Advances in web based learning – ICWL 2016 15th international conference

LNCS 10013

Dickson K.W. Chiu · Ivana Marenzi
Umberto Nanni · Marc Spaniol
Marco Temperini (Eds.)

Advances in
Web-Based Learning –
ICWL 2016
15th International Conference
Rome, Italy, October 26–29, 2016
Proceedings

123


Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Commenced Publication in 1973
Founding and Former Series Editors:
Gerhard Goos, Juris Hartmanis, and Jan van Leeuwen

Editorial Board
David Hutchison
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Takeo Kanade
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Josef Kittler
University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Jon M. Kleinberg
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Friedemann Mattern

ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
John C. Mitchell
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Moni Naor
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
C. Pandu Rangan
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India
Bernhard Steffen
TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
Demetri Terzopoulos
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Doug Tygar
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Gerhard Weikum
Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany

10013


More information about this series at />

Dickson K.W. Chiu Ivana Marenzi
Umberto Nanni Marc Spaniol
Marco Temperini (Eds.)
•

•

Advances in
Web-Based Learning –

ICWL 2016
15th International Conference
Rome, Italy, October 26–29, 2016
Proceedings

123


Editors
Dickson K.W. Chiu
University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
SAR China

Marc Spaniol
University of Caen Normandy
Caen
France

Ivana Marenzi
L3S Research Center
Hannover
Germany

Marco Temperini
Sapienza University of Rome
Rome
Italy

Umberto Nanni

Sapienza University of Rome
Rome
Italy

ISSN 0302-9743
ISSN 1611-3349 (electronic)
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
ISBN 978-3-319-47439-7
ISBN 978-3-319-47440-3 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-47440-3
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016953289
LNCS Sublibrary: SL3 – Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI
© Springer International Publishing AG 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are
believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors
give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or
omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

This volume presents the proceedings of the 15th edition of the annual International
Conference on Web-based Learning (ICWL). The first ICWL event held was in Hong
Kong in 2002. Since then it has been held 13 more times, in three continents: Australia
(2003), China (2004, 2008, 2010), Hong Kong (2005, 2011, 2015), Malaysia (2006),
UK (2007), Germany (2009), Romania (2012), Taiwan (2013), Estonia (2014).
ICWL 2016 was organized by the Sapienza University of Rome – a collegiate
research university located in Rome, Italy. It is the largest European university in terms
of enrolments (the third one if distance-learning schools are also considered) and one
of the oldest in the world, founded in 1303. “Sapienza” educated numerous notable
alumni, including many Nobel laureates, presidents of the European Parliament, heads
of several nations, notable religious figures, scientists, and astronauts.
One trait of (ancient) Romans is that they were able to learn from their interactions
with other countries and make their own civilization better. In ICWL we mean “interactions” in a more peaceful way, yet with the same aim, of making our community’s
insights and innovative ideas about Technology Enhanced Learning better.
The topics proposed in the ICWL Call For Papers included several relevant issues,
ranging over: Learning Models, Collaborative Learning, Serious Games, Technology
Enhanced Learning in Education, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), Mobile
Learning, and more.
We had 110 submitted contributions. All submissions were assigned to three
members of the Program Committee (PC) for review. All reviews were checked and
discussed by the team of PC chairs, and additional reviews or meta-reviews were
elicited if necessary. The proceedings include the contributions that were finally presented at the conference: 19 full papers, ten short papers and four posters, for a total of
33 papers, yielding a global acceptance rate of 31.82 %.
ICWL 2016 featured three distinguished keynote presentations, by renowned
scholars: Peter Brusilovsky, University of Pittsburgh, USA (“Data-Driven Education:
Using Learners’ Data to Improve Teaching and Learning”); Carlo Giovannella, Tor
Vergata University, Rome, Italy (“Uncovering and Supporting the Smartness of

Learning Ecosystems”); and Andreja Istenič Starčič, University of Primorska, Slovenia
(“Representations in Contemporary Learning Environments”). The conference also
provided a plenary presentation about the European Research Council (ERC), aimed to
be attractive and useful for young (and less young) researchers attending the
conference.
A doctoral consortium was organized concurrently with the conference and provided an opportunity for PhD students to discuss their work with experienced
researchers.
This year ICWL supported the organization of a new initiative, the “First International Symposium on Emerging Technologies for Education” (SETE) at the same
location. SETE collected the traditional workshop activities managed by ICWL in the


