JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-EDUCATION Archives


DC-EDUCATION Archives

DC-EDUCATION Archives


DC-EDUCATION@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-EDUCATION Home

DC-EDUCATION Home

DC-EDUCATION  August 2004

DC-EDUCATION August 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Proposal for an instructional methods element

From:

Jon Mason <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jon Mason <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:05:16 +0930

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (327 lines)

Stuart, 

first let me say that bringing this issue back to life is timely because I think we are now passed those early days where a lot of confusion reigned regarding which standards effort to support or which standard to use. With both the DCMES & LOM now standardised this issue can now be explored with some focused debate. And this debate should inform ongoing work in related forums (such as the SC36 WG4, which also involves direct input from IEEE LTSC, on Metadata for Learning Resources). [1] 

But ... it is a challenging task: when the DC-Education WG first identified this broad issue (at Kattemingga, near Melbourne) I recall we identified "teaching methods" & "learning activities" as two key processes that helped distinguish learning content from other content but they were put into the broad "too-hard-for-now basket". One argument against proceeding at the time was that "processes" should not be described in the same manner "content". Another argument against proceeding was associated with how an appropriate supporting vocabulary or value space might be agree upon.

The comments on the recent proposal are quite interesting and already indicate a range of opinion. Importantly, I think the proposal as outlined is on the right track but in order to really be fit for purpose it will need a clear set of supporting terms. 

Like some comments already made I'm inclinded to agree that the label "Instructional Method" might not be international enough, though I don't necessarily see it in terms of perceived or implied semantics (instructivist vs constructivist), as I once did. I also wonder whether the proposal is combining to some extent the two processes mentioned above: teaching methods and learning activities? Maybe the term "instructional" actually does span both? I'm still thinking this through .. because it seems that the example terms (brainstorming, discovery learning, peer assessment, and individulaized instruction) could equally apply as terms for either. 

I think the thoughtful comments from Helen Beetham also clearly articulate the kind of argument against proceeding that we encountered previously. These are valid arguments in a pragmatic sense - but philosophically, only to a point. I agree with Sue Phares that there are boundary issues surrounding instructional methodology. But I would even take the argument further & say that boundary issues are also there between context & content. And no matter how well-defined semantics are they are also contextual! Context always determines semantics and descriptive metadata always conveys context for content. Why? Because context involves many statements concerning "aboutness" & most of the DC elements deal with aboutness of a resource. Even the recent proposal for a DC-Kernel (Who, What, Where, When) is a means to convey context. e.g., if a resource has been developed by a known expert then the 'Who' aspect (Creator, Contributor, etc) conveys information that might contextualise the title of the resource; likewise, the location or 'Where' aspect (say, Harvard Business Review) will convey contextual information (such as scholarly rigour). And date information (When) always conveys context. Certainly, descriptive metadata is not context-free information. It just seems that describing instructional methods might be a different order of contextual statement. 

The tricky aspect of context statements re teaching methods is probably associated with "how" a resource might be intended for use -- teaching methods convey some *intentional* aspect associated with a purpose-built learning resource. This is not to say that all teaching & learning resources would benefit from having such prescriptions for use associated with them. But some will, & I think that is the central value proposition for proceeding with such an element. And that doesn't necessarily preclude such resources from being re-used or re-purposed for other contexts.

Jon

[1] SC36 WG4 http://mdlet.jtc1sc36.org/ see document library

        -----Original Message----- 
        From: Stuart Sutton [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
        Sent: Wed 25/08/2004 10:55 PM 
        To: [log in to unmask] 
        Cc: 
        Subject: Re: Proposal for an instructional methods element
	
	

        Phil, thank you very much for posting the URL to the CETIS Pedagogy list
        and the discussion of the proposed "instructionalMethods"  property.  I
        have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting the posts into a single
        text and included it below so the DC-Education community can read what
        was said.  I thought the posters would not mind since you provided us
        with a link to the texts.  I'll just post the text of the thoughtful
        (and very helpful) comments on the proposal here and give my personal
        responses to the issues raised in a separate email.
	
        Again, thanks, Phil, so much for forwarding the link to the DC-Ed
        proposal to the CETIS list and pointing us to the subsequent discussion.
	
        Stuart
	
        ==========<text from CETIS list>============
	
        Subject: Re: Proposal for an instructional methods element]
        Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:56:01 +0100
        From: Helen Beetham <[log in to unmask]>
        To: Phil Barker <[log in to unmask]>
        CC: CETIS  Pedagogy Forum Mailing List <[log in to unmask]>
        References: <[log in to unmask]>
	
        Hi Phil
	
        Thanks for circulating this to the list.
	
