On 26 Jan 2009, at 12:48, Sheppard, Nick wrote:
> there is ongoing and useful debate around whether the issues facing OA
> research archives and Learning Object repositories are so different
> that
> they should not be managed in the same systems, however, I believe
> that
> LO repositories can benefit from the culture of openness and sharing
> exemplified by OA archives of research
At Southampton, the EdSpace project is promoting a learning resource
repository that is built on EPrints. It's not a repository for
"learning objects", but it is exploring the culture of openness and
sharing from "Research OA" and investigating the issues with applying
those values in an educational context.
It may be the case that "Learning Objects" as defined by the IEEE LOM
standard require specialised software and processes that aren't part
of the arsenal of a generic repository. On the other hand, it may be
that a generic repository platform is just as technically competent to
provide the services that a lecturer might normally want from his or
her learning materials.
If there is a separation, it is not at the platform level (why should
it be? a repository is a database and some storage and a heap of
services). Rather, it is likely to be at the policy and governance
level, where decisions are made about WHAT ITEMS can be handled and
WHICH SERVICES will be provided. And (crucially) the degree of
openness and sharing that is facilitated, recommended or mandated!
After all, it is likely to be the same people who are one minute
creating research papers and conference presentations and the very
next minute** creating lecture slides and coursework notes. Why
shouldn't they be able to put both kinds of things into a repository
and get the bnefits of persistence and services.
--
Les Carr
Repository User
**Probably 02:52am and 02:53am respectively if they are anything like
me :-)
|