MODELI: An Emotion-Based Software Engineering Methodology for the Development of Digital Learning Objects for the Preservation of the Mixtec Language
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Negative attitudes from members of the indigenous communities towards their own language [7]: Members who migrate to urban areas feel ashamed of their language and, within the process of social integration in the new environment, try to forget their language to succeed. They are afraid of being stigmatized and rejected if they speak their mother language;
- For the Mixtec language, there are many variants (more than 32). This situation makes the appropriate documentation of each variant and the development of learning resources for preservation difficult [8]. While people can speak the language, there is no documentation about its phonology, spelling/writing and grammar rules;
- The indigenous languages are excluded from institutional and public spaces, and their presence in the media (i.e., radio and TV) is practically nil [7];
- Some communities are geographically isolated, and there are no technological resources for communication;
- Many of the indigenous communities have their customary laws that are legally known as Usos y Costumbres (customs and traditions) [9]. Thus, any attempt to join these communities for any purpose (i.e., linguistic studies, rural development, health services) must be performed according to their customary laws. This represents a limitation for the development of fieldwork for research and data gathering required for documentation and other supporting activities.
- What type of ICT tool can be more suitable for preservation of a cultural element? In this case, the element of the indigenous language is considered.
- What is the most suitable methodology to build or design this ICT tool?
- Is there any human element that can be integrated into the tool’s developing processes to improve the value of identity?
- How can the suitability of the ICT tool be measured?
2. Background
2.1. Digital Learning Objects
- learning is a constructive process that requires activation of certain prior knowledge;
- the learning process should lead to the creation of imbalance that allows the student to construct new knowledge.
- Interoperability: The object must be labeled and cataloged with descriptive information (metadata) to facilitate its storage and later retrieval;
- Reusability: The object must be able to be used in different educational contexts. The separation of the object and context represents the first step for reusability. The simplest way to achieve reusability is the segmentation of the educational content into smaller, mutually-independent LOs;
- Portability: The object must be able to be used on platforms from different manufacturers;
- Durability: Changes in technologies must not affect the design of the object. The DLO must be scalable to extend its useful life;
- Ubiquitousity: The DLO must be able to be accessed from any platform. It must be available for any user who needs information or educational content without the need to know its source or physical location.
2.1.1. Pedagogical Aspect
2.1.2. Development Approaches
- A general description of the approach presented by the related work. Some works present general approaches, while others present specific characteristics that must be considered while designing a DLO for a particular context;
- The set of formal tools (principles, methods, software) considered to define the approach and/or characteristics presented by the related work;
- The DLO developed with the approach presented by the related work.
- Learning objectives: educational goals that must be reached after using the LO;
- Competencies/skills: abilities, attitudes and values acquired after interacting with the LO;
- Requisites: knowledge or competencies that the learner should have acquired prior to being able to take advantage of the LO;
- Content: digital resources that make up the LO;
- Practice: tasks that the learner must perform while interacting with the LO;
- Evaluation: mechanisms designed to measure the knowledge acquired after interacting with the LO;
- Metadata: predefined identifiers that facilitate the storage, organization and searching of the LO.
2.2. Emotional Factor within the Learning Process
2.2.1. Definition of Emotion
2.2.2. Emotion as Learning Contributor
2.3. The Municipality of Santos Reyes Yucuna
2.3.1. Governance
- Guelaguetza: This represents solidarity and cooperation that are granted in special situations between members of the population, such as weddings, births, funerals and other social events of the community;
- Tequio: Activities of community work. Tequio is a mandatory participation and implies social solidarity (i.e., it is extensive to all of the neighborhood people without exception). It is organized and arranged by the municipal authority that exercises a strict control on assistance from neighbors. It is unpaid work for community improvement. Figure 1 presents some examples of Tequio activities related to building a house: men are in charge of the construction work, while women handle the preparation of food for all of the people;
- Land tenure: Land is communal, and it is distributed to each family living in the community. The land assigned to each family is intended to build a house, perform seasonal agriculture and to keep farm animals (mainly goats);
- Traditional medicine: The knowledge of traditional medicine based on medicinal plants is transmitted verbally from the older to the younger members (including children);
- Religion: Organization of the celebration of the patron saint of the community through the exercise of the Catholic religion.
2.3.2. An Unknown Mixtec Variant
3. Development of MODELI
- Communication: The aim of this stage is to establish the means to accomplish effective communication between the developer (software engineer) and the user. This stage leads to obtaining the software requirements, defining the user profile, performing initial prototyping and proposing a development plan;
- Planning: In this stage, the required resources, project alternatives, timelines and other project-related information are envisioned. Risk analysis is performed to assess both technical and management risks;
- Modeling: This is the analysis and design of the elements of the software. In this stage, there is continuous communication between the developer and the user. Engineering tasks are performed to build one or more representations of the software;
- Development: The overall design, programming and testing of the software are performed at this stage;
- Implementation: In this stage, the software is tested with the user, and feedback is obtained to improve the design of the software.
- The user (person): To integrate the emotional factor within the SE process, it is necessary to determine the appropriate means to identify it and analyze it. For this purpose, Kansei engineering (KE) [70] was used to identify words with emotional “value” to develop the interface and operability of the DLO;
- The description of the elements that participate in the learning process (context): The pedagogical element is addressed by identifying the learning profile of the user (learning style), which is important to design the competencies and teaching-learning strategies for the DLO. For this purpose, Neil D. Fleming’s VARK model [71–74] was considered;
- The coordination of these elements to generate the interactions to acquire the required knowledge (cognitive task): The requirements analysis and usability SE stages for the DLO are performed with the person and context elements.
3.1. Communication
3.1.1. Analysis of the User (Person) and the Community
3.1.2. Analysis of Learning Strategies
- Specific: a set of abilities and skills linked to a degree or vocational training (i.e., discipline, professional and academic skills, language knowledge, project management);
- Generic: a set of abilities and skills necessary for employment and life as a citizen; these abilities are not linked to a particular degree or vocational training (i.e., communication and abstraction skills, critical reasoning, ethics, creativity, collaborative work).
- Visual (V): This mode describes a preference for the use of maps, diagrams, graphics, labels, hierarchies and other forms of graphical representations for written concepts;
- Auditory or aural (A): This mode describes a preference for information presented through the sense of hearing. The consideration of this mode allows the students to learn through lectures, tutorials, tapes, discussion groups, classroom lectures and web-based chats;
- Read/write (R): This preference involves reading and writing of texts. Often, people who prefer this mode use slide show presentation programs (i.e., MS PowerPoint), the Internet, lists, faxes, dictionaries, quotations and words;
- Kinesthetic (K): This preference relates to the use of experience and practice (simulated or actual). It includes demonstrations, simulations, videos and movies from the “real” stuff, as well as case studies and practical applications.
3.1.3. Project Planning
3.2. Modeling
- What is the content of the organizational structure of the DLO?
- What strategy should be followed for the learning process?
- What are the activities that the user should follow?
- What level of aggregation and structural granularity must the DLO have?
