Subject: Summary 3 up to 24/2
S.J.E.Hobbs@open.ac.uk
Date: Fri 25 Feb 2000 - 17:08:08 MET
From: S.J.E.Hobbs@open.ac.uk Subject: Summary 3 up to 24/2 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 16:08:08 -0000
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what I THINK is the summary of the last section of the discussion
.... though people seem loath to stop!
1. AI vs Human User of LOs
Weston is also concerned that the 'wrapper' provide some form of
interactivity. He suggests that the 'AI approach' (dependent on the standard
of AI) would suit independent learners whilst the 'authored' (presumably
human) is better suited to an institutional context. Plot also voices
concern suggesting that when intelligent systems assemble courses 'in this
context coherence is a big problem'). Whilst Quinn acknowledges concerns
about the AI contribution to current system, he believes that 'a system can
create an individualised learning experience on the fuly from tagged
learning objects'. This dichotomy of approach, whether human or computer
based 'course construction' seems to affect all other aspects of LOs, their
definition, use and tagging.
2. Extensibility of Metadata and the need for expertise
Both Weston and Cooper make mention of the need for metadata standards to be
extensible to adapt to future needs. Thompson raises the issue of
standardised metadata language not matching users usual vocabulary and
suggests that experts in the area of LOs and their metadata will be needed
to which Quinn agrees. There seems to be a tension concerning rigidly
standardised metatdata (best for machines) and less standardised, more
flexible tagging (usable by humans) although Hobbs does not see these as
incompatible. Quinn refers to it maintaining the balance between these
aspects as 'a fine tension'.
3. Different types of Learner
D'Aquin suggests dsitinguishes between 'education' and 'training' suggesting
that LOs are not appropriate for training. Quinn prefers to see these as
different ends of a continuum with 'most' forms of education leading to
'performance on test'. He believes that the new instructional design which
can be developed using LOs will help educators address the needs of
different types of learners though the same objects saying 'I think what we
want to achieve is a mechamism where content can meet widely variying
performance objectives, in flexible ways.'
4. Definition of LOs
Agreement on the definition of LOs seems to be muddied in several
dimensions; the content/tool relationship, LOs/not-LOs, size and the
presence/absence of metadata tags appear to be the main ones. Ip expresses
it well when he says 'I am still struggling with an operational definition
of an LO'. Several contributors have raised the issue of whether and in
what context, a 'tool' can be considered an LO . Ip and Quinn have been
holding a lengthy debate around the definition of terms including Learning
Objects, Learning Assets, Knowledge objects, resources, NEFs and so on.
Thompson and Knox both ask whether a complete 'session' such as a class time
or tutorial should be considered as an LO whereas Quinn would have a basic
LO at a much smaller level. The tagging - LO relationship is confusing with
some suggesting that tagging only identifies the object for the system or
user and others that without tagging, and object cannot be an LO others
further suggest that it is the 'kind' of information in the tags/metadata
which makes the difference. Cooper, for example, has a very inclusive
approach to LOs on the condition that information concerning the 'scope' and
'level of instructional support' are tagged.
4.1 'Wrapping' and 'Massaging'
The last two days have exposed some lovely images relating to how LOs come
into being either as individual objects or combined into larger units of
study. Weston picks up on the concept of 'wrapping' objects (implying an
action effecting areas external to the LO) to give a group or sequence of
object coherence). There seems to be an onion-like view of how something
becomes an LO. For Quinn, a Knowledge Object, becomes an LO when it is given
'instructional wrapping. It then needs a layer of metadata tags to become
complete. Lowney, on the other hand, suggests that LOs might be 'massaged'
to suit an environment of use (implying an internal effect on the LO.
---------------------------------------------------------
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 - 20:44:18 MET