mmm...
Looking at what Ted says, maybe we need a term that is used to
describe not the resource, but if it is accompanied by 'pedagogical
description'. If we did this, a resource might be described initially
by say a library, using 'standard' DC and then a teacher might write
some notes about how to use the resource "a teaching resource" and the
teaching resource and the (learning) resource could be linked by being
bundled or by metadata. I am wondering if our very politically correct
language is getting in the way here - everything Stuart talked about
was for the teacher - not a learning resource but a teaching resource
perhaps, and what Sarah has been working on is what a student might
want for learning. I think this is important, especially in a world
where a lot of learning is teacher independent.
Liddy
On 11/12/2009, at 3:37 AM, Ted Willard wrote:
> Hello All-
>
> Most of the conversations on this listserve fall well outside of my
> areas of expertise. I am far from an expert on metadata frameworks,
> but I think some of the work of Project 2061 may have relevance to
> this conversation. In some of the projects we have been involved
> in, we have tried to identify phenomena that would be useful to help
> students to achieve a particular learning goal (say for example,
> understanding the phases of the moon).
>
> Would any given picture of the moon be useful in understanding this
> idea? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Some people may immediately see how
> a given picture could be used. Others may not. I would argue that
> for a picture to be considered a learning resource, a clear learning
> objective would needed to be stated and there would need to be some
> description of how the use of the resource could help students
> achieve that learning objective.
>
> I don't think this means that a full lesson plan, as Stuart
> describes, is necessary. But I don't think that it is satisfactory
> to say that any resource is a learning resource just because someone
> has identified it as such. At an absolute minimum, there must be
> some sort of learning objective (preferably an already defined
> academic standard) indicated.
>
> I hope this perspective is helpful.
>
> -Ted Willard
> Project Director
> AAAS Project 2061
>
> >>> Stuart Sutton <[log in to unmask]> Thursday, December 10,
> 2009 8:28 AM >>>
> Hi, Liddy, let me respond to your question by first reversing your
> question order. Your second question is the pivotal one I thought
> (perhaps mistakenly) we had resolved decisively in Madrid--the
> nature of the domain resources of concern to the DC-Ed AP. I think,
> as you frame it, Liddy, that you "have to do something to the speech
> to make it a learning (or relevant) resource". What is the nature
> of that "something." Liddy, in your question example, you "choose to
> use, let's say, a speech, *in a lesson plan*..." I contend that
> when you embed that speech "in a lesson plan", the speech has been
> purposed for teaching and learning; but, the lesson plan is the
> learning resource (as I have defined the class in my discussion
> document on the wiki [1]) and not the speech itself. The speech,
> extracted from the lesson plan, is just another thing in the world
> (albeit an historically significant one)--just another thing in the
> universe of discourse out of which many lesson plans and other
> learning resources might be developed. But, standing alone, it is
> not a learning resource. Here's a test to determine whether such a
> resource is a learning resource: Take your speech, Liddy--let's say
> my Lincoln's Gettysburg Address--and hand it to a K-12 teacher and
> say "here's my learning resource". That teacher will either stare
> at you blankly or begin asking you questions about how you intend to
> *use* the Address. She might ask you whether your learning
> objective (dcterms:conformsTo) is to teach about pivotal moments in
> the history of slavery in the U.S.? Or, is it about primary
> documents shaping the social fabric of the U.S.? Or, is it in
> preparation for a student field-trip to the U.S. National Archives
> in Washington, D.C.? With a response to any of these questions, our
> teacher friend is likely ask you about the nature of your students
> (dcterms:audience) and their year of study (dcterms:educationLevel)
> etc. etc. In other words, she'll query about purpose and context
> because that's what differentiates a learning resource from non-
> educationally purposed things in the world. In responding to these
> questions, the two of you are formulating a learning resource--that
> lesson plan you refer to, Liddy. And, if that lesson plan
> materializes as a thing in the world, we can describe it as a
> learning resource. So, distinguishing a learning resource from
> anything of the inclusive class rdf:Resource is not a hard thing to
> do without resorting to some very elaborate intellectual
> contortions. Our teacher friend knew immediately and instinctively
> that the copy of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address she had in hand was
> not a learning resource.
