Subject: Re: Learning Resources v Collaboration
From: Alan Cooper (acooper@langara.bc.ca)
Date: Sat 19 Feb 2000 - 23:31:33 MET
From: "Alan Cooper" <acooper@langara.bc.ca> Subject: Re: Learning Resources v Collaboration Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:31:33 +1300
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barney Dalgarno (Wed Feb 16) has disagreed with Clark's suggestion (in response to
Anita and Ania) that learning objects can themselves be collaborative objects, on
the grounds that "most people prefer to use generic cummunication tools".
I think there are at least two reasons to take issue with this.
One is that there is no reason for a learning object, such as a collaborative
business or social simulation, not to make use of the students' preferred "generic
communication tools". The learning object in this case is not the communication
tool per se (and may not include it) but is a set of instructions with possibly
additional supporting multimedia features and possibly configurable by the user to
link directly to the preferred communication tools as needed in the exercise. Even
though it lacks a built in communication tool, such a learning object would surely
be seen as supporting collaboration.
Another issue, in my own discipline of Mathematics, is the lack of a standard for
interoperable "generic communication tools". A tool such as a shared whiteboard or
graphing utility might be embedded in a learning object and used simultaneously by
two or more users for exercises involving some form of problem exchange or
cooperation - eg. either just by sharing ideas on the exercise, or perhaps each
being given different parts of the information necessary for solution.
So I see no reason to exclude collaborative activity from the class of learning
objects. In fact I would go further, and exclude nothing.
Thus, with regard to the discussion about size and what "level of encapsulation" is
appropriate for a learning object, my understanding is that the concept is intended
to be inclusive, so all levels are appropriate and a learning object may include
others as components. This is just like the situation in Object Oriented
Programming, where everything is an object. So, if I have it right, the concept of
a learning object is not really a specific type of thing but rather an
organisational tool or paradigm for refering to units of education or educational
support material (including everything from a single exercise to an entire degree
program). The point then is not "what is a learning object?" but "how can we
appropriately classify such objects for ease of access?".
Alan
-- ====================================================================== Alan Cooper (acooper@langara.bc.ca , http://www.langara.bc.ca/~acooper) Dep't of Mathematics and Statistics (http://www.langara.bc.ca/mathstats) Langara College (http://www.langara.bc.ca ) 100 W 49th Ave. Vancouver BC Canada V5Y2Z6 Tel(604)323-5676,Fax(604)323-5555 =======================================================================--------------------------------------------------------- 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 : Sat 19 Feb 2000 - 23:36:36 MET