VI

Preface

past years, and additionally featured a novel organization in tracks. Workshops and
tracks added new and hot topics on Technology Enhanced Learning, providing a newer
2016 overall conference experience to the ICWL attendees.
Many people contributed to make the conference possible and successful. First of all
we thank all the authors who have considered ICWL for their submissions. We also
thank the PC members, and the additional reviewers, for their evaluations that made
possible the selection of the accepted papers. For the organization effort of ICWL 2016,
additional thanks go to the publicity chair, Martin Homola, the poster co-chairs,
Damiano Distante, Luigi Laura, and Filippo Sciarrone, the Web chair, Andrea Sterbini,
the doctoral consortium co-chairs, Maria De Marsico, Zuzana Kubincova, and Carla
Limongelli, and the proceedings chair, Pavlos Fafalios.
We also thank the following sponsors, for their enlightened and much appreciated
financial support, which helped make the whole operation sustainable: IAD, Solutions
by Competence; Springer, who offered their sponsorship; and UniTelma-Sapienza
University, which is also the place where part of the Organizing Committee undertakes

research activities in Technology Enhanced Learning.
We hope that the reader of this volume will be pleased with the relevance of the
topics and the contents of the papers, possibly being enticed to contribute to next
editions of ICWL.
October 2016

Dickson K.W. Chiu
Ivana Marenzi
Umberto Nanni
Marc Spaniol
Marco Temperini


Organization

Conference Co-chairs
Marc Spaniol
Marco Temperini

University of Caen Normandy, Caen, France
Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Steering Committee Representatives
Horace H.S. Ip
Elvira Popescu

City University of Hong Kong, SAR China
University of Craiova, Romania

Technical Program Committee Co-chairs

Dickson K.W. Chiu
Ivana Marenzi
Umberto Nanni

University of Hong Kong, SAR China
L3S Research Center, Hannover, Germany
Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Publicity Chair
Martin Homola

Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia

Poster Co-chairs
Damiano Distante
Luigi Laura
Filippo Sciarrone

Unitelma-Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Roma Tre University, Italy

Web Chair
Andrea Sterbini

Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Doctoral Consortium Co-chairs
Maria De Marsico
Zuzana Kubincova

Carla Limongelli

Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia
Roma Tre University, Italy

Proceedings Chair
Pavlos Fafalios

L3S Research Center, Hannover, Germany


VIII

Organization

Program Committee
Marie-Helene Abel
Carlos Alario-Hoyos
Dimitra Anastasiou
Maria Bielikova
Maria Bortoluzzi
Yiwei Cao
Dickson K.W. Chiu
Maria Cinque
Maria De Marsico
Pieter De Vries
Michael Derntl
Giuliana Dettori
Tania Di Mascio

Stefan Dietze
Damiano Distante
Hendrik Drachsler
Pavlos Fafalios
Baltasar
Fernandez-Manjon
Giovanni Fulantelli
Dragan Gasevic
Rosella Gennari
Panagiotis Germanakos
Denis Gillet
Sabine Graf
Christian Gütl
Eelco Herder
Sandra Hofhues
Martin Homola
Horace Ip
Malinka Ivanova
Mirjana Ivanovic
Jelena Jovanovic
Elisabeth Katzlinger
Ioannis Kazanidis
Michael Kickmeier-Rust
Ralf Klamma
Tomaž Klobučar
Line Kolås
Milos Kravcik
Marc Krüger

HEUDIASYC – Université de Technologie de Compiègne,

France
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain
Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology
Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava
University of Udine, Italy
Information Multimedia Communication (IMC) AG,
Germany
The University of Hong Kong, SAR China
Università LUMSA, Rome, Italy
Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
University of Tübingen, Germany
Istituto di Tecnologie Didattiche del CNR, Italy
University of L’Aquila, Italy
L3S Research Center, Hannover, Germany
Unitelma Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Open University of The Netherlands
L3S Research Center, Hannover, Germany
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Istituto Tecnologie Didattiche, CNR, Palermo, Italy
University of Edinburgh, UK
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
University of Cyprus
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL)
Athabasca University, Canada
Technical University of Graz, Austria
L3S Research Center, Hannover, Germany
University of Cologne, Germany
Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia
City University of Hong Kong, SAR China

Technical University, Sofia, Bulgaria
University of Novi Sad, Serbia
University of Belgrade, Serbia
Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria
Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of Technology,
Greece
Technical University of Graz, Austria
RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Institut Jozef-Stefan, Slovenia
Nord University, Norway
RWTH Aachen University, Germany
University of Applied Sciences, Coburg, Germany


Organization

Zuzana Kubincová
Vive Kumar
Lam-For Kwok
Mart Laanpere
Jean-Marc Labat
Rynson Lau
Luigi Laura
Elise Lavoué
Howard Leung
Frederick Li
Carla Limongelli
Wei Liu
George Magoulas
Katherine Maillet

