Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 20 Feb 2000 to 21 Feb 2000
From: Alan Cooper (acooper@langara.bc.ca)
Date: Wed 23 Feb 2000 - 06:33:31 MET
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:33:31 -0800 From: Alan Cooper <acooper@langara.bc.ca> Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 20 Feb 2000 to 21 Feb 2000
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark wrote (with regard to what makes an object a learning object)
> 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.
But the tags are also useful for people. The purpose of the tags is surely to
make the object (whether it's a Learning Object or any other kind of catalogued
object) more accessible to the user who needs it (regardless of whether that user
is a person or a machine). I do agree with you though that it's not the tagging
that makes a thing an 'object'. Tagging is just a tool for cataloguing objects.
> What distinguishes them from knowledge objects, however, is that
> they're designed to support learning.
I would change this to say they *can be used* to support learning. But then of
course it wouldn't be a distinction - knowledge objects would be a class of
learning objects (and so it would make sense to have a tag indicating the "level
of instructional support" included when cataloguing the object)
> A painting by itself (or a digital image thereof) isn't a learning object
> inherently.
and may not have been *designed* to support learning, but I would say (and you
seem to agree) that it can be used as a learning object.
> 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.
Or rather it can be used to support several *different* instructional objectives
(which I believe was one of the points for which you introduced this example)
> I wouldn't consider things learning objects unless they have an
> instructional goal.
(or - just to belabour my point -perhaps just an instuctional *use*?)
It may be tempting to define a learning object as an object tagged for an
educational purpose, but I prefer to leave the concept vague and envisage both
the possibility of both uncatalogued and unrecognized learning objects, and to
concentrate on the problem of how to tag and catalogue those objects that *are*
recognized as having an educational use. The question of which kinds can be
usefully catalogued is still legitimate, but I repeat my earlier suggestion that
we should at least start by trying to be comprehensive.
Both the scale or scope of the object (ie single concept through whole module or
course to an entire program of study), and the "level of instructional support"
(ie whether it's just information like a picture or table or databank, or on the
other hand is wrapped in some form instructional delivery) then become important
properties to be tagged. It is the need for such tags that I believe makes this
more than just an abstract philosophical exercise.
AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
Clark also wrote:
> So, in principle, can and should instructional materials be written
> at a finer level of granularity than a complete instructional
> sequence?
My vote would be:
can: yes
(and usefully so, at least if given a live instructor to handle the compilation)
should: no
(in the sense that it shouldn't be required or even necessarily the norm)
>
>
> Arguments con include:
>
> you lose coherency
this can be overcome with a human instructor to compile and connect the items,
and perhaps in specific restricted contexts with automatic compilation if the
objects are constructed according to compatible standards (ah here's another
property to tag but the standards that may be needed haven't yet been specified!
but, hey, no problem - thanks to the 'x' in 'xml' !)
>
> you have to relearn designing
sounds like fun!
>
>
> there may be no benefit to smaller objects
see your 'pro' arguments below
>
>
> you need a system to string together the objects
or a person (see above)
>
>
> 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
and I would add
you may be able to break the publishers' monopoly and the high cost of entry
to the authoring market and so tap into the creativity of many potential authors
who either lack the time and resources to write and get published a whole text,
or who only see a need to improve the presentation of a particular topic.
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 : Wed 23 Feb 2000 - 10:43:53 MET