Subject: Summary 2 (18 - 21/2)
S.J.E.Hobbs@open.ac.uk
Date: Tue 22 Feb 2000 - 17:05:21 MET
From: S.J.E.Hobbs@open.ac.uk Subject: Summary 2 (18 - 21/2) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:05:21 -0000
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following quickly on the heels of yesterday's summary of the discussion up
to 18/2, here is slice 2. Again, it is a personal view and I very much
appreciate input!
The discussion from 18-21/2 raised one new issue and subdivided another! The
first, new issue is concerned with the agent choosing and combining the LOs
be this human or computer. The subdivided issue is that of the nature of the
LO which has been expanded from a discussion of size to include a discussion
of 'type'. Vocabularis were the third issue discussed.
1. Who is the constructing agent?
Brusilovsky states '...the answers to a number of questions posted into this
forum depend on who is doing the sequencing' He then offers two
computer-based and one human based possibilities. Both the computer-based
approaches are based on the use of a student model of some kind. One
generates the 'string' of LOs 'on-the-fly' (presumably as a result of
real-time student actions) and the other is done in 'one shot' before the
student starts. When moving on the human educator as the sequencing 'agent'
he suggests that for this we can be much more flexible in our definition of
LOs and their tags.
Quinn speaks for the computer-based sequencing agent and suggests that the
sequencer could complement the use of the standard 'knowledge taxonomies'
with learner characteristics and other taxonomies as they develop. He
suggests that these could be further enhanced through the development of
templates, heuristics and definitions of best practice.
2a. 'Type' of LO
Parson uses a 'Web as Museum' metaphor to show that different types of LO
are not a problem for either learners or educators. Ip suggests that tools
should be permissible as LOs and is supported by Cooper who sees no problem
with either proscribing or not a particular tool as part of an LO and in
fact would welcome specific tools for some purposes. He goes on to say 'in
fact I would go further and exclude nothing'.
Another 'type' of LO discussed further here is the NEF or Knowledge object
with Ip pro and Quinn con saying 'I can't see a system capable of stringing
together knowledge objects ... into a learning experience'
2b. 'Size of LO'
Shafer suggests that neither 'type' not 'size' of LO need be determined in
advance if the right structure is used. Quinn expands a statement of
Shafer's to suggest two ways of creating LO's, firstly a 'natural level' and
secondly through guidelines and context. He then later goes on to suggest a
list of pro's and con's of a 'finer level of granularity than a complete
instructional sequence'.
3. Vocabularies
Shafer suggests that by concentrating on the 'what it does' rather than the
'how it can be used' the generation of tags for LOs will be made more
manageable. Brusilovsky, in his machine/human sequencer discussion claims
that if a computer is to sequence, tight, rich, defined vocabularies will be
needed (Quinn's view) but if a human agent is involved it would not be
necessary to work to such a level of rigorousness.
-----Original Message-----
From: Automatic digest processor [mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.READADP.COM]
Sent: 21 February 2000 17:00
To: Recipients of IFETS-DISCUSS digests
Subject: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 20 Feb 2000 to 21 Feb 2000
There are 7 messages totalling 557 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Learning Objects: Who will assemble it? (2)
2. Learning Objects and Instruction Components
3. Learning asset and learning object
4. Environmental Aspects of Object Management
5. More about Learning Objects and Software Components
6. First Summary: Learning Objects and Instruction Components Formal
Discussion
---------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 16:35:26 -0500
From: Peter Brusilovsky <plb@cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: 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.
What is really interesting that this approach has finally got very
close to a much an older approach known as adaptive curriculum
sequencing and developed in the area of intelligent tutoring systems.
First systems by Barr et all (BIP) and Koffman (GCAI) were developed
in 1970-ies. Now several dozens of systems and approaches are known.
A typical ITS with curriculum sequencing has a knowledge base of
educational objects (i.e., a database of objects tagged with some
metadata that transform data into knowledge) and can can use it to
generate an individualized course for every single learner. The
generation can happen on the fly (though it requires an ITS that
could maintain a student model) or could be done in one shot before
the course start like in DCG of Julita Vassileva (then the course is
simply static and can be delivered by any CAI/IMS system). A note to
Margaret Martinez: classic sequencers take into account only current
state of student's knowledge represented by an overlay student model,
but some modern sequencing and adaptive hypermedia system also adapt
to "learning style" and other traits.
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.
Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carnegie Technology Education | HCII, School of Computer Science
4615 Forbes Avenue | Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA | E-mail: plb@cs.cmu.edu
Phone: (412) 268-3537 | Fax: (412) 268-3505
WWW: http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~plb/home.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:46:49 -0800
From: Clark Quinn <cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com>
Subject: Re: Learning Objects and Instruction Components
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion:
http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>However, I believe that most resources are not
> >>originally created for educational consumption but still may have great
> >>potential for educational use.
