Subject: Learning Objects Classification
From: Barney Dalgarno (bdalgarno@csu.edu.au)
Date: Wed 16 Feb 2000 - 00:21:08 MET
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:21:08 +1100 From: Barney Dalgarno <bdalgarno@csu.edu.au> Subject: Learning Objects Classification
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the big issues in the use and reuse of learning objects seems to be
the tagging and thus the classification of objects.
Clark mentions that under the current proposed scheme the "degree of
interactivity" and "difficuly level" involve a continuum from very low to
very high. Clark argues that the terms "low" and "high" are very subjective
and that it would be a better to come up with a vocabulary that can be more
consistently applied.
Looking first at interactivity, there is an implied assumption that
interactivity is a single dimensional thing. Sims (1999) gives a very
convincing argument that this is not the case. The examples Clark gives of
rich interaction, namely SimCity and Quake illustrate quite clearly that
there are different types of interaction. SimCity I would say is highly
interactive because it involves the learner in constructing within an
environment. This is a type of cognitive interactivity. Quake on the other
hand has a low level of cognitive engagement but is highly interactive in
the sense of real-time action.
In talking about level of difficulty Clark's examples of a possible
vocabulary overlap a bit with the classification, learning resource type.
There is an implied assumption that resources requiring learners to do
something (eg. scaffolded practice) are more "difficult" than introductory
material, which you would assume to involve the learner in attending to
text or other media. The problem is that a passage of introductory text
could be quite difficult (eg. require complex prerequisite knowledge, a
high reading level etc) and scaffolded practice could be quite easy,
because of the task level.
Obviously there is still lots of work to be done in the classification area.
(By the way, thanks Clark for a very interesting and awareness raising paper.)
Reference:
Sims, R. (1999). Interactivity on Stage: Strategies for Learning-Designer
Communication. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3).
Available: http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/
***********************************************
* Barney Dalgarno *
* Lecturer in Information Technology *
* School of Information Studies *
* Charles Sturt University *
* Locked Bag 675 *
* Wagga Wagga, NSW, 2678, Australia *
* Email: bdalgarno@csu.edu.au *
* WWW: http://farrer.riv.csu.edu.au/~dalgarno *
* Phone: 02 6933 2305 *
* Fax: 02 6933 2733 *
***********************************************
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Wed 16 Feb 2000 - 02:49:41 MET