Hello all,
I fully understand the problems of building on a complex model, also
some of the advantages of doing so (or, rather, the dangers of
over-simplifying), so I'm pretty much on the fence on whether the
presence of an educational activity should be implicit or explicit when
metadata is created. However I think that the ability to say that this
resource was used as part of this activity would be powerful and I would
not like to lose it. If we don't have a use case that needs that then
perhaps we should. Some examples:
- a teacher has just taken over a course and wants to know what
resources her predecessor used.
- a teacher wants to use a resource to introduce a subject but wants to
know whether her students will have used that resource on a previous
course.
- a student has missed a lecture and wants to get the resources used in
/ recording of that lecture.
- a repository manager at an institution wants to know whether he can
withdraw a resource without affecting any courses that are currently live.
I think that even where the educational activity is treated implicitly
it would be useful to have the link to the activity for which the
resource if that also provides a link to a description of that activity
(not necessarily DC metadata) which could provide additional information
to build or to supplement the DC metadata for the resource.
Finally, as an unscientific personal opinion, I really like the approach
to disseminating learning resources that is taken by many OER projects,
such as MIT OpenCourseWare <http://ocw.mit.edu/>, which is based around
courses, i.e. built on the connection between an education activity and
the resources used.
Phil
On 11/02/2010 14:33, Andy Powell wrote:
> (Note: I haven't thought about this very hard).
>
> In technical terms...
>
> Current metadata approaches assume a 1:1 relationship between a 'learning resource' and an (implicit) 'educational activity' (because the activity itself isn't modelled explicitly).
>
> It is therefore possible to take an existing DC metadata record that uses some learning-specific properties and split out those properties into a model that does explicitly separate the 'learning resource' from the 'educational activity'.
>
> There would be no ambiguity in doing this.
>
> So I don't think we have a huge technical problem - though the domain of some of the DC-declared properties might have to be changed.
>
> Our problem will be in getting widespread agreement/understanding of the more complex model - particularly from any developers whose mindset is that (current LOM is good enough).
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Andy Powell
> Research Programme Director
> Eduserv
> t: 01225 474319
> m: 07989 476710
> twitter: @andypowe11
> blog: efoundations.typepad.com
>
> www.eduserv.org.uk
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stuart Sutton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 11 February 2010 14:19
>> To: Andy Powell;[log in to unmask]
>> Subject: RE: Functional requirements and the model
>>
>> Andy, the modeling is now clear to me when combined with your message
>> of a few minutes ago around the "have been used" language [1]. So,
>> what do you see as the consequences of such a modeling on legacy data
>> (and there is a lot of it)? All of what might be previously considered
>> DCAM conformant data would be coming from that place you speak of where
>> the "educational activity" is implicit.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> [1]http://tinyurl.com/y9xaftp
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: DCMI Education Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>
>> On
>>
>>> Behalf Of Andy Powell
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 5:38 AM
>>> To:[log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Functional requirements and the model
>>>
>>> In modelling terms... or rather, in terms of how I am modelling the
>>> world in my head :-) a 'learning resource' has an "intended learning
>>> time" only because the resource creator had a particular 'educational
>>> activity' in mind when they created it. I.e. the 'intended learning
>>> time' is always a property of the 'educational activity', not of the
>>> 'learning resource' itself. The problem is that the association
>>> between the 'learning resource' and the 'educational activity' is
>>>
>> often
>>
>>> (nearly always?) implicit (but it is, nonetheless, a real
>>>
>> association).
>>
>>> A 'learning resource' with no associated 'educational activity'
>>>
>> (either
>>
>>> implicit or explicit) is just a 'resource' (and should be described
>>>
>> as
>>
>>> such - i.e. without the use of any learning-specific properties).
>>>
>>> All learning-specific properties are actually properties of the
>>> 'educational activity', not of the resource itself (even where that
>>> 'educational activity' exists only in the head of the resource
>>> creator).
>>>
>>> For me, the issue at hand is...
>>>
>>> Do we want to explicitly model the association between a 'learning
>>> resource' and its associated 'educational activity/ies' OR do we want
>>> to leave that association implicit (as it is with current metadata
>>> approaches).
>>>
>>> The advantage of explicitly modelling it is that the model can then
>>> cope unambiguously with situations where a 'learning resource' is
>>>
>> taken
>>
>>> away from the 'educational activity' that the original creator had in
>>> mind and used in the context of a completely different 'educational
>>> activity' (with different target audiences, levels of difficulty,
>>> learning time, etc.).
>>>
>>> The disadvantage of explicitly modelling it adds significant
>>>
>> complexity
>>
>>> to the model - which may well end up confusing the hell out of just
>>> about everyone!
