Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Learning Object Metadata


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Learning Object Metadata

  1. 1. Reusability, Standards and Metadata for e-Learning Assoc. Prof. Dr. Eugenijus Kurilovas, Vilnius, Lithuania
  2. 2. <ul><li>Learning Object (LO) is any digital resource that can be reused to support learning </li></ul><ul><li>Learning Object Repository (LOR) is any collection of resources that are accessible via a network without prior knowledge of the structure of the collection </li></ul><ul><li>Reusability is the extent to which LO can operate effectively for a variety of users in a variety of digital environments and a variety of educational contexts over time. LO reusability is affected by technical, pedagogic and social factors applying to both initial development and subsequent reuse </li></ul><ul><li>Metadata is “structured data about data” </li></ul>The Main Notions
  3. 3. <ul><li>According to FP6 CALIBRATE project report, every curriculum can be expressed by the means of TGA (‘Topic’ – ‘Goal’ – ‘Activity’). CALIBRATE approach is an ontology covering a common set of features for LOs and curricula. </li></ul><ul><li>This is a three aspect classification model describing topic, goal and activity features (TGA). For curriculum analysis: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ T’ refers to the topic of a part of the curriculum; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ G’ refers to the desired level or competence that learners should obtain; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ A’ refers to intended and prescribed learning activities by the pupils as part of the competence descriptions. </li></ul></ul>The Main Notions
  4. 4. <ul><li>Learning activity (LA) is referred to as a set of e-learning methods, e-assessment methods and e-environments (e.g., virtual learning environments – VLEs) used to obtain the envisaged learning goals (competences) with the help of topic content (LOs) handled in the repositories (LORs) according to the learner profile (prerequisites, preferred learning path and speed, etc.) </li></ul>The Main Notions
  5. 5. The Main Notions Preferred LAs: Learning Environment – VLE “ATutor” Preferred LAs: Assessment Methods – “Tests” Preferred LAs: Learning Methods – “Time to self-study > 2 hours / day”, “Reproductive learning methods“ Preferred LOs: “Lesson plans”, “Medium interactivity level” General competences 1, …, n; Subject competences 1, …, m Pre-requisites: “Average knowledge / skills level”, “Average motivation” Learning results (competences) Learner profile (pre-requisites; LOs; LAs: learning methods, assessment, environment)
  6. 6. <ul><li>Interoperability: LO is interoperable and can be used in different platforms </li></ul><ul><li>Flexibility in terms of pedagogic situations: LO can fit into a variety of pedagogic situations </li></ul><ul><li>Modifiability to suit a particular teacher’s or student’s needs: LO can be made more appropriate to a pedagogic situation by modifying it to suit a particular teacher’s or student’s needs (R. McCormick et. al. 2004) </li></ul>LOs Reusability
  7. 7. <ul><li>Presentation: Aesthetics </li></ul><ul><li>Presentation: Design for learning </li></ul><ul><li>Accuracy of content </li></ul><ul><li>Support for learning goals </li></ul><ul><li>Motivation </li></ul><ul><li>Interaction: Usability </li></ul><ul><li>Interaction: Feedback and adaptation </li></ul><ul><li>Reusability </li></ul><ul><li>Metadata and interoperability compliance </li></ul><ul><li>Accessibility </li></ul>LORI (Learning Object Review Instrument) LOs Quality Evaluation Criteria (Vargo et. al., 2003)
  8. 8. <ul><li>A narrow definition: there is a need for a common (more narrow) definition of what is, and what is not a LO </li></ul><ul><li>A mapping taxonomy : in connection to narrowing down the definitions, there is a need for a taxonomy that maps on to the definition and where granularities as well as special properties are regarded </li></ul><ul><li>More extensive standards : standards used for LOs should be extended to go beyond descriptive information, such as metadata, sequencing, and packaging to also embrace standards for interfaces, “machine readable” descriptions of technical properties and interaction interfaces </li></ul>Paulsson & Naeve (2006) LOs Quality Criteria
  9. 9. <ul><li>Best practise for use of existing standards : there is a need to establish standards and recommendations that address the internal use of data formats and data structure. Such general technology standards exist, but seem to be rarely used in the LO community </li></ul><ul><li>Architecture models : it should be prescribed for the architecture of LOs to be layered as a part of best practise, in order to separate data, presentation and application logics. This would enhance the level of decomposability and context independence. Layering (or multi-tier architectures) is used frequently in many other areas of application/system development for the very same reasons </li></ul><ul><li>The separation of pedagogy from the supporting technology of LOs : pedagogy should preferably be kept outside the LO in order to facilitate pedagogical context independence. It is suggested that the pedagogical model is added as LOs are assembled to form Learning Modules </li></ul>Paulsson & Naeve (2006) LOs Quality Criteria
