Lassi, thanks for your comments. Picking a "name" (machine token) for a
proposed DCMI namespace element is _always_ problematic. But, as you
note, it is the semantics of the element that controls the scope and
legitimacy of the values assigned to it. Discussion of this element
began in the DC-Education Working Group as far back as February 2000 at
the Working Group's face-to-face meeting in Melbourne. Since that time,
the emergent element has been referred to in discussions as "pedagogy",
"learningMethod", "teachingMethod", etc. etc. None of these names/
tokens express the full intention of the semantic statement. Next week
the proposal goes out for a full month of public discussion on the
DC-General list. We'll have to see what emerges there in terms of the
name.
I agree with you that the proposed element is an awfully big bucket in
terms of what it can hold within the constraints of its semantics and
that there is probably a fairly large need for making more refined
statements. So, if approved by the DC Usage Board, we'll have to see
what emerges through DC-Education list discussions and discussions
elsewhere regarding the adoption of additional refining properties.
But, one step at a time.
I am not quite sure what problem you see, Lassi, with the new element in
terms of XML. There is nothing in the proposal that I can see that puts
any stress on the "Guidelines for Implementing Dublin Core in XML"
(http://www.dublincore.org/documents/2003/04/02/dc-xml-guidelines/).
Again, thanks for your input.
Stuart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Stuart A. Sutton, Associate Professor
The Information School
iSchool Research Commons
University of Washington
4311 11th Ave NE, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98105
http://www.ischool.washington.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Education Group
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lassi Nirhamo
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:08 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Proposal for an instructional methods element
>
> 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://w
> ww.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>
>
|
