Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
The paradigm shift that can be sensed in
the recent emancipatory movement on the web
turned the original read-write web envisioned
by Berners-Lee (1989) into reality (again) - for
a wider set of people. This programmable 'web
2.0' (O'Reilly, 2005) also has an impact on soft-
ware development methodologies and usability
of learning technology. Going beyond traditional
software development methodologies and even
beyond the ideas behind user-centred design, new
approaches try to shift development tasks from
experts and expert programmers to the end-user.
According to Lieberman et al. (2006), end-user
development deals with the idea that end-users
design their environments for the intended us-
age, evolving systems from being 'easy to use'
to being 'easy to develop' and shifting the focus
of control from expert designers to end-users. In
the scope of technology-enhanced learning, such
an approach builds upon a flexible environment
consisting of an open set of interoperable learn-
ing tools ('building blocks') and an open corpus
of artefacts authored by the end-users, instead
of utilizing a monolithic learning management
system that delivers content from educational
providers to their learners. This idea of end-user
development on the web touches very much upon
the idea of re-use: similar to Excel scripting,
end-users can go out, find, and eventually even
customize an existing script or complex formula
written by another user - as soon as the formula
is explicit (and thus accessible for exchange).
End-user development on the web is like Excel
scripting for web applications: most users have
heard of it, a small share of power users is able
to do it, but all users benefit from it. Additionally,
it enables for a smooth transition from simple to
power use. For deeper insights into interoper-
ability standards facilitating personal learning
environment mash-ups, see Palmer et al. (2009).
These approaches ground in user-centred de-
sign (cf. Preece et al., 1998) and agile software
project management and development methods
(such as extreme programming).
Slightly different and more focused on the
recombination of code is a relative new stream
called opportunistic design (Hartmann et al., 2008;
Ncube et al., 2008). This strand investigates differ-
ent strategies for mash-ups (Gamble & Gamble,
2008). Furthermore, new creativity stimulating
learning methodologies for learning how to pro-
gramme are already available (Obrenovic et al.,
2008). The biggest challenge for opportunistic
design is the problem of turning monolithic legacy
software into opportunistic assets (Gamble &
Gamble, 2008).
Looking at the market for technology, both
movements open up new niches for software
development, as a 'long tail' (Anderson, 2006)
can also be identified in software development.
There is a long tail of small-sized user groups
with precise requirements, or at least a strong
sense thereof that form a greater number of niche
markets (the long tail of software development:
Kraus, 2005). The challenge lies for sure in their
activation and in the provision of easy-to-develop,
flexible recombination of opportunistic assets by
end-users.
ISSUES, CONTROVERSIES,
PROBLEMS
Classically, the field of personalized adaptive
learning is based on instructional design theories
and utilizes adaptive and intelligent technologies
for personalization.
Instructional design theories aim at offering
explicit guidance to help people learn better and,
consequently, they treat learning environments (in
the sense of the tools alone!) as an instructional
condition and separate from the desired learning
outcomes (cf. Reigeluth, 1999). Even in more
constructivist instructional theories, the learn-
ing environment is assumed to be created by an
instructional designer (Mayer, 1999; Jonassen,
1999). In applied research, these design theories
Search WWH ::
Custom Search