Ivana Marenzi
Alke Martens
Harald Mayer
Umberto Nanni
Wolfgang Nejdl
Kyparissia Papanikolaou
Kai Pata
Elvira Popescu
Francesca Pozzi
Eric Ras
Neil Rubens
Demetrios Sampson
Olga C. Santos
Filippo Sciarrone
Ruimin Shen
Marc Spaniol
Marcus Specht
Natalia Stash
Andrea Sterbini
Davide Taibi
Gary K.L. Tam
Marco Temperini
Stefan Trausan-Matu
Lorna Uden
Carsten Ullrich
Carlos Vaz de Carvalho
Riina Vuorikari
Jianxin Wang
Fridolin Wild

IX

Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia
Athabasca University, Canada
City University of Hong Kong, SAR China
Tallinn University, Estonia
Laboratoire d’Informatique de Paris 6 (LIP6), France
City University of Hong Kong, SAR China
Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, France
City University of Hong Kong, SAR China
University of Durham, UK
Roma Tre University, Italy
Shanghai University, China
Birkbeck College and University of London, UK
Institut Mines-Télécom, Télécom Ecole de Management,
France
L3S Research Center, Hannover, Germany
University of Rostock, Germany
Joanneum Research, Austria
Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
L3S Research Center, Hannover, Germany
School of Pedagogical and Technological Education,
Greece
Tallinn University, Estonia
University of Craiova, Romania
Institute for Educational Technology (ITD-CNR), Italy
Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology
University of Electro-Communications, Tokyo, Japan
University of Piraeus and CERTH, Greece

aDeNu Research Group (UNED), Spain
Roma Tre University, Italy
Shanghai Jiaotong University, China
University of Caen Normandy, Caen, France
Open University of The Netherlands
Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Istituto Tecnologie Didattiche, CNR, Palermo, Italy
Swansea University, UK
Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
University Politehnica of Bucharest, Romania
Staffordshire University, UK
Shanghai Jiaotong University, China
Instituto Politecnico do Porto, Portugal
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS),
European Commission
Central South University, China
Oxford Brookes University, UK


X

Organization

Sergej Zerr
Qinghua Zheng

University of Southampton, UK
Xi’an Jiaotong University, China

Additional Reviewers
Aidinopoulou, Vasiliki
Bernard, Jason
Bosetti, Gabriela Alejandra
Boulanger, David
Kurcz, Jeffrey

Sponsors
HKWS - Hong Kong Web Society
IAD - Solutions by Competence
Sapienza University
Springer
UniTelma Sapienza

Li, Chen
Ross, Tamra
Sergis, Stylianos
Sheng, Yu
Zervas, Panagiotis


Contents

Design for Learning
A Review, Timeline, and Categorization of Learning Design Tools . . . . . . . .
Dilek Celik and George D. Magoulas

3

Approaches to Design for Learning (Short Paper) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dilek Celik and George D. Magoulas

14

Implementing Knowledge and Workflow Management in Learning
Management Systems (Short Paper). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aneta Bartuskova and Ondrej Krejcar

20

Education and Teaching
Assessment for Learning as a Teaching Approach Enabling Personalization
of Learning on Tertiary Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dagmar El-Hmoudova and Eva Milkova

29

Design Patterns for Badge Systems in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hans Põldoja, Pirje Jürgens, and Mart Laanpere

40

MyEnglishLab Component Used in the Distant Part of Blended Learning . . .
Danuse Vymetalkova and Eva Milkova

50

Technology Investment and Transformation Efforts in the Public Schools
of Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Eka Jeladze and Kai Pata

60

Web Frameworks for Content and Language Integrated Learning in Primary
School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Luca Andrea Ludovico and Claudia Zambelli

72

Digital Divide in Learning Services in Ghana’s Basic School (Short Paper) . .
James Sunney Quaicoe and Kai Pata

83

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)
Complex Resources in MOOCs: Structural and Behavioral Integration
Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sahar Msaed, Philippe Pernelle, Chokri Ben Amar, and Thibault Carron

91


XII

Contents

Modeling Skills in a Learner-Centred Approach Within MOOCs. . . . . . . . . .
Wiem Maalej, Philippe Pernelle, Chokri Ben Amar, Thibault Carron,
and Elodie Kredens
Delivering Immersive Learning Experience for Massive Open Online

Courses (MOOCs) (Short Paper) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Horace Ho Shing Ip, Chen Li, Yat Wai Wong, Selena Leoni, Ka Fai Ma,
Hoi To Wong, and Sin Hang Sham

102

112

What Are the Dimensions of Language Learning with MOOCs for English
Learners? (Short Paper) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yayoi Anzai and Kanji Akahori