>>>
>>> Note: I've created complex models before, SWAP springs to mind :-),
>>>
>> and
>>
>>> gone on to see them used by almost no-one... so I'm under no
>>>
>> illusions
>>
>>> that this is not a real issue.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andy Powell
>>> Research Programme Director
>>> Eduserv
>>> t: 01225 474319
>>> m: 07989 476710
>>> twitter: @andypowe11
>>> blog: efoundations.typepad.com
>>>
>>> www.eduserv.org.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Stuart Sutton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>> Sent: 10 February 2010 22:32
>>>> To: Andy Powell;[log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: RE: Functional requirements and the model
>>>>
>>>> Andy, I'm not sure I would agree. The semantics for "difficulty"
>>>>
>> in
>>
>>>> LOM state: "How hard it is to work with or through this learning
>>>>
>>> object
>>>
>>>> for the typical intended target audience" [1] which is quite
>>>>
>>> different
>>>
>>>> from "How hard it WAS to work with this learning object for the
>>>>
>>> ACTUAL
>>>
>>>> target audience." If you look at the definitions of nearly all of
>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>> DCEd properties (of which I have a more than passing familiarity)
>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>> the LOM [1], they are framed in terms of design and intention--
>>>>
>> things
>>
>>>> designed for intended use ("intended or useful", "described
>>>>
>> resource
>>
>>> is
>>>
>>>> intended", "intended to take place", "typical intended user",
>>>>
>>> "typical
>>>
>>>> intended target audience" "approximate or typical time").
>>>>
>>>> We keep throwing out typicalLearningTime as not applying to things
>>>>
>>> like
>>>
>>>> lesson plans and descriptions of designed activities etc. but
>>>>
>> rather
>>
>>>> being appropriate to apply to an activity instance (some actual
>>>>
>>> event).
>>>
>>>> I'd note that notions like typicalLearningTime and typlicalAgeRange
>>>>
>>> are
>>>
>>>> quite different from actualLearningTime and actualAgeRange that
>>>>
>> would
>>
>>>> adhere to an activity instance where there is no longer the
>>>>
>> 'typical'
>>
>>>> but rather the 'actual'.
>>>>
>>>> It does not seem to me that we need new properties to talk about
>>>>
>> all
>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>> these millions of resources I noted--not given the semantics of our
>>>> existing properties. If anything, we need new properties for
>>>> describing an activity instance. That's the new kid on the block.
>>>>
>>>> Stuart
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/Existing_20DCMI_20Education_20Prope
>>
>>>> rties
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: DCMI Education Community [mailto:DC-
>>>>>
>> [log in to unmask]]
>>
>>>> On
>>>>
>>>>> Behalf Of Andy Powell
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:48 PM
>>>>> To:[log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Functional requirements and the model
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed... maybe.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we come back to the central problem... namely that very few
>>>>>
>> so-
>>
>>>>> called learning objects have an inherent 'difficulty level' and
>>>>>
>>> even
>>>
>>>>> those that do can be used in different ways which means we have
>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>>> associate properties like 'difficulty' with an educationalUsage
>>>>>
>>>> rather
>>>>
>>>>> than with the Resource itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose we could define properties like 'intendedDifficulty'
>>>>>
>> with
>>
>>>>> definitions like 'the intended level of difficulty, as envisaged
>>>>>
>> by
>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> creator of the learning resource' but it seems to me that would
>>>>>
>> be
>>
>>> a
>>>
>>>>> significantly less useful property than something like
>>>>>
>> 'difficulty'
>>
>>>> ??
>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andy Powell
>>>>> Research Programme Director
>>>>> Eduserv
>>>>>
>>>>> t: 01225 474319
>>>>> m: 07989 476710
>>>>> twitter: @andypowe11
>>>>> blog: efoundations.typepad.com
>>>>>
>>>>> www.eduserv.org.uk
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: Stuart Sutton [[log in to unmask]]
>>>>> Sent: 10 February 2010 17:47
>>>>> To: Andy Powell;[log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: RE: Functional requirements and the model
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy, here we hit upon rough shoals because limiting use of these
>>>>> education properties (DC and LOM) to resources "that HAVE BEEN
>>>>>
>>> USED
>>>
>>>> as
>>>>
>>>>> part of educational activities" eliminates 99% of all the
>>>>>
>> resources
>>
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>> interest to the community to which these properties have been
>>>>>
>>>> applied-
>>>>
>>>>> millions of resource descriptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stuart
>>>>>
>>>>> From: DCMI Education Community [mailto:DC-
>>>>>
>> [log in to unmask]]
>>
>>>> On
>>>>
>>>>> Behalf Of Andy Powell
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:33 AM
>>>>> To:[log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Functional requirements and the model
>>>>>
>>>>> I was just taking a quick look at the functional requirements
>>>>> (http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/Functional_20Requirements).
>>>>>
>>>>> As written, I think we have a problem with these in terms of the
>>>>>
>>>> model
>>>>
>>>>> (http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/Model).
>>>>>
>>>>> We currently say things like:
>>>>>
>>>>> Support the discovery of learning resources and activities
>>>>>
>> targeted
>>
>>>> at
>>>>
>>>>> particular levels of difficulty.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I think we should be saying (in terms of the model) is:
>>>>>
>>>>> Support the discovery of learning resources that have been used
>>>>>
>> as
>>
>>>> part
>>>>
>>>>> of educational activities targeted at particular levels of
>>>>>
>>>> difficulty.
>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andy Powell
>>>>> Research Programme Director
>>>>> Eduserv
>>>>> t: 01225 474319
>>>>> m: 07989 476710
>>>>> twitter: @andypowe11
>>>>> blog: efoundations.typepad.com
>>>>>
>>>>> www.eduserv.org.uk
>>>>>
--
Phil Barker Learning Technology Adviser
ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327
Web:http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/
--
Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity
registered under charity number SC000278.
|