《目标导向型的创作方法与设计学习系统论文.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《目标导向型的创作方法与设计学习系统论文.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、本科毕业设计(论文)外文翻译译文：目标导向型的创作方法和设计学习系统一引言自20世纪初，教学设计领域的研究人员便关注了结合数字技术的学习环境的过程建模。其目的是为了创设一个学习情境，以描述涉及多个角色（学生、教师、导师、设计者等）的学习情境的组织和计划。在国际水平，各种教育建模语言计划都以IMS-LD或LDL的形式实行。教育建模语言的主要挑战是提出一个能够表达学习情境的最广泛领域并在学习管理系统领域许可自动生效的中立并共享形式主义。一个教育建模语言允许通过对学习目标、职工角色、学习过程中的学习者、执行的活动以及学习情境必须的环境和资源之间的关系的定义。正如IMS-LD作者自己也注意到的，一个主
2、要以表达性和互通性为目标的教育建模语言并不是给使用者直接操纵的。为了让设计者表达他们基于他们自己的商业导向语言和共享练习的要求并低价提高他们自己的情境，具体制作系统是必需的。这个规划主要有两个相连的目标：首先是提供一个可以翻译成教育建模语言的“可计算”描述；其次是这个描述可以被共享常用词汇、学科知识和教学诀窍的“领域专家”所理解。我们的制作方法是为了更好地重视学习情境设计者的要求和学习情境的“业务流程”维度，而这正是系统工程和软件工程中许多工作的主题。我们已经特别关注了对某些工作的研究，这些工作涉及目标定向需求工程，其中正如罗兰德和普拉卡什的MAP模型，目标诱导被认为是软件系统规程的入口点。我
3、们的目的是提供制作工具，使得那些紧密联系实践的教师设计者能够设计他们的情境来表达意图和策略。二研究内容本研究由格勒诺布尔计算机实验室和巴黎国家教学研究所合作完成，紧密联系了我们想要实现的教师小组负责的详细的实验模型。这项工作引导我们研究当前共享方案的实践。一些国际创制旨在提出方案数据库，以支持教师之间的实践共享和再使用。正如法国教育部长提议：这些教师设计者数据库EduBase和PrimTice名单场景索引由不同主题的场域而定。他们的描述非常异构：从实践的叙述结构到更加形式化。他们的多样性要求我们对这些表述能力能够被被别人理解和能在几个实践者之间共享。在描述这个研究之前，更精确的限定我们所关注的
4、特定类型的设计者是十分必要的。这些设计者正是被要求在学术方面-更确切的说是在法国中学教育体制（包括11至18岁的学生）中-集成数码技术的教师。我们的“教师设计师”很好的掌握了教授领域的知识，或者可称他们为这些领域的专家。他们通过一系列特殊的训练来培养教学能力（如何保证为目标听众提供特定领域的知识？），获取教师资格（如何组织规范有效的学习情景？）他们并未获益于在计算机科学方面的深入培训，但他们要掌握由国家认证机构规定的一系列基本技能。一般情况下，他们没有负责实施的技术专家的协助。此外，他们必须配合工作时间，抽出一小段时间利用现有的模式，方法或工具来开发有效的学习解决方案。他们属于由因特网促成的教
5、师实践社团，这也为实践者们彼此资源的共享提供了新的可能性。他们常被暗指为自己所设计的学习单元的演员，这一特殊性源于在运行阶段决定的精确设计。 为了捕捉需求，我们要求由五个中学教师组成的试验组来查找和分析网络资源中可以作为“学习方案”的合格资源。他们的目标是能够再次使用和整合他们自身的领域（包括历史，经济科学，德语，英语，技术）。第一个给定的任务是分析搜索策略，各个网站根据自身设计目标，提供并评估所获得的结果的相关性。第二项任务是制定一整套综合性建议来改善设计程序。一整套的常规结论与建议已经形成，并且可以观察每个学科的一些具体问题。首先，有一个强烈的异质性术语，是关于各个主题间和单一主题下的情景
6、方案。这些条款（情景，相位，活动，会议，娱乐，行为，能力，技术诀窍，主题等）很少明确界定，而这也常常会使他人开发的情景拨款复杂化。这一事实强调更好定义概念的语料处理的重要性，推广互助性的实际做法。第二，一些方案描述并不处理类似于学习知识或方案之类的概念。这种缺乏导致了很难在一个特定主题中找到相关方案，并确定设计人员的意图，在大多数情况下，他们意于解决有关于学习某些特定的知识，或掌握某些特定问题的能力与技巧的问题。然后，对于一个给定的情况下，教学或教育方法的策略是不经常澄清的（例如，一个“讲解式”方式的选择或一种更多参与性方式的选择，就像集体问题的解决）。 这种启发性的缺乏常常意味着一个非常完美
7、精确的场景分析将从策略和做法中脱颖而出，这也可能成为一个重要的选择标准。最后，教师提出通过提供典型策略，方案，或是各种细微情境的数据库来简化设计任务。上述的每个组成部分必须附上具体重复性实例予以说明。在以下部分我们将展示有助于覆盖这些需求，并为我们的解决方法奠定基础的理论背景。 三 概念结构的命题 我们所有的观察研究并非将我们导向一个对EMLs模棱两可的解决方案，而是一个为非计算机专家提供模式，方法和工具以维持设计和重复利用的完善的解决方案。这一课题的第二部分，在此处并未详细阐述，主要为不同的EML提供以经济为导向的模式的翻译机制。3.1 理论背景我们的研究主要关注教师设计者的积极性。我们在当
8、前一系列有关积极性的理论著作的基础上提出我们的方法。- -活动的组织，由俄罗斯心理学家，例如Leontiev 11提出，规定了不同等级的水平（活动，行动，操作）-赋予活动独特的，刻意的，策略性及战术性的各个方面。- -已被定位的活动的特点，是由Lave 和 Wenger 12研究提出的，他们坚定认为活动再怎样的情境下进行至关重要。- -常规和计划的重要性成了特殊情境下的周期性问题提供典型的解决方案的代表。这些特点已经由Schank 和 Abelson在教学活动的情境下专门研究过13。 正如前文所提及的那样，我们也十分关注近来关于的商务程序工程学和目标定向的需要工程学的著作，并在学习远景方案设计
9、的特殊情境下为它们提供实例。 例如，在MAP 模式中 8，一般认为目标和意图的概念是一样的。MAP模式一般被描述为：“地图是从目标驱动的角度来表达的程序模型。它为我们提供建立在非确定顺序的目标和策略基础上的程序代表体系。地图是以标签为导向的图画，以目标为结点，以策略为结点间的棱。”“策略是一种为实现目标而使用的途径与方式。” 在我们实验性的情境之下，我们使教师设计者们正视这些意图与策略的概念。将这些概念与他们的常规应用联系起来，他们便能够精确的定义两个不同层面的阐述：首先在教学层面解决特殊领域知识的问题，其次在教学法的层面解决组织学习情形的问题。在各个层面，他们都能准确界定目的与策略。在这种背
