ADAPTIVITY IN MOODLE BEYOND THE LIMITS OF ADAPTIVITY IN MOODLE

Klaus P. Jantke, André Schulz

Abstract

Learning management systems (LMS, for short) have meanwhile gained an enormous practical relevance. Nevertheless, the quality of service offered is, at least in some respect, astonishingly behind the state of the art. Adaptivity of system behavior is such a field in which we confine ourselves to much less than we can afford. The authors develop an original approach, demonstrate an implementation, and discuss the benefits for learning of an adaptivity approach which is integrated into the LMS moodle although it apparently goes beyond the limits of moodle. The approach is sufficiently generic to be carried over to other LMSs.

References

  1. Abel, F., Heckmann, D., Herder, E., Hidders, J., Houben, G.-J., Krause, D., Leonardi, E., and van der Sluijs, K. (2009). A framework for flexible user profile mashups. In Workshop on Adaptation and Personalization for Web 2.0, UMAP'09, June 22-26, 2009.
  2. Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11(1-2):87-110.
  3. Brusilovsky, P. and Millán, E. (2007). User models for adaptive hypermedia and adaptive educational systems. In Brusilovsky, P., Kobsa, A., and Neijdl, W., editors, The Adaptive Web. Methods and Strategies of Web Personalization, volume 4321 of LNCS, pages 3- 53. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
  4. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12:671-684.
  5. Davis, B., Sumara, D., and Luce-Kapler, R. (2000). Engaging Minds. Learning and teaching in a Complex World. Mahwah, NJ, and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  6. Flechsig, K.-H. (1996). Kleines Handbuch didaktischer Modelle. Neuland.
  7. Fujima, J., Gaudl, S., and Jantke, K. P. (2010). Directing learner interaction for efficient combination of building blocks in an interactive laboratory. In Hambach, S., Martens, A., Tavangarian, D., and Urban, U., editors, eLearning Baltics 2010, Proc. 3rd Intl. eLBa Science Conference, pages 183-191. Fraunhofer Verlag.
  8. Jank, W. and Meyer, H. (2002). Didaktische Modelle. Cornelsen.
  9. Jantke, K. P. and Fujima, J. (2010). Hypermedia note taking. In The IET International Conference on Frontier Computing, Proceedings (DVD), Taichung, Taiwan, August 4-6, 2010, pages 105-110.
  10. Jantke, K. P., Lange, S., Grieser, G., Grigoriev, P., Thalheim, B., and Tschiedel, B. (2004a). Learning by doing and learning when doing. Dovetailing e-learning and decision support with a data mining tutor. In Seruca, I., Filipe, J., Hammoudi, S., and Cordeiro, J., editors, Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS 2004, Porto, Portugal, April 14-17, 2004, Proc., Vol. 5, pages 238-241. INSTICC.
  11. Jantke, K. P., Lange, S., Grieser, G., Grigoriev, P., Thalheim, B., and Tschiedel, B. (2004b). Work-integrated e-learning - The DaMiT approach. In 49. Internationales Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium, Technische Universit ät Ilmenau, 27.-30. September 2004.
  12. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2):75-86.
  13. Kolb, D. and Fry, R. E. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experential learning. In Cooper, C. L., editor, Theories of Group Processes, pages 33-58. John Wiley.
  14. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  15. Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2):109-113.
  16. Memmel, M. (2005). Adaptivity with multidimensional learning objects. In E-Learn 2005, World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare & Higher Education, October 24-28, 2005, Vancouver, Canada.
  17. Memmel, M., Ras, E., Jantke, K. P., and Yacci, M. (2007). Approaches to learning object oriented instructional design. In Koohang, A. and Harman, K., editors, Learning Objects and Instructional Design, pages 281-326. Informing Science Press.
  18. Salomon, G. (1972). Heuristic models for generation of aptitude-treatment interaction hypotheses. Review of Educational Research, 42:327-343.
  19. Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., and Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2):115-121.
  20. van der Sluijs, K. and Höver, K. M. (2009). Integrating adaptive functionality in a lms. Intl. J. Emerging Technologies in Learning, 4(4):46-50.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

P. Jantke K. and Schulz A. (2011). ADAPTIVITY IN MOODLE BEYOND THE LIMITS OF ADAPTIVITY IN MOODLE . In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-8425-49-2, pages 418-421. DOI: 10.5220/0003341904180421


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu11,
author={Klaus P. Jantke and André Schulz},
title={ADAPTIVITY IN MOODLE BEYOND THE LIMITS OF ADAPTIVITY IN MOODLE},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,},
year={2011},
pages={418-421},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003341904180421},
isbn={978-989-8425-49-2},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,
TI - ADAPTIVITY IN MOODLE BEYOND THE LIMITS OF ADAPTIVITY IN MOODLE
SN - 978-989-8425-49-2
AU - P. Jantke K.
AU - Schulz A.
PY - 2011
SP - 418
EP - 421
DO - 10.5220/0003341904180421