118

Factors Influencing the Sustainability of MOOCs Compared
with Traditional Distance Education Courses (Poster Paper) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thorleif Hjeltnes and Svend Andreas Horgen

123

Mobile Learning
EduNotes – A Mobile Learning Application for Collaborative Note-Taking
in Lecture Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Elvira Popescu, Constantin Stefan, Sorin Ilie, and Mirjana Ivanović

131

Towards Mobile Assisted Language Learning Based on Computational
Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ilenia Fronza and Daniel Gallo

141

Learning Medical English Terminology Through Mobile Devices:
A Two-Year Trial to Develop Mobile Learning Content for Japanese
Medical Students (Short Paper) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jun Iwata, John Telloyan, and Lynne Murphy

151

Modeling for Learning
Understandable Prediction Models of Student Performance
Using an Attribute Dictionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shaymaa E. Sorour, Shaimaa Abd El Rahman, Samir A. Kahouf,
and Tsunenori Mine

161

Designing Formative and Adaptive Feedback Using Incremental
User Models (Short Paper) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sviatlana Höhn and Eric Ras

172

Towards e-Assessment Models in Engineering Education: Problems
and Solutions (Poster Paper) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Malinka Ivanova, Anna Rozeva, and Mariana Durcheva

178

Contents

XIII

Serious Games
Scenario Modeling for Serious Games: An Approach for Industry Sector . . . .
Hamza Abed, Philippe Pernelle, Thibault Carron, and Chokri Ben Amar

185

Understanding Learners’ Behaviors in Serious Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mathieu Muratet, Amel Yessad, and Thibault Carron

195

MDA Approach for Reusability in Serious Game and E-learning Design
(Short Paper) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nada Aouadi, Philippe Pernelle, Chokri Ben Amar, and Thibault Carron

206

Social-Collaborative Learning
A Framework for Mapping e-Textbooks as a Socio-Technical Regime. . . . . .
Kai Pata and Terje Väljataga

215

A Multiple Constraints Framework for Collaborative Learning Flow
Orchestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kalpani Manathunga and Davinia Hernández-Leo

225

Protus 2.1: Applying Collaborative Tagging for Providing
Recommendation in Programming Tutoring System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Boban Vesin, Aleksandra Klašnja-Milićević, and Mirjana Ivanović

236

Domain-Specific Recommendation by Matching Real Authors to Social
Media Users (Short Paper) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jun Wang, Junfu Xiang, and Kanji Uchino

246

Facebook Groups in Teaching English for Specific (Academic)
Purposes - Active Learning Beyond the Classroom (Short Paper) . . . . . . . . .
Liana Stanca and Cristina Felea

253

Discovering Prerequisite Relationships Among Learning Objects:
A Coursera-Driven Approach (Poster Paper). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Carlo De Medio, Fabio Gasparetti, Carla Limongelli, Matteo Lombardi,
Alessandro Marani, Filippo Sciarrone, and Marco Temperini
Interacting with Technology to Interact Physically: Investigating
Affordances of Tabletops to Facilitate Collaboration for Conflicting Users
(Poster Paper) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preben Hansen, Fernando Loizides, and Andri Ioannou

261

266


XIV

Contents

Support for Learning
Pen&Paper, or e-Feedback: Comparative Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ivana Simonova

273

Supporting the Acquisition of Scientific Skills by the Use of Learning
Analytics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Daniel J. Salas, Silvia Baldiris, Ramón Fabregat, and Sabine Graf

281

Using Personal Learning Environments to Support Workplace Learning
in Small Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Miloš Kravčík, Kateryna Neulinger, and Ralf Klamma

294

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

303


Design for Learning


A Review, Timeline, and Categorization
of Learning Design Tools
Dilek Celik(&) and George D. Magoulas
Knowledge Lab, Birkbeck College, University of London, London, UK
{dilek,gmagoulas}@dcs.bbk.ac.uk

Abstract. Enabling teachers to define or portray efficient teaching ideas for
sharing, reuse or adaptation has attracted the interest of Learning Design
researchers and has led to the development of a variety of learning design tools.
In this paper, we introduce a multi-dimensional framework for the analysis of
learning design tools and use it to review twenty-nine tools currently available to
researchers and practitioners. Lastly, we categorise these tools according to the
main functionality that they offer.
Keywords: Learning Design
practice Á Learning analytics

