You are here:

A Systems Engineering Analysis Method for the Development of Reusable Computer-Supported Learning Systems
ARTICLE

, , , Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain

IJELLO Volume 4, Number 1, ISSN 1552-2237 Publisher: Informing Science Institute

Full Text

Abstract

The development of computer-supported learning systems is a complex task that must take into account diverse issues and perspectives. Given the difficulties attached to this process, different authors have proposed the use of software engineering as a reference to optimize the courseware development process. Following this trend, and given the efficiency of the outcomes, it seems convenient to adapt existing product line development principles from software engineering to the development of learning resources. The purpose of this paper is to postulate a specific analysis method for computer-supported learning systems that guarantees the quality of the development. This specific analysis method can facilitate the learning object reusability and minimize the relevance of the expertise in the development of learning resources.

Citation

Díez, D., Fernández, C. & Dodero, J. (2008). A Systems Engineering Analysis Method for the Development of Reusable Computer-Supported Learning Systems. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 4(1), 243-257. Informing Science Institute. Retrieved March 30, 2020 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Alessi, S.M., & Trollip, S.R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: Methods and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  2. Alessi, S.M., & Trollip, S.R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development. New Jersey: Allyn and Bacon.
  3. Arango. G. (1994). Domain analysis methods. In W. Schafer, R. Prieto-Diaz, & M. Matsumoto (Eds.), Software reusability (pp. 17-49). London: Ellis Horwood.
  4. Baggetun, R., Rusman, E., & Poggi, C. (2004). Design patterns for collaborative learning: From practice to theory and back. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2493-2498.
  5. Clements, P., Northrop, L., & Northrop, L.M. (2003). Software product lines: Practices and patterns. Boston: Addison Wesley.
  6. Cuadrado, J.J., & Sicilia, M.A. (2005). Learning object reusability metrics: Some ideas from software engineering. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Internet Technologies and Applications.
  7. Czarnecki, K. (1998). Generative Programming. Principles and techniques of software engineering based on automated configuration and fragment-based component models. PhD Thesis, Technical University of Ilmenau.
  8. Davies, S.P. (1993). Models and theories of programming strategy. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 237–267.
  9. Dick, W., & Cary, L. (1990). The systematic design of instruction. New York: Harper Collins. Díez, Fernández, & Dodero
  10. Dreyfus, H. & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Free Press.
  11. Ferré, X., & Vegas, S. (1999). An evaluation of domain analysis methods. Proceedings 4th CAiSE Workshop on Exploring Modelling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design, 1999.
  12. Gagne, R.M., & Medsker, K.L. (1995). The conditions of learning: Training applications. Belmond: Wadsworth Publishing.
  13. Goodyear, P. (1995). Infrastructure for courseware engineering. In R.D. Tennyson& A.E. Barron (Eds.), Automating instructional design: Computer-based development and delivery tools (pp.11-31). New
  14. Hadjerrouit, S. (2007). Applying a system development approach to translate educational requirements into e-learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 107-134. Retrieved from http://ijello.org/Volume3/IJKLOv3p107-134Hadj296.pdf Hartshorne, R. (2003). Thoughtful creation of online course content: implications of SCORM for educators. Academic Exchange Quarterly.
  15. Jones, R., & Boyle, T. (2007). Learning object patterns for programming. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 19-28. Retrieved from http://ijello.org/Volume3/IJKLOv3p019028Jones.pdf
  16. Kang, K.C. (1998). FORM: A feature-oriented reuse method with domain-specific reference architectures. Annals of Software Engineering, 5, 143-168.
  17. Koper, R. (2005). An introduction to learning design. In R. Koper& C. Tattersall (Eds), Learning design. A Handbook on modelling and delivering networked education and training (pp. 3–19). Berlin: Springer
  18. McGreal, R. (2004). Learning objects: A practical definition. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 9(1). Retrieved November 21, 2007, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_04/article02.htm
  19. Padrón, C.L., Diaz, P., & Aedo, I. (2007). Towards an effective evaluation framework for IMS LD based didactic materials: Criteria and measures. Proceedings of International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, 312-321.
  20. Paquette, G. (2004). Instructional engineering in networked environments. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
  21. Prieto-Diaz, R. (1990). Domain analysis: An introduction. Software Engineering Notes, 15(2), 47-54.
  22. Sicilia, M.A., & Garcia, E. (2003). On the concepts of usability and reusability of learning objects. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved November 21, 2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/155/702 Sicilia, M.A. (2004). Reusability and reuse of learning objects: Myths, realities and possibilities. Proceedings of the First Pluri-Disciplinary Symposium on Design, Evaluation and Description of Reusable Learning Contents. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-117/paper38.pdf
  23. Tennyson, R.D. (1995). Instructional system development: The fourth generation. In R.D. Tennyson& A.E. Barron (Eds.), Automating instructional design: Computer-based development and delivery tools (pp. 33-78). New York: Springer Verlag.
  24. Wiedenbeck, S., Ramalingam, V., Sarasamma, S., & Corritore, C.L. (1999). A comparison of the comprehension of object-oriented and procedural programs by novice programmers. Interacting with Computers, 11, 255-282
  25. Wiegers, K.E. (2003). Software requirements: Practical techniques for gathering and managing requirements throughout the product development cycle. Redmond: Microsoft Press Biographies

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Links