How Personalization May Benefit the Learning Design Process with LAMS

This study combines research in the area of adaptive learning environments with the LMS area by analyzing the design process of personalized courses in Learning Activity Management System (LAMS). Postgraduate students used LAMS to design and personalize courses. The way personalization is introduced in the courses is analyzed based on the source of adaptation, the adaptation method, and the adaptability opportunities. The added value of this process for the authors–designers is explored by analyzing students’ artifacts based on criteria that match the various knowledge types proposed by the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework. Moreover, the appropriateness and adequacy of the available tools by which adaptation can be implemented in LAMS are evaluated. Results provide evidence about the potential of designing personalized lessons in cultivating various types of knowledge such as pedagogical and technological but also their combination, the technological pedagogical knowledge. This work also provided evidence about the potential of LAMS in supporting adaptivity and proposals about possible extensions of the environment.

[1]  Kyparisia A. Papanikolaou.  How Authoring Content for Personalised Learning May Cultivate Learning Design Skills , 2014, 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.

[2]  Matthew J. Koehler,et al.  Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge , 2006, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[3]  Yavuz Akbulut,et al.  Adaptive educational hypermedia accommodating learning styles: A content analysis of publications from 2000 to 2011 , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[4]  Kyparisia A. Papanikolaou,et al.  Designing and Evaluating Personalised Courses with LAMS: The Designer Perspective , 2015, EC-TEL.

[5]  R. Felder,et al.  Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. , 1988 .

[6]  Peter Brusilovsky,et al.  Adaptive Hypermedia , 2001, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[7]  Mykola Pechenizkiy,et al.  AH 12 years later: a comprehensive survey of adaptive hypermedia methods and techniques , 2009, New Rev. Hypermedia Multim..

[8]  Grammatiki Tsaganou,et al.  Introducing innovative e-learning environments in higher education , 2010 .

[9]  Christina M. Steiner,et al.  GRAPPLE : learning management systems meet adaptive learning environments , 2013 .

[10]  Simon Walker,et al.  Designing personalisation in LAMS , 2010 .

[11]  A. Granić,et al.  Anatomy of Student Models in Adaptive Learning Systems: A Systematic Literature Review of Individual Differences from 2001 to 2013 , 2015 .

[12]  Kevin C. Almeroth,et al.  Moodog: Tracking students' Online Learning Activities , 2007 .

[13]  Riccardo Mazza,et al.  Monitoring an Online Course With the GISMO Tool: A Case Study , 2007 .

[14]  Kyparisia A. Papanikolaou,et al.  Constructing Interpretative Views of Learners’ Interaction Behavior in an Open Learner Model , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[15]  Jered Borup,et al.  Using TPACK as a framework to understand teacher candidates' technology integration decisions , 2012, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[16]  Tzu-Chien Liu,et al.  Supporting Teachers in Identifying Students' Learning Styles in Learning Management Systems: An Automatic Student Modelling Approach , 2009, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[17]  Peter Brusilovsky,et al.  Developing Adaptive Educational Hypermedia Systems: From Design Models to Authoring Tools , 2003 .

[18]  D. Kolb.  Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development , 1983 .

[19]  Matthew J. Koehler,et al.  Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) , 2009 .