Dear All,
At first, I thought that the name "Instructional Method" was too
restrictive (I 'm too fixed to _learning_ paradigm, sorry ;-) but after
looking it from the user perspective, it seems OK. After all, every user
community has to define what they are really going to put under that
element and the name isn't so relevant in that process...
Secondly, the definition (+comment +examples) seemed too broad when
covering teaching method, assessment and even grouping. There I am fixed to
LOM element style: lots of separate elements. Also a little XML implementer
in me is thinking how I am going to do this? RDF is not in my solution box.
Maybe it should be? Future element refinements to this element sound good
to me...
However, the need for this element is evident and I am willing to support
the proposal if I get clarification to above mentioned issues.
Cheers,
Lassi
BTW Stuart, there are double Multimedia instructions in
http://purl.org/gem/instance/GEM-TM/
At 04:13 22.8.2004, Stuart Sutton wrote:
>All, as promised over a month ago, here is a link to the DCMI Working
>Draft of a proposed element from the Education Working Group to contain
>statements regarding the instructional methods of an educational
>resource. The draft documentation of the proposal can be found at the
>following URL:
>
><http://www.ischool.washington.edu/sasutton/8-21-04/>http://www.ischool.washington.edu/sasutton/8-21-04/
>
>In order for the proposal to be on the agenda of the Usage Board in
>Shanghai (October 9-10, 2004) the official one-month public comment period
>on DC-General must begin no later than September 1, 2004 (10 days from
>today). So, the next ten days are the last few days we have to make any
>revisions to the proposal before that more general comment period begins.
>
>IT IS IMPORTANT that you express your approval/concerns over the next ten
>days so we have a better sense of community approval for the proposed
>element. So, please send your comments (even if it a simple expression
>that you'd find the element useful) here to the DC-Ed list. Please do not
>send them to us privately since it is important in terms of DCMI processes
>that there be a public expression of need and approval. Of course,
>suggestions that will improve the proposal will be greatly appreciated.
>
>Stuart Sutton
>Diane Hillmann
>Co-Chairs, DC-Education Working Group
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Stuart A. Sutton, Associate Professor
>[University of Washington, Box 354985]
>The Information School
>iSchool Research Commons
>University of Washington
>4311 11th Ave NE, Suite 400
>Seattle, WA 98105
><http://www.ischool.washington.edu/>http://www.ischool.washington.edu
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------
>From: Stuart Sutton
>Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:35 AM
>To: Stuart Sutton; [log in to unmask]
>Cc: Tom Baker (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: Draft proposal for a instructional methods element
>All, on 5 June 2004 I posted the message below containing a draft proposal
>for a new "conforming" DCMI property labeled "Instructional Method". This
>proposed property (under various labels) has been part of the DC-Ed
>conversation since before the WG's face-to-face meeting in Melbourne in
>February 2000 (pedagogy thread).
>
>As co-chairs of the Working Group, Diane Hillmann and I would like to move
>this proposal forward by placing it on the agenda of the DCMI Usage Board
>for consideration at its meeting in Shanghai on 9-10 October 2004. In
>order to meet the requirements for Usage Board consideration, we need to
>notify the Chair of the Board (Tom Baker) of our "intent to propose" as
>soon as possible so that he can assign a shepherd for the proposal and
>calendar the various task associated with such a consideration. As a
>result, we are going to take the relative silence on this list to mean
>basic approval of the draft and send on the notice of "intent to propose"
>at this time. To make the Usage Board calendar, the actual proposal must
>be ready for the public comment period required by Usage Board processes
>no later than 28 August 2004.
>
>Over the course of the coming week or so, we will prepare the actual
>proposal which we'll post back here as soon as it is ready.
>
>Stuart
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Stuart A. Sutton, Associate Professor
>[University of Washington, Box 354985]
>The Information School
>iSchool Research Commons
>University of Washington
>4311 11th Ave NE, Suite 400
>Seattle, WA 98105
><http://www.ischool.washington.edu/>http://www.ischool.washington.edu
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------
>From: Stuart Sutton
>Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 9:59 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Draft proposal for a instructional methods element
>All, I am going to be a bit bold here and propose some draft text for a
>new eucation-training specific element to be added to the DCMI terms
>namespace. I believe the proposal conforms to DCMI priciples and, since
>it is specific to the education/training domain, qualifies for DCMI
>"conforming" status as opposed to "recommended" (cross-domain/discovery)
>status. The proposed element will make it possible to provide statements
>regarding the "instructional methods" an educational resource supports
>explicitly or perhaps implicitly. To date, education-specific elements
>have been added to the DCMI terms namespace that permit making statements
>regarding the educational audience (<audience>) of a resource and any
>content/academic standards/frameworks/etc. (<conformsTo>) to which the
>resource correlates. A major limitation to date in qualified DC is the
>inability to state with precision anything regarding the pedagogical (or
>pick your own label) aspects of a resource. So, below is my first stab at
>such a proposal. Please note that I am far, far less concerned at the
>moment about the label etc. as with the semantics and identifying the
>community need. I'd really be interested in hearing what you all think
>with regard to bringing such a proposal to the Usage Board for discussion
>and action at its next meeting in Shanghai in October.
>
>Stuart
>
>=====<DRAFT PROPOSAL>======
>URI: http://purl.org/dc/terms/instructionalMethod
>Label: Instructional Method
>Definition: Processes by which knowledge, attitudes and skills are
>deliberately conveyed and assessed.
>Comment: Ways of representing the presentation of instructional materials
>or conducting instructional activities, patterns of learner-to-learner and
>learner-to-instructor interactions, and mechanisms by which group and
>individual levels of learning are measured. Instructional methods include
>representation of aspects of the total instructional process from planning
>and implementation through evaluation and feedback.
>Type of Term: Element
>Refines: None
>Status: Conforming
>====<END DRAFT PROPOSAL>====
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Stuart A. Sutton, Associate Professor
>[University of Washington, Box 354985]
>The Information School
>iSchool Research Commons
>University of Washington
>4311 11th Ave NE, Suite 400
>Seattle, WA 98105
><http://www.ischool.washington.edu/>http://www.ischool.washington.edu
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
<Lassi_Nirhamo>
Researcher
University of Turku
Educational Technology Unit
http://users.utu.fi/lasnir/
Work: +358 2 333 8736
Mobile: +358 40 5747 071
</Lassi_Nirhamo>
<sig>
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
practice, there is.
-Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut-
</sig>
|