Lorna,
I have only one suggestion for a vocabulary building technique
that may help.
Analysing the suggested vocabulary I can see at least two main criteria
for the organization of concepts
A) type by the function the resource
has in education
B) type by form of presentation
These are mutually exclusive categories of concepts and the educational
resources
are often a combination of those. Dublin Core Type is a good example of
a 'pure' vocabulary, it has only one criterion. In the case of educational
material I think at least two are needed. This means two facets of
mutually exclusive concepts otherwise the resulting vocabulary is
cross-classification ('apples and bicycles')
I think the following would facilitate discussion (please note
that this is only an example of vocabulary structure and not
suggestion of real vocabulary and I may have made mistakes)
A FUNCTION
A1 for practice / training
exercise
written
practical
experiments (?)
A2 for evaluation
A21 test
A211 type of test 1
A212 type of test 2 etc.
A22 questionnaire
A23 written exercise(?)
A24 interview
A25 mixed
A3 instructional material
A31 lecture notes
A32 slides
A33 examples
A34 mixed
A4 combination of exercise/evaluation/lecture
B FORM OF PRESENTATION
B1 simulation (?)
B2 graphical presentation
B21 images
B211 still images
B212 moving images
B22 graphs
diagrams
charts
B23 drawings
B24 sketches etc.
B3 audio recording
B4 text
B51 questionnaire
B52 narrative etc.
B5 objects
B6 events
B7 mixed forms
This kind of presentation may help to see what kind of vocabulary may
be needed to work together ...for instance
one can have
A31 + B4 Lecture in the form of Video recording (moving images)
I think that provision needs to be made for expressing a combination.
Hierarchical organization helps to expand or collapse specificity.
It enables easier mapping and vocabulary expansion - while a discussion is
going on.
It well shows gaps and 'holes'
If this is done properly the hierarchy can easily be collapsed and
the number of concepts reduced. The last stage is to decide what
terms/symbols/codes will be used to present concepts.
I accept that you may have already gone through the phase above and that
the suggested vocabulary is the result but it would facilitate discussion
if it would be grouped by criterion.
I hope I haven't missed the point here.
Aida
-----Original Message-----
From: The CETIS Metadata Special Interest Group
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Lorna M. Campbell
Sent: 03 September 2003 16:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: learningResourceType vocabulary discussion
Dear all,
Following last weeks Educational Content SIG meeting in Glasgow some of
us met up informally to discuss the dreaded LOM learningResourceType
vocabulary in the context of the UK LOM Core. Those of you who are
familiar with this "idiosyncratic" vocabulary will not be surprised to
learn that we haven't managed to come to any definitive conclusions.
However we have continued the debate via e-mail and, as this topic is
likely to be of considerable interest to the Metadata SIG community,
I've collated our discussions into a word document and attached it below.
There seems to be general agreement that the current LOM vocabulary does
not meet our requirements but there is no general consensus as to what
to replace it with. Among the suggestions we've had so far are:
1. The Dublin Core Type vocabulary.
2. The RDN/LTSN vocabularies.
3. A single new vocabulary based on the above.
In order to open the debate to all SIG members please forward any
comments, suggestions or opinions to the list.
Best Wishes
Lorna
--
Lorna M. Campbell
Assistant Director
Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards (CETIS)
Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
+44 (0)141 548 3072
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/
|