> >
> >This is an interesting proposition. I'd accept it if it was qualified
by
>saying that it had to be 'wrapped' with other objects that were designed
for
>education.
>
>Can you clarify what do you mean by "'wrapped' with other objects that were
>designed for education", please?
Buttressed front and back with objects that explain the contextual
meaning of the particular object. Otherwise, I don't see how the
instructional role is fulfilled.
>To me, I would say we need some mechanism of enabling such resources (BTW,
I
>call it NEF resource)
Again, what does NEF mean/stand for? Not Educationally Formed?
Besides, I just think of those as knowledge objects.
>implying a boarder (??) concept of making NEF resource
>useful in educational situation. A possible mechanism may be the addition
>(by associating a detached metadata record) of education metadata (such as
>those suggested by IMS, IEEE LOM or DC-education WG). This little addition
>will enable discovery (in an education sensitive environment). I would
like
>to see other higher order enabling techniques being articulated well so
that
>implementation may proceed.
Again, I can't see a system capable of stringing together knowledge
objects, tagged or not, into a learning experience. Yet. I still
believe that there have to be objects created with the educational
purposing to make it happen.
-- Clark
-- Clark Quinn KnowledgePlanet.com (510) 768-2408 cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:41:02 -0800 From: Clark Quinn <cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com> Subject: Re: Learning asset and learning object
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The distinction between learning asset and learning object is just a matter >of conceptual understanding.
I take it that your distinction would be that an asset is any learning content, and it's turned into a learning object through tagging.
OK, I can understand that. I suppose I have been unclear about whether objects are the content, the tags, or both.
To me it doesn't matter that much; they're objects to people in terms of the content, they're objects to a system in terms of the tags. What distinguishes them from knowledge objects, however, is that they're designed to support learning. A painting by itself (or a digital image thereof) isn't a learning object inherently.
Which might seem to undercut my use of the chart of braking distances between ABS and non-ABS brakes at different speeds as an example of a learning object; and hence strengthen Ken's claim that it would be hard for an object to serve all three purposes.
Thinking it through, however, I'm still inclined to suggest that such a chart is more than a knowledge object, it has a specific instructional objective. And that objective can be used as an element in a variety of ways.
I am pushing the line a bit, partly because I'm still exploring the boundaries. I'm glad for the dynamic thought on this by the discussants!
>In a previous post, I referred to NEF resource. This is a term I coined >(more accurately co-coined with Mike Currie) to describe resources which >were not created for educational consumption in the first instance. The >examples given by Robert were good examples of NEF resources. Without >attaching educational metadata, these are just resources (albeit potentially >useful).
I wouldn't consider things learning objects unless they have an instructional goal. So I would call NEF's as knowledge objects that can serve as learning objects with the right context. Hence my earlier comment that it will be a challenge to make systems that can string together knowledge objects to produce learning. -- Clark
-- Clark Quinn KnowledgePlanet.com (510) 768-2408 cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 15:01:48 -0800 From: Clark Quinn <cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com> Subject: Re: Environmental Aspects of Object Management
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>My research area for the past several years has focused on developing an >"environmental modeling" process -- which I'll explain in a moment -- to >address problems inherent in the prevailing data and object modeling >approaches. While I'm here temporarily, I'd like to present for >consideration three environmental modeling patterns and suggest how their >use might enhance the LO proposal.
Looking to how OO has advanced from the initial model is an interesting possibility to find guidance to similarly expand LO's. I've worried a bit about drawing the metaphor too far, but on the other hand we should look to diverge before we converge!
>To demonstrate this approach, the following paragraphs explore the >possibility of combining the object modeling process with a traditional >normalized data model, framed by a common "pattern repository" >architecture. I describe the result as an "environmental model."
In some ways this reminds me of the new move in software engineering called Design Patterns (is that what you're referring to as a "pattern repository"?). Rather than objects, if I understand correctly, they're more general frameworks of reusable solutions (I suppose you could build libraries of objects around them).
If so, my guess is that they correspond to teaching philosophies at the level of "problem-based learning" or "cognitive apprenticeship". Frameworks which you then instantiate for the particular audience, topic, etc.
>Systems >implementing the model are characterized by a very stable infrastructure >that in itself is free of both content and social values. Yet, because >content development is integrated right into the model, the outcome in >practice is a rich eco-system of ever-changing problem-solution, >subject-object relationships that reflect the content and values of system >users. Here are the key concepts: > >Pattern 1) An object or data model should reflect reality, not require >reality to conform to it. > >Pattern 1 might be restated for the LO project as: you don't want to write >rules defining what an object is, and then require producers and users of >educational materials to conform.
I can see two ways to interpret this.
