View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Innovating Education with an Educational Modeling Language: Two Case Studies

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Innovating Education with an Educational Modeling Language: Two Case Studies
Language: English
Authors: Sloep, Peter B., van Bruggen, Jan, Tattersall, Colin, Vogten, Hubert, Koper, Rob, Brouns, Francis, van Rosmalen, Peter
Source: Innovations in Education and Teaching International. Aug 2006 43(3):291-301.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/default.html.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2006
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: Educational Innovation, Case Studies, Investigations, On Campus Students, Distance Education, Extension Education, Demonstration Programs, Programming Languages, Formative Evaluation, Enrichment Activities, Research Problems, Foreign Countries, Open Universities
Geographic Terms: Netherlands
ISSN: 1470-3297
Abstract: The intent of this study was to investigate how to maximize the chances of success of an educational innovation--specifically one based on the implementation of the educational modeling language called EML. This language is both technically and organizationally demanding. Two different implementation cases were investigated, one situated in an institution for higher professional education that caters for on-campus students; the other in an institution for higher, open distance education, that serves off-campus, home-based students. Diffusion-innovation theory is used as the backdrop for the analysis. It helps us to understand why the implementations failed and what measures might be taken to avoid future failure in similar situations. (Contains 3 tables.)
Abstractor: Author
Number of References: 18
Entry Date: 2006
Access URL: https://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=TR74387184654417
Accession Number: EJ743991
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHurKx8ugVUP9qhDmLT9KD2AAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIb1JtWNQ5q_u9xawwIBEICBmS69i3mYsyIisX_4CiFy6DwV0RXZ31JSa2JALcfgkZabsQtfnZuAc1LJu1GuvKRyLRwDhwEWKhjhQjd0xtz8E8gl7Fb4Gbw7MmgTyF1GvDVPOldaRm1xo3DktVssvgO0AHMtYwd_evNRJY44s9AUlm-8LYM52pgyjDq_DfX2moroB6Mqu3F4AThYYh6oUALUcp7hXCLttmQ21g==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0022483118;hzj01aug.06;2019Feb27.14:19;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0022483118-1">Innovating education with an educational modelling language: two case studies. </title> <sbt id="AN0022483118-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>The intent of this study was to investigate how to maximise the chances of success of an educational innovation—specifically one based on the implementation of the educational modelling language called EML. This language is both technically and organisationally demanding. Two different implementation cases were investigated, one situated in an institution for higher professional education that caters for on‐campus students; the other in an institution for higher, open distance education, that serves off‐campus, home‐based students. Diffusion‐innovation theory is used as the backdrop for the analysis. It helps us to understand why the implementations failed and what measures might be taken to avoid future failure in similar situations.</p> <p>For many years, formal education has been almost synonymous with classroom teaching. Over the last decade this situation has changed dramatically. With the advent of computers, classroom learning environments have been extended through the use of virtual learning environments (Sloep, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]). These environments are virtual in that the learning affordances offered by traditional classrooms have been either replaced by or augmented with computer‐mediated affordances. Communication among students is now also mediated via email, chat programs, conferencing software etc. Similarly, learning content is now made available also or solely on a screen. Finally, a teacher may be accessed for help even outside office hours, be it via email or via compiled lists of frequently asked questions (Salmon, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref2">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Ever more, the virtuality of these kinds of learning environments resides in dedicated software tools, aptly called virtual learning environments (VLEs). In many ways, the current generation of VLEs are little more than interactive web pages with some (more or less) user‐friendly administrative tooling. One of their biggest problems is their inability to support (explicitly) specific educational scenarios. Current VLEs support many scenarios but all only partially (Emans <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]). Whilst this may suffice in the beginning, ultimately teachers will want their VLEs clearly and maximally to articulate the educational approaches of their choosing. However, if this was to mean the development of a dedicated piece of software for each and every pedagogical approach, sheer costs would make this a practical impossibility.