Computer Science Assignment - E-Learning Multimedia
AmazingExpert
q-_glomaker.pdf
MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMPUTING, MATHEMATICS & Digital Technology
ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET _________________________________________________________ COURSE: BSc (Hons) Multimedia Computing, BSc (Hons) Multimedia & Web Computing, BSc (Hons) Computing, BSc (Hons) Computer Science, BSc (Hons) Web & Mobile Computing, BSc (Hons) Software Engineering UNIT: 6G6Z2001: e-Learning Multimedia LECTURERS: Dr Peter McKenna, Dr Bob Cherry ASSIGNMENT NUMBER: 1 [1CWK50] TYPE:(GROUP/INDIVIDUAL) ISSUE DATE: 8 October 2013. HAND-IN: by 20 December 2013 via moodle. _________________________________________________________ It is your responsibility to ensure that your work is complete, functioning, and available for assessment by the given date. You are advised to check your work after upload, and to make at least one full backup copy. _________________________________________________________ PROCEDURE FOR HANDING IN WORK: Work will be submitted electronically via Moodle. You are responsible for ensuring the submission is fully readable and functional. PENALTIES FOR LATE HAND-IN: see Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes of Study. The timeliness of submissions will be strictly monitored. EXCEPTIONAL FACTORS AFFECTING YOUR PERFORMANCE: see Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes of Study PLAGIARISM: Plagiarism is the unacknowledged representation of another person’s work, or use of their ideas, as one’s own. MMU takes care to detect plagiarism, employs plagiarism detection software, and imposes severe penalties, as outlined in the Student Handbook (www.mmu.ac.uk/studenthandbook/) and Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes (www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/regulations/assessment.php). If in doubt, seek advice from your tutor. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA: these are indicated in the attached assignment specification and mark grid. This Assessment 1CWK50 assesses the four Learning Outcomes specified in the Unit Document. Where appropriate, coursework assessment may be augmented by means of a viva voce examination at the unit tutors’ discretion. WEIGHTING: 1CWK50 is worth 50% of the total assessment for this unit. The remaining 50% is allocated to 2CWK50.
FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING SCHOOL OF Computing, Mathematics and Digital Technology UNIT CODE: 6G6Z2001
UNIT TITLE: eLearning Multimedia
ASSESSMENT ID: 1CWK50
ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTION: e- Learning Software: Research and Development
WEIGHTING: 50%
Your brief is to specify and develop a Reusable Learning Object solution to a learning problem of your choice. Your assignment will consist of two key components: a) documentation (requirements, research, outline with justification) [40%]; and b) implementation (software product) [60%]. If your eLearning software specification and development is to be worthwhile, it must have a solid base in current academic research as well as learner requirements. This will require meticulous documentation. Implementation should be also based on proven design principles and on observance of current eLearning standards. You will choose the implementation tool, which may be high-‐level (this is not a technical assignment). It is recommended that you identify one suitable and specific learning goal within your own curriculum (e.g. Multimedia & Web Computing, Computer Science, Computing, Media Technology). If you prefer, you may choose a topic from any other area (check with your tutor), ideally with a business training or formal educational application. You could also choose to implement a scenario examined during the unit, one of the examples below, or a tutorial on how to use a particular eLearning tool. This will be a restricted and specific learning task – e.g. an interactive simulation demonstrating how the for loop works with arrays; a 360° VR object showing how a studio camera works; a user-‐controlled simulation of event flow in Javascript or Actionscript 3; a game to pick data types; a screencast with overlays teaching guitar chords; an interactive simulation of how a pump works; an interactive periodic table; a hypermedia poem; how to use twitter -‐ rather than the provision of a whole subject area or wide curriculum coverage. What your topic is, is not necessarily important, as long as you can provide convincing and evidence-‐based rationales and the topic lends itself to an active (doing) rather than a passive (reading) solution. Your eLearning design requirements will be crucial. The topic should be one that some learners have problems understanding using traditional learning and teaching methods– problems that your software will help solve. In addition to an interactive activity to facilitate learning, your
software solution should also include some means of testing the learner’s understanding (e.g. a quiz). The degree of challenge, and the time taken to develop and to use the learning software, should be commensurate with a 30-‐credit unit: you should expect to spend approximately six hours per week, from the second week of term to submission at the end of term, working directly on 1CWK50, and your submission should reflect this level of effort. Should you be doing an eLearning final year Project, any such topic must not overlap with your project. The choice of learning goal/topic, and the level at which it is pitched (e.g. beginner, KS3, GCSE, 1st year undergraduate) is important, as it will impact on the nature of the eLearning solution to be produced. Central to eLearning design and development is the concept of pedagogical effectiveness, added-‐value, and learner interface design, all based on research evidence. ‘Added-‐value’ may mean that your software adds value compared to equivalent traditional learning and teaching methods and content; or that it will be as good as equivalent traditional learning and teaching methods while saving on traditional costs. As part of 1CWK50, you will present a 90 second ‘elevator pitch’ in week 4’s lab session, outlining your proposed learning activity. The goal is to stimulate group discussion and constructive feedback that will enhance your final submission and grade, as well as obtain tutor approval for your proposal. Personal development of confidence and communication skills is a core employability goal, and we will explore these before you make your pitch. So that you can focus on enhancement, this presentation is not summatively graded, but it is required for 1CWK50. In the week 6 lab you should present a prototype for formative evaluation and constructive feedback. At this point you are looking for a proof of concept for your basic learning activity, as well as an outline of the interface. Ensure that you have read the full 1CWK50 specification, and have feedback on your ‘elevator pitch’, before starting your prototype. Outline of 1CWK50 Deliverables:
1. Specification + justification [2000 words] [weighting: 30%] This Report should include sections headed as follows:
a. Context and Requirements: summarise the context in which your software could be used (e.g. where/when/with whom; how it would blend with other teaching and learning activities; how it would integrate into specific virtual learning environments). Clearly specify the learning goal, the target learner, and any problem(s) the learner has with the goal. You should explain the nature of the thing to be learned and what can make it difficult for people to learn – e.g. is it hard to understand because it is abstract? Because it is unfamiliar? Because it involves multiple dynamic
steps? Because it is normally explained in a purely verbal manner? How is it currently taught and/or learned? Difficulties may also include logistical, motivational and social difficulties, and of course your own experience as a learner is a useful resource. You should then list four key design requirements (along the lines of those considered in the Case Studies, and/or based on research) and briefly indicate why you have chosen them.
