Subject: Re: Learning asset and learning object
From: Clark Quinn (cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com)
Date: Thu 24 Feb 2000 - 01:40:01 MET
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:40:01 -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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >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.
>
>No, I don't agree that LA+metadata=LO.
>
>I was trying to say that we need to make a distinction between "content" and
>the notion of "Learning object".
And I agree with Frank (having seen your copies of his slides). OK, there's non-educational content, that is content without educational objectives at least implicit. Something like a digital image of a picture, a chart, some prose that's not necessarily expository, etc. As soon as I have this in a form a system can identify and 'serve up' (e.g. a URL), I'll go along with Frank and call it an asset. Therefore, since it's not educational, I call it a knowledge asset.
There's educational content, that is a picture with some annotation about author, time period, style. A chart with an audio overlay that explains it's context. Some educational text. Again, as soon as I can identify it and 'launch' it, it's an asset, and now a learning asset.
It requires metadata tagging to be a fully realized object.
>I also noted that "content" is not necessarily "learning content" from the
>view of creation. When used in a learning situation, all content IS
>learning content.
If there's an external context provided, I'll agree. But I don't think that serving a string of independent knowledge objects will necessarily yield a learning experience. Currently. That is, a system that can create a learning experience on the fly out of tagged knowledge objects just doesn't exist yet, nor can it unless some more breakthroughs are accomplished in AI and cognitive science.
However, I think a system can create an individualized learning experience on the fly from tagged learning objects.
>The issue is how to create "learning content" or use
>content meaningfully in a learning context. I don't think we should avoid
>"jumping the loop" by saying that once a content was used in a learning
>context, the content becomes a learning object. I was trying to terse out
>the "qualities" or necessary "sub-components" of any learning object.
>
>The current list is "content, functionality, learning objectives and 'look
>and feel' " Please add to this list and debate!
OK. Given the above, I'd argue that content, functionality, and 'look and feel' are properties of objects, period. Knowledge or learning. The need for a learning objective (implicit is acceptable) is what's needed to make it a learning object.
-- 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 : Thu 24 Feb 2000 - 02:22:13 MET