</p> <p>It is mainly for this reason that the Open University of the Netherlands in 1998 decided to develop its educational modelling language called EML (Hummel <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]). EML provides a notational system with which one may describe a large variety of learning and teaching scenarios (Koper & Olivier, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>]; Sloep <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref6">15</reflink>]; Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref7">18</reflink>]). The notational system has a machine‐readable representation (an XML 'binding'). With it, a suitable computer application, a <emph>player</emph>, is able to represent any educational scenario in a specific web‐based interface (Vogten <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref8">17</reflink>]). The player developed is called Edubox. In effect Edubox generates a VLE that supports the learning scenario of one's choosing. Edubox thus differs from ordinary VLEs in that it is capable of representing several, pedagogically different VLEs (Sloep, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref9">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>The ability actually to work with EML very much depends on the availability of a range of different supporting software tools (Koper & Tattersall, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref10">8</reflink>]). Their use, in turn, requires a suitable organisational infrastructure (Schlusmans <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref11">12</reflink>]). Although ideally the tooling follows the organisational demands, in the early days of an innovation's dissemination one has to make do with what is available—however user‐unfriendly and however alien to existing organisational practices the tooling may be.</p> <p>This raises the question of how successfully to deploy EML in an actual organisation. Projects that attempt to deploy EML draw upon vast financial and organisational resources. Such projects therefore need to be successful. In order to explore what would be a successful implementation strategy, we describe two early attempts to implement the EML‐Edubox system. We will use Rogers' innovation‐diffusion theory to inform our exploration (Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>]). First, we will discuss the theory's most relevant tenets. After a brief summary of the methods used in the two case studies, we summarise the findings that are relevant to our Rogersian analytical framework. To foreshadow our conclusion, neither implementation attempt was successful. We conclude the paper by analysing what was the likely cause of the failures and suggest ways that might have been used to avoid them.</p> <p>Parenthetically, EML as a specification is no longer in use. This does not detract from the relevance of our analysis, though. EML has been reincarnated as the official IMS Learning Design (LD) specification (Koper <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>]). Its publication has sparked a flurry of activities, such as the foundation of the Valkenburg group for joint LD tool development (<ulink href="http://www.learningnetworks.org">http://www.learningnetworks.org</ulink>), the funding of the UNFOLD LD dissemination project (http://www.unfold‐project.net), the writing of a book on the practicalities of LD usage (Koper & Tattersall, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref14">8</reflink>]), the creation of open source LD editors and runtime players (http://<ulink href="http://www.reload.ac.uk">www.reload.ac.uk</ulink> and <ulink href="http://www.coppercore.org">http://www.coppercore.org</ulink>). These activities make an analysis of successful implementation strategies all the more pressing.</p> <hd id="AN0022483118-3">Rogers' innovation‐diffusion theory</hd> <p>According to Rogers ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]), diffusion of an innovation is a communication process, involving both senders (the change agents) and receivers (a community). Here, we are particularly interested in the receivers. Their decision to adopt or reject an innovation is made on the basis of five innovation attributes. These are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. <emph>Relative advantage</emph>. What are the benefits of the innovation in economic terms and in terms of social prestige? Does the management provide any incentives for adopting? The bigger the relative advantage is perceived to be, the better the chances of the innovation's adoption.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. <emph>Compatibility</emph>. How does the innovation fit in with existing community and personal values, with past experiences and needs? Disruptive innovations are less likely to be widely adopted.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. <emph>Simplicity</emph>. To what extent is an innovation perceived as simple or difficult to understand and use? The simpler it is, the better are its chances of adoption.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. <emph>Trialability</emph>. To what degree can users experiment with the innovation? Trialability helps adoption as it confers a degree of control on the part of its users. It particularly helps swing groups that adopt early, it is immaterial to the laggards, who mostly tend to simply follow their predecessors.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. <emph>Observability</emph>. How visible are the beneficial results of an innovation? Particularly innovations that have obvious, clearly visible benefits that are more easily adopted.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0022483118-4">Materials and methods</hd> <p>The two case studies discussed here were the first experiences with full‐blown implementations of an EML‐Edubox prototype outside the group of its original developers. They were set up to collect recommendations for improving both the EML specification and the technical aspects of the Edubox player. The results of these evaluations have been collected in two unpublished reports: Janssen and van der Klink ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>]) for Case 1 and Verreck <emph>et al</emph>. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref17">16</reflink>]) for Case 2. Our interest in this paper, however, lies not in the technical aspects of either the EML specification or the Edubox player. Here we are primarily interested in innovation diffusion, in the question of how the intended user communities reacted to the introduction of EML‐Edubox. We therefore do not reproduce the internal reports here but restrict ourselves to results that matter to the innovation‐diffusion question.