1、本科畢業設計(論文)外文翻譯譯文：目標導向型的創作方法和設計學習系統一引言自20世紀初，教學設計領域的研究人員便關注了結合數字技術的學習環境的過程建模。其目的是為了創設一個學習情境，以描述涉及多個角色（學生、教師、導師、設計者等）的學習情境的組織和計劃。在國際水平，各種教育建模語言計劃都以IMS-LD或LDL的形式實行。教育建模語言的主要挑戰是提出一個能夠表達學習情境的最廣泛領域并在學習管理系統領域許可自動生效的中立并共享形式主義。一個教育建模語言允許通過對學習目標、職工角色、學習過程中的學習者、執行的活動以及學習情境必須的環境和資源之間的關系的定義。正如IMS-LD作者自己也注意到的，一個主

2、要以表達性和互通性為目標的教育建模語言并不是給使用者直接操縱的。為了讓設計者表達他們基于他們自己的商業導向語言和共享練習的要求并低價提高他們自己的情境，具體制作系統是必需的。這個規劃主要有兩個相連的目標：首先是提供一個可以翻譯成教育建模語言的“可計算”描述；其次是這個描述可以被共享常用詞匯、學科知識和教學訣竅的“領域專家”所理解。我們的制作方法是為了更好地重視學習情境設計者的要求和學習情境的“業務流程”維度，而這正是系統工程和軟件工程中許多工作的主題。我們已經特別關注了對某些工作的研究，這些工作涉及目標定向需求工程，其中正如羅蘭德和普拉卡什的MAP模型，目標誘導被認為是軟件系統規程的入口點。我

3、們的目的是提供制作工具，使得那些緊密聯系實踐的教師設計者能夠設計他們的情境來表達意圖和策略。二研究內容本研究由格勒諾布爾計算機實驗室和巴黎國家教學研究所合作完成，緊密聯系了我們想要實現的教師小組負責的詳細的實驗模型。這項工作引導我們研究當前共享方案的實踐。一些國際創制旨在提出方案數據庫，以支持教師之間的實踐共享和再使用。正如法國教育部長提議：這些教師設計者數據庫EduBase和PrimTice名單場景索引由不同主題的場域而定。他們的描述非常異構：從實踐的敘述結構到更加形式化。他們的多樣性要求我們對這些表述能力能夠被被別人理解和能在幾個實踐者之間共享。在描述這個研究之前，更精確的限定我們所關注的

4、特定類型的設計者是十分必要的。這些設計者正是被要求在學術方面-更確切的說是在法國中學教育體制（包括11至18歲的學生）中-集成數碼技術的教師。我們的“教師設計師”很好的掌握了教授領域的知識，或者可稱他們為這些領域的專家。他們通過一系列特殊的訓練來培養教學能力（如何保證為目標聽眾提供特定領域的知識？），獲取教師資格（如何組織規范有效的學習情景？）他們并未獲益于在計算機科學方面的深入培訓，但他們要掌握由國家認證機構規定的一系列基本技能。一般情況下，他們沒有負責實施的技術專家的協助。此外，他們必須配合工作時間，抽出一小段時間利用現有的模式，方法或工具來開發有效的學習解決方案。他們屬于由因特網促成的教

5、師實踐社團，這也為實踐者們彼此資源的共享提供了新的可能性。他們常被暗指為自己所設計的學習單元的演員，這一特殊性源于在運行階段決定的精確設計。 為了捕捉需求，我們要求由五個中學教師組成的試驗組來查找和分析網絡資源中可以作為“學習方案”的合格資源。他們的目標是能夠再次使用和整合他們自身的領域（包括歷史，經濟科學，德語，英語，技術）。第一個給定的任務是分析搜索策略，各個網站根據自身設計目標，提供并評估所獲得的結果的相關性。第二項任務是制定一整套綜合性建議來改善設計程序。一整套的常規結論與建議已經形成，并且可以觀察每個學科的一些具體問題。首先，有一個強烈的異質性術語，是關于各個主題間和單一主題下的情景

6、方案。這些條款（情景，相位，活動，會議，娛樂，行為，能力，技術訣竅，主題等）很少明確界定，而這也常常會使他人開發的情景撥款復雜化。這一事實強調更好定義概念的語料處理的重要性，推廣互助性的實際做法。第二，一些方案描述并不處理類似于學習知識或方案之類的概念。這種缺乏導致了很難在一個特定主題中找到相關方案，并確定設計人員的意圖，在大多數情況下，他們意于解決有關于學習某些特定的知識，或掌握某些特定問題的能力與技巧的問題。然后，對于一個給定的情況下，教學或教育方法的策略是不經常澄清的（例如，一個“講解式”方式的選擇或一種更多參與性方式的選擇，就像集體問題的解決）。 這種啟發性的缺乏常常意味著一個非常完美

