Subject: Re: Learning Objects and Instruction Components
From: Albert Ip (albert@dls.au.com)
Date: Wed 23 Feb 2000 - 11:20:10 MET
From: "Albert Ip" <albert@dls.au.com> Subject: Re: Learning Objects and Instruction Components Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:20:10 +1100
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:46:49 -0800 Clark Quinn wrote
>> >>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.
How to operationalize "Buttressed front and back with objects"?
>>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.
Sorry, everybody got their own set of terms created during the process of
understanding the issues. Instead of everytime saying "resources that are
not originally created for educational consumptions", I needed a term to
call it. "Non-education" suggests negative notions and "non-educational
focus" suffers the same problem. I just try to get away by saying "NEF
resource". :-)
Coming from a computing background (whoop, I am actually a physics secondary
school teacher latter self-learnt to teach software engineering at B.Sc
level), I always reserve "object" to artifacts which is a bit more
complicated than "resource". Can we overload a knowledge object's function?
Just a joke!
>>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.
Since I don't have the operating definition of "knowledge object", I can't
commend whether it is possble to "stringing together knowledge objects".
However, I see potential uses of NEF resources. Some body used the museum
as an example. The artifacts are NEF resources (they are not created
originally for educational purposes). However, the way these artifacts are
presented / described / arranged in the exhibition actually allows to
visitors to learn something these resources alone cannot do. The digital
equivalent of such education enabling may be the gem of Guinn "wrapping"
notion.
Albert
---------------------------------------------------------
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 - 23:42:52 MET