- Functional design: This sub-phase identifies, analyzes and evaluates the Mixtec language considering the user profile and skills to acquire. The functional design is related to aspects of accessibility, navigation and usability-focused user training. The accessibility features provided by the standards of the web accessibility initiative (WAI) of the W3C agency (World Wide Web Consortium) are considered [83]. Likewise, the accessibility standards of the ICT UNE 139803:2012 norm for web content are considered [84,85];
- Instructional design: In this sub-phase, the systematic-pedagogical processes are applied to create an instructional environment with clear and effective resources to achieve the objectives and goals of the learning object;
- Affective and emotional design: This sub-phase is focused on describing the appearance of the DLO from the emotional and cultural perspectives that complement the cultural symbols and technical aspects of the learning object. This involves setting a screen template and establishing the “theme” or “image” of the DLO from the perspective of graphic design;
- Interface design: In this sub-phase, the structure and organization of the user interface of the DLO are described. The interface design involves designing a template for the interface and designing the script for the activities to be performed with the DLO.
3.2.1. Functional and Instructional Design
- Its purpose is to facilitate user learning;
- It is independent of other objects, because it has a meaning by itself;
- It supports a modular integration of growing hierarchy: it can be integrated with other objects to form a more complex object.
3.2.2. Affective and Emotional Design
- denotative, which refers to the meaning found in dictionaries; and
- connotative, which refers to the personal perception of the concept/meaning.
- if a consumer wants or desires to eat, the motive or concept can be described as “food”;
- the feeling (Kansei) for that concept can be described as “tasty”;
- attributes as “spicy” or “sweet” are sensations (Kannou) related to the feeling of “tasty”
- the attributes are perceived by the “sense” (Kankaku) of taste;
- physical properties associated with each attribute can be identified.
- Collection and quantification of the user’s response in Kansei terms (psychological evaluation). This step was performed in two procedures:
- – Identification of emotional needs: This procedure was performed at the beginning of the project. Through the technique of “brainstorming” with the group of users (see Section 3.1), the subjective needs that should inspire the DLO were identified. The main needs were identified as “attraction”, “beautiful” and “identity”;
- – Validation of emotional content: This procedure was performed during the validation process of the DLO. Using the format ECOBA of aesthetic and functional design” [75] and Kansei engineering (see Table 12), the perception of the DLO was obtained to collect data to provide the subjective character to the interface in its terminal phase.
- Identify the design features for the product (i.e., the DLO) from the user’s perception: For this step, 30 children from the municipality of Santos Reyes Yucuna were surveyed to define the characteristics and cultural attributes for the design of the interface. These characteristics are presented in Table 13.
- Implementation of the tool considering the previous data: The tree structure presented in Figure 8 allows hierarchization of the attributes granted to the Kansei value (in this case “attractive”). Then, based on the analysis of the data obtained in the previous step, a “storyboard” is designed (see Section 3.3), creating the DLO prototype with the attributes that form the category detected by the user as a subjective factor. Similarly, the degree of significance of the Kansei value and the required attributes to build the DLO are presented in Figure 8 for “attractive”.
3.2.3. Interface Design
3.3. Development and Implementation
4. Results and Discussion: DLO Prototypes and Evaluations
4.1. Initial Prototype
4.2. Final Prototype
4.3. Evaluation and Pedagogical Usability
- For learning and accuracy of the content, the DLO was considered as “very good”;
- For aesthetic, functional and instructional design, as well as assurance of competencies, the DLO was considered as “good”.
5. Conclusions and Future Work
- Create a website with cultural aspects of the Mixtec people. This website can have support for an online learning platform based on DLOs and may also serve as a container of digital learning objects;
- Assign categories for elements, such as farm animals and birds, mammals, reptiles, etc., that generate a perception of context for other DLOs;
- Create a concordance between such elements and the emotions that these may generate;
- Generate other semantic axes for learning of the Mixtec language;
- Document and catalog the pronunciation and spelling/writing of the Mixtec language variant through other cultural sources, such as legends, stories, myths, etc., from the community under study;
- It was unexpected to have found that the population had mobile phones for communication and satellite television for entertainment. However, this provides a guideline to consider future work through the development of educational applications aimed at strengthening the Mixtec language through mobile devices;
- More in-depth studies are required regarding the elements that contribute to the influence of subjective values into the design of the interface under the scheme of Kansei engineering. The link between Kansei and design elements is the greatest challenge of the study.
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Woodbury, A. Selected resources on endangered languages. In Stabilizing Indigenous Languages; Cantoni, G., Ed.; Northern Arizona University: Flagstaff, AZ, USA, 1996; pp. 227–231. [Google Scholar]
- Rippberger, S. Indian Teachers and Bilingual Education in the Highlands of Chiapas. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Bonfil, G. Lo propio y lo ajeno: Una Aproximación al Problema del Control Cultural; Pensar Nuestra Cultura, Alianza Editorial: México, 1991; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, INEGI. Hablantes de lengua indígena en México. Available online: http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/poblacion/lindigena.aspx?tema=P accessed on 6 March 2015. In Spanish.
- Suslak, D. Ayapan Echoes: Linguistic Persistence and Loss in Tabasco, Mexico. Am. Anthropol. 2011, 113, 569–581. [Google Scholar]
- Moseley, C. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, 3rd ed; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Zamora, O.; Embriz, A. México: Lenguas Indígenas Nacionales en Riesgo de Desaparición, 1st ed; Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas: Distrito Federal, México, 2012; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Caballero, S. On the Development of Speech Resources for the Mixtec Language. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Recondo, D. Usos y Costumbres, Procesos Electorales y Autonomía Indígena en Oaxaca. In Costumbres, Leyes y Movimiento Indio en Oaxaca y Chiapas; Pasquel, L., Ed.; CIESAS: Distrito Federal, México, 2001; pp. 91–113, In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Medellin, S.; Huerta, E. La Promoción de las TIC para el Desarrollo en Pueblos Indígenas: Extensión o Comunicación. J. Community Inform. 2007, 3, 1–6, In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Clothey, R. ICT Indigenous Education: Emerging Challenges and Potential Solutions. In Indigenous Education; Jacob, W., Cheng, S., Porter, M., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 63–75. [Google Scholar]
- Esteva, C. Etnocidio y Desetnización: El caso del Perú. Indig. Bol. Semin. Esp. Estud. Indig. 1986, 7, 42–51, In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Laplante, P. What Every Engineer Should Know about Software Engineering; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Wiley, D. Connecting Learning Objects to Instructional Design Theory: A Definition, a Metaphor, and a Taxonomy. In The Instructional Use of Learning Objects, 1st ed; Wiley, D., Ed.; Association for Educational Communications and Technology: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2000; pp. 1–35. [Google Scholar]
- Allende-Hernández, O. La Cultura “Ñuu Savi” en el Diseño de Interfaz de Objetos Digitales de Aprendizaje como forma de Inclusión Social y Digital. Acad. J. 2012, 4, 3364–3369, In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Wiley, D. Evaluating Open Educational Resources, Proceedings of the Open Education Conference 09: Crossing the Chasm, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 2009.