7、精確的場景分析將從策略和做法中脫穎而出，這也可能成為一個重要的選擇標準。最后，教師提出通過提供典型策略，方案，或是各種細微情境的數據庫來簡化設計任務。上述的每個組成部分必須附上具體重復性實例予以說明。在以下部分我們將展示有助于覆蓋這些需求，并為我們的解決方法奠定基礎的理論背景。 三 概念結構的命題 我們所有的觀察研究并非將我們導向一個對EMLs模棱兩可的解決方案，而是一個為非計算機專家提供模式，方法和工具以維持設計和重復利用的完善的解決方案。這一課題的第二部分，在此處并未詳細闡述，主要為不同的EML提供以經濟為導向的模式的翻譯機制。3.1 理論背景我們的研究主要關注教師設計者的積極性。我們在當

8、前一系列有關積極性的理論著作的基礎上提出我們的方法。- -活動的組織，由俄羅斯心理學家，例如Leontiev 11提出，規定了不同等級的水平（活動，行動，操作）-賦予活動獨特的，刻意的，策略性及戰術性的各個方面。- -已被定位的活動的特點，是由Lave 和 Wenger 12研究提出的，他們堅定認為活動再怎樣的情境下進行至關重要。- -常規和計劃的重要性成了特殊情境下的周期性問題提供典型的解決方案的代表。這些特點已經由Schank 和 Abelson在教學活動的情境下專門研究過13。 正如前文所提及的那樣，我們也十分關注近來關于的商務程序工程學和目標定向的需要工程學的著作，并在學習遠景方案設計

9、的特殊情境下為它們提供實例。 例如，在MAP 模式中 8，一般認為目標和意圖的概念是一樣的。MAP模式一般被描述為：“地圖是從目標驅動的角度來表達的程序模型。它為我們提供建立在非確定順序的目標和策略基礎上的程序代表體系。地圖是以標簽為導向的圖畫，以目標為結點，以策略為結點間的棱。”“策略是一種為實現目標而使用的途徑與方式。” 在我們實驗性的情境之下，我們使教師設計者們正視這些意圖與策略的概念。將這些概念與他們的常規應用聯系起來，他們便能夠精確的定義兩個不同層面的闡述：首先在教學層面解決特殊領域知識的問題，其次在教學法的層面解決組織學習情形的問題。在各個層面，他們都能準確界定目的與策略。在這種背

10、景下，在經過一個時長兩年與教師設計者緊密相連的課題研究后，我們逐漸詳細制定了一個以商業為導向的ISiS（意圖，策略，相互作用的環境）模式。對不同的著作中提出的在學習設計方面的方案5, 6進行評估后，我們選擇了在ISiS模式的基礎上發展繪畫環境的ScenEdit14。33.2 在學習遠景語境下的目標與策略以協力完成的學習遠景調查為基礎，我們用一個例子來闡明我們的模式。學習遠景研究致力于“一個電燈泡的功率”在中學電學領域的概念。在這一方案中，教師首先的教學意圖要打破電學專業學生頻繁出現的誤解-“接近電池會對電流的強度產生影響”。圖表2提供了一個ISiS模式的梗概圖，建議建構一個描述組織方案的設計，

11、規劃對學習單元的執行步驟： -目標方面允許描述設計者的意圖。在我們的領域內，意圖與定義目標指示條目（概念，觀點，技能，技巧，能力，構想，誤解等）的知識語境密切相關。對于設計者來說，意圖可以用以增強在電學方面的特殊技能，也利于對一些觀念的發掘，和對常見的錯誤觀念的打破等。- -策略方面與策略的特點有關。為了實現在前一水平構思的目標，設計者將選擇他認為最合適的策略。其中有兩種特別需要注意的策略：先后順序策略以組織安排邏輯順序（例如一個科學調查策略能被制作為一系列的四個階段的模型），分配策略為特定的案例策劃不同的解決方案（例如一個要考慮三種可能的掌握水平的區分策略）。策略與策略之間能被連續的改良所結

