Subject: Re: Learning Objects: Who will assemble it?
From: Clark Quinn (cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com)
Date: Mon 21 Feb 2000 - 01:21:27 MET
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:21:27 -0800 From: Clark Quinn <cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com> Subject: Re: Learning Objects: Who will assemble it?
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>An interesting issue is who is going to use learning object to
>generate a new course. So far, most of the practical projects that
>has an emphasize on using tagged learning objects (like IDEALS/MTS or
>ARIADNE) implied that the user is a course author. The author is
>working on a kind of assembly like retrieving relevant objects and
>creating a course. So, the current approach to tagging (LOM) and to
>developing a framework is based on this paradigm.
...
>The reason I am talking about these two classes is that the answers
>to a number of question posted into this forum depend on who
>(granularity, interoperability, etc.) depend on who is doing the
>sequencing. As long as all tagging is for a human author, we still
>can be flexible with granularity and single vocabulary and precise
>tagging. After all - metadata is just for a course author to simplify
>finding the relevant material. It provides for flexibility. A human
>still can check the material behind the set of metadata to see how it
>fits the course. However, if we are producing metadata for a computer
>sequencer - we will need quite a precise tagging using very
>elaborated standard taxonomies. We are quite ready for the first mode
>at least on the level of single organizations, but not yet ready to
>the second mode. I guess, we will bridge the gap by combining a work
>of a human course author and an intelligent computer assistant. At
>the moment the only thing that such assistant could do is to select
>relevant questions from pools for a custom quiz, but we can expect
>that with maturity of metadata and sequencing technologies, bigger
>chunks of author's routine works will be supported by assistants.
And while I believe all this to be true, I think that systems might
also be able to operate on tags other than the knowledge taxonomies,
such as characteristics of the learner. And be built such that they
can take advantage of these taxonomies as they become available.
And this will still require support tools to help bridge between
authoring and system use. Not just technology tools such as tagging
libraries and authoring tools, but templates for domains, examples of
best practice, heuristics for design, etc.
We'll need to start forming communities to align along development
paths. And while those are typically aligned along tools for now,
once we get to interoperable standards, how will we realign our
commitments? More along the lines of educational philosophies like
constructivism vs problem based learning? Or along taxonomic
practices? Or along media? Hopefully more the former than the
latter.
-- 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 : Mon 21 Feb 2000 - 01:55:28 MET