- Piaget, J. To Understand Is to Invent: The Future of the Education; Penguin Books: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Von-Glasersfeld, E. Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching. Syntheses 1989, 80, 121–140. [Google Scholar]
- Von-Glasersfeld, E. Learning and adaptation in the theory of constructivism. Commun. Cogn. 1993, 26, 393–402. [Google Scholar]
- Rehak, D.; Mason, R. Keeping the Learning in Learning Objects. In Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to E-Learning; Littlejohn, A., Ed.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK; Sterling, VA, USA, 2003; pp. 20–34. [Google Scholar]
- Guenaga, M.; Mechaca, I.; Romero, S.; Eguíluz, A. A tool to evaluate the level of inclusion of digital learning objects. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2012, 14, 148–154. [Google Scholar]
- Novak, J. A Theory of Education: Meaningful Learning Underlies the Constructive Integration of Thinking, Feeling, and Acting Leading to Empowerment for Commitment and Responsibility. Mean. Learn. Rev. 2011, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Ausubel, D. The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Cognitive View, 1st ed; Springer-Verlag: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ontoria, A.; Gómez, J.; Molina, A. Potenciar la Capacidad de Aprender y Pensar; Narcea Ediciones: Madrid, España, 2000; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Fonseca, L.; Angelo, N.; Reis, M.; Dupas, G.; Ruiz, M.; Silvan, C. Impact of the use of a digital learning object in the teaching of clinical assessment of preterm infants: A comparative study. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 46, 1192–1197. [Google Scholar]
- Starostenko, O.; Perez-Lezama, C.; Alarcon-Aquino, V.; Sanchez, J. Formalization of learning objects for image-based language learning in mobile environments. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 116, 3905–3910. [Google Scholar]
- Kurilovas, E.; Serikoviene, S.; Vuorikari, R. Expert centred vs learner centred approach for evaluating quality and reusability of learning objects. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 30, 526–534. [Google Scholar]
- Milutinović, M.; Labus, A.; Stojiljković, V.; Bogdanović, Z.; Despotović-Zrakić, M. Designing a mobile language learning system based on lightweight learning objects. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2015, 74, 903–935. [Google Scholar]
- González, C.; Noda, A.; Bruno, A.; Moreno, L.; Muñoz, V. Learning subtraction and addition through digital boards: A Down syndrome case. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2015, 14, 29–44. [Google Scholar]
- Waiyakoon, S.; Khlaisang, J.; Koraneekij, P. Development of an instructional learning object design model for tablets using game-based learning with scaffolding to enhance mathematical concepts for mathematic learning disability students. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 174, 1489–1496. [Google Scholar]
- Gaeta, M.; Loia, V.; Mangione, G.; Orciuoli, F.; Ritrovato, P.; Salerno, S. A methodology and an authoring tool for creating Complex Learning Objects to support interactive storytelling. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 31, 620–637. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, C.-I.; Liu, D.; Lin, C. A digital tutor for learning fashion design. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2014, 1, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Pinhati, F.; Siqueira, S. Music students’ behavior on using learning objects closer to the domain characteristics and the social reality. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 30, 760–770. [Google Scholar]
- Barak, M.; Ziv, S. Wandering: A Web-based platform for the creation of location-based interactive learning objects. Comput. Educ. 2013, 62, 159–170. [Google Scholar]
- Sanchez, J.; Perez-Lezama, C.; Starostenko, O. A formal specification for the collaborative development of learning objects. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 182, 726–731. [Google Scholar]
- Herrera, J.; Gelvez, N.; Sánchez, J. Standardization Initiatives in the Production of Virtual Learning Objects. JISTEM 2014, 11, 677–716. [Google Scholar]
- Kurilovas, E.; Kubilinskiene, S.; Dagiene, V. Web 3.0—Based personalisation of learning objects in virtual learning environments. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 30, 654–662. [Google Scholar]
- Chikh, A. A general model of learning design objects. J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci. 2014, 26, 29–40. [Google Scholar]
- Andrade-Aréchiga, M.; López, G.; López-Morteo, G. Assessing effectiveness of learning units under the teaching unit model in an undergraduate mathematics course. Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 594–606. [Google Scholar]
- Scudelari, C.; Ribas, V. Accessibility guidelines for the development of Learning Objects. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 14, 155–162. [Google Scholar]
- Bouzeghoub, A.; Defude, B.; Lecocq, C.; Duitama, J. A Knowledge-Based Approach to Describe and Adapt Learning Objects. Int. J. E-Learn. 2006, 5, 95–102. [Google Scholar]
- Hernández, N.; Mothe, J.; Ralalason, B.; Ramamonjisoa, B.; Stolf, P. A Model to Represent the Facets of Learning Objects. Interdiscip. J. E-Learn. Learn. Objects 2008, 4, 65–82. [Google Scholar]
- Knight, C.; Gasević, D.; Richards, G. An ontology-based framework for bridging learning design and learning content. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2006, 9, 23–37. [Google Scholar]
- Bisol, C.; Valentini, C.; Rech-Braun, K. Teacher education for inclusion: Can a virtual learning object help. Comput. Educ. 2015, 85, 203–210. [Google Scholar]
- Zapata, A.; Menéndez, V.; Prieto, M.; Romero, C. Evaluation and selection of group recommendation strategies for collaborative searching of learning objects. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2015, 76, 22–39. [Google Scholar]
- Dharshini, A.; Chandrakumarmangalam, S.; Arthi, G. Ant colony optimization for competency based learning objects sequencing in e-learning. Appl. Math. Comput. 2015, 263, 332–341. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, C.-H.; Tzeng, Y.-L.; Huang, Y. Understanding the relationship between physiological signals and digital game-based learning outcome. J. Comput. Educ. 2014, 1, 81–97. [Google Scholar]
- Cechinel, C.; Sicilia, M.; Sánchez-Alonso, S.; García-Barriocanal, E. Evaluating collaborative filtering recommendations inside large learning object repositories. Inf. Process. Manag. 2013, 49, 34–50. [Google Scholar]
- Zapata, A.; Menéndez, V.; Prieto, M.; Romero, C. A framework for recommendation in learning object repositories: An example of application in civil engineering. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2013, 56, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, P.; Miranda, T.; Olaciregui, C. Pocket School: Exploring mobile technology as a sustainable literacy education option for underserved indigenous children in Latin America. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2008, 28, 435–445. [Google Scholar]
- Picard, R. Affective Computing for HCI, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction: Ergonomics and User Interfaces, Munich, Germany, 22–26 August 1999; I, pp. 829–833.