12、合：例如一個先后順序的策略可以使一個分配策略的個案更加精確。- -相互作用的環境方面描述了策略的水平，例如，為實行所構想的目標與策略而提出的解決方案。我們認為，對于一個新的問題，教師設計者并非從一個新的特別的方案的片段中重建。就像有關教學活動13計劃與常規的著作所強調的那樣，在已經掌握的解決方案庫的基礎上，因一些特殊事件的觸發，教師對教學活動進行計劃與調整。同樣的，我們假設一個方案設計者從他的能力儲備庫中選擇了適用于他的目標與策略的情景。每個成分，一個相互作用的情景，是根據他們相互作用的語境，由一系列特殊角色，工具，資源相互合作的集合組成的。這些情景因著一系列變量，例如能夠被熟練的控制以支持活

13、動的資源（文件，工具，服務）；能夠舉行活動的地理位置；活動中必須預定的計劃元素或學習者數量；能分配的角色。比如說，為了使以協作的方式解答經營成果階段以及對遠程學習者提供的方案更加精確，設計者可以選擇一個被稱為“經過辯論后達成共識的論壇”的典型情況。在另一種情況下，比如在課堂中遇到困難的學生，他可以選擇一個更加獨立的情況，就如在不同可能的建議中，通過使用MCO工具選擇一個解決方案。- -在操作方面，允許精確地描述各個情形的細節，例如每個相互作用的情形的組織和進程。如今，EMLs 根本上關注的是通過運用所提供的語言對不同的參與者，活動以及資源之間的關系的組織來描述操作。 ISiS 模式建議詳述上述

14、的幾個普遍未被當前的方法與工具精確定義的方面（目標，策略，相互作用）3.3 對ISiS模式的貫徹：朝靈活的延續的設計程序ISiS結構并非一個適當的方法，也不建議以特殊的順序把設計步驟結合起來。ISiS 是建立在“方案的各個方面必須被引出和鏈接來制定更便易的設計、分享和重復使用”的假說之上的。在我們的實驗中，我們分析了由教師設計者主導的任務10。許多設計程序可能被展示在我們與教師設計者主導的不同的研究中。有些老師可能會通過分等級的定義他們的目標、策略和情景等等來選擇自上而下的方法，然而其他人則更喜歡選擇自下而上從他們想結合的資源和模式中重建一個方案。然后，我們的假設之一是學習方案不可能被制作成一

15、個流線程序的模式而不顯著地減少設計者的創造性。根據設計者的類型，根據精確的實踐社團的應用，各種目標和方法都已被大家分享。所以，資源，教學方法，典型的情形能夠建構一個能連接設計步驟的入口點（例如典型的相互作用情形），設計者們可能二選一或遞歸地實行設計任務。從這一原理出發，ISiS通過不同種類的工具被連續貫徹（圖標設計者或思維構圖軟件）。第一步，我們有精心制作的論文格式，來表達設計的不同方面（知識語境，情景語境，目標，策略相互作用情景，活動等）。我們還采用思維構圖軟件，其中各個節點能描述一個概念（例如策略，階段，相互作用的情景）而且能通過特殊的電子格式編輯。四 結束語 在本文中,我們提出過的概述,

16、“伊希斯模型為主的商業過程”,其目的是為了協助教師學習的設計方案和共享和重用青睞的做法。該模型,利用面板co-elaborated的使用者,似乎是有效的,根據第一次實驗。我們實際的首要任務是要試驗了專用的創作環境,我們已經開發出從我們的概念模型,血氣。這個實驗的目的是本質上的視覺呈現,以驗證我們提出的一個場景,來提高系統的以圖案或組件允許新的有效實踐的分享與再利用。原文： Goal-Oriented Authoring Approach and Design ofLearning Systems1 Introduction Since the beginning of 2000s, a set

17、 of researches in the field of Learning Design 1 concerns process modelling of learning situations integrating digital technologies. The purpose is to produce a “learning scenario” describing organization and sched- ule of learning situations implying various actors (student, teacher, tutor, designe

18、r, etc.). At international level, various proposals of Educational Modeling Languages (EMLs) have been carried out as IMS-LD 2 or LDL 3. The main challenge of EMLs is to propose a neutral and shared formalism, able to express the widest range of learning situations and to be implemented more or less

19、 automatically towards specific Informations Systems (called Learning Management Systems). An EML allows the definition of relationships between learning goals, roles of staff and learners in the learning process, performed activities, environment and resources necessary to the learning situation. A