</p> <p>In either case, courses were developed by coding XML documents, which contain both the educational content and the learning design (pedagogical scenario). The documents were written jointly by teachers and instructional designers; the latter were also the EML experts. When the development phase was completed, the courses were published on the Edubox system. It ran on a remote server that had to be accessed through the Internet via a browser. That way, students and teachers could access the course, irrespective of their location.</p> <hd id="AN0022483118-5">Case 1</hd> <p>Case 1 involved third‐year students at an institute for higher professional education who took a course on how to develop a business plan. The course spanned a period of 10 weeks. The first five weeks of the course were mainly devoted to lectures and doing assignments individually. The second five weeks were given to collaborative working—in groups of eight students, producing the business plans. The materials the students needed for the course were available both on paper and digitally.</p> <p>EML‐Edubox was primarily used to support the collaborative work, although it had also been available during the first five weeks. For each group of eight students, two computers were available. The computers for all groups were situated in one large classroom. Originally four, later on only two developers were involved in the course; during delivery, eight tutors were available. Each tutor had a specific task. Both developers were interviewed. Moreover, both tutors and students had to fill out the same questionnaire (35 questions, 31 closed, four open). Only three out of eight tutors actually did so. The five tutors who did not, had not made use of Edubox at all. Thirty‐one out of 58 students filled out their questionnaires. The Edubox log covered 52 students and three teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0022483118-6">Case 2</hd> <p>Case 2 involved a university that provided distance education. The focus here was on the course development process. Therefore, only the opinions of staff, not of students, were gauged. Case 2 aimed to 'transform' the contents and educational scenarios of six courses so as to fit them into the EML‐Edubox mould. This meant extracting the content from an existing system and explicitly describing the learning scenario. This was carried out by staff teams, one per course. Each team consisted of a content expert (teacher) and an instructional designer. The designers were trained in EML coding prior to the actual transformation. Teams met regularly to discuss cross‐course transformation issues. The school management had furnished the project teams with the time and means to carry out the transformation projects.</p> <p>A summary of the organisations involved in the study is given in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Details of the organisations involved in the study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Case 1—School 1</td><td>Case 2—School 2</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Students</td><td>Day‐time, on‐campus students; homogeneous group</td><td>Distance, off‐campus students; heterogeneous group</td></tr><tr><td>Institute</td><td>Institute for higher professional education</td><td>Institute for higher open distance learning</td></tr><tr><td>Developers</td><td>Regular teachers with support from instructional designers who were also expert EML coders</td><td>Multidisciplinary teams of content experts and instructional designers who were trained in EML coding</td></tr><tr><td>Tutors</td><td>Same group as the developers</td><td>Different group than the developers</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0022483118-7">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0022483118-8">Results for Case 1</hd> <p>The interviews with the tutors led to the following findings:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1.1 The teachers were not properly trained for the job, nor were they properly facilitated.</item> <p></p> <item> 1.2 Originally, a team of four teachers was supposed to carry out the development work. Due to a variety of circumstances, the team was rapidly culled to two persons only. As a result, they felt their efforts were not appreciated properly.</item> </ulist> <p>Students and staff filled out a questionnaire. They were allowed to add comments, three of which are relevant in the context of innovation diffusion:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1.3 The benefits a VLE may have to offer could not be reaped as EML‐Edubox was mainly used for electronic page turning. Besides, all the texts were also available on paper, further decreasing Edubox's potential usefulness.</item> <p></p> <item> 1.4 Frequent face‐to‐face contacts among the students and between students and tutors—for example, for carrying out group work—reduced the need to use a VLE.</item> <p></p> <item> 1.5 The frequent face‐to‐face contacts also meant that in every group only one person really needed to consult Edubox. That person became the 'expert'—almost to the point of eliminating the need for others to work with Edubox.</item> </ulist> <p>The remaining results are all derived from the questionnaire and reported in tabular form (Tables 2 and 3).</p> <p>Table 2. Answers from the respondents: scores on a five‐point Likert scale</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Result number</td><td>Question</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td>Range</td><td>Sample size</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.6</td><td>Were sufficient numbers of PCs available?</td><td>3.6</td><td>1.2</td><td>1–5</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>1.8</td><td>Did the screen build up sufficiently fast?