Hi Bob,
Thanks for your mail. Lots of interesting issues here! I'll try to reply in
more detail next week. In the meantime one point that I should probably
clarify is that the document contained edited highlights taken from the SCORM
spec. In terms of SCOs and meta-data the spec goes on to state:
"A SCO can be described with SCO Meta-data (see SCO Meta-data definition below)
to allow for search and discovery within online repositories, thereby enhancing
opportunities for reuse. The mechanism for binding SCOs to SCO Meta-data is
the Content Package that will be introduced in a Section 2.3."
And further on...
"2.1.2.2. Sharable Content Object (SCO) Meta-data
A definition of meta-data that can be applied to SCOs that provides descriptive
information about the content represented in the SCO. This meta-data is used
to facilitate reuse and discoverability of such content within, for example, a
content repository."
Just thought I'd better set the record straight!
Have a good Easter
Bye
Lorna
Bob Banks wrote:
> An important question prompted for me by Lorna's very useful document in
> the "Aggregation levels" thread is -
> "Must a learning object contain in its meta-data the learning objectives it
> fulfils , or not?"
>
> Many people take the view that it must - and in fact this is the key thing
> that makes it a learning object, as opposed to some other kind of object.
> However SCORM clearly takes the view that it doesn't have to (see quote
> below - from Lorna's document). That's if an SCO is synonymous with a
> learning object in this context, which I'd hope it is!
>
> "Sharable Content Object (SCO). A Sharable Content Object (SCO) represents
> a collection of one or more Assets that include a specific launchable asset
> that utilises the SCORM Run-Time Environment to communicate with Learning
> Management Systems (LMSs)?.To be reusable, a SCO by itself should be
> independent of learning context. For example, a SCO could be reused in
> different learning experiences to fulfil different learning objectives. In
> addition, one or more SCOs can be aggregated to form a higher-level unit of
> instruction or training that fulfils higher level learning objectives. SCOs
> are intended to be subjectively small units, such that potential reuse
> across multiple learning objectives is feasible."
>
> >From (I assume) -
> The SCORM Content Aggregation Model Version 1.2
> <http://adlnet.org/Scorm/downloads.cfm#spec>
>
> This appears to be a dilemma. I think the underlying point is that
> constructivists would adopt the SCORM view - their learning objectives will
> typically be dependent on the whole learning experience, not wholly
> dictated by the individual materials used. Whereas, in many other contexts
> (for example many training situations), a learning experience is pretty
> much the sum of the learning objects which make it up - and so it does make
> sense for the learning objectives to be "contained in" the learning
> objects.
> I don't think we need a dogmatic battle about this (although some would no
> doubt relish one!) - I believe both approaches are valid in different
> contexts.
>
> We've done some thinking about this, and I feel there's a formulation which
> allows for both views. To summarise:
> "Learning objects do 'contain' learning objectives, but these are for
> guidance, not mandatory. In the context of use, the learning objectives
> presented to the learner may be the ones 'contained' in the learning object
> (specifically in its meta-data), or they may be ones that are particular to
> the current context / learning programme. (Of course, in the latter case,
> the guidance learning objectives 'contained in' the object may well be
> helpful in defining objectives for this context.)"
>
> Incidentally, I feel this might also avoid learning objects being written
> off by a whole camp of educators who feel that having learning objectives
> defined only in the objects / materials leads to an overly mechanistic
> model of learning.
>
> Learning objectives ARE important - not only for the learner and teacher,
> but often for funding, monitoring, assessment etc. purposes. In many
> (most?) funding regimes, when offering a learning programme, an institution
> HAS TO say what learning objectives it will achieve. I think this
> formulation gives flexibility - where appropriate the learning objectives
> can be the ones from the learning objects - but in other circumstances,
> they can be defined at a higher level.
>
> Is this ramble of any use?
>
> Bob
>
> _____________________________________________________________
>
> From: e-mail:
> [log in to unmask]
> Dr. Bob Banks, Phone: +44 (0) 114 281 6000
> FD Learning Fax: +44 (0) 114 281 6001
> Brincliffe House, WWW: http://www.fdlearning.com
> 861 Ecclesall Rd.,
> Sheffield S11 7AE,
> U.K.
--
Lorna M. Campbell
Research Fellow
Centre for Academic Practice
University of Strathclyde
0141 548 3072
[log in to unmask]
|