- Casassus, J. La Educación del Ser Emocional; Cuarto Propio: Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2007; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Denton, D. The Primordial Emotions: The Dawning of Consciousness; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Ekman, P. An argument for basic emotions. Cogn. Emotion 1992, 6, 169–200. [Google Scholar]
- Fox, E. Emotion Science: An Integration of Cognitive and Neuroscientific Approaches; Palgrave MacMillan: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Bisquerra, R. Educación Emocional y Bienestar; Praxis: Barcelona, España,, 2000; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Ekman, P.; Hager, J.; Oster, H. Emotion in the Human Face; Malor Books: Los Altos, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Heidig, S.; Müller, J.; Reichelt, M. Emotional design in multimedia learning: Differentiation on relevant design features and their effects on emotions and learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 44, 81–95. [Google Scholar]
- Pekrun, R.; Götz, T.; Frenzel, A.; Barchfeld, P.; Perry, R. Measuring emotions in student’s learning and performance: The achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ). Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 36, 36–48. [Google Scholar]
- Marchand, G.; Gutierrez, A. The role of emotion in the learning process: Comparisons between online and face-to-face learning settings. Internet High. Educ. 2012, 15, 150–160. [Google Scholar]
- Lebbon, C.; McDonagh, D. The emotional domain in product design. Design J. 2000, 3, 31–43. [Google Scholar]
- Secretaria de Desarrollo Social (SEDESOL). Unidad Administrativa de Microrregiones: Catalogo de Localidades. Available online; http://www.microrregiones.gob.mx/catloc/Default.aspx?tipo=clave&campo=mun&valor=20 accessed on 6 March 2015. In Spanish.
- Allende-Hernández, O.; Sosa-Méndez, D. Strengths Cultural Ethnolinguistic Communities of the Mixteca pro Digital Inclusion Process, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN13), Barcelona, Spain, 1–3 July 2013; pp. 1300–1308.
- Caballero, G. Diccionario del Idioma Mixteco: Tutu Tu’un Ñuu Savi, 1st ed; Universidad Tecnológica de la Mixteca: Oaxaca, México, 2008; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Academia de la Lengua Mixteca, Bases para la Escritura de tu’un Savi; Colección Diálogos; Pueblos Originarios de Oaxaca: Oaxaca, México, 2007; In Spanish.
- Mindek, D. Mixtecos: Pueblos Indígenas del México Contemporáneo; Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas: Distrito Federal, México, 2003; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Boehm, B. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. Computer 1988, 21, 61–72. [Google Scholar]
- Pressman, R. Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, 6th ed; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Rodríguez, R.; Ayala, S. Proceso Integral del Desarrollo de Objetos de Aprendizaje: Modelo Prescriptivo de Procesos Evolutivo. In Memorias del Primer Encuentro de Estudiantes en Ciencias de la Computación (E2C2); Ramírez-Amaro, K., Ed.; Centro de Investigación en Computación del Instituto Politécnico Nacional: Distrito Federal, México, 2007; pp. 1–7, In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Schütte, S.; Eklund, J.; Axelsson, J.; Nagamachi, M. Concepts, Methods and Tools in Kansei Engineering. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2002, 5, 214–231. [Google Scholar]
- Fleming, N.; Mills, C. Not Another Inventory, Rathera Catalyst for Reflection. Improve Acad. 1992, 11, 137–155. [Google Scholar]
- Hawk, T.; Shah, A. Using Learning Style Instruments to Enhance Student Learning. Decis. Sci. J. Innov. Educ. 2007, 5, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Pashler, H.; McDaniel, M.; Rohrer, D.; Bjork, R. Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 2009, 9, 105–119. [Google Scholar]
- Lozano, A. Estilos de Aprendizaje y Enseñanza: Un Panorama de la Estilística Educativa, 2rd ed; Trillas: Distrito Federal, México, 2008; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Ruiz-González, R.; Muñoz-Arteaga, J.; Álvarez-Rodríguez, F. Evaluación de Objetos de Aprendizaje a través del Aseguramiento de Competencias Educativas. In Virtual Educa Brasil 2007; Universidade do Vale do Paraíba: São Paulo, Brasil, 2007; pp. 1–17, In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Technological University of the Mixteca. Local Community Development Activities. Available online: http://www.utm.mx/promocion_eng.html accessed on 6 March 2015.
- Mohd, A. Design & Emotion: The Kansei Engineering Methodology. Malays. J. Comput. 2010, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Yáñiz-Álvarez-De-Eulate, C.; Villardón-Gallego, L. Planificar desde Competencias para Promover el Aprendizaje: El reto de la Sociedad del Conocimiento para el Profesorado Universitario; Universidad de Deusto: Deusto, España, 2006; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Zabalza-Beraza, M. Planificación de la Docencia en la Universidad: Elaboración de las Guías Docentes de las Materias; Narcea: Madrid, España, 2010; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Villa-Sánchez, A.; Poblete-Ruiz, M. Aprendizaje basado en Competencias: Una Propuesta para la Evaluación de las Competencias Genéricas; Universidad de Deusto: Deusto, España, 2008; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Muñoz, E. LIBRO BLANCO: Título de Grado en Traducción e Interpretación; Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación; ANECA: Granada, España, 2004; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Fleming, N. The VARK Questionnaire: How Do I Learn Best? (VARK Questionnaire Version 7.1). Available online: http://vark-learn.com/the-vark-questionnaire/ accessed on 6 March 2015.
- W3C. Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Available online: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ accessed on 6 March 2015.
- AEN/CTN 139 ICT Comittee, Web Content Accessibility Requirements; Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR): Madrid, España, 2012.
- Martínez, L. Understanding HCI Policy in Spain in the Context of Accessibility. Interactions 2012, 19, 58–61. [Google Scholar]
- Osorio, B.; Muñoz, J.; Álvarez, F.; Arévalo, C. Metodología para elaborar Objetos de Aprendizaje e integrarlos a un Sistema de Gestión de Aprendizaje; Publicación del Centro de Ciencias Básicas de la Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes: México, 2006. (In Spanish) Available online: http://www.colombiaaprende.edu.co/html/mediateca/1607/articles-172721_archivo.pdf accessed on 6 March 2015.
- Gobierno de España: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Análisis del Perfil de Aplicación LOM-ES v1.0 (Norma UNE-71361:2010) para Etiquetado Normalizado de Objetos Digitales Educativos (ODE). (In Spanish) Available online: http://www.lom-es.es/analisis_UNE_71361_perfil_de_aplicacion_LOM-ESv1.0.pdf accessed on 6 March 2015.
- Bloom, B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain; David McKay Co: New York, NY, USA, 1956. [Google Scholar]
- Norman, D. El Diseño Emocional: Porqué nos Gustan (o no) los Objetos cotidianos, 3th ed; Paidos Iberica Ediciones: Barcelona, España, 2005; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Shütte, S.; Jorgen, E.; Ishihara, S.; Nagamachi, M. Affective Meaning: The Kansei Engineering Approach. In Product Experience; Hekkert, P., Ed.; Elsevier Science: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 477–496. [Google Scholar]
- Bailey, J.; Papamarkos, G.; Poulovassilis, A.; Wood, P. An Event-Condition-Action Language for XML. In Web Dynamics: Adapting to Change in Content, Size, Topology and Use (Part III); Levene, M., Poulovassilis, A., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2004; pp. 223–248. [Google Scholar]
- Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Canción Mixteca. Available online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canci%C3%B3n_mixteca accessed on 6 March 2015.