20、s noticed by IMS-LD authors themselves 4, an EML, which mainly aims expressiveness and interoperability, is not intended to be directly manipulated by human users. Specific authoring systems 5 must be provided 6 in order to allow designers to express their requirements based on theirown business-ori

21、ented languages and shared practices, and to develop at a lower cost their own scenarios. This formulation aims two combined goals: to provide a “computable” description able to be translated in an EML and to be understood by “domain specialists” sharing common vocabulary, disciplinary knowledge and

22、 pedagogical know-how. Our authoring approach 5 aims to better take into account learning scenario designers requirements and “business process” dimensions of learning scenario design which are subjects of many works in Systems Engineering and Software Engineering. We have particularly focus our res

23、earches on works concerning Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering 7 where elicitation of goals is considered as an entry point of the specification of software systems as in Rol- land and Prakash MAP model 8. Our purpose is to provide authoring tools allow- ing teachers-designers belonging to close

24、 communities of practice to design their scenarios expressing intentions and adopted strategies.This paper is organized in 4 sections following this introduction. In section 2, we describe more precisely our context, our goals and the specificity of our typical audi- ence. Section 3 describes, with

25、an example of scenario, our conceptual framework: ISiS model (Intentions-Strategies-Interactional situations) we propose to structure the design of learning scenarios. Before concluding, section 4 proposes a short compari- son between ISiS and MAP model.2 Context of Research This research, made in c

26、ollaboration between Laboratoire Informatique de Grenoble and Institut National de Recherche Pedagogique, closely associates panels of teachers in charge to co-elaborate and experiment models we want to implement. This work led us to study existing practices of sharing scenarios. Some international

27、initiatives aim to propose scenarios databases in order to favour sharing and reuse practices between teachers, such as IDLD 9. These databases for teachers-designers, as the one proposed by french minister of education: EduBase and PrimTice list scenarios indexed with different fields depending on

28、the domain or subject. Their descriptions are very heterogeneous: from practice narrations to more structured formalizations. Their diversity has led us to ask ourselves on the ability of these representations to be understood and shared between several practitioners. Before describing this research

29、, it is necessary to qualify more precisely the spe- cific type of designers we focus on: teachers who are called to integrate digital tech- nologies in academic context, more precisely in the French secondary educational system (pupils from 11 to 18 years). Our teacher-designers have a good knowled

30、ge of the domain to be taught and can be considered in a certain way as domain-specialists. They have followed a specific training to master didactical competencies (how insure appropriation of domain-specific knowledge for targeted audiences?) and pedagogical competencies (how to organize or regula

31、te efficient learning situations?). They do not benefit of a deep training in computer science; however, they are supposed to master a certain range of basic competencies defined by a national certification. They are generally not assisted by technical specialists in charge of implementation. They h

32、ave to use existing models, methods or tools in order to develop effective learning solu- tions, generally in a short time compatible with their job. They may belong to a teach- ers community of practice, whose emergence is made easier by Internet, and which allows new possibilities of sharing and r

33、euse between practionners. They are fre- quently implied as actors of the learning unit they design; this particularity may have consequences on the precision of the design where decisions can be carried out at the runtime phase.In order to capture needs, we asked 10 a pilot group of five teachers i

34、n secondary school to find and analyse web resources that can be qualified as “learning scenarios”. Their goal was to be able to reuse and integrate them in their own domains (history, economical sciences, German, English, technology). The first given task was to ana- lyse search strategies that the

35、 various sites provided and to evaluate the relevance of the obtained results considering their own design goals. The second task was to make a synthesis and a set of suggestions which could allow to improve the design process. A set of common findings and proposals have been formulated whereas it i

36、s possible to observe some specific concerns for each subject. Firstly, there is a very strong heterogeneity of terminology concerning scenarios between subjects and within a single subject. The terms (scenario, phase, activity, session, play, act, competence, know-how, theme, etc.) are rarely clear

37、ly defined and this often complexify the ap- propriation of scenarios developed by others. This fact underlines the importance to dispose of a corpus of better defined concepts to generalize real practices of mutuali- zation. Secondly, some scenario descriptions do not deal with domain concepts such

38、 as studied knowledge or programs. This lack makes it difficult to find relevant scenar- ios in a specific subject, and to identify the designers intentions which aim most frequently to solve issues related to learn some particular knowledge or acquire some particular competence or know-how. Then, f

39、or a given scenario, the pedagogical or didactical strategy is not often clarified (for example, the choice of an “expositive” approach or the choice of a more participative approach like collective problem solv- ing). This lack of elicitation frequently implies a very precise analysis of the scenar