Á

Learning design tools

Á

Learning design

1 Introduction
Learning Design (LD) is a research field that is concerned with the educational processes of planning, sequencing and managing learning activities, supporting teachers in
delivering and sharing teaching ideas to improve learning of students [1]. In LD, the
emphasis is on the pedagogical intent, following high-level design principles positioned in the framework of socio-cultural educational research. In practice this has led
researchers to develop various representations to define and document learning design
ideas [2], such as the Educational Modelling Language, the IMS Learning Design,
Learning Activity Management Systems (LAMS), digital representations, and patterns.
Moreover, our literature search identified twenty-nine digital learning design tools:
the Integrated Learning Design Environment (ILDE) [1], The Learning Designer [3],
CADMOS [4], Reload [5], LD Tool [2], HKU Learning Design Studio [6], LAMS [7],
GLUE!PS [8], LdShake [9], ScenEdit [10], CeLS [11], DialogPLUS [12], WebCollage
[13], MOT+ [14], exeLearning [15], coppercore [15], GLOMaker [16], Pedagogic
Pattern Collector [17], ReCourse [5], CompendiumLD [18], Pedagogical Plan Manager
[19], PHOEBE [20], OpenGLM [21], LAMS Activity Planner [22], OpenScenario
[23], HEART [24], Cloudworks [25], Map My Programme [26], and LAMS v2 [7].
Even though there have been many attempts to model learning design and develop
tools for practitioners, the issue of representation of the learning design remains one of
the central concerns of the field [27]. According to Mor et al. [28], representing
teaching practice in meaningful ways for teachers to understand, discuss, share ideas
remains problematic and requires further investigation. Another relevant concern is the
lack of an agreed common language used among the tools developed so far [28].
© Springer International Publishing AG 2016
D.K.W. Chiu et al. (Eds.): ICWL 2016, LNCS 10013, pp. 3–13, 2016.
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-47440-3_1


4

D. Celik and G.D. Magoulas

Although this is understandable due to the complexity of the LD process, creating a
common language is an area that needs to be further explored. Additionally, in spite of
the richness of the representation tools, practitioners’ adoption of these tools falls
behind expectations.
The aim of this paper is to provide an updated view of the area of LD tools to
facilitate further work. To this end, we review available LD tools using a new evaluation framework, create a timeline of LD tools, and organise LD tools according to
their functionality. The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 introduces a
multi-dimensional framework while Sect. 3 presents an analysis of the tools. Finally,
Sect. 4 provides conclusions and considers future prospects for LD tools.

2 A Multi-dimensional Framework
In the field of LD, there have been studies about specific LD tools illustrating their
functionalities and innovative characteristics, compared to the relevant state-of-the-art.
There has been a small number of attempts to review the literature, however, as Britain
points out, there is a wide range of LD tools, so it is difficult to present a comprehensive
evaluation of them [15]. Later in [29] Britain proposed an evaluation framework and
reviewed a limited number of LD tools. In another study, Conole [30] reviewed seven
learning design tools, whilst later Dalziel et al. [26] presented a wide range of LD tools
but was not able to cover all of them.
In terms of organising tools in different categories, Britain [29] categorised tools as
authoring environments, run-time environments, and integrated environments. Conole
[30] distinguished LD tools into visualisation tools, pedagogical planners, generic
tools, and learning design resources. With respect to the learning design representation
used in the tools, within the same study, Conole [30] organised the tools in two groups:
textual representation and visual representation. More recently, Persico and Pozzi [31]
categorised LD tools based on their functionality into reflection tools and pedagogical
planners, authoring and sharing tools, repositories, and delivery tools.
In this paper, we adopt an approach that is based on a reconceptualization of the
framework proposed by Britain [29]. One of the distinct differences of our framework
from Britain’s is that our framework evaluates the tools in terms of their facilities that

consider learning analytics. Another dimensions introduced compared to Britain’s
approach is that our framework considers the tools with regards to their ability to
deploy learning designs into VLEs, export and import learning designs into different
file formats. Like Britain’s framework, our framework also consists of three main
sections: general properties, learning design properties, and technical properties. The
main sections and their subsections associated with their corresponding meanings are
presented in Table 1. The general properties section comprises of five subsections, the
learning design properties section have four subsections, and there are three subsections
in technical properties section.


A Review, Timeline, and Categorization of Learning Design Tools

5

Table 1. Evaluation framework used in the study
General
properties

Learning
design

Technical

Scope
Release date
Target users
Export &
Import
VLEs

Design
language
Activity
model
Workflow
model pl
Learning
analytics
Form of
software
User
interface
Technical
needs

What is the main function of the tool?
What is the release date of the tool. Does the tool still exist?
Who is the system for?
Can the tool import and export of LDs into other file formats?
Can the tool deploy LDs into Virtual Learning
Environments?
What notation language does the tool use?
How the tool illustrate activities?
What is the model used in the representation of the LD flow?
Does the tool have any functionality regarding learning
analytics?
What is the form of the software of the tool?
What does the tool present in terms of user interface?
Does the tool have any technical requirement or additional
software to run the application?

3 An Analysis of the Tools
Our analysis adopts the key categories suggested in [31], namely authoring and sharing
tools¸ reflection tools and pedagogical planners, repositories, and delivery tools, with
the addition of assessment planners and learning analytics. The analysis covers 29
tools- the number of the tools in each category is graphically presented in Fig. 1.
A timeline of the learning design tools is presented in Fig. 2. In this timeline, we
present approximate dates that the 29 tools were released, and use colours to indicate
the category that each belongs. Authoring and sharing tools include LAMS, Coppercore, Reload, MOT+, GLOMaker, exeLearning, CompendiumLD, WebCollege,
LAMS v2, OpenGLM, DialogPlus, Recourse, CeLS, Learning Designer, CADMOS,
ScenEdit, HKU Learning Design Studio, and ILDE. LAMS Activity Manager,
PHOEBE, OpenScenario, PPM, LdShake, and PPC go into the category of reflection
tools and pedagogical planners. Repositories include HEART, LDTool, and Cloudworks. There is only GLUE!PS tool in the category of delivery tools. Lastly, the
category of assessment planners & learning analytics includes Map My Programme.

3.1

Authoring and Sharing Tools

According to Persico and Pozzi [31], the group of authoring and sharing tools includes
tools which “allow the representation of activities and are rooted in specific


6

D. Celik and G.D. Magoulas

3

Authoring and Sharing

Tools

1

1

ReflecƟon Tools an
Pedagogic Planners

Delivery Tools

6
18

Repositories

Assessment Planners &
Learning AnalyƟcs

Fig. 1. The distribution of the tools according to the categorisation

LAMS

2003

GLO Maker

2004

2005

Coppercore
Reload
MOT+

Learning Designer
Map My Programme
CADMOS
Recourse
ScenEdit
LAMS Activity Manager
OpenScenario
LdShake
eXeLearning
CeLS
PPM
CompendiumLD
HEART
Glue!PS

2006

2007

LDTool
Cloudworks

2008

WebCollege

LAMS v2
OpenGLM
DialogPlus
PHOEBE

2009

2010

PPC

2011

2012

Integrative LD Environment

2013

2014

2015

HKU LD Studio

Authoring & Sharing Tools

Reflection Tools & Pedagogical Planners

Delivery Tools

Assessment Planners & Learning Analytics

Repositories

Fig. 2. The timeline and categorisation of learning design tools

pedagogical models”. As presented in the timeline, eighteen authoring and sharing
tools are placed in this category. We present their characteristics in line with the
dimensions of the evaluation framework in Tables 2 and 3-only tools that are still
functioning are included.


A Review, Timeline, and Categorization of Learning Design Tools

7

GENERAL PROPERTIES

Table 2. An analysis of authoring and sharing tools.
ILDE

HKU LD
Studio

Learning GLO Maker CeLS
Designer

Scope

Authoring,
sharing,
editing,
exploring

Authoring
(For selfdirected
activities)

Authoring Authoring
(create,
share, edit
and reuse)

Release
date

2012– still
running

2013 – still
running

2011 – still 2006 – Not 2009 – still
running
available
running

Target
users

Teachers

Teachers

Teachers, Teacherdesigners

Teachers and K-12
researchers teachers

Teachers

Teachers

JSON file.

MS Word, N/A
shared as
an URL

XML-based IMS LD (A IMS LD
model
level)

IMS LD

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

LAMS,
Moodle

LAMS,
Moodle

Formal
learning
concepts

Text-based

N/A

Graphical
Nugget
and pattern taxonomy
based
language

Export &
Import
Deploy
into
VLEs

Moodle,
SCORM,
metisVLE,
MediaWiki

TECHNICAL

LEARNING DESIGN

Integration of Text-based
Design
(Similar to
language LD tools
IMS-LD)

3.2

Web
Collage

Create and Authoring
reuse activity tool
(patternbased)

Dialog
PLUS

MOT+

Authoring Authortool

ing tool

2006 – still 2006 – Not 2008 –
running
available Not
available

N/A

Graphicbased,
formal

OpenGLM, It follows the
WebCollege, sequence of
exeLEarning, learning.
CADMOS

In
Sequential
sequence,
similar to
lesson plan

Presentation, Collabora- Nugget
input,
tive activity Model
interaction, patterns
dialog

IMS LD

Workflow OpenGLM, It follows the
WebCollege, sequence of
model
exeLEarning, learning.
CADMOS

Main
Sequential
properties
of a
learning
design

XML-based Collabora- Nugget
model
tive learning Model
flow patterns

IMS LD

Learning Peer-review N/A
analytics evaluation of
LDs

Graphical N/A
show of
activities

N/A

N/A

Form of Web-based
software

Web-based

Web and
deskop
based,
Mobile
App

Easy-to-use
User
interface

Comprised of Interactive N/A
two steps.