</td><td>3.6</td><td>1.0</td><td>1–5</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>1.11</td><td>How responsive was Edubox to your request to log in?</td><td>4.0</td><td>1.3</td><td>1–5</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>1.14</td><td>Using Edubox is self‐explanatory.</td><td>2.9</td><td>1.0</td><td>1–5</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>1.15</td><td>Using Edubox is fun.</td><td>2.8</td><td>0.8</td><td>1–5</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Note: these results were adapted from Appendix 1 of Janssen and van der Klink (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">1999</xref>).</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3. Answers from the respondents: absolute yes/no frequencies</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Result number</td><td>Question</td><td>Yes</td><td>No</td><td>Non‐respondents</td><td>Total responses</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.7</td><td>Did you receive sufficient support?</td><td>24</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>1.9</td><td>Was the on‐screen information arranged logically?</td><td>20</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>1.10</td><td>Was the on‐screen information presented attractively?</td><td>14</td><td>16</td><td>0</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>1.12</td><td>Was it clear at all times what your location was in the virtual learning environment provided by Edubox?</td><td>26</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>1.13</td><td>Were the various ways in which to search with key words clear to you?</td><td>12</td><td>18</td><td>0</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>1.16</td><td>Navigation in Edubox is easy.</td><td>12</td><td>17</td><td>0</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Note: these results were adapted from Appendix 1 of Janssen and van der Klink (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">1999</xref>).</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0022483118-9">Results for Case 2</hd> <p>The following results were obtained for Case 2:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 2.1 No user manuals, examples or demos were available; the technical EML Reference Manual became available only late in the project.</item> <p></p> <item> 2.2 Development teams could not use their own computers but had to resort to computers at a central location.</item> <p></p> <item> 2.3 The team members had no previous experience in working with EML‐Edubox and hence required training, which was a little late but otherwise adequate.</item> <p></p> <item> 2.4 Support from the faculty management differed considerably between projects.</item> <p></p> <item> 2.5 The EML editor was user‐unfriendly.</item> <p></p> <item> 2.6 EML data‐entry work is boring and likely to cause repetitive strain injury in the long run.</item> <p></p> <item> 2.7 EML‐Edubox is not market‐ready.</item> <p></p> <item> 2.8 EML‐Edubox does not add much to what is already available; indeed in many respects it means a step backwards.</item> <p></p> <item> 2.9 EML may well not become an accepted standard, which puts our school in a difficult situation.</item> <p></p> <item> 2.10 It should be possible quickly to preview the results of the EML coding.</item> <p></p> <item> 2.11 For five out of six courses, little more than a straightforward transfer—in terms of educational design and contents—was carried out. (Course 6 was not completed at the time of the evaluation.)</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0022483118-10">Applying innovation‐diffusion theory</hd> <p>In both of the case studies described above, deployment was very much a management decision. Although the participating staff could volunteer to participate, some at least did not do so wholeheartedly. In neither of the case studies was staff given any incentive to participate. The participants' opinions therefore seem to be largely their own, formed on the basis of the innovation attributes that Rogers mentions.</p> <hd id="AN0022483118-11">Relative advantage</hd> <p>As indicated, the most important benefit of the use of EML‐Edubox is that it would be possible to use a variety of pedagogical models with the same VLE. This includes models that would be hard to implement in currently available VLEs. The models and resulting designs developed in School 2 (at which Case 2 was based) are all relatively simple (see result 2.11). Not surprisingly, people at this institution complained that EML‐Edubox added little value (2.8). School 1 (which hosted Case 1) did adopt a pedagogy that required collaborative work. However, the way it was implemented meant that the deployment of EML‐Edubox added little value (see results 1.3–1.5). Also, the management in School 1 did not offer any incentives to those participating in the project (see results 1.1 and 1.2). So in both cases the perceived relative advantage was low.</p> <hd id="AN0022483118-12">Compatibility</hd> <p>For School 1 the compatibility issue did not arise in the context of its use of EML‐Edubox (see results 1.6–1.10), but was restricted to the way the EML development work was organised. School 1 was a rather traditional organisation in that content development was carried out by the teachers themselves, who relied on their own experiences and on commercially available text books. Because of the lack of user‐friendly EML editors and local EML expertise, the development process had to be organised by bringing in EML experts from outside. These experts doubled as instructional designers. All of this was alien to what was customary at School 1.