40、io to stand out the strategy or approach which could be an important criterion of choice. Finally, teachers suggest that the design task could be facilitated by providing librar- ies of typical strategies, scenarios, or situations of various granularities. Each of these components should be illustra

41、ted by concrete reproducible examples.We present in the following section the theoretical background which can help tocover these needs and on which we base our approach.3 Proposition of a Conceptual Framework All these observations lead us, not to propose an alternative solution to EMLs, but to com

42、plete them by offering models, methods and tools to sustain design and reuse by non-computer specialists. A second part of the project, not detailed here, consists in providing mechanisms to translate business-oriented models towards different EML.3.1 Theoretical Background Our research concerns the

43、 teacher-designer activity and we base our approach on a set of complementary theoretical works concerning theory of activity: organization of activity, proposed by Russian psychologists such as Leontiev 11, defines hierarchical levels (activity, action, operation) which allow distinguishing intenti

44、onal, strategic and tactical dimensions in the activity; situated character of the activity, studied by Lave and Wenger 12 insists on the importance of the context in which activities take place. importance of routines or schemas, that represents typical solutions given to recur- rent problems in sp

45、ecific contexts. Those features have been particularly studied by Schank and Abelson in the context of teaching activity 13.As previously said, we also take into account the recent works concerning Business Process Engineering and Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering and instantiate them in the pa

46、rticular context of learning scenario design.For example, in MAP Model 8, concepts of goal and intention are considered as equivalent. MAP Model is described in these terms: “A map is a process model ex- pressed in a goal driven perspective. It provides a process representation system based on a non

47、-deterministic ordering of goals and strategies. A map is represented as a labeled directed graph with goals as nodes and strategies as edges between goals.” “A Strategy is an approach, a manner to achieve a goal”.In our experimental context, we have confronted teachers-designers with those concepts

48、 of intentions and strategies. By linking them to their regular uses, they were able to define two different articulated levels: a first didactical level dealing with domain specific knowledge and a second pedagogical level dealing with organizing learning situations. For each level, they were able

49、to define intentions and strategies.From this background, we have progressively co-elaborated a “business-oriented” model ISiS (Intentions, Strategies, interactional Situations) after a two-year project tightly associating teachers-designers. After evaluation of different authoring solu- tions in le

50、arning design 5, 6, we have chosen to develop a graphical environment ScenEdit 14 based upon ISiS model.3.2 Intentions and Strategy in the Context of Learning Scenarios We illustrate our model with an example based on a collaborative learning scenario, LearnElec Scenario dedicated to the concept of

51、“power of a light bulb” in electricity domain at secondary school. In this scenario, the teachers first didactical intention is “to destabilize” a frequently encountered “misconception” of students in electricity which is that “proximity of the battery has an influence on current intensity”.After ha

52、ving elicited his intention, the teacher-designer may choose the appropriate strategy he wants to use to reach this goal. In our example, the didactical intention is implemented with a specific didactical strategy called “scientific investigation strat- egy” composed of four phases: hypothesis elabo

53、ration, solution elaboration, hypothe- sis testing and conclusion as you can see on figure 1.Each phase can be performed through various pedagogical modes and can be re- fined by another intention according to the type of activity, the availability of com- puter services, etc. In our example, the fi

54、rst didactical phase “hypothesis elaboration” is refined by a pedagogical intention called “increase the ability to work in a collabo- rative way”. This intention is implemented with a strategy called “elaborating a pro- posal by making a consensus” composed of two phases: “Make an individual propos

55、al” and “Confront proposals. Obtain a consensus”. For each phase, an interac- tional situation can be defined: “Individual proposal on a wiki” and “Argued debate on a forum with consensus”. During these two phases the teacher has an activity of “Group management” symbolized by an interactional situa

56、tion called “Group management”.In the following section, we present more formally ISiS conceptual model.3.3 Implementation of ISiS Model: Towards Flexible and Continued DesignProcesses ISiS framework is not properly a method and does not propose a specific order to combine design steps. ISiS is base

57、d on the hypothesis that all dimensions of a sce- nario (intentions, strategies, situations, activities, resources) must be elicited and interlinked in order to make easier design, appropriation, sharing and reuse. In our experimentations, we have analyzed the tasks led by teachers-designers 10. Several design processes may be considered as shown by different studies we have led with teachers-designers. Some teachers may choose a top-down approach by hierarchically defining their intentions