- Bevan, N. International Standards for HCI; Serco Usability Services: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Nielsen, J. Usability Engineering: Interactive Technologies; Morgan Kaufmann: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Vygotsky, S. El Desarrollo de los Procesos Psicológicos Superiores; Grijalbo: Barcelona, España, 1979; In Spanish. [Google Scholar]
- Ryan, R.; Deci, E. Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. Am. PSychol. 2000, 55, 68–78. [Google Scholar]
Work | Description | Tools | DLO |
---|---|---|---|
2015 [26,35] | Specific development approach: formal LO model (termed FLOM) for the development of DLOs. FLOM considered the required components for the construction of DLOs as the life cycle (from inception to implementation) and the tasks and roles of all actors involved in the development, learning, interaction, evaluation and feedback processes. In general terms, the FLOM methodology considered the following main points for a DLO: “learning objectives”, “competencies/skills”, “requisites”, “content”, “practice”, “evaluation”, “metadata”. | Theory of instructional design of LOs | Mobile image-based LO for Japanese kanji and Mayan symbols with quantitative evaluation |
2015 [44] | Specific characteristics of an LO: development of an LO for the purposes of promoting reflection on inclusion and re-signification of teachers’ practice for students with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND). Technical and pedagogical aspects of “content”, “usability” and “learning resources” were considered for the LO with the following modules: “limits”, “diversity” and “teaching”, “deafness”. | Constructivist principles | “Incluir” (to include) with questionnaire-based evaluation. |
2015 [28] | Specific development approach and characteristics of an LO: development of a mobile LO considering specific characteristics (multimedia elements) to improve motivation for Japanese language learning. | Web interface theory for LO construction, principles of usability, IEEE LOM (Learning Object Metadata) Standard | J-GO mobile LO for Japanese language learning with questionnaire-based evaluation. |
2015 [29] | Specific development approach and characteristics of an LO: development of a digital whiteboard interface to support Down Syndrome (DS) students in their learning of addition and subtraction algorithms. The following development stages were defined: “pre-test” (selection of cases, requisites, prototyping, usability heuristics), “test” (task execution, observation), “post-test” (educational evaluation, focus group). | Heuristics, pedagogical theory, special education theory, principles of software engineering | Digital whiteboard with heuristic evaluation. |
2015 [45] | General development approach for the selection of LOs: application of collaborative searching to assist users in the search for LOs in repositories. | Stochastic methods, DELPHOS framework for recommendation in LO repositories | – |
2015 [46] | General development approach for selection of LOs: application of ant-colony optimization to define the most suitable sequencing and selection of LOs for particular courses. | Ant-colony optimization | – |
2015 [30] | Specific development approach: instructional design model for a tablet-based LO to enhance mathematical concepts for students with learning disabilities. The conceptual framework considered aspects of feasibility evaluation, project planning, functional analysis, development and implementation, pedagogy and interface design. | Theory of instructional design of LOs | – |
2014 [47] | Specific evaluation approach: quantitative approach to examine the effectiveness of digital game-based learning (DGBL) vs. static e-learning on learning achievements as digital games affect the user’s emotional state, which is directly related to learning performance. | Systems: NeuroSky, emWave, Eye Tracker | – |
2014 [36] | General development approaches and characteristics of LOs: overview of the main definitions of LOs, characteristics and attributes of LOs, development requirements of LOs, evaluation metrics and metadata for LOs. | – | – |
2014 [37] | General development approach: personalization of LOs and VLEs (virtual learning environments) by identifying connections between learning activities, learning methods, LOs types and sub-activities. | Web 3.0, ontologies | – |
2014 [38] | General development approach: definition of a new class of LOs that combine two types of knowledge: (1) reusable knowledge (theoretical and practical information on education design); and (2) knowledge of reuse necessary to describe the reusable knowledge using an extended LO metadata language. The definition model considers theories of learning and instruction and the following development stages: “analysis”, “design”, “implementation”. | Instructional management systems learning design (IMS-LD), unified modeling language (UML) | – |
2014 [31] | Specific development approach: storytelling design model (SDM) for the creation of storytelling complex learning objects (SCLOs) to support the learning process in a civil emergency context. | Visual story portrait (VS), SDM, Bloom’s knowledge levels | SCLOs with questionnaire-based evaluation (system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire) |
2014 [27] | General evaluation approach: bottom-up and top-down approaches for evaluating quality and reusability of learning objects (LOs). | Principles of MCDA (multiple criteria decision analysis) | – |
2014 [32] | Specific development approach: development of an LO for learning fashion design. The following development stages were defined: “need definition”, “information analysis”, “knowledge extraction”, “knowledge presentation”. | Clustering algorithms | Fashion design software with questionnaire-based evaluation. |
2014 [33] | Specific development approach: development of more suitable LOs for music students considering their social behavior and motivation. | Technology acceptance model (TAM), unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), constructivist model CLASP (composition, literature, audition, skill acquisition, performance) | Sound recording/manipulation LO with questionnaire-based evaluation |
2013 [48] | General development approach for selection of LOs: application of collaborative filtering for “recommender systems” to predict the utility items and LOs for users based on their preferences. | Collaborative filtering (CF) | – |
2013 [49] | General development approach for selection of LOs: development of a framework (DELPHOS) to assist users in the search for LOs in repositories. The following criteria were considered: “content similarity”, “usage”, “quality evaluation”, “profile similarity”. | Stochastic methods | – |
2013 [34] | Specific characteristics of an LO: educational software termed “Wandering” to facilitate interactive learning through the creation of location-based interacting learning objects (LILOs). This software encourages students to create their own location-based LOs (LILOs). | IEEE LOs Metadata (LOM) Standard | LILOs with questionnaire-based evaluation. |
2012 [21] | General evaluation approach: questionnaire to evaluate the level of technological and pedagogical inclusion of DLOs. | UNE (Una Norma Española, a Spanish norm) 139803:2004, Spanish guide to web accessibility ISO 24751, web content accessibility guidelines 2.0 (WCAG) | – |
2012 [39] | General development approach: development of a teaching unit model (TUM), which is a type of LO. The development methodology considers the instructional design model, constructivist principles and the competencies model for the pedagogical, functionality and usability aspects of the TUM. | Competencies model, usability heuristics | PIAC (Plataforma Interactiva para Aprendizaje de Cálculo, interactive platform for learning calculus) with questionnaire-based evaluation (Nielsen’s heuristics) |
2012 [40] | General development approach: set of guidelines for the creation of more accessible LOs through alternative media resources. | Principles of universal design, recommendations for creating accessible web content, W3C, best practices for production and application of accessible content | – |
Stage | Phases | Sub-phases | Techniques and Tools |
---|---|---|---|
Communication | Analysis of the user (person) and the community | Cultural requirements Functional requirements | Interviews and case studies Data flow charts, Kansei |
