Subject: Re: Learning asset and learning object
From: Clark Quinn (cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com)
Date: Thu 24 Feb 2000 - 19:32:04 MET
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:32:04 -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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In particular, in addition to
>subject:topic:sub-topic (possibly identified differently for different
>educational levels), I would also want to be able to select on several other
>content related characteristics.
>
>One is 'level of dificulty or sophistication' - which would have at least two
>dimensions - one for the concept involved and one for the context (so as to
>distinguish for example between a simplified 'bare bones' example of a tricky
>concept and a realistically complex application of a simple concept).
This is now in the IEEE dictum, but I think it's problematic. First, our initial work seems to indicate that there are more contributions to difficulty in problem level, including at least: the concept, as you indicate; the problem statement in it's clarity and relevance; the amount of scaffolding provided for solution; and the way the responses are to be indicated.
A second problem is, as indicated in the discussion paper, is categorizing any of these, even just concept and context. Do you just have 'easy', 'medium', or 'hard'? How many gradations? How do you keep consistency across different raters? I'd love for there to be some nice conceptual distinctions (any pointers)? If not, can we have at least categorical distinctions by example? Otherwise, I'm afraid there's too much leeway for interpretational differences to make the tag actually useful.
>Another is 'degree of instructional support' (so as to distinguish between the
>picture or data table with little surrounding explanation and the fully formed
>lesson that might be based on that basic information object)
Again, how do you categorize? I'd prefer that it just be a boolean value: 'Instructional Support' or 'No Instructional Support'. Unless, of course, there's a nice clear conceptual or examplary based system for doing the categorization.
>And a third of course is 'scope' or 'granularity' both in the sense of quantity
>of material and range of coverage (from lesson to module to course to program)
This is in there, at least in quantity of material. Range of coverage is another issue. Same problems as above. How do you quantify or even qualify?
I agree that all this would be absolutely useful, I'm just not aware of solutions. I do hope that in other fields these problems have been investigated and at least interim solutions have been solved.
Again, pointers? -- 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 - 21:06:21 MET