b. Research evidence: what does current research suggest might work in meeting the requirements you have outlined and adding value over and above traditional methods? Reference findings from papers/books that are relevant to your requirements and may be used as evidence that your software will enhance learning. Connecting higher-‐level academic research to decisions and practicalities of learning design is crucial, and this should be based on independent reading and analysis of research, as well as personal initiative and reflection.
c. Outline Learning Activity and Justification: based on user requirements and research, summarise potential solutions distinctive to eLearning, and outline the learning activity that you will develop. Summarise the rationale for your software learning activity based on the previous sections. The rationale should apply research evidence concerning what works and does not work in terms of multimedia eLearning. While your rationale will have informed your design, you are also commenting on the final product. Indicate how and why your software will motivate the learner. You should also outline an alternative solution that you could implement given an ideal situation and different resources.
Your in-‐class ‘elevator pitch’ and prototype will be based on the above.
2. Tools Review [weighting: 10%]. It is important that you are not only familiar with the range of eLearning development tools available out there, but also able to reflect critically and intelligently on their capabilities. You are therefore required to investigate what is ‘out there’ and critically review in more detail four possible tools (including one commercial tool) that could be used for your specific development, concluding with a justification of the tool(s) you finally select. The tools you choose to review should be relevant to your proposed software development, and your justification should include a mapping between the tool’s capabilities and your requirements as outlined in your specification. Which tools you review and select is up to you; but you should try to produce a realistic and useful overview of some important and current tools in
eLearning. Commercial tools should be included as well as freeware, and it is recognized that you are likely to be constrained in practice to actually using free tools. Some possible tools are listed and linked on Moodle. Apple’s iBooks developer, which produces output for iOS, is installed in the Mac labs and recommended for University-‐based work. Some screencasts made by previous students to introduce some of the freeware tools will also be available via moodle. Your Tools Overview should focus on capabilities that are relevant to your requirements. You may also wish to comment on any aspect of a tool that might constrain or have a bearing on your pedagogy. It should be concise (<=1000 words) and written in your own words: it should not include any copy-‐and-‐paste from web reviews. You should aim to have this review completed early (by week 5) and get feedback on it during lab sessions.
All your documentation should be submitted in a single document file, separate from your software product runtime.
3. Software Development [60%] Submit your product runtime. This is not a technical assignment as such: the tool(s) you use are up to you, and it is the runtime, suitably packaged as a Learning Object, and justified in terms of the research, that will be assessed. Possible tools include, but are not limited to, iBooks Author, Flash, GloMaker, Java, 3D Studio Max, Quicktime Pro, Captivate, Camtasia, Xerte, Microsoft Learning Development System, Udutu, eXe, MLOAT. You are welcome to find and use your own tools, and this should be identified in the Tools Overview.
It is required that the product be packaged as a Reusable Learning Object, using a standard such as SCORM or IMS CP. The deliverable will be a zip file that contains the metadata, manifest, and other files appropriate to the standard. Keep a copy of your RLO after submission, as you will need to import it into your moodle installation in Term 2.
How will my work be marked? See the marking grid attached. Note that the full range of marks will be used as appropriate. How long will it take me? You should expect to spend a total of 70-‐75 hours working directly on 1CWK50 -‐ just over 6 hours per week across ~11 weeks. Learning time is of course also needed – time taken on research, brainstorming, and familiarizing yourself with tools and techniques. You need to work on 1CWK50 from the start of the academic year, and make full use of the formative assessment opportunities provided. NAME OF STAFF SETTING ASSIGNMENT: Peter McKenna
DOCUMENT UPDATED:
