Paradata standards presentation, IDEA012

661 views

Published on

Presentation on paradata in the context of standards used in education technology. Presentation given at the IDEA012 conference ( http://www.idea.edu.au/?page_id=56 ), panel on "Standards development for open content and online assessment", Dec 5 2012

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
661
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Paradata standards presentation, IDEA012

  1. 1. Education Services AustraliaParadata StandardNick Nicholas
  2. 2. Education Services Australia• Standards critical to what we do• Interoperability & Specification• Education Vocabularies Australia (RDF, SKOS)• Schools Online Thesaurus (RDF, SKOS)• Machine Readable Australian Curriculum (RDF, DC, ASN)• ANZ LOM for NDLRN resources (LOM)• Identity Projects (OpenId, SAML, SIF)• Improve (IMS QTI)• Paradata (LR Paradata)
  3. 3. Paradata• Usage analytics of digital learning resources• Quantitative metrics • How often was this resource downloaded?• Paedagogic context, inferred through user actions • Where was this resource taught? • How was this resource aligned with the curriculum? • What kinds of teachers used the resource?• Cf. Metadata, provided by experts
  4. 4. Paradata• Usage analytics of digital learning resources• Individual or Aggregated • A teacher from Victoria used this resource in a Year 3 Geography class last Tuesday • 347 users accessed this resource last month
  5. 5. Why?• Improved search ranking• Communities of practice• Feedback to publishers• Feedback to jurisdictions• Discovery across portals• Discovery outside portals
  6. 6. History• Initially defined 2010• National Science Digital Library, XSD• Learning Registry, 2011 • Several US participants, UK, EU • Moving towards LRMI (Schema.org)• ADL, 2012 (TinCan)• Specifications based on ActivityStreams• Same overall structure, differ in some attributes and level of strictness
  7. 7. Web 2.0 Standard• Represented in JSON• Lightweight (to deploy & to consume)• Open-ended• No managed vocabularies• Key-value pairs• A few fixed structural keys• Statements: predicates• actor, verb, object (the resource), context• “(John) (liked) (War and Peace) (on Facebook)”
  8. 8. Example“Seven Victorian English teachers aligned learning resourceR7878 to Australian Curriculum content description ACELA1326”•Activity •Verb: •Action: aligned •Measure: •MeasureType: count •Value: 7 •Actor: •Description: VIC, English •objectType: teacher •Object: •ID: R7878 •objectType: Learning resource •Related: •ID: ACELA1326 •objectType: academic standard
  9. 9. Web 2.0 (loose) standard• Yes, Risk of splintering • Of vocabularies • Of structure • Of management• But: Easy adoption • Easy to implement • Easy to customise • Harness existing infrastructure • Which are standards
  10. 10. Links• Learning Registry: • http://www.learningregistry.org/documents • http://www.commoncorelabs.com/• TinCan: • http://www.adlnet.gov/capabilities/tla/exp erience-api• ActivityStreams: • http://activitystrea.ms/• Australian Paradata Blog • http://australianparadata.wordpress.com

×