  10. 10. <ul><li>Modular: the parts of a LO item are fully functional on their own </li></ul><ul><li>Adaptable: the LO can be modified, for instance from a configuration file, from a plain text file or because it is provided along with its source code or an authoring tool </li></ul><ul><li>Have a strong visual element and users can broadly understand what is the intended learning objective or topic (e.g., LOs may have little or no text; and include animations and simulations that are self-explanatory or have just a few text labels or icons/buttons for start, stop, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Have been designed to be language customisable and are already offered in more than one language </li></ul><ul><li>Address curriculum topics that could be considered trans-national </li></ul><ul><li>Are adaptable from a technical (e.g., LOs are supplied along with an authoring environment or tools) or IPR perspective (e.g., they are not made available under a “No derivatives” Creative Commons license which would prevent users from even translating the resource) </li></ul>MELT project (2007) LOs Quality Criteria
  11. 11. Quality for Reuse (Q4R 2007) LOs Quality Evaluation Criteria
  12. 12. <ul><li>Strategies before LO inclusion in the LOR are based on the following principles: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only build or integrate LOs, which can be certified for quality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interactive LOs are software and as such should answer to software quality criteria </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Strategies during LO inclusion in the LOR are based on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The principle of reducing form-filling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of guiding wizards, smart automatic and semi-automatic computer agents to assist in assuring technical interoperability </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Strategies after LO inclusion in the LOR are based on the following principles: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide interesting and easily understood user statistics, such as stars, percentages, voting systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Include recommendations for reuse by the user, both to the next user and the designer </li></ul></ul>Quality for Reuse (Q4R 2007) LOs Quality Evaluation Criteria
  13. 13. <ul><li>Methodical aspects </li></ul><ul><li>User interface (incl. personalisation) </li></ul><ul><li>LOs arrangement possibilities </li></ul><ul><li>Communication and collaboration possibilities and tools </li></ul><ul><li>Technical features (incl. working stability) </li></ul><ul><li>Documentation </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation and maintenance expenditure </li></ul>Lithuanian Computer Teaching Aids Quality Evaluation Criteria (2008)
  14. 14. <ul><li>Well-known LOs evaluation tools have a number of limitations: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>LORI, Paulsson & Naeve and MELT do not examine different LOs life cycle stages </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Q4R insufficiently examines evaluation criteria before LOs inclusion in the repository </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>The approved Lithuanian set of computer teaching aids’ evaluation tool also has a number of limitations: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>All LOs and services (e.g., Learning Activities, LORs, VLEs) have to be evaluated against the same criteria </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No metadata-related criteria are included </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Approved technical evaluation criteria for e-content, activities, services and tools do not reflect their reusability aspects overall </li></ul></ul></ul>Analysis Results and Problems to Solve
  15. 15. Comprehensive LOs Technical Quality Evaluation Tool
  16. 16. Proposals to LOM AP The results of the teachers-experts survey performed in CALIBRATE have shown that the teachers would mostly like to find pedagogically decontextualised ultimately reusable LOs and therefore to have a service for quick and convenient search of such LOs. While searching for LOs in CALIBRATE portal the experts have used browsing by subject and advance search services. These advance search services have not contained any services to ease the search of reusable LOs in the portal. The LOs in the portal are described according to the partners’ LOM APs, and these APs have not contained any services to simplify the search of reusable LOs. Therefore it took very much time for the experts to find and choose suitable reusable LOs for their UoLs (e.g., lesson plans).
  17. 17. Thank you for your attention ! Dr . Eugenijus Kurilovas [email_address]