10、景下，在经过一个时长两年与教师设计者紧密相连的课题研究后，我们逐渐详细制定了一个以商业为导向的ISiS（意图，策略，相互作用的环境）模式。对不同的著作中提出的在学习设计方面的方案5, 6进行评估后，我们选择了在ISiS模式的基础上发展绘画环境的ScenEdit14。33.2 在学习远景语境下的目标与策略以协力完成的学习远景调查为基础，我们用一个例子来阐明我们的模式。学习远景研究致力于“一个电灯泡的功率”在中学电学领域的概念。在这一方案中，教师首先的教学意图要打破电学专业学生频繁出现的误解-“接近电池会对电流的强度产生影响”。图表2提供了一个ISiS模式的梗概图，建议建构一个描述组织方案的设计，
11、规划对学习单元的执行步骤： -目标方面允许描述设计者的意图。在我们的领域内，意图与定义目标指示条目（概念，观点，技能，技巧，能力，构想，误解等）的知识语境密切相关。对于设计者来说，意图可以用以增强在电学方面的特殊技能，也利于对一些观念的发掘，和对常见的错误观念的打破等。- -策略方面与策略的特点有关。为了实现在前一水平构思的目标，设计者将选择他认为最合适的策略。其中有两种特别需要注意的策略：先后顺序策略以组织安排逻辑顺序（例如一个科学调查策略能被制作为一系列的四个阶段的模型），分配策略为特定的案例策划不同的解决方案（例如一个要考虑三种可能的掌握水平的区分策略）。策略与策略之间能被连续的改良所结
12、合：例如一个先后顺序的策略可以使一个分配策略的个案更加精确。- -相互作用的环境方面描述了策略的水平，例如，为实行所构想的目标与策略而提出的解决方案。我们认为，对于一个新的问题，教师设计者并非从一个新的特别的方案的片段中重建。就像有关教学活动13计划与常规的著作所强调的那样，在已经掌握的解决方案库的基础上，因一些特殊事件的触发，教师对教学活动进行计划与调整。同样的，我们假设一个方案设计者从他的能力储备库中选择了适用于他的目标与策略的情景。每个成分，一个相互作用的情景，是根据他们相互作用的语境，由一系列特殊角色，工具，资源相互合作的集合组成的。这些情景因着一系列变量，例如能够被熟练的控制以支持活
13、动的资源（文件，工具，服务）；能够举行活动的地理位置；活动中必须预定的计划元素或学习者数量；能分配的角色。比如说，为了使以协作的方式解答经营成果阶段以及对远程学习者提供的方案更加精确，设计者可以选择一个被称为“经过辩论后达成共识的论坛”的典型情况。在另一种情况下，比如在课堂中遇到困难的学生，他可以选择一个更加独立的情况，就如在不同可能的建议中，通过使用MCO工具选择一个解决方案。- -在操作方面，允许精确地描述各个情形的细节，例如每个相互作用的情形的组织和进程。如今，EMLs 根本上关注的是通过运用所提供的语言对不同的参与者，活动以及资源之间的关系的组织来描述操作。 ISiS 模式建议详述上述
14、的几个普遍未被当前的方法与工具精确定义的方面（目标，策略，相互作用）3.3 对ISiS模式的贯彻：朝灵活的延续的设计程序ISiS结构并非一个适当的方法，也不建议以特殊的顺序把设计步骤结合起来。ISiS 是建立在“方案的各个方面必须被引出和链接来制定更便易的设计、分享和重复使用”的假说之上的。在我们的实验中，我们分析了由教师设计者主导的任务10。许多设计程序可能被展示在我们与教师设计者主导的不同的研究中。有些老师可能会通过分等级的定义他们的目标、策略和情景等等来选择自上而下的方法，然而其他人则更喜欢选择自下而上从他们想结合的资源和模式中重建一个方案。然后，我们的假设之一是学习方案不可能被制作成一
15、个流线程序的模式而不显著地减少设计者的创造性。根据设计者的类型，根据精确的实践社团的应用，各种目标和方法都已被大家分享。所以，资源，教学方法，典型的情形能够建构一个能连接设计步骤的入口点（例如典型的相互作用情形），设计者们可能二选一或递归地实行设计任务。从这一原理出发，ISiS通过不同种类的工具被连续贯彻（图标设计者或思维构图软件）。第一步，我们有精心制作的论文格式，来表达设计的不同方面（知识语境，情景语境，目标，策略相互作用情景，活动等）。我们还采用思维构图软件，其中各个节点能描述一个概念（例如策略，阶段，相互作用的情景）而且能通过特殊的电子格式编辑。四 结束语 在本文中,我们提出过的概述,
16、“伊希斯模型为主的商业过程”,其目的是为了协助教师学习的设计方案和共享和重用青睐的做法。该模型,利用面板co-elaborated的使用者,似乎是有效的,根据第一次实验。我们实际的首要任务是要试验了专用的创作环境,我们已经开发出从我们的概念模型,血气。这个实验的目的是本质上的视觉呈现,以验证我们提出的一个场景,来提高系统的以图案或组件允许新的有效实践的分享与再利用。原文： Goal-Oriented Authoring Approach and Design ofLearning Systems1 Introduction Since the beginning of 2000s, a set
17、 of researches in the field of Learning Design 1 concerns process modelling of learning situations integrating digital technologies. The purpose is to produce a “learning scenario” describing organization and sched- ule of learning situations implying various actors (student, teacher, tutor, designe
18、r, etc.). At international level, various proposals of Educational Modeling Languages (EMLs) have been carried out as IMS-LD 2 or LDL 3. The main challenge of EMLs is to propose a neutral and shared formalism, able to express the widest range of learning situations and to be implemented more or less
19、 automatically towards specific Informations Systems (called Learning Management Systems). An EML allows the definition of relationships between learning goals, roles of staff and learners in the learning process, performed activities, environment and resources necessary to the learning situation. A