Analysis of learning strategies | Definition of the learning style | VARK | |
Project planning | Development plan Integration of multi-disciplinary team Conceptual scheme for the DLO | Interface draft, Templates | |
Modeling | Analysis | Contents Competencies Interface | Bloom’s taxonomy Templates |
Design | Instructional design Functional design Affective and emotional design Interface design | Storyboard Kansei Semantic differential Norm UNE-71361, LOM-ES v1.0 | |
Development | Codification and validation | Prototyping | Storyboard, PowerPoint/Flash, ECOBA |
Implementation | Testing/evaluation | Usability | ECOBA |
Feedback | Learning performance Standards and metrics | Nielsen’s usability rules |
Coverage | Sequence | Activities |
---|---|---|
Participant: Analyst requirements researcher. Event: Initiation of the SE project. Objective: Establish formal contact and communication with the ethnolinguistic community. | Understand the community’s values and points of view in a thoughtful way. Integrate knowledge of various fields to establish relationships between community members and their daily lives. Maintain a respectful attitude towards the diversity of beliefs, values, ideas and social practices as well as towards multiculturalism. | The analyst must be presented formally to the community via local authority and/or institutional project. The formal authority can provide guidance and knowledge about the customs and traditions of the community. The working team is formed, establishing rules of operation and coexistence with community members. These rules must respect the customs and traditions of the community. Activity planning (schedules, work schemes, participants) must be approved and signed by mutual agreement. |
Participant: Analyst requirements researcher and user. Event: Educational status Objective: Identify the main activities of the community for the most important contexts. | Identify: Work and recreational activities Craft activities Activities specific to the community Land work activities Household activities Transportation and public places Symbols and cultural values Celebrations Family roles | Through scheduled meetings with the users, a set of activities is developed to analyze the audio-visual perception of the social and cultural contexts. This is performed through drawings. Audio and written records of Mixtec words are performed for the vocabulary identified in the perception meetings. |
Participant: Analyst requirements researcher and linguistics specialist. Event: Classification Objective: Classification of vocabulary words in semantic fields. | Analysis of the semantic fields. Phonological analysis of the Mixtec words in the semantic fields. Identify images associated with each word in the semantic fields. | Correct writing of the Mixtec words is verified by a specialist in linguistics. Then these words are translated into Spanish. Identify the phonological representation of each word. Create a database with the semantic fields and the phonetics of each word. Create a database with images attached to the semantic fields to provide meaning for each word. |
Visual | Auditory or Aural |
---|---|
Written instructions | Verbal instructions |
Concept maps | Repeat similar sounds |
Diagrams, models, summary tables | Debates, discussions and dialogues |
Computer animation | Brainstorming |
Videos, transparencies, photographs and illustrations | Read the same text with different reflections |
Use of gestures by the teacher Picturesque language | Guided reading and discussion |
Read/Write | Kinesthetic |
One-minute writing tasks | Role play and dramatizations |
Literary compositions, newspapers, blogs and reports | Group dynamics that require sitting and standing Use of the blackboard to solve problems |
Production of reviews, reports and synthesis of texts Proofreading for colleagues and peers | Handling of objects for explanation of phenomena Gestures to accompany the verbal instructions |
Age: 6–14 years old Gender: female: 80%, male: 20% Language:100% Mixtec speakers Community: Santos Reyes Yucuna | |
---|---|
Description: | |
–Children and teenagers of Santos Reyes Yucuna reconstruct the images of their environment (i.e., redraw the images seen in their sociocultural environment). | |
–They give consideration to the use of their symbols and colors, such as the “heavenly bodies” (sun, moon, stars) and elements of their home and land. | |
–Their drawings have bright colors and their favorite colors are red, bright blue, yellow, gold, green, pink and purple. | |
–They are good observers and they are well organized as individuals and as a group. Their expressions and attitudes show their emotions, they like listening to stories, tales and legends, recreating themselves in scenes that they build in their mind with colorful drawings. | |
–They like to listen, however, they get impatient if this action goes on for a long time. They can stay focused on their activities regarding the presence of noise or other distractors. | |
Learning preferences: | |
Given the characteristics of the user profile and user behavior, the predominant learning preference (style) was identified as visual. The second learning style was identified as kinesthetic. | |
Strategy learning process: | |
Consistent with the learning preferences a teaching strategy focused on written instructions, transparencies, community contextual photographs and colorful illustrations is considered. For purposes of maintaining the interaction, direct manipulation of elements is considered for the interface of the DLO. The use of sound is also considered for the DLO. |
Picture | Spanish | English | Mixtec of Yucuna | Correct spelling |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mosca | Fly | xicama | tyikama | |
Aguila | Eagle | xaá, la’a xia | tyáa | |
Ardilla | Squirrel | mutu | matu | |
Avispa | Wasp | xiyaco | tyiyoko | |
Borrego | Lamb | nanchi | mpee | |
Vaca | Cow | xixiki | tyindyiki | |
Burro | Donkey | buruu | vurru | |
Zopilote | Buzzard | xiyokó | tiyoco | |
Zorrillo | Skunk | xini | tiñi’in | |
Chivo | Goat | xixúu, chishu’u | tyityáa | |
Conejo | Rabbit | iluú | ilu | |
Coyote | Coyote | xiguai | ndiwa’i | |
Culebra | Snake | coó, ko’o | koo | |
Gallina | Hen | chuxi | tyaxi | |
Gallo | Rooster | xaxi | tyeli |
Field | Description |
---|---|
Name of the DLO | Define the name of the learning object clearly and simply referring to the type of information contained in the DLO. It should be short (maximum 30 characters), clear and precise. |
Author | Name of the author and/or co-authors of the DLO. |
Institution | Name of the institution or entity that supports the DLO. |
Objective and purpose of the DLO | Short description of the objective and purpose of the DLO. Define the knowledge or skill required to be achieved by the students when interacting with the DLO (i.e., discipline, idea, educational skill, security level). |
Academic level targeted by the DLO | The main academic context where the DLO will be used (i.e., primary school or undergraduate). |
Student profile to whom the DLO is aimed | This profile is closely related to the profile required by the course where the DLO is to be used (i.e., ethnicity, manager, secretary). |
Regional context | It must do reference to the time, culture, geography or region where the DLO will be applied. This is done to specify the extent of the content of the learning object. This includes the spatial location (name of the place and geographic coordinates), period (date or range of dates, name of the period) or jurisdiction (name of administrative entity). |
Learning preferences | Identify the type of learning preference considered for the DLO as stated by the VARK model. |
Learning competencies | Identify the learning competencies for the users of the DLO. The learning preferences and competencies must be consistent with the objective and purpose of the DLO and the curriculum coverage. |
Relevant contextual and cultural factors | For the case study, it consists of factors or elements identified to induce an emotional response. |
Objectives for curriculum coverage | It must specify the type of objective to be achieved. Only one can be selected based on Bloom’s taxonomy. It must be consistent with the learning preferences and the type of competencies. |
