Subject: Re: Learning objects: sequencing, wrappers and interactivity
From: Clark Quinn (cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com)
Date: Wed 23 Feb 2000 - 21:44:47 MET
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:44:47 -0800 From: Clark Quinn <cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com> Subject: Re: Learning objects: sequencing, wrappers and interactivity
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>On educational wrappers. My view is that the educational wrapper will very
>often add interactivity to an essentially expositive resource.
This sounds like a very intriguing premise. I don't quite see how that could happen, at least automatically. I could see designers/authors adding interactivity, but that then seems like creating a learning object, rather than handling it through wrapping. Can you elaborate?
>By
>interactivity, I refer to the ability to interact with the software in what
>Ariadne calls a 'semantically meaningful' way, rather than software which
>facilitates interactivity between humans (i.e. communications or
>collaborative learning software). While interactivity is not essential to
>educational content, it sure as hell helps, especially when you are dealing
>with less experienced learners, say at secondary level.
I certainly agree on the benefits of interactivity.
>Embedding interactive resources into a sequence will normally require the
>objects to comply to a protocol such as IMS or AICC. This is certainly true
>if a tutor wants to retrieve results data.
Yes, you need standards to exchange information to/from objects, and I think systems will need 'results' data back from objects that are evaluated.
>If learning objects are to
>maximise their re-useability, they will need to be parameterised; but the
>structure of the parameters is unpredicatable and cannot be written into the
>protocol. In this (and other) respects, the protocol must be extensible.
To the extent that it's extensible, it's not reusable (though systems ought to have graceful degradation back to the standard). There's a tough tradeoff between wanting particular elements, and having an agreed, shared, standard.
>I am currently working on a set of authoring tools and management system,
>primarily focused on the production and deployment of interactive materials.
>Content and management system communicate through an open standard which I
>have developed, loosely based on the British OILS protocol.
Is there a reference to the OILS protocol?
-- 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 : Wed 23 Feb 2000 - 23:41:52 MET