Subject: Re: Learning Objects Classification
From: Clark Quinn (cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com)
Date: Sat 19 Feb 2000 - 23:47:45 MET
From: "Clark Quinn" <cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com> Subject: Re: Learning Objects Classification Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:47:45 +1300
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.
Exactly right (and thanks for bringing it up, Barney).
>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.
If I've implied that, my mistake. I, too, have argued that it's not the case (see
http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper18/paper18.html). Rod has himself proposed a pragmatic sequence of interactivity types based
upon example, not conceptual distinctions.
>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.
And while I'd agree that Quake and SimCity are different in type of interactivity, I also still claim that they're both 'highly
interactive' (and I would actually tease apart the difference to a finer grain than just cognitive vs proprioceptive).
>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.
I also recognize that problem difficulty is affected by a number of factors, including the problem statement, the mapping between
cognitive output and response type, scaffolding, at least!
My point is that we do not yet have an even vaguely clear definition for problem difficulty or interactivity (I'm happy to be wrong
on this, pointers?).
Without that, the working group has retreated to 5 categories from very low to very high.
I'm arguing that there is a preferable intermediate step: to perhaps have the same categories, but to give examples to help authors
or 'taggers' choose the right category. Otherwise, we'll find people who either overestimate their own product or underestimate
others (at least, that's the likely tendency, I'll bet :-).
And I argue that we're better off finding empirical 'buckets' and adding descriptors to help people choose one (even if there are 4
or 6 and not 5), than leaving it open to interpretation as very low, low, medium, high, very high. Because otherwise, my prediction
is that there just won't be anyone using the category 'low' (in the case of interactivity). And, that you'll have less consistency
than you will using the scheme I propose.
-- Clark
-- Clark Quinn KnowledgePlanet.com (510) 768-2408 cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com--------------------------------------------------------- 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 : Sun 20 Feb 2000 - 00:13:55 MET