Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 20 Feb 2000 to 21 Feb 2000
From: Alan Cooper (acooper@langara.bc.ca)
Date: Thu 24 Feb 2000 - 11:01:24 MET
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 02:01:24 -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 Quinn wrote:
> in response to Alan Cooper's:
> >But the tags are also useful for people. ......
>
> 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.
Yes. That's what I meant. I was distinguishing human use in the sense of pulling materials by query from a database of resources for the purpose of "stringing together" or "embedding" in an instructional project, from machine use in the sense of automatic course generation (as in "ok robot, go out and build me a calculus course adapted to the special needs and interests of a forensic kinesiology program"). As a flesh and blood
instructor, perhaps I should be worried about the prospects of competition from such robots, but my pulse isn't quickening too much on that score.
>
>
> 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.
Well the usage seems to vary. But I'm happy to live with your more restricted concept of LO in this discussion (and also more generally if that's the way the language ultimately shakes down).
From some of your other postings I inferred that you were not overly optimistic as to the feasibility of such systems, but perhaps I was misinterpreting. In any case, for the situations (and I agree that there are some) in which it might be feasible to automate "course design" I agree that a high level of instructional suport wrapping would be needed. But I would like to see an integrated approach to cataloguing which would allow
for a continuum from what you might call "information objects" to "learning objects", all to be handled within a comprehensive framework like IMS or SCORM. Which is why I proposed the idea of tagging the "level of (included) instructional support".
Another issue is the fact that within the realm of automated (or perhaps more realistically 'automation assisted') combination of units, there may legitimately be different structures needed in different instructional realms or by different software systems. This suggests the need for identifying which system(s) an object is adapted for - each of which may mandate a different tagging system (hence my subsequent reference to a need
for eXtensibility)
One other issue that comes to mind when we start talking about automated systems is that of certification of validity and quality of content. Do we only accept material from a limited number of trusted or certified authors? or just items which have been reviewed and approved by some authority? I find it hard to imagine the controls needed to maintain quality of product from an automated system not interfering with the free exchange
of ideas which is what attracts me to the idea of an "Educational Object Economy". Anyhow, the notion of certification of quality and credibility may be something else that belongs on Albert's list.
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 : Thu 24 Feb 2000 - 20:46:55 MET