DLO model | The model is closely related to: –The functionality that indicates the roles of the structural components from the point of view of the teaching-learning process. These components are: previous assessment, concept maps, navigation map, learning activities and / or evaluation. –The estimated curricular coverage which indicates the set of contents to be created for the appropriate educational level. Based on the information unit to be handled, the DLO can be classified as: –Heterogeneous: It consists of various types of information units such as textual objects, images, e-books, multimedia objects, metadata. –Complex: Supports a single DLO aggregation with more than one component of any information unit. It can include URL references. –Dynamic: The DLO integrates associated methods that enable the user to interact with other types of information units (i.e., real-time execution of video). –Semantic relationship: The DLO is aimed at applications in the semantic web, where a hierarchy of concepts with attributes and relationships is established. These define an agreed terminology to define a semantic network of interrelated information units. |
Organizational structure | It indicates the elements that comprise the DLO (sound, text, images, animations, etc.) and defines the following types of structure: –Atomic: a single object that is indivisible (in this context). –Collection: a set of objects with no specific relationship. –Network: a set of objects with an unspecified relationship between them. –Hierarchical: a set of objects whose relationship can be represented by a tree structure. –Linear: a set of completely ordered objects. |
Aggregation level | The aggregation levels define and organize the structural and functional granularity of a DLO. This granularity is related to the type of object and curriculum coverage (i.e., the discipline and educational level). Therefore when defining the level of aggregation three variables are considered: structure, function, and estimated curricular coverage. In compliance with the LOM-ES v.1.0 norm, there are four levels of aggregation: –Level 1 (basic purpose): It is the smallest and may consist of multimedia elements or fragments. Such objects have an explicit function or a specific curricular coverage. –Level 2 (learning object): A collection of Level 1 learning objects (i.e., a lesson). Functionally it is characterized as the smallest level with an explicit didactic function (instructional design). It includes one or more learning activities and its evaluation, and (optionally) concept maps and/or previous assessment systems. The estimated curricular coverage is one or more blocks of knowledge of a given course or cycle. –Level 3 (teaching sequence): A collection of Level 2 learning objects (i.e., a course). Functionally it includes learning and/or assessment activities that are implicit in the objects of Level 2 and the concept maps that constitute them. Optionally it could include a navigation map or container for those objects of Level 2. The estimated curricular coverage is a sub-area of knowledge of a given course or cycle. –Level 4 (training program): This is the highest level of granularity and it may consist of a set of courses integrated into one educational resource for obtaining a degree. Level 4 objects are composed of Level 3 objects and, exceptionally, by Level 2 and Level 1 objects. Therefore, it may include a navigation map or a container of Level 3 objects. It may also be composed of other Level 4 objects recursively. |
Category | Elements | Description |
---|---|---|
General | Title | Description of the name assigned to the learning object. |
Language | Language of the learning object. | |
Description | Textual description of the contents of the learning object (this description does not have to be in the appropriate language and terms for users of the learning object). | |
Key words | These words describe the main theme of the learning object. | |
Author | Name of the author and/or co-authors of the learning object. | |
Life cycle | Version | Description of the version of the learning object. |
Institution | Name of the institution or entity that supports the learning object. | |
Creation date | Date of creation or modification. | |
Educational use | Type of educational resource | It identifies the applied resource (i.e., simulation, video, slides, exercise, questionnaire, narrative, self-evaluation, experiment, etc.). |
Interactivity level | Level to which the learner can influence the behavior or appearance of the learning object. Selectable scale from very low to very high. | |
Semantic density | It is estimated according to its size and duration. It will be adjusted to the level of difficulty of the learning object. | |
Level of the learner (user) | Main user for whom the learning object was designed (i.e., teacher, author, trainee, manager, coach, etc.). | |
Context | Principal or recommended environment where the learning object is to be used (first cycle, upper secondary, graduate). | |
Difficulty level | Selectable scale from very hard to very easy. | |
Typical learning time | Average (estimated) time needed by the average learner (user) to assimilate the content of the learning object. | |
Description of use | Comments regarding how the learning object should be used. | |
Language of the learner (user) | It identifies the language of the user of the learning object. It differs from the language of the learning object stated in the “General” category. |
Name of the DLO | Animals in the Field |
---|---|
Author | Olivia Allende Hernández |
Institution | Technological University of the Mixteca |
Objective and purpose of the DLO | This DLO is designed to strengthen competencies in the Mixtec language variant of Santos Reyes Yucuna. The topic of interest for the DLO is the semantic field of “land” where animals that live together in the field are presented. Interaction between the DLO and the student leads to the appropriation of the topic in the Mixtec and Spanish languages. In this DLO, audiovisual material as audio and pictures of local landmarks together with interactive exercises under the cultural context of the ethnic group are implemented. Discipline and basic computational skills are required. |
Academic level targeted by the DLO | Primary school |
Student profile to whom the DLO is aimed | Member of the ethnolinguistic Mixtec community (Mixtec speaker), 14–16 years old. |
Regional context | Santos Reyes Yucuna, Oaxaca, Mexico. |
Learning preferences | Visual and kinesthetic |
Learning competencies | Generic competence: –Oral communication in the native language –Knowledge of a second language –Capacity for analysis and synthesis –Recognition of diversity and multi-culturalism –Teamwork and independent learning Instrumental competence: –Basic computational skills Specific competence: –Oral and written expertise of the native language |
Relevant contextual and cultural factors | Language, color, affection and collaboration (elements identified from the Tequio activity). |
Objectives for curriculum coverage | Cognitive learning (Bloom’s taxonomy) |
DLO model | Heterogeneous |
Organizational structure | Hierarchical |
Aggregation level | Level 2 (learning object) |
Category | Elements | Description |
---|---|---|
General | Title | Animals in the field |
Language | Mixtec and Spanish | |
Description | Vocabulary of the semantic field “land” | |
Key words | Animals, land, field, Mixtec language | |
Author | Olivia Allende Hernández | |
Life cycle | Version | 1.0 |
Institution | Technological University of the Mixteca | |
Creation date | July 2014 | |
Educational use | Type of educational resource | Text, pictures, sound |
Interactivity level | Low | |
Semantic density | Low | |
Level of the learner (user) | Apprentice | |
Context | Primary school | |
Difficulty level | Very easy | |
Typical learning time | 15 minutes | |
Description of use | Support for learning activities for the Mixtec and Spanish languages. | |
Language of the learner (user) | Mixtec and/or Spanish |
Name of the DLO | Animals in the Field |
---|---|
Author | Olivia Allende Hernández |
Pedagogical objective | Learn the pronunciation and written form of the names of farm animals in Mixtec and Spanish languages. |
Educative context | Primary school/Santos Reyes Yucuna, Oaxaca, Mexico. |
Type of DLO | Basic level |
Aggregation level | Level 2 (learning object) |