One is to say that there are no proper constraints on objects, and my understanding of OO design says that while there are a number of ways to make your 'carveup' of the domain into objects, there's sort of a 'natural level' where you get maximum flexibility and maximum encapsulation (much like Rosch's natural categories). And you do have to clearly determine your interfaces.
The other way is to interpret what you're saying, and I'll take it as your meaning, is that you can give guidelines about what constitutes the characteristics of good objects, and then let the context guide the settling of constraints into a fit that meets those characteristics and the domain.
>An object model, to be useful, needs to >be a very permanent, stable thing. Reality, on the other hand, is neither >stable nor permanent. You especially don't want your rules to be dependent >on the existence of a particular technology. (Will Java be the modus >operandi 20 years from now? Who knows?) This is not to say that an object >model for TCP/IP deliverable applications is not needed. Rather, that a >technology-explicit model needs to be positioned within a larger framework >for which it's presence or absence (should it become obsolete) is not >critical. Here is where granularity is key; you must be self-conscious >about whether you are writing a model that is technology specific (a >learning object model for Java, for example), or a generic learning object >model, which is very broad indeed. (It appears to me that this has not been >clearly addressed in the LO project dialog, nor is it reflected in how the >proposed model is shaping up. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Right now, I believe, there's more focus on labelling legacy content, and I'm advocating looking ahead to what gives us flexibility. How should we design and tag objects to achieve the best tradeoffs between development effort and reuse. We will eventually settle into a good solution, but how much can we anticipate?
And I definitely agree (and it's pretty much generally accepted) that we aren't looking towards a particular technology for specification, only for implementations.
>The only way to start working towards that larger framework is to begin >with an attempt at modeling reality. A first step might be to achieve >consensus on a lexicon that would be so comprehensive that, when >implemented, it would allow users to easily and quickly drill down to a >subset of useful objects -- for any yet-to-be-defined task, in any >yet-to-be-defined operating environment, that plug together in any >yet-to-be-defined way. If this sounds like monumental task, it is. However, >Patterns 2 and 3 begin to show how it might be achieved, and why the effort >would be worthwhile.
Sounds like a great goal, and that's the focus of several different efforts (would that there were more coordination).
>Pattern 2) It's not possible to create a sound object model without >considering the environment in which objects interact.
I think that's why the IEEE/LTSC project has working groups that are specifying much more than just the tagging scheme.
>Pattern 3) The Object domain, and the relationships of objects to objects, >should not be defined by the model.
I do think the efforts are working to limit the specification to the minimum needed for interoperability. Whether they succeed remains to be seen.
There seems to be a tension between trying to reach your comprehensive lexicon and not covering too much. It's a non-trivial effort that is going on, and I'll look more deeply into your examples. -- Clark
-- Clark Quinn KnowledgePlanet.com (510) 768-2408 cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:31:55 -0800 From: Clark Quinn <cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com> Subject: Re: More about Learning Objects and Software Components
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I am all for modularity, scalability, and object-oriented programming. But >Learning Objects and Software Components are more than just objects - they >are promoted as units of commerce and independent development. They are >typically created independently of the team that composes them. When, say, >Microsoft builds large applications they build and use lots of internal >components (based on COM or whatever) but the whole thing has an >architecture or overall design and component builders build their components >to fit that architecture. The analogous issue with Learning Objects is >whether the creators of the components are working from a detailed spec that >is part of a grand plan or are building generic pieces hoping someone will >buy them and compile them together with other learning objects.
A good point. However, authors write libraries of routines without knowing how/who they'll be used, they just ensure good interfaces.
I'm mindful that we may be pushing the software analogy too hard. That is, we need to think of whether Learning Objects are a good idea, and if so, what principles should govern their use. Metaphors may lead us astray.
So, in principle, can and should instructional materials be written at a finer level of granularity than a complete instructional sequence?
Arguments con include:
you lose coherency
you have to relearn designing
there may be no benefit to smaller objects
you need a system to string together the objects
Arguments pro include:
You can add objects in as you find them (hard to argue that there isn't always a need for more practice opportunities)
you may be able to do individualization
you can update only those portions that are out of date
you may be able to reuse
the structure of designing for standalone might enforce better objects
-- Clark
-- Clark Quinn KnowledgePlanet.com (510) 768-2408 cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com
------------------------------
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
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:30:20 -0800 From: Cynthia Mazow <cmazow@knowledgeu.com> Subject: First Summary: Learning Objects and Instruction Components Formal Discussion
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear IFETS,
The formal discussion on Learning Objects and Instructional Components began a bit early on February 11. The main themes emerging through 16th February are as follows. (I will provide the first summary until Samantha Hobbs is back online and able to provide the remainder of the summaries.)
* Can strings of learning objects yield a coherent learning experience?
Leading off the discussion, Wendy Lowe (11th Feb.) first raised this issue referring to the coherence of various aspects of a learning experience: "how we will use learning objects that use differing styles of presentation, expression, and so on. If one were to string a couple together, would the result be a coherent course?" Clark Quinn responds (11th Feb.) that the use of learning objects may be a tradeoff between "educating the user about the system in return for a more personalized learning experience." If the learner is aware of how the system is performing and if the user is actively involved in stringing together the learning objects creating the individual experience, then coherence is less of a problem because the learner has "expectations about what's coming." Clark also notes that a system may be able to generate some bridging material between objects to create more coherence. This being said, Clark notes that the issue of coherence will be resolved empirically. Yigal Plot (12th Feb.) suggests that it is the responsibility of the author reusing objects to "ensure course coherence." Kurt Rowley again raises concerns about instructional coherence in commercial-grade computer-based courses, but "for casual learning the abruptness of differing treatments that one would expect with interoperable learning objects might be acceptable." Ania Lian asks the larger questions, "What makes a course coherent? Where does coherence come from? And, most of all, the relationship between the database proposed and the teaching environment so far does not seem to be explicit." Frank Lowney proposes (13th Feb.) that on the issue of coherence we consider "faculty who have composed texts for their classes by assembling articles and other readings...as precursors." Errol Thompson returns to the issue of the teaching environment with respect to coherence: "the learning objects are not what drives the course but rather what gives learning in small area. Course consistency in our context came through the teaching and assessment projects (the problem based learning environment)." Again, suggesting that the responsibility, in some ways, falls on the author of the course to ensure the coherence; but he also suggests that the underlying instructional principles and the learning also provide the coherence.
Related to the issue of coherence are the issues of the granularity size of an object and object reuse and adaptability.
* What is the appropriate size of objects for authoring, reuse, and learning effectiveness?
Many people seem to start with some assumptions about the size of a learning object--course, chapter, lesson, raw media, expected time it takes to complete the object. Everyone seems to have a different assumption, and this discussion is revealing these different assumptions and is exposing different view points. Ken Kahn (13th Feb.) wonders if the successful integration of software components and the demand for this integration would translate to greater success of tightly integrated learning objects instead of a loose collection of objects. Some respond to Ken's comment, suggesting that perhaps he is not ci
Related to object reuse is the question of adaptability of objects? Wendy Lowe asks (11th Feb.) "Would such objects be adaptable by users to the desired context?" Several people respond to this question citing copyright issues and technical issues. Can someone who wishes to reuse an object legally change the content of an object? If it is possible legally, is the object created in way that technically modifying the content is possible. Clark (11th Feb.)raises the possibility of a learner annotating an object on "a path to creating a personalized knowledge system." Ken Kahn (13th Feb.) raises the point of authoring difficulties, "it must be very difficult to construct a single learning object that would be appropriate for such different contexts." I believe Clark responds to this comment by referring to the material that is provided before and after his example as providing the instructional context that would make the example more suited to different courses. Lester Gilbert (14th Feb.), as an instructional designer, discusses the need to tweak various aspects of an object to fit the learning objective, pedagogical method, and learner prerequisites in order for an object to be reused from one lesson to another. Several responses to this comment suggested that perhaps Lester was thinking about a larger granularity size object than the others were. Frank Lowney asserts (14th Feb.), "Reusability will only come from deliberate action in that direction....Indeed, even the objects themselves might be subject to "tweaking" if the object author provides the means to do so." Alfred Ip (15th Feb.) discusses reusability of objects with respect to their granularity size. Alfred has also been keeping a running list of the independent components of learning objects needed to be considered in reuse; so far, the list includes content, function, learning objectives, look and feel.
*How can learning objects support collaborative learning?
Anita Pincas raised this issue of collaboration (12th Feb.) stating that her method of teaching relies on learner collaboration. Yet, she feels that "Dr. Quinn's approach would seem to...assume an isolated, individual learner." Clark admits (14th Feb.) that he is biased that way because of the need for a "critical mass of students all starting and progressing in lock-step." However, Clark also goes on to explain that the notion of learning objects does not preclude learner collaboration. A learning object may be a chat session, a bulletin board, or some other collaborative activity. Barney Dalgarno (16th Feb.) disagrees with Clark's statement that a learning object can be a collaborative object on the grounds that he believes "most people prefer to use generic communication tools...rather than having communication tools provided as part of a resource. Clark responds by stating that an object may set up the collaborative activity and provide the user access to the communication tool of choice and not provide a communication tool specific to the activity only.
Cindy Mazow KnowledgePlanet.com 510.768.2435 cmazow@knowledgeplanet.com http://www.knowledgeplanet.com
------------------------------
End of IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 20 Feb 2000 to 21 Feb 2000 ********************************************************
--------------------------------------------------------- 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 : Tue 22 Feb 2000 - 21:57:57 MET