        My comments follow.
	
        Helen
	
        Small points
        The definition has a strong instructivist bias ('instructional method',
        'knowledge, attitudes and skills are deliberately conveyed') which by
        implication limits the controlled vocabularies that might be applied.
	
        Grammatically and semantically, the first line of the Comment ought to
        read 'Ways of *presenting* instructional materials or conducting
        instructional activities...' (or better still, for clarity) 'This
        element describes ways of presenting...'). For similar reasons the
        second sentence should begin 'Instructional methods include aspects
        of...'. Logically it is the DC element that does the representing, not
        the instructional methods - though this is an interesting confusion
        given my 'large points' below!
	
        The 'Why needed' statement is also grammatically incorrect (agreement of
        number i.e. should read '*are* a primary means' and '*provide* the
        end-user')
	
        Large points
        Both statements assume that the way in which an educational resource is
        incorporated into a learning session or activity is in some way a
        property of that resource, which can be determined or suggested in
        advance - either by the author of the resource or by the author of the
        metadata. This element is presumably recognising that 'context is king'
        when it comes to use and re-use of content. But defining educational
        context as a feature of the resource actually makes context less rather
        than more important.
	
        There are aspects of teaching practice that are inherently contextual,
        emergent, interactive, negotiated in response to learners' needs, and
        un-representable. These are the aspects that are of first importance to
        teachers and learners. Being able to bring interesting new resources
        into that context is a huge advantage, but it is only that. The
        resources serve the context. The context does not serve the resource by
        bringing it to life according to a pre-determined script.
	
        An imaginative teacher will have a wide repertoire of learning
        activities at her disposal and will support those with all kinds of
        resources, including 'pedagogically bad' resources and resources that
        have been produced without any educational aim at all. Metadata should
        give that teacher access to resources that have been produced in
        hundreds of contexts, including contexts completely different from the
        one in which she plans to use it.
	
        There is research in the UK so suggest that re-use of resources depends
        not on the context of re-use being tightly constrained and described,
        but rather on the resource being:
        * adaptable
        * componentised or -isable
        * owned by the community of users (including its metadata descriptions)
	
        Of course it can be useful to know how other teachers have used a given
        resource, but this is a question of repertoire rather than
        determination. i.e. in order to be useful the relevant information would
        be provided by more than one user, and in a *language of practice* that
        supports contextualised re-use, rather than in terms from a controlled
        vocabulary. If there were some way this element could be used to provide
        annotation and comment on how resources were being (re)used, rather than
        to designate how they ought to be used, then I would find it more
        valuable.
	
        What would it actually mean for a teacher to search for resources based
        on the kind of vocabulary suggested in the element definition? Suppose I
        decide to open a session (as I did recently) with 'brainstorming' what
        my students knew about postmodernism. (This is the first term in the
        controlled vocabulary and is incidentally no longer acceptable in many
        UK contexts.) Since I was using this as a diagnostic technique I did not
        use any resources as input, but I could imagine giving hand-outs about
        postmodernism and then asking students to draw mind-maps of the most
        important points.
	
        Would it help me to search for hand-outs that other teachers had used in
        a similar way, to 'brainstorm' other quite different topics? No. Does it
        help me to know that this technique exists as a possibility? Yes, but if
        I didn't know it existed I wouldn't get that information from the
        metadata.
	
        Of course having an element in existence doesn't mean either that
        authors will use it or that users will necessarily search on it, but I
        think the implications of trying to pre-determine contexts of use need
        some very careful examination. Incidentally, if IMS LD (and simple
        sequencing) recognise that learning activities and sequences of
        activities need to be defined quite separately from content, why are IMS
        LOM and DCM still expanding the contextual elements in their content
        metadata?
	
        ===========<next in tread>===========
	
        Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:40:26 +0100
        Reply-To:     Phil Barker <[log in to unmask]>
        Sender:       CETIS  Pedagogy Forum Mailing List
        <[log in to unmask]>
        From:         Phil Barker <[log in to unmask]>
        Organization: ICBL, MACS Heriot-Watt University
        Subject:      Re: Proposal for an instructional methods element]
        Comments: To: Helen Beetham <[log in to unmask]>
        In-Reply-To:  <005d01c48a78$f82290e0$488d403e@GPI07KDBWAYO0K>
        Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
	
        Hello Helen, thanks for your comments, I'll make sure that the Dublin
        Core community know where to find this discussion in the Jiscmail
        archives.
	
