Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 20 Feb 2000 to 21 Feb 2000
From: Clark Quinn (cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com)
Date: Thu 24 Feb 2000 - 21:59:33 MET
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:59:33 -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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
I'm not thinking that systems can take what you call information objects and create learning experiences, but can take learning objects and create learning experiences. With proper tagging, and some design constraints on what constitutes a learning object.
>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".
I think it makes sense to tag whether there's instructio).
>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.
A good point. In the long term, it will help people to separate the wheat from the chaff. It may be a combination of some scrutiny, and then public evaluation. There may be trusted brokers of objects who review and select for their 'subscribers', or there may be an open marketplace where learners leave evaluations of objects after use and the aggregate rating is displayed. Currently, it's either universities (this is the Harvard MBA), or learning companies (this is the Scholastic first grade curriculum). Where it goes in the long term will be an interesting thing to watch. I'm not sure whether, however, such labelling is essential for LO's, or something added for a particular implementation (e.g. marketplace), and I'm inclined to think the latter.
-- 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 : Fri 25 Feb 2000 - 05:03:12 MET