</p> <p>The case of School 2 is different. In this institution, the development process had always been characterised by a division of labour between content experts, instructional designers and graphical designers. The inclusion of XML expertise in the development team was therefore compatible with what they were used to. Nevertheless, many complaints were voiced, varying from the lack of manuals, training, user‐friendly editors and management support (see results 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4–2.6) to doubts about the external viability of the EML‐Edubox system (see results 2.7 and 2.9). Superficially, these merely point to technical defects, which indeed constitute a violation of the user's expectations. However, they also point to a more deep‐seated problem. Up to then, the existing VLE at School 2 made use of HTML pages which, in some cases, were enriched with Java scripts. These pages were not stored in and served by a content management system; therefore, they were simply accessible as HTML by the teachers. Teachers could therefore easily make adjustments to a running course. The way Edubox operates may be compared to a content management system, in that access rights must be set and limitations are imposed on the degree to which a running course can be altered. So, teachers can only, with difficulty, alter courses that are in use. In this respect, the introduction of EML‐Edubox in School 2 amounted to a clash with hard‐won existing practices.</p> <hd id="AN0022483118-13">Simplicity</hd> <p>The use of Edubox is not particularly complex. This is reflected in the responses obtained (see results 1.11–1.16). The development process, however, is quite complex (see observations 2.1, 2.3 and 2.5). It involves teams of specialists and the use of specialist software, particularly generic XML editors. All this amounted to a relatively complex rather than simple innovation.</p> <hd id="AN0022483118-14">Trialability</hd> <p>The Edubox application may be test‐driven easily. For that purpose, in both cases a dummy course was made available. Users could therefore experiment with the application's interface and feature set. However, content developers were eager to repeatedly test‐drive courses at the various stages of their development—compare this with viewing a web page developed with a textual HTML editor in a browser (see result 2.10). Although this is possible in principle, it is a time‐consuming and cumbersome process, involving the help of specialists (see result 2.2). Perhaps the need for trying out a course during its development wanes with increasing experience in the content development process, but for the developers in both schools this lack of trialability was a serious obstacle.</p> <hd id="AN0022483118-15">Observability</hd> <p>In Case 1 the lack of any necessity to use EML‐Edubox obviously did not contribute to its visibility. The benefits its use may have brought to students, as well as teachers, could not become apparent, simply because only a few students (see results 1.4 and 1.5) and a few teachers (see 1.2) were in fact using it. There is a further consideration. Re‐use of pedagogical models and learning designs as well as version control of published courses are features that are beneficial to an organisation as a whole. Something similar goes for medium neutrality, a feature which is inherent to all XML files and thus to EML. It means that the medium to which an XML file is going to be published may largely be decided on after its development. Clearly this is beneficial to an organisation, which may decide to publish the same material in, say, both printed and electronic form. Such benefits, however, fail to entice individual teachers, let alone students. All this points to low observability.</p> <hd id="AN0022483118-16">Conclusion and discussion</hd> <p>The results make it abundantly clear that the introduction of EML‐Edubox had a <emph>low perceived relative advantage</emph> over existing practices. It also led to a <emph>significant change in existing practices</emph> (low compatibility). This amounted to a <emph>complex rather than simple innovation</emph>. In addition to this, it was difficult to test‐drive designs and the benefits of the use of EML‐Edubox accrue to the organisation at large, rather than the individuals who bear the brunt of the innovation. Finally, both <emph>trialability</emph> and <emph>observability were low</emph>. In summary, then, the introduction of EML‐Edubox had little chance of being successful, and this matches the tone and conclusions of the evaluation reports. What went wrong, if anything?</p> <p>The low <emph>relative advantage</emph> results in part from the novelty of the EML‐Edubox system. No doubt, once teachers and educational developers have become more experienced, they will develop pedagogical models that are more exciting and hence are a testimony to the system's power. But for them to become more adroit at using EML‐Edubox, they first need to adopt it. In order to 'kick‐start' users, it is possible to provide templates (Sloep <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref18">15</reflink>]) of innovative models, allowing them quickly to develop exciting and thus enticing educational models.</p> <p>The <emph>compatibility</emph> issue is a little harder to tackle. School 1, it seemed, used the introduction of EML‐Edubox as an occasion also to introduce a division of labour where there had been none before. In School 2 the introduction of EML‐Edubox meant a re‐establishment of old customs (the inability to edit on the fly) that many felt glad to have gotten rid off. In both cases then, organisational habits had to change, something which is bound to spawn resistance. The need for a division of labour as well as the inability to edit on the fly may well be remedied by technical means in due course. It appears, however, that both changes were made by the respective managements for reasons that go beyond the wish to introduce EML‐Edubox, to wit, to introduce a division of labour in School 1, and to install a less haphazard change management policy in School 2. If so, there is little the introduction of EML‐Edubox <emph>per se</emph> can be blamed for other than that EML‐Edubox allows these kinds of organisational changes to be made.</p> <p>The advent of user‐friendly, dedicated EML editors (Brouns, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]), preferably ones that can be fed with templates of didactic models (Sloep <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref20">15</reflink>]), will help to make the development of EML‐based courses much simpler. If the contribution that user‐friendly HTML editors have made to the success of 'the web' (Berners‐Lee, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]) may be taken as a yard stick, the <emph>simplicity</emph> issue is indeed not a serious one. Similar technical advances should allow users (developers and teachers) simply to test‐drive a course while still under development. This would take care of the <emph>trialability</emph> problem.</p> <p>As with compatibility, the ability to <emph>observe</emph> the benefits of the introduction of EML‐Edubox is not a technical, but a management issue. If management succeeds in showing how the introduction of EML‐Edubox allows everybody—staff and students alike—to enjoy better educational quality, then the likelihood of adoption is increased significantly.</p> <p>In retrospect, these conclusions should not have come as a surprise had one taken into account Rogers' notion of a <emph>stage</emph>. Rogers ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]) distinguishes five phases in an innovation's adoption and identifies them by the people involved: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Nolan ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref23">9</reflink>]) distinguishes four stages in the use of (mainframe) computers in organisations: initiation (a few enthusiasts start up something new), contagion (colleagues become 'infected' and join in), control (management tries to contain and streamline the novelty) and integration (the novelty has become mainstream). The point to take home is that innovations at some juncture are not the prerogative of a few enthusiasts any more but become institutionalised. This demarcation point lies between Roger's early adopters and early majority, or between Nolan's contagion and control. In managed innovation projects, this demarcation point marks the transition from development to implementation, from a management that fosters diversity to a management that culls it.</p> <p>Perceptions of a project's relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability take its intended use as a benchmark. When institution‐wide deployment is the goal, the deployment community rightly makes high demands. If an innovation does not seem to do them any good, lacks compatibility, is complex and not trialable, they will only adopt it if they are properly compensated. If, on the other hand, the immediate goal is more limited, if it is clearly communicated to the intended users that the goal is only improving an existing prototype rather than large‐scale adoption, then they are likely to set a less demanding adoption threshold. They will be willing to put up with a low relative advantage, low compatibility, low trialability and high complexity.</p> <p>The EML‐Edubox project as reported here was clearly still in the development phase. Indeed, its developers approached Schools 1 and 2 to help them find and remedy problems with the current EML‐Edubox implementation. Many of the problems the project ran into resulted from it not being properly treated as a development project, from bringing in wider organisational concerns that really belong to the realm of the implementation stage. The messages sent out to the intended users vacillated between 'this is a development project, please provide us with feed‐back' and 'this is a first implementation, you had better get used to the new workflow'. In view of this, it is no wonder that the project was not an unequivocal success: it was unclear to the user community what benchmark to espouse.</p> <p>In conclusion then, when implementing systems such as EML‐Edubox be clear about the goals. If carrying out a user test with the ultimate aim of improving the software system, inform the testing community clearly about that purpose and avoid <emph>at all cost</emph> stacking institution‐wide organisational changes on top of the test. If, on the other hand, the goal is to implement software on an institution‐wide basis, heed Rogers' rules to the full.</p> <hd id="AN0022483118-17">Notes on contributors</hd> <p>Peter Sloep, PhD, is an associate professor at the Educational Expertise Centre (OTEC) of the Open University of the Netherlands (OUNL). He also holds a chair in Educational Functions of ICT at Fontys University of Professional Education. His current research focuses on the use of social software, in particular agent and language technologies, in loosely organised networks of learners and teachers.</p> <p>Jan van Bruggen, PhD, is an educational technologist at OTEC. His current interests are in computer‐supported collaborative learning, the use of argument visualisation in collaborative problem solving and the application of techniques such as latent semantic analysis in education.</p> <p>Colin Tattersall studied computational science before working on his PhD at the Computer Based Learning Unit at Leeds University in the UK. His current responsibilities at OTEC cover work related to innovation in e‐learning and learning technology standardisation.</p> <p>Hubert Vogten studied informatics. At OTEC, he has been intimately involved in the development of the IMS Learning Design specification and in the development of e‐learning environments, such as Edubox and Coppercore.</p> <p>Rob Koper is a full professor in educational technology at OUNL/OTEC and director of RTD into e‐learning technologies. He was responsible for the development of the educational modelling language, EML, and the IMS Learning Design specification. His research focuses on self‐organised distributed learning networks for lifelong learning, including the use of software agents, educational semantic web, interoperability specifications and standards.