledge is nevertheless still the same. 2.1 Course design: Instruction flow The first steps in modeling instructional design were based on behaviourist psychology, e.g. on the famous work of Skinner (Skinner 1958). This was followed in the sixties and seventies by cognitive psychology mostly leaded by Gagné. He summarized his instructional design in nine instructional events holding that by analyzing the goals of education the teachers can devise how the achievement of those goals can be met (Gagne 1965). Roger Schank goes a step further and said: „Every aspect of human behavior involves the pursuit of a(?) goal” (Schank 1993). These theories assume that one can describe a subject matter domain in terms of learning goals, and then can develop an instruction for each of the learning goals taking the optimal conditions of learning for each goal into account. This may work well for domains characterized by independent learning goals, but certainly not for developing competencies that are characterized by highly integrated, complex sets of learning goals. From this viewpoint of constructivism processes of learning are individually and non-predictable. Thus, it is impossible to find a way to guarantee “an optimal learning process”, as aimed by the “task analysis” approach. That is why constructivists are very critical about using computers in education at all; they see more chances in influences such as motivation and arousal (Holzinger 2000).
[1]
B F SKINNER,et al.
Teaching machines; from the experimental study of learning come devices which arrange optimal conditions for self instruction.
,
1958,
Science.
[2]
Paul Müller,et al.
Content Management in Web Based Education
,
2000,
WebNet.
[3]
Peter Brusilovsky.
Methods and Techniques of Adaptive Hypermedia
,
1996
.
[4]
Helmut Krueger,et al.
Using New Learning Technologies with Multimedia
,
2000,
IEEE Multim..
[5]
Roger C. Schank.
Goal-Based Scenarios: A Radical Look at Education
,
1994
.
[6]
David H. C. Du,et al.
Video-based hypermedia for education-on-demand
,
1997,
MULTIMEDIA '96.
[7]
Keith D. Swenson,et al.
Workflow Interoperability Standards for the Internet
,
2000,
IEEE Internet Comput..
[8]
Paul Müller,et al.
A Multimedia Repository for Online Educational Content
,
2001
.
[9]
Martin Wessner,et al.
Using Learning Protocols to Structure Computer-Supported Cooperative Learning
,
1999
.