Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 20 Feb 2000 to 21 Feb 2000
From: Clark Quinn (cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com)
Date: Thu 24 Feb 2000 - 01:15:14 MET
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:15:14 -0800 From: Clark Quinn <cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
And it's generally assumed that the tags aren't designed to be read by people, but by systems. The tags do support the activities you describe, but I believe indirectly. So you generate queries in human language (even if it is that half-breed, a query language) which the system then uses to query the tags to find objects that meet the description.
>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.
I'm not sure we aren't in agreement, but let's see if my restatement makes sense. I believe that they're learning objects if they've got a specific learning function. And, when provided by the system in an instructional sequence, lead to a learning experience. The characteristic that distinguishes what I call knowledge objects from learning objects is the instructional wrapping to make that object serve a learning objective.
And note that I'm talking about systems operating on objects, not people searching for objects that they string together. I don't think they need to be learning objects for the latter to happen. Which, I think, is your point.
>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)
And I'll disagree, for my system purposes (not my non-technology-mediated purposes).
> > 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' !)
It's the latter I'm interested in, and so I'm asking for tighter controls than would support your first task. There *are* efforts to tag all objects which should support your initial task, that're not specific to learning needs.
> > you have to relearn designing
>
>sounds like fun!
Well, yeah, that's my point of view :-).
> > Arguments pro include:
>
>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.
Absolutely! Hey, it's not just a technical issue, but quickly segues into a bigger picture (and I'm all for insurrectionist attempts to undermine the current market :-).
-- 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 - 02:23:14 MET