</p> <p>Francis Brouns, PhD, develops innovative, efficient and effective e‐learning environments at OTEC, with a focus on new educational and ICT technologies, and learning technology standards.</p> <p>Peter van Rosmalen studied mathematics. His current interest at OTEC is in educational technology, particularly the question of how agents can help tutors to establish effective and efficient learning‐related interactions without increasing their workload.</p> <hd id="AN0022483118-18">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors are indebted to the two anonymous referees, whose comments helped improve the manuscript significantly. We also wish to thank the management and staff of the Schloss Dagstuhl International Conference and Research Centre for Computer Science for providing a pleasant, stimulating and well‐organised environment for the writing of this article.</p> <ref id="AN0022483118-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref21" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Berners‐Lee, T.2000. Weaving the Web: the past, present and future of the World Wide Web, London: Texere.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Brouns, F.2003. "Editing EML 1.1: preliminary survey of existing tools". Internal report. Available online at: <ulink href="http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/203">http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/203</ulink> (accessed 15 May 2006)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Emans, B., Hondius, A., Koopal, W., Muizelaar, S., Van der Wee, M. and Wortman, O.2004. ELOs in relatie tot onderwijsconcepten [VLEs and their relation to educational conceptions], Utrecht: Digitale Universiteit.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Hummel, H. G. K., Manderveld, J. M., Tattersall, C. and Koper, E. J. R.2004. Educational Modelling Language: new challenges for instructional reusability and personalized learning. International Journal of Learning Technology, 1: 110–111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref16" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Janssen, J. and van der Klink, M.1999. In de praktijk beproefd: Rapportage van een pilot met een een prototype van de Elektronische Leeromgeving [Tested in practice: report of a pilot with a prototype of the Electronic Learning Environment], Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland/OTEC. Available online at: <ulink href="http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/205">http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/205</ulink> (accessed 15 May 2006)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Koper, R. and Olivier, B.2004. Representing the learning design of units of learning. Educational Technology and Society, 7(3): 97–111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref13" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Koper, R., Olivier, B. and Anderson, T.2003. IMS Learning Design best practice and implementation guide, information model, information binding, Lake Mary, FL: IMS Global Learning Consortium. Available online at: <ulink href="http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/index.html">http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/index.html</ulink> (accessed 15 May 2006)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref10" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Koper, R. and Tattersall, C., eds. 2005. Learning design; a handbook on modelling and delivering networked education and training, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref23" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Nolan, R. L.1973. Managing the computer resource: a stage hypothesis. Communications of the ACM, 16(7): 399–405.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, E. M.2003. Diffusion of innovations , (5th edn), New York: Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salmon, G.2000. E‐moderating—the key to teaching and learning online, London: Kogan Page.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schlusmans, K. H. L. A., Koper, E. J. R. and Giesbertz, W. J.2004. "Work processes for the development of integrated e‐learning courses". In Integrated e‐learning, Edited by: Jochems, W., van Merriënboer, J. and Koper, E. J. R.126–138. London: RoutledgeFalmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sloep, P. B.2004a. "Leerobjecten voor gedistribueerde leeromgevingen [Learning objects for distributed learning environments], inaugural address". Fontys Hogescholen, Eindhoven</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sloep, P. B.2004b. "Reuse, portability and interoperability of learning content: or, why educational modelling languages?". In Online education using learning objects, Edited by: McGreal, R.128–138. London: Routledge Falmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sloep, P. B., Hummel, H. and Manderveld, J.2005. "Designing instruction and learning with IMS Learning Design". In Learning design; a handbook on modelling and delivering networked education and training, Edited by: Koper, R. and Tattersall, C.133–175. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verreck, W., De Craene, B., Poelmans, P. and De Volder, M.2001. Rapport evaluatie startprojecten; project evaluatie Digitale Open Universiteit [Report evaluation start projects; project evaluation Digital Open University], Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland/OTEC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vogten, H., Koper, R., Martens, H. and Tattersall, C.2005. "An architecture for learning design engines". In Learning design; a handbook on modelling and delivering networked education and training, Edited by: Koper, R. and Tattersall, C.67–83. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, S.2005. "Architectures to support authoring and content management with learning design". In Learning design; a handbook on modelling and delivering networked education and training, Edited by: Koper, R. and Tattersall, C.41–63. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By PeterB. Sloep; Jan van Bruggen; Colin Tattersall; Hubert Vogten; Rob Koper; Francis Brouns and Peter van Rosmalen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref17"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ743991
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Innovating Education with an Educational Modeling Language: Two Case Studies
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sloep%2C+Peter+B%2E%22">Sloep, Peter B.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22van+Bruggen%2C+Jan%22">van Bruggen, Jan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tattersall%2C+Colin%22">Tattersall, Colin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vogten%2C+Hubert%22">Vogten, Hubert</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Koper%2C+Rob%22">Koper, Rob</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brouns%2C+Francis%22">Brouns, Francis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22van+Rosmalen%2C+Peter%22">van Rosmalen, Peter</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Innovations+in+Education+and+Teaching+International%22"><i>Innovations in Education and Teaching International</i></searchLink>. Aug 2006 43(3):291-301.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/default.html.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2006
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Innovation%22">Educational Innovation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Case+Studies%22">Case Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Investigations%22">Investigations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22On+Campus+Students%22">On Campus Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Distance+Education%22">Distance Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Extension+Education%22">Extension Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Demonstration+Programs%22">Demonstration Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Programming+Languages%22">Programming Languages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Formative+Evaluation%22">Formative Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Enrichment+Activities%22">Enrichment Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Problems%22">Research Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Open+Universities%22">Open Universities</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Netherlands%22">Netherlands</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1470-3297
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The intent of this study was to investigate how to maximize the chances of success of an educational innovation--specifically one based on the implementation of the educational modeling language called EML. This language is both technically and organizationally demanding. Two different implementation cases were investigated, one situated in an institution for higher professional education that caters for on-campus students; the other in an institution for higher, open distance education, that serves off-campus, home-based students. Diffusion-innovation theory is used as the backdrop for the analysis. It helps us to understand why the implementations failed and what measures might be taken to avoid future failure in similar situations. (Contains 3 tables.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: Author
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 18
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2006
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=TR74387184654417" linkWindow="_blank">http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=TR74387184654417</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ743991
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ743991
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 291
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Innovation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Case Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Investigations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: On Campus Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Distance Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Extension Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Demonstration Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Programming Languages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Formative Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Enrichment Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Open Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Netherlands
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Innovating Education with an Educational Modeling Language: Two Case Studies
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sloep, Peter B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: van Bruggen, Jan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tattersall, Colin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vogten, Hubert
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Koper, Rob
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brouns, Francis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: van Rosmalen, Peter
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2006
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1470-3297
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 43
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Innovations in Education and Teaching International
              Type: main
ResultId 1