20、s noticed by IMS-LD authors themselves 4, an EML, which mainly aims expressiveness and interoperability, is not intended to be directly manipulated by human users. Specific authoring systems 5 must be provided 6 in order to allow designers to express their requirements based on theirown business-ori
21、ented languages and shared practices, and to develop at a lower cost their own scenarios. This formulation aims two combined goals: to provide a “computable” description able to be translated in an EML and to be understood by “domain specialists” sharing common vocabulary, disciplinary knowledge and
22、 pedagogical know-how. Our authoring approach 5 aims to better take into account learning scenario designers requirements and “business process” dimensions of learning scenario design which are subjects of many works in Systems Engineering and Software Engineering. We have particularly focus our res
23、earches on works concerning Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering 7 where elicitation of goals is considered as an entry point of the specification of software systems as in Rol- land and Prakash MAP model 8. Our purpose is to provide authoring tools allow- ing teachers-designers belonging to close
24、 communities of practice to design their scenarios expressing intentions and adopted strategies.This paper is organized in 4 sections following this introduction. In section 2, we describe more precisely our context, our goals and the specificity of our typical audi- ence. Section 3 describes, with
25、an example of scenario, our conceptual framework: ISiS model (Intentions-Strategies-Interactional situations) we propose to structure the design of learning scenarios. Before concluding, section 4 proposes a short compari- son between ISiS and MAP model.2 Context of Research This research, made in c
26、ollaboration between Laboratoire Informatique de Grenoble and Institut National de Recherche Pedagogique, closely associates panels of teachers in charge to co-elaborate and experiment models we want to implement. This work led us to study existing practices of sharing scenarios. Some international
27、initiatives aim to propose scenarios databases in order to favour sharing and reuse practices between teachers, such as IDLD 9. These databases for teachers-designers, as the one proposed by french minister of education: EduBase and PrimTice list scenarios indexed with different fields depending on
28、the domain or subject. Their descriptions are very heterogeneous: from practice narrations to more structured formalizations. Their diversity has led us to ask ourselves on the ability of these representations to be understood and shared between several practitioners. Before describing this research
29、, it is necessary to qualify more precisely the spe- cific type of designers we focus on: teachers who are called to integrate digital tech- nologies in academic context, more precisely in the French secondary educational system (pupils from 11 to 18 years). Our teacher-designers have a good knowled