>
> As for the first question, Liddy, I was not addressing properties
> other than those created specifically by the DC-Education Community
> to describe the teaching and learning aspects of educationally-
> purposed resources. Off the top of my head (a place from which many
> regrets spring), I would say that in the DC-Ed AP, at a minimum,
> dcterms:conformsTo, dcterms:educationLevel, and
> dcterms:instructionalMethod should have a domain of learning
> resource in the DC-Ed AP (keying off my draft/rough definition in
> the discussion document on the wiki [1]). According to the DCMI
> description set profile specification [2], when we use these
> properties into a description set profile, identification of the
> dcam:ResourceClass is useful. But this, too, is a conversation yet
> to be had.
>
> Hope I made a bit more sense, Liddy.
>
> Stuart
>
> [1] http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/Classes
> [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/03/31/dc-dsp/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liddy Nevile [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:15 PM
> To: Stuart Sutton
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: DC-Education Application Profile Task Group webinar:
> dates required
>
> Stuart
> do I understand you correctly? I will try to say back to you what I
> think you said and can you tell me if I have 'got it' please.
>
> I think you are saying:
>
> 1. that there must always be a clear definition of the domain and so
> even if it is not peculiar to this AP, the domain of the properties
> must be defined, and
>
> 2. that if I choose to use, let's say, a speech, in my lesson, then it
> has become a learning resource by virtue of the fact that I am
> planning to use it and am demonstrating this by, eg., writing metadata
> about it?
>
> Or, are you saying I have to do something to the speech to make it a
> learning (or relevant) resource?
>
> Liddy
>
>
> On 10/12/2009, at 10:19 AM, Stuart Sutton wrote:
>
> > Hi, Sarah. I think most of the problem in addressing the issues
> > raised by me in my email and in the discussion document on the wiki
> > comes to rest primarily around nomenclature. There are many, many
> > terms being used in the context of the proposed domain model (and
> > here as well) as though they were well-settled terms of art. They
> > absolutely are not terms of art! I am guilty of using terminology
> > in that manner in my email as has the Task Force in the proposed
> > domain model and in your response to my email. I deeply suspect
> > that we are talking past each other as a result (and may even be
> > more in agreement than we might suspect). It is this definitional
> > mushiness of the work so far that triggered my original post asking
> > that we return momentarily to first base and ask serious questions
> > about the intended class/classes of resource that the cloud in the
> > proposed domain model by necessity represents. If we do not agree
> > on what that cloud represents, there's not much else stemming from
> > the figure that can be said with surety. I posit that we--the DC-
> > Education Community at large--do not have a meaningful consensus
> > around that pivotal point. I will also posit that we *did* have
> > such a consensus in 2005 at the Madrid meeting.
> >
> > Since moving an AP from the Task Force to the Usage Board for review
> > requires demonstrated community consensus as well as precise
> > documentation, I would like to ask that the Task Force put the work
> > done so far out onto the general DC-Education list (please, with
> > definitions of what every bubble and every line in the model means)
> > for discussion and consensus building. Some of the points raised
> > here deserve a wider conversation so that when an AP is complete and
> > goes to the Usage Board for review, that we can legitimately say
> > that it is the result of consensus in the community. Sarah, over
> > the course of the next day or so, I will try and start individual
> > conversation threads around the points raised here and will only
> > comment briefly below (only because I cannot help myself J).