Interrelated
stages

Flexible

N/A

N/A

Technical Java
needs
Run-Time

N/A

Internet
Explorer 5

N/A

N/A

N/A

Activity
model

Web-based Web-based

Windows, N/A
Mac,
Linux

Provides
assessment
patterns.

N/A

DesktopWeb-based Webbased, webbased
based

Assessment Planners and Learning Analytics

Tools that mainly focus on informing learning in terms of learning analytics are listed
in this category, as shown in Table 4.


8

D. Celik and G.D. Magoulas
Table 3. An analysis of authoring and sharing tools.

GENERAL PROPERTIES

LAMS

LEARNING DESIGN

CADMOS

Recourse

Open
GLM

Compendium LD

Reload

Authoring,
Authoring Authoring
Community, tool
tool
and Run-time
Environment

Release
date

2003 – still
running

2007 – still 2004 – still 2011 – still
running
running
running

2009 – still
running

2006 – still 2005/06 – 2004/2005
running
still running – still
running

Target
users

Teachers

Teachers, Teachers
academics

Teachers
(IMS LD)

NonLecturers,
professional teachers
IMS LD
user

Export & LAMS, IMS
Import LD

Authoring
tool

Novice
teachers

Authoring
Authoring Authoring Authoring
tool (IMS LD tool (create, for design- and runtime
compliant) share and ing learning environreuse)
activities ment

Teachers
(familiar to

IMS LD)

IMS LD (A, IMS LD (A, IMS LD
B), MS Word
B, C
Levels)

IMS LD
(A, B),
ILDE

IMS LD

IMS LD (A,
B, C), XML
format

N/A

Moodle.

Moodle

LAMS,
Moodle

N/A

IMS LD,
SCORM

IMS LD

Visual-based Graphical and Graphical Visualin layers
pattern based and pattern based
based

IMS LD,
HTML5,
ePub3

Moodle,
SCORM,
Blackboard,
Moodle
Sakai, .LRN,
WebCT,
SharePoint,
OLAT,
Desire2Learn

Design Visual-based
language descriptive
language

LAMS,
Moodle

Contains all
entities of

IMS LD

Activity
model

LAMS
educational
workflow
system

IMS LD,
SCORM

IMS LD

Conceptual/flow
model

IMS LD

Mind
Visual
IMS LD
modelling mapping, or
metaphor concept
mapping

Workflow
model

LAMS
educational
workflow
system

IMS LD,
SCORM

IMS LD

Conceptual/flow
model

IMS LD

Mind
Visual
IMS LD
modelling mapping, or
metaphor concept
mapping

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Form of Desktop-based Desktopbased
software

Desktopbased

Desktopbased

Desktopbased

Web-based Web-based Desktopbased

Drag and drop N/A
User
interface user interface

N/A

User-friendly Visual based Comprised Flexible,
of panes
simple

Tabs and
editing
fields

Technical Written in Java N/A
and operated in
needs

cross platforms

N/A

N/A

Java
Run-Time

Learning Monitors
analytics progress of a
student

TECHNICAL

Copper
Core

Scope

Deploy
into
VLEs

3.3

eXe
Learning

Java

Run-Time

Allows
N/A
users to
think on
assessments

Java
N/A
Run-Time

Reflection Tools and Pedagogical Planners

Tools in this category are intended to “help the teacher/designer reflect on the pedagogical choices to take, thus supporting the process of decision-making” [31]. These
are shown in Table 5.


A Review, Timeline, and Categorization of Learning Design Tools
Table 4. An analysis of assessment planners and learning analytics
Map My Programme
General
properties

Scope
Release date
Target users
Export &
Import
Deploy into

VLEs
Design
language
Activity
model
Workflow
model
Learning
analytics
Form of
software
User interface
Technical
needs

Learning
design

Technical

Mapping and planning assessments
2011 – still running
Teachers
N/A
N/A
Visual-based
N/A
N/A
The tool provides summative and formative evaluation of
the assessments.