30、ge of the domain to be taught and can be considered in a certain way as domain-specialists. They have followed a specific training to master didactical competencies (how insure appropriation of domain-specific knowledge for targeted audiences?) and pedagogical competencies (how to organize or regula
31、te efficient learning situations?). They do not benefit of a deep training in computer science; however, they are supposed to master a certain range of basic competencies defined by a national certification. They are generally not assisted by technical specialists in charge of implementation. They h
32、ave to use existing models, methods or tools in order to develop effective learning solu- tions, generally in a short time compatible with their job. They may belong to a teach- ers community of practice, whose emergence is made easier by Internet, and which allows new possibilities of sharing and r
33、euse between practionners. They are fre- quently implied as actors of the learning unit they design; this particularity may have consequences on the precision of the design where decisions can be carried out at the runtime phase.In order to capture needs, we asked 10 a pilot group of five teachers i
34、n secondary school to find and analyse web resources that can be qualified as “learning scenarios”. Their goal was to be able to reuse and integrate them in their own domains (history, economical sciences, German, English, technology). The first given task was to ana- lyse search strategies that the
35、 various sites provided and to evaluate the relevance of the obtained results considering their own design goals. The second task was to make a synthesis and a set of suggestions which could allow to improve the design process. A set of common findings and proposals have been formulated whereas it i
36、s possible to observe some specific concerns for each subject. Firstly, there is a very strong heterogeneity of terminology concerning scenarios between subjects and within a single subject. The terms (scenario, phase, activity, session, play, act, competence, know-how, theme, etc.) are rarely clear
37、ly defined and this often complexify the ap- propriation of scenarios developed by others. This fact underlines the importance to dispose of a corpus of better defined concepts to generalize real practices of mutuali- zation. Secondly, some scenario descriptions do not deal with domain concepts such
38、 as studied knowledge or programs. This lack makes it difficult to find relevant scenar- ios in a specific subject, and to identify the designers intentions which aim most frequently to solve issues related to learn some particular knowledge or acquire some particular competence or know-how. Then, f
39、or a given scenario, the pedagogical or didactical strategy is not often clarified (for example, the choice of an “expositive” approach or the choice of a more participative approach like collective problem solv- ing). This lack of elicitation frequently implies a very precise analysis of the scenar