> >
> > Sarah, I do not recall any DC-Education Community consensus on a
> > proposal put to them from the Task Force that there would be no
> > "resource class" in the application profile. In fact, a domain
> > model with no resource class or classes is rather difficult to
> > conceptualize. Without some notion of entity classes, I am totally
> > lost in terms of what the domain model (and its components) is
> > supposed to be saying, totally lost. The cloud in the center of the
> > proposed domain model (see attached .jpg) has to represent some
> > class of "thing(s) in the world". The fact the DCMI Community is
> > not concerned with *all* of the things that might be said about such
> > "things in the world" (i.e., general descriptive attributes), does
> > not mean that the entities of concern aren't nevertheless a
> > definable class of resource in the DC RDF world. In the end, we
> > want to be able to define as part of the AP the domain(s) of the
> > properties in which we are interested.
> >
> > Now, it also seems quite clear to me (maybe not to others) that the
> > Community was explicit in Madrid that we were interested in only
> > those properties that make statements defining the educational
> > purposing and use *of a resource*. That makes that resource a
> > member of a specific class-those things in the world that have been
> > purposed in such a way that we can make these kinds of assertions,
> > things that have been purposed for use in teaching and learning.
> > Therefore, Sarah, I take issue with your assertion that we are
> > interested at all in using this AP to describe "many other types of
> > resources; as long as someone *wants* to describe something
> > educational about those resources or their use (my emphasis)."
> > Until that resource has been purposed for teaching and learning,
> > it's just another thing in the world regardless of what someone
> > *wants*. All things in the world might be used at one time or
> > another in an educational context. For example, I may *want* to
> > take U.S. President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to class
> > for some education purpose. But just wanting to do so isn't
> > enough. When I imbue that Address with educational purpose, it is
> > no longer just another thing in the world but, for me, has joined
> > the class of learning resource. So, standing alone as a class of
> > things (speeches or Presidential addresses), Lincoln's Address is
> > not of the class of concern to this AP regardless of its rich
> > capacity to inform. I can describe Lincoln's Address quite nicely,
> > thank you, with just those descriptive properties we said were not
> > of concern to us. But, if instead of just *wanting*, I
> > contextualize the address to meet educational ends (i.e., I purpose
> > it as a learning resource), then I can start making the kinds of
> > statement about it with the properties of concern to this AP.
> >
> > But, Sarah, regardless of what I think, the bottom line is that I
> > question whether there is a broad Community consensus on this issue
> > and we absolutely have to talk about it-in the open on the Community
> > list.
> >
> > There's obvious terminological confusion of equal magnitude around
> > the term "competency" and "competency resource"-let's separate that
> > out to another discussion thread.
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> > From: DCMI Education Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf OfSarah Currier
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:41 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: DC-Education Application Profile Task Group webinar:
> > dates required
> >
> > Hi Stuart and everyone,
> >
> > Thanks for your input Stuart (and for the work you've put up on the
> > wiki- see further down this email for more folks). Couple of
> > responses inline below. I'd be grateful for other people's take on
> > Stuart's points and my responses, because I really don't want to get
> > bogged down due to my own misunderstanding of what's required!
> >
> > BTW folks I've made the latest draft of our Domain Model available
> > on Flickr (couldn't work out how to get an image to display on the
> > wiki):http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/Model - it now represents
> > what's been discussed so far in the DC-Education AP Task Group and
> > after talking with ISO-MLR. However, there are a couple of issues-
> > I haven't specifically used the word "accessibility" because I think
> > maybe it's covered in what's in the out-of-scope box already, and
> > I've left off any relationships between resources and course
> > description, because I kind of hope that's covered for our purposes
> > by 'audience' - but not sure. So will be taking feedback on that
> > and anything else before or on the 15th December at the next
> > webconference.
> >
> > Anyway, on to Stuart's points:
> >
> > 2009/12/8 Stuart Sutton <[log in to unmask]>
> > (1) DC-ed AP resource class definitions. We cannot speak
> > authoritatively about the domain model until we have definitively
> > stated what it is we are intending to describe. In various
> > narratives, we have loosely described our intent in terms of the
> > kinds of things in the world the DC-Ed AP is intended to describe.
