Phil,
Thanks for reference
Educational Technology: Media for Inquiry, Communication, Construction, and
Expression
http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/~chip/pubs/taxonomy/index.html

In my opinion every already existing vocabulary needs to
scrutinised to make sure that nothing is missed. I took some time to look
into
this one. My approach was to see what can be used from what is offered and
whether
learning type can be 'extracted' with a completely new approach in mind and
for me
this is a very useful intellectual exercises.

I learned this:
that it is possible to consider to have LearningResourcesType organized by
'learning technology' it can be assocated with.

Providing that
- we have an exhaustive list of learning technologies (and that it is clear
which technology is defined as learning as opposed to other which are not
learning)
- there are no learning material asociated to other technology than learning
- any learning material can be associated with a given learning technology
- learning technology type is relevant for resource discovery
- it does not overlap with any other LOM element

As for the offered taxonomy here is what I found with my 'classificationist'
hat on...

1)  Taxonomy  offered here is a classification built for the
field of learning technology but it does not include a full classification
of learning object
that are created, processed and communicatd by that technology.
(Analogy: if you would need classification of vehicles, a "Transport
technology Taxonomy" offered
to you will need a number of properly structured hirerachical levels to
arrive to the level of vehicles)
If this classification would have complete hierarchy and if it would be
properly structured
and not cross-classified we would , by carrying on division eventually
arrive to the level of
learning objects that would, although scattered across the four main
classes, be still usable.

2) The strength and weaknesses of taxonomy

Taxonomy by definition is a classification structure in which one concept is
placed in
the hierarchical tree only once. It is ideal for organization of objects in
sciences such as
plants, animals or  chemical elements as it is focused on only one of their
many attributes.
This is why they are also called 'entity classification'.

Hence, there is no class of yellow and black animals or class of
feathery animals in zoological taxonomy or, for that matter, vegetables in
the taxonomy of
plants. These attributes are ignored in scientific taxonomy.
You will find the class of  birds in one place only and subdivision of the
class
will carry out the main division principle - the one of reproduction - until
the material for
classification is completely exhausted. A new criterion is introduced only
when one division
is finished.

Taxonomies, offer poor support in situations when you need access to an
object by several or
all of the attributes object may have.
This is why we have aspect classifications as well as taxonomies since the
dawn of time.
They use the same taxonomic rigorous division criteria but contain
polyhierarchies
and a hierarchy of plants will be repeated in agronomy, in biology, industry
always
according to a different attributes that may be asigned to them. To avoid
this enumeration
in knowledge structure: facetted classifications are introduced at the
beginning of 20th century.
And their contribution to knowledge organization is analog to the one
brought by
relational databases to the field of database management systems. It means
to keep
mutually exclusive hierarchies in a separate but related 'tables'...

Back to taxonomy. If one wants to make a proper taxonomy one makes a choice
of the primary
attribute and  ignores the other. As a result you never get e.g. migrating
birds, breckish water birds
birds of prey, and flightless birds as a concepts within one taxonomy class.
If you don't
do that and you mix two you get what is known as cross-classification which
defies
the rules of formal logic and present obstacle in applying classification
whenver you
have to deal with two/more attributes of the same object.
[see bellow]


3)It appears to me that the Learning Technology Media  Taxonomy  is very
original
in the way it interprets formal logic and class division rules not to
mention that
relational thinking is completely ignored

It is clearly a cross-classification and 'taxonomy' in its name should be
taken with
utmost caution.
It mixes attributes of learning technology on the each level of
division and it introduces another criterion of division before it exhausts
the
initial one (swiss cheese effect).

Problem on the first level of division: learning technology media seems to
be
organized by functions that are not mutually exclusive
A Media for Inquiry
B Media for Communication
C Media for Construction
D Media for Expression

E.g. it is not obvious what is the principle to separate

C Media for construction and
D Media for expression
and why construction is not considered to be a type of expression
as well (and why some of media of expression can, e.g.  not be used in
B media for communication)

CONSEQUENCE: It makes impossible to continue subdivision without arriving to
the overlap
of concepts across classes

This becomes obvious on the second hierarchical level. One would expect
further subdivision
of the functions in learning technology as defined on the first level until
these are exhausted.
For instance how many kinds of of Media of Inquiery
there are, What thay consist of and what are the processes and operation are
involved in this particular
function etc.

But instead of that you have a completely new next level division of
processes in technology
that is also present in all four main classes in inquiry, communication,
construction, and expression.
In the group  B Communication , however, you have further division on
- two processes (document preparation, communication)
although document preparation is not communication process in its purest
sense
- two type of communication media (collaborative and teaching media
and again why teaching can not be collaborative?.

Although some processes may be the same in A inquiry, B communication, and C
construction, D expression
these 'fixed' to one place in hierarchy only.
This is why you have "Theory building--technology as media for thinking"
under A Inquiry and
you don't have the 'theory building' in communication or construction or
expression media which would be
logical. You also do not have 'tutoring' (subdivision of B) under D Media of
expression
So you can't use this classification to express 'tutoring in D Media
Expressin (drawing, painting)etc.

I don't know whether at this point they got tired  or they realised they cut
off the branch they were
sitting on. Anyway, after second division e.g. 'data access' under B Media
of communiction
they simply randomly listed concepts of entirely different nature with a
mixture of criteria.

hypertext - [!technology for communcation of data] is the hypertex the only
technology available?
library access - [!type of institution acting as repository] is the library
the only institution holding
learning material?
digital library - [!type of repository]
databases - [!underlying technology of repository]
Music, voice, images, graphics, video, data tables, graphs, text  - format
of presentation of data [SIC]

To be honest, with this logically weak structure, and half done work - it's
simply impossible to apply.

I am sure that the authors of this 'taxonomy' do not make the same mistake
when designing
databases and it makes me wonder how come that this fiddling with objects,
classes of objects, roles and
attributes of concepts did not bother them to start with.

To call this taxonomy must make Aristotle spinning in his grave. Taxonomy is
said to be a tool that
helps in thinking logically by forcing you to undergo a proper analysis and
I think
this so called 'taxonomy' could not be further from that.

Aida


-