40、io to stand out the strategy or approach which could be an important criterion of choice. Finally, teachers suggest that the design task could be facilitated by providing librar- ies of typical strategies, scenarios, or situations of various granularities. Each of these components should be illustra
41、ted by concrete reproducible examples.We present in the following section the theoretical background which can help tocover these needs and on which we base our approach.3 Proposition of a Conceptual Framework All these observations lead us, not to propose an alternative solution to EMLs, but to com
42、plete them by offering models, methods and tools to sustain design and reuse by non-computer specialists. A second part of the project, not detailed here, consists in providing mechanisms to translate business-oriented models towards different EML.3.1 Theoretical Background Our research concerns the
43、 teacher-designer activity and we base our approach on a set of complementary theoretical works concerning theory of activity: organization of activity, proposed by Russian psychologists such as Leontiev 11, defines hierarchical levels (activity, action, operation) which allow distinguishing intenti
44、onal, strategic and tactical dimensions in the activity; situated character of the activity, studied by Lave and Wenger 12 insists on the importance of the context in which activities take place. importance of routines or schemas, that represents typical solutions given to recur- rent problems in sp
45、ecific contexts. Those features have been particularly studied by Schank and Abelson in the context of teaching activity 13.As previously said, we also take into account the recent works concerning Business Process Engineering and Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering and instantiate them in the pa
46、rticular context of learning scenario design.For example, in MAP Model 8, concepts of goal and intention are considered as equivalent. MAP Model is described in these terms: “A map is a process model ex- pressed in a goal driven perspective. It provides a process representation system based on a non
47、-deterministic ordering of goals and strategies. A map is represented as a labeled directed graph with goals as nodes and strategies as edges between goals.” “A Strategy is an approach, a manner to achieve a goal”.In our experimental context, we have confronted teachers-designers with those concepts
48、 of intentions and strategies. By linking them to their regular uses, they were able to define two different articulated levels: a first didactical level dealing with domain specific knowledge and a second pedagogical level dealing with organizing learning situations. For each level, they were able
49、to define intentions and strategies.From this background, we have progressively co-elaborated a “business-oriented” model ISiS (Intentions, Strategies, interactional Situations) after a two-year project tightly associating teachers-designers. After evaluation of different authoring solu- tions in learning desig