> > But, we have not put any definitive stake in the ground with a solid
> > class definition (or set of definitions). That seems somewhat key
> > to me to the ongoing steps in DC-Ed AP model discussions and AP
> > development. None of the MLR-5 class definitions align with the
> > narratively stated intent of the DC-Ed AP (MLR: Learning Resource
> > (schizophrenically defined very differently in Parts 2 & 5 (although
> > given different identifiers)), Competency, and Educational
> > Context). I am not saying they have to do so or are wrong not to do
> > so, that is the business of MLR; but if MLR-5 is intending to align
> > with this AP work, then measuring such alignment/nonalignment has to
> > start here with the resource class(es). However, it is not possible
> > to speak definitively about MLR/DC-Ed alignment of classes when we
> > have not actually defined our own. Between now and the call, I
> > will put up on the wiki some suggestions to seed conversation on the
> > call around definition or (probably more appropriately) through this
> > list should call time on the 15th not permit.
> >
> >
> >
> > I've been working from the understanding that we had already decided
> > to *not* define our own resource class (or classes); my
> > understanding is that we are providing a modular application profile
> > that can be used to describe the educational aspects or educational
> > context of use of any type of resource. (I'm just staying right
> > away from any discussion of what MLR are doing for the moment).
> >
> > Of course, I can see that some resources might be something called
> > "learning resources", but the boundaries between that and any other
> > type of resource are blurry, un-defined and, I think, not useful.
> > People use all sorts of resources in learning and teaching.
> > However, I'm open to listening to reasoning about why we might want
> > to try and define a resource class "learning resource", as long as
> > we don't say that this and this alone is what this AP module is for-
> > it can be for that and for many other types of resources; as long as
> > someone wants to describe something educational about those
> > resources or their use.
> >
> > I also have some issues (hell, we might as well get discussing
> > things now I suppose!) when I look at the resource classes you've
> > defined, to get us started, on the wiki (here:http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/Classes)
> > : I don't see any reason to differentiate between a "learning
> > resource" and an "instructional resource". Also, what you have
> > termed a "competency resource"- my reading of that is that what
> > you've defined is an assessment, which I believe we've designated
> > out-of-scope (in terms of assessment-specific descriptions).
> >
> > I'll leave it there for now. Hoping further discussion may clarify
> > if I've got this wrong and if so, where. It's very helpful to have
> > the stuff you've written to work from in any case Stuart, much
> > better than arguing about thin air.
> >
> >
> >
> > (2) Absence from the MLR-5 of reference to dcterms:conformsTo.
> > The dcterms:conformsTo property is conspicuously not referenced in
> > the MLR-5 draft even though is a key education-related property
> > introduced into the dcterms namespace through the work of this DC-
> > Education Community. I will post a separate message here to the
> > list regarding that property prior to the call even though
> > discussion can be postponed if the sole focus of the call is the
> > model. I might also put some explanatory text up on the wiki
> > regarding the intentions and DC-Education history around that
> > property and how it is being used in the U.S., Australia, and Canada
> > (among other nations). Personally, I think it semantically aligns
> > with the MLR-5: 5.3 Learning Outcome and yet it is not listed in
> > italics with the identifier of that "element" (a pattern followed in
> > the draft for other element/properties pairs). DCMI liaisons to
> > MLR-5 need to be mindful that U.S., Australian and Canadian (as well
> > as other) national representatives may well call this fact into
> > question as Part 5 develops.
> >
> >
> >
> > We can certainly feed that back to them. I thought I had at an
> > earlier meeting but it may have got lost in the shuffle.
> >
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sarah Currier
> >
> > *** the beach is my church ***
> >
> > Sarah Currier Consultancy
> > w: http://www.sarahcurrier.com/
> > e: [log in to unmask]
> > t: +44 (0)7980855801
> >
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/SarahCurrier
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/morageyrie
> > Skype: morageyrie
> > <DC-Ed-Model--2009-12-09.jpg>
|