Didactic sequence | Basic primary school (6 to 14 years old children) |
Competence or knowledge area of the DLO | Oral and written command of the native language. |
TOPIC: Semantic field “land” | CONTENT: Mixtec and Spanish names of farm animals within the natural context of the user’s community. |
Curriculum Coverage | Didactic Sequence | Resources |
---|---|---|
Oral communication: - Acive and comprehensive listening of the words of the semantic field “land” by hearing them in Mixtec and Spanish. - Representation of scenes of everyday life inspired by the accounts given by the user. Visual communication: - Recognize and visually identify the scenarios of the actual context. Reading: - Recognition of different types of scenarios from the environment of the users from illustrations and photographs. - Memorize the words related to the pictures of the context. - Reproduction of oral texts. Management of the language: Use in conversations and stories of the new words incorporated through hearing and writing texts. Management of technology skills: Interaction with the movement of the “mouse”. | - Each screen presents a scene from the actual scene of the community of Santos Reyes Yucuna. - A specific situation is set where images illustrating the scene are presented with words significant to the user. - Intuitively the user places the cursor on the artifacts (scene elements) activating the sound to hear the question “What is its name?” that starts the activity. The Mixtec and Spanish words are presented in written and audio form. - The user can choose to explore all the pictures of the animals on the scenario, listening to the phonetics, and viewing the written form of each presented animal. - The user can use the navigation tool of the DLO to continue the teaching sequence and change the scenario, acquiring knowledge of significant new words. - The user can terminate his/her learning activity through the exit icon of the application. | Computer with Windows operating system (OS Version 8.0 or above). Mouse or keyboard. |
Kansei Category, Motive or Concept | Kansei (Feeling) | Kannou (Sensation) | Kankaku (Sense) | Physical Properties |
---|---|---|---|---|
Images | Attractive | Joy, motivation | Sight | Color, intensity, clarity, texture, contour |
Audio | Perception | Motivation, action | Hearing | Intensity, tone, accent |
Titles | Attractive | Motivation, action | Sight | Font |
Color of the header menu | Attractive | Motivation, action | Sight | Tone, saturation, luminosity |
Color at the bottom of the menu | Attractive | Motivation | Sight | Tone, saturation, luminosity |
Facial expression | Attractive | Joy, happiness, confidence, motivation | Sight, hearing | Tone, luminosity |
Context color | Symbolism, expressivity | Harmony, contrast | Sight | Tone, saturation, luminosity |
Dominant theme | Expressivity | Joy, happiness, confidence, motivation | Sight, hearing | Tone, saturation, luminosity |
Font size for the header | Attractive | Motivation | Sight | Color, thickness |
Text of the main menu | Attractive | Motivation | Sight, hearing | Size, thickness, color |
Color of the main menu | Attractive, symbolism, expressivity | Joy, motivation | Sight | Tone, saturation, luminosity |
Main font style | Attractive | Motivation | Sight | Size, thickness, color |
Element | Description |
---|---|
Attribute | Color, space, light, celebrations, music (sound), stewardship, Guelaguetza (cooperation), Tequio (collaboration), unity, fraternity, equality. |
Value | Attractive, adorable, satisfaction, pretty, beautiful, good, bad, ugly, boring, trust, tender, sweet, surprise, joy, serious, annoying, friendly. |
Colors | Red, purple, pink, yellow, gold, green, blue, black. |
Event: The user selects an element of the interface (i.e., the picture of a farm animal). - Rule: IF the user moves the cursor over the picture THEN the phonetics of the element (pronunciation of the name of the animal) and text (written name of the animal) are activated. |
Event: The user chooses to advance the lesson and to go to the next scenario. - Rule: IF the user presses the “SIGUIENTE” button (NEXT) THEN display the next scenario of the application. |
Event: The user chooses to return to the previous scenario. - Rule: IF the user presses the “ANTERIOR” button (PREVIOUS) THEN display the previous scenario of the application. |
Event: The user chooses to leave the application. - Rule: IF the user presses the “SALIR” button (EXIT) THEN close the application and finish the process. |
Recognized Expression | Representation of the Emotional Feeling | Description |
---|---|---|
- Brightness in the users’ eyes, smiles. - Words expressed in the Mixtec language for “beautiful”. - Contraction of the zygomatic muscle. | Joy | The users radiate warmth and a strong sense of happiness. It was pleasant to their eyes. |
- Upper eyelids pulled up and mouth hangs open. | Surprise, tenderness | Emotionally it caused amusement. |
Recognized Expression | Representation of the Emotional Feeling | Description |
---|---|---|
- Brightness in the users’ eyes, smiles. - Words expressed in the Mixtec language for “beautiful”. - Contraction of the zygomatic muscle. | Joy + Identity | Representative images were taken from the social contexts of the community. Users expressed joy and felt identified with the places, animals and people showed in the images (pictures). |
- Upper eyelids pulled up and mouth hangs open. | Surprise, tenderness | Emotionally the representative images caused amusement and surprise. |
- Verbal expression of identity. | Identity | There are representative images that transmit values, cultural symbols and knowledge (i.e., work, land). There were explicit expressions of identity. |
Usability Attributes | Yes (always) | Sometimes | No (never) | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
Learnability | 92.30% | 7.70% | 0.00% | Intuitively the user learned to use the application. The users expressed the sentence “it is easy”. The evidenced learning, together with the positive users’ comments, became relevant because the users had no previous contact with the DLO. |
Efficiency | 84.60% | 15.40% | 0.00% | The user successfully took the mouse, observed the interface, correctly identified and selected the elements placed at the DLO’s interface. The user reached a high level of productivity, and the efficiency was even greater since the application is bilingual. |
Retention through time | 100.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | Having stopped using the DLO for a period of 15 days, the user remembered the aim and use of the learning object. |
Error rate | 69.20% | 23.10% | 7.70% | 30.80% of errors made by users occurred in children whose age range was six to eight years. Failures occurred when the users wanted to end a session. This highlighted the need for an indicator of feedback for progress and error. |
Subjective user satisfaction | 100.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | The application has a friendly interface, with a cultural basis of ethnicity which generated a positive, pleasant reaction of identity. Users expressed satisfaction and comfort in the interactive process exclaiming phrases like “I like it!”, “It is my house!”, “It is Yucuna!”. Listening the phonetics (pronunciation) of words brought smiles on the users (children). This was a clear manifestation of user satisfaction. |
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Allende-Hernández, O.; Caballero-Morales, S.-O. MODELI: An Emotion-Based Software Engineering Methodology for the Development of Digital Learning Objects for the Preservation of the Mixtec Language. Sustainability 2015, 7, 9344-9394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7079344
Allende-Hernández O, Caballero-Morales S-O. MODELI: An Emotion-Based Software Engineering Methodology for the Development of Digital Learning Objects for the Preservation of the Mixtec Language. Sustainability. 2015; 7(7):9344-9394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7079344
Chicago/Turabian StyleAllende-Hernández, Olivia, and Santiago-Omar Caballero-Morales. 2015. "MODELI: An Emotion-Based Software Engineering Methodology for the Development of Digital Learning Objects for the Preservation of the Mixtec Language" Sustainability 7, no. 7: 9344-9394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7079344