Forum Teaching with LAMS - experiences: Branching features for LAMS V2.1

By: Ernie Ghiglione

[ Reply | Forward ]

Well, I've been thinking that the process of creating branches should be similar to the way you create filters for your email. That is: given a few set of parameters "Subject", "Body", "From", "To", dates, etc you can specify branches according to those.

This way of creating rules is also flexible enough to allow a combination of the above parameter "If FROM ernieg@melcoe *and* SUBJECT important, then go to this branch".

So if a rule based system is not so complex to implement, then the key question is: what are the parameters to create rules based on. Of course we have scores, marks, etc... but each tool would have specific outputs. For instance, Q&A doesn't have marks or scores, but it has answers to specific questions. Similarly with Voting, so you need to know the answer of the poll in order to create a branch as well. Also, talking the number of postings in a forum might not be the best way to determine whether someone is talkative or not... You can post 5 postings saying "OK" and that will count you as a talkative person ... so maybe something along the line of number of words posted in all postings?

Therefore I think it's important to answer what are the key outputs that you as teacher would like to have to create branches... go as crazy as you can... we are branstorming here.

Posted by Ernie Ghiglione

By: Josep M. Fontana

[ Reply | Forward ]

Yes, most people think about branching only in terms of directing users through different paths according to testing results. I really welcome the flexibility you are planning to add to the branching functionality in LAMS. Some of the ideas James suggests are very interesting, such as branching according to specific words used in a forum or according to whether the user is very "talkative" or not.

I would like to add one suggestion: branching according to which resources have been chosen by the users. Imagine a situation where the teacher wants groups to work on different topics and consult different types of resources and s/he allows individuals or groups to choose which topic they want to work on. There might be cases in which the types of activities that users can or should engage in might vary considerably according to the specific topic chosen to work on: different "topics" can sometimes be associated to different types of skills or competences for which different types of activities (or sequencings of activities)might be relevant or desirable.

I think it could be very useful if one could device different sub-sequences of activities according to a particular choice made by users at the beginning of the sequence.


Josep M.

Posted by Josep M. Fontana

By: Matthias Scheja

[ Reply | Forward ]

Another criteria for branching could be the time spent by the learner on the previous activity/ies.

Posted by Matthias Scheja

By: Steve Knowles

[ Reply | Forward ]

NB: I've just registered a trial account, and I assume that in doing so, I'm using v2.0 (because it has the grouping feature you refer to above, but no branching).

First of all, can I say how impressed I am with LAMS: a great application all round - easy to use, pedagogy-driven, and student-centred - but for me the 'student-progress' orientation is definitely the killer aspect.

Secondly, this particular posting is very encouraging, because it begins to deal with (at least one of) the 3 immediate problems for me - the strict linearity of tasks within a sequence.

I know that the Optional tool provides some respite from that, but branching would be much more useful for me. From what I've read here today, I see that this is being dealt with in very creative ways, which is very encouraging - I look forward to seeing how v2.1 finally does so.

The second immediate thing (and a relatively simple one I would think) that would make a huge difference, is the ability to link to another sequence - especially combined with the new branching tool.

Finally (I've been looking for an app like LAMS for years, so pardon my enthusiasm here), the third thing that would make this a killer app (this one may be a bit harder, but maybe not a hard as it first appears) is a Course Builder into which you drag-n-drop sequences - again, with branching - to create (a section of) a course.

This would work the same way as the lesson builder, but would just sit one level higher, and allow you to plan and track students' progress through a course, not just through a lesson.

I know there are other mechanisms out there to manage and sequence individual lessons, but as I said before, the killer aspect of LAMS for me is the student-progress orientation - and having the ability to use that at the course level as well as the lesson level would make it a killer app in my view.

Steve K

Posted by Steve Knowles

By: Ernie Ghiglione

[ Reply | Forward ]

Hi Steve,

If you are using demo.lamscommunity.org as a server for trialing LAMS, then you are using LAMS2.0. If not, just go there and get yourself an account for the good stuff

> The second immediate thing (and a relatively simple one I would think) that would make a huge difference, is the
> ability to link to another sequence - especially combined with the new branching tool.

We have a feature scheduled (LDEV-750) that will allow you to import a sequence within another sequence. So I guess once you import it, then you can use the branching tool to do the rest. Unless of course you want this to be done dynamicaly (which is too hard and is not part of LDEV-750, at least for now )


> Course Builder into which you drag-n-drop sequences - again, with branching - to create (a section of) a course.

We have discussed this with James and Yoichi before. I think we called it a meta-authoring environment in which you can create aggregation of sequences at a course level.

There are lots of details to be worked out for meta-authoring so we haven't put it in the roadmap yet, but it's great to hear that you find it useful.

Thanks,

Ernie

Posted by Ernie Ghiglione