Web-based
N/A
Google Account

Table 5. An analysis of reflection tools and pedagogical planners
PPC
Pedagogical
Pattern
Collector
2011 – still
Release date
running
Teachers
Target users
Export & Import N/A
Deploy into VLEs N/A
Design language Pattern-based

TECHNICAL

LEARNING DESIGN

GENERAL
PROPERTIES

Scope

Activity model
Workflow model

Cognitive
model
Cognitive
model

N/A
Learning analytics
Form of software Web-based
User interface

Browser,
designer,
abstractor

Technical needs

N/A

PHOEBE
Pedagogic
planner

LdShake
Social network
oriented tool

OpenScenario
Scenario-based
tool

2006 – Not
available
Teachers
N/A
N/A
Wiki-based,
and set of
resource
Sequence
structures
Sequence
structures

2011 – still
running
Teachers
N/A
N/A
Various
pedagogical
approaches
4SPPIces Model

2009 – Not
available
Teachers
N/A
N/A
Scenario-based
design

Scenario-based
model
4SPPIces Model Organization,
learning,
observation,
evaluation
Assessment and N/A
N/A
activities
Web-based
Web and
Web-based
desktop based
N/A
N/A
Flexible

N/A

N/A

N/A

Lams AP
Create
learning
activities
2007 – still
running

Teachers
N/A
Moodle
Sequential

PPM
Pedagogic
planning of
LDs
2010 – still
running
Teachers
N/A
N/A
Hierarchical
entities

Sequential

Pedagogical
Hierarchy
Pedagogical
Hierarchy

Sequential

N/A

N/A

Web-based

Web-based

N/A

Hierarchy
Manager,
Field Sector,
Data Area
Flash Player N/A

9


10

3.4

D. Celik and G.D. Magoulas

Delivery Tools

Delivery tools are specifically designed to support the delivery of the activities and
learning design into learning environment. A tool in this category is evaluated in
Table 6.

Table 6. An analysis of delivery tools
GLUE!PS
General

properties

Learning
design

Technical

3.5

Scope

Release
date
Target
users
Export &
Import
Deploy into
VLEs
Design
language
Activity
model
Workflow
model
Learning
analytics
Form of
software
User

interface
Technical
needs

It allows integration of existing external tools including
Google Docs, Google Spreadsheets, Google Presentations,
Dabbleboard, Noteflight, Doodle, Wookie Widgets.
2011 – still running
Teachers, practitioners, researchers
Supports IMS LD specification (Level A equivalent)
Moodle, MediaWiki, LAMS
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Middleware architecture, Desktop-based
N/A
N/A

Repositories

This category defines the tools that provide teachers learning design ideas, sample of
practices, and experiences’ reports. Tools analysed across the dimensions identified in
the framework are presented in Table 7.


A Review, Timeline, and Categorization of Learning Design Tools

11

Table 7. An analysis of repositories

Target users

Cloudworks
HEART
Social networking Learning design
environment
support strategy
2008 – still
2009 – Not available
running
anymore
Teachers
Teachers

Export & Import
Deploy into VLEs
Design language
Activity model
Workflow model

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

TECHNICA LEARNING
DESIGN

L

GENERAL
PROPERTIES

Scope
Release date

Learning analytics Peer feedback
Form of software Web-based
N/A
User interface

Technical needs

N/A

LDTool
Authoring, sharing, and browsing among
existing LDs
2008 – still running

Teachers (Primary, secondary, and higher
education teachers
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Visual and text based Text-based
Pedagogical dimension Sequence of learning tasks

Pedagogical dimension Description, intended learning outcomes,
resources, tasks, supports
N/A
N/A
Web-based
Web-based
Description, intended learning outcomes,
Graphical and text
based presentation of resources, tasks, and supports sections are
presented to be filled by a user
the contents
N/A
N/A

4 Conclusion and Future Works
The purpose of this paper was to present all LD tools in one place and analyse them
along the same dimensions. In the paper, we distinguished the tools based on their
functionality, and provided a timeline for LD tools. Twenty-nine learning design tools
from the literature of the LD field were identified as still functioning. These were
categorised according to their functionality, and a timeline of these tools associated
with their categorisation was created.
It is worth to highlight that ILDE is the most recent tool developed within the field.
According to Maina et al. [27], “a promising step in this direction is the ILDE” as it
focuses on integration of the various tools available rather than creating a new one.
The findings of this paper have a number of implications for future practice. First,
further research could be conducted to compare teachers’ learning design practices of
using these tools on the same topic. Second, an analysis of the pedagogical underpinning behind these tools would be also useful. Finally, usability and user interface
characteristics of the LD tools would worth further investigation.

References

1. Hernández-Leo, D., Chacón, J., Prieto, L.P., Asensio-Pérez, J.I., Derntl, M.: Towards an
integrated learning design environment. In: Hernández-Leo, D., Ley, T., Klamma, R.,
Harrer, A. (eds.) EC-TEL 2013. LNCS, vol. 8095, pp. 448–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
2. Agostinho, S.: The use of a visual learning design representation to support the design
process of teaching in higher education. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 27, 961–978 (2011)