        I agree with you about the language, I always have difficulty reading US
        English and understanding just what they mean by words like
        "instruction". After all the example controlled vocabulary used in the
        examples has everything from "programmed learning" through to
        "Montessori method".
	
        I also agree that for many resources and many users this element won't
        be helpful. But I also think that there will be some resources that are
        designed with a particular educational rationale in mind (for example a
        "unit of learning" as defined in the IMS Learning Design information
        model), and some people who want to find resources for a particular
        pedagogic approach. As for where the balance between the two lies, well,
        your guess is as good as mine!
	
         Helen Beetham wrote:
        > Incidentally, if IMS LD (and simple sequencing)
        > recognise that learning activities and sequences of activities need to
        be
        > defined quite separately from content, why are IMS LOM and DCM still
        > expanding the contextual elements in their content metadata?
        >
	
        Well, this is a proposed element from Dublin Core, and IMS don't have
        much direct influence on what DCMI do. I've not been involved in the DC
        Education working group which proposed this element, but see the above
        comment on "units of learning". Also, personally, I think an IMS
        Learning Design is an educational resource that people will want to
        share, and so we need to have the metadata to describe it.
	
        Phil -- 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/
	
        ===========<next in tread>===========
	
        Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:20:42 +0100
        Reply-To:     Lorna Campbell <[log in to unmask]>
        Sender:       CETIS  Pedagogy Forum Mailing List
        <[log in to unmask]>
        From:         Lorna Campbell <[log in to unmask]>
        Subject:      Re: Proposal for an instructional methods element]
        Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
	
        Hi there, (Apologies for cross posting...)
	
        I think this is an important debate and I agree with Helen and Phil's
        comments. Helen is right that it is not necessarily helpful or useful to
        assume that "instructional method" is an inherent property of
        educational content and she provides considerable justification for this
        argument in her original post. However Phil is also right to suggest
        that we need metadata to describe learning designs or units of learning
        and that instructional method / educational rationale / pedagogic
        approach is one of the characteristics of a learning design that it
        would be useful to describe.
	
        Aside from the issues already raised by Helen and Phil I have two main
        concerns:
	
        1. What kind of vocabulary(s) would be associated with an element of
        this kind?
	
        2. I'm not intimately familiar with DC but I'm guessing that the
        standard does not distinguish between the resources that it may be used
        to describe (in the same why that LOM defines a learning object as being
        "any entity - digital or non digital - blah, blah, blah.") If this is
        the case, is it appropriate to include an element that is appropriate
        for describing one type of resource (a learning design) but not another
        type of resource (educational content)? Not sure if I'm making myself
        very clear here :-}
	
        I think Pete Johnston is going to Shanghai so we could ask us to keep us
        posted on how this work develops.
	
        Bye Lorna
	
        ==========<end CETIS-Pedagogy thread>===========
         
	
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: DCMI Education Group
        > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Barker
        > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 4:16 AM
        > To: [log in to unmask]
        > Subject: Re: Proposal for an instructional methods element
        >
        > Hello Stuart, all,
        > I took the liberty of forwarding your message to a couple of
        > UK-based email lists that deal with educational standards in
        > order to see whether that would stir up any feedback. So far
        > there have been a couple of comments-- one sort of positive,
        > one sort of negative (and, honestly, it's not just me talking
        > to myself). See the most recent messages in the archive at
        > <http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A1=ind0408&L=cetis
        > -pedagogy&O=D>
        >
        > (The people on the CETIS-Pedagogy list aren't necessarily
        > interested in metadata, the other list I forwarded your
        > message to was the CETIS-Metadata list, but there has been no
        > reply from there.)
        >
        > Phil.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > 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/
        > >
        > > 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
        > >
        >
        > --
        > 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/
        >
	



IMPORTANT: This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain private or confidential information. If you think you may not be the intended recipient, or if you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not reproduce any part of this e-mail or disclose its contents to any other party.
This email represents the views of the individual sender, which do not necessarily reflect those of education.au limited except where the sender expressly states otherwise.
It is your responsibility to scan this email and any files transmitted with it for viruses or any other defects.
education.au limited will not be liable for any loss, damage or consequence caused directly or indirectly by this email. 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

August 2021
May 2021
April 2021
February 2021
December 2020
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
April 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
August 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
November 2011
October 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
July 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
July 2006
January 2006
December 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
March 2005
February 2005
December 2004
November 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
June 2003
April 2003
January 2003
November 2002
October 2002
June 2002
February 2002
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
June 2001
March 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager