Reflecting back on previous ‘standards’ comments, I’m also starting to wonder about IMS Learning Design and ‘lowercase’ learning design. While the theory of LD is seductive at a theoretical level- like many standardised approaches to resource construction and activity sequencing – it is subject to too many variables and daunting to implement. The IMS LD initiative seems to be stalling- IMS looks to have concentrated more on tools interoperability, than LD itself (ref James Dalziel). Perhaps the IMS are taking the easy option- not prioritising behaviors of learners themselves into their spec. Rather they are more concerned about aspects of administration. And maybe this is where they feel more comfortable- standardising behaviors within LMSs.
LD is premised on teachers/instructors ‘facilitating’ the learning; if teachers and learners are the main actors in the system-what happens when we take the teachers away? Can we still describe a ‘valid’ learning design? Can we describe structured sequences of learning design for personal or informal learning activities?
I’m not sure if we can achieve a platform or single application that incorporates LD- Coppercore and LAMs go close- and keep striving- but maybe we need to look at using some of the principles of LD to better understand how various tools need to be spec’d.
The LAMS export portfolio function is an example of how this might work. Which brings me to the other area of interest-how LD might influence informal or personal learning activities. As LD presuposes a key actor is the teacher- and there is a describable outcome-what happens when we take these two conditions away? Perhaps we need to look at activities which lie outside the ‘main workflow’ or LD sequence-those initiated by the student for their own learning purposes. How LD influences or should be used to inform ‘offline’ work such as with ePortfolios is also important.
A rich tools interoperability spec that incorporates LD (in its broader sense) is what we should be striving for.