The document discusses the evolution and importance of e-contents and learning objects in education, emphasizing a shift from content-driven to process-driven approaches to learning. It advocates for high-quality, user-generated e-contents that can be integrated into academic programs and supports the use of standards for interoperability and reusability. The document also highlights the need for accreditation frameworks and the role of Open Educational Resources (OER) in facilitating access to educational materials.

1. Borderless
e-Contents
Prof Alain Senteni, WITFOR Education Commission, Delhi, 17th April 2012
1
Monday, April 9, 12

2. Borderless e-Contents
eContent history at a glance
One size DOES NOT fit all
Learning Objects
Evaluation criteria
Repositories
HBMeU case study
2
Monday, April 9, 12

3. large scale e-contents history, at a glance
(ACEP - 2nd phase)
(1st phase)
MIT OCW
(2001)
TTISSA
India
ty
PanAfrican
Network
li
(2005)
bi
na
ai
st
su 3rd generation [process driven, learning as knowledge creation]
d
a se
c re 2nd generation [content driven, knowledge as a readymade product]
in
1st generation [technology driven]
3
Monday, April 9, 12

4. 3rd generation [process driven] Knowledge as a
dynamic process - Learning as knowledge creation
bi lity
stai na e-Contents development,
su
rea sed from a content-driven approach
i nc
to a process driven one ?
2nd generation [content driven]
Knowledge as a product
4
Monday, April 9, 12

5. 5
Monday, April 9, 12

6. 6
Monday, April 9, 12

7. contents
pedagogy technology
7
Monday, April 9, 12

8. traditional
curriculum user-generated WIKIs
content Web 2.0
top-down bottom-up
transmission participation
passive recipients
proactive
of the teacher’s
knowledge
knowledge builders
Monday, April 9, 12

9. We want e-contents that will contribute to turn
passive learners into proactive knowledge builders
passive recipients proactive
of the teacher’s knowledge
knowledge builders
Monday, April 9, 12

10. high quality poor quality
traditional user-generated WIKIs
curriculum content Web 2.0
?????
Monday, April 9, 12

11. We want QA and accreditation frameworks that
allow to validate user-generated e-contents and
integrate them into academic programs.
traditional user-generated WIKIs
curriculum content Web 2.0
Monday, April 9, 12

12. We want a mix of high quality e-contents
AND user-generated dynamic contents
AND reliable e-learning materials
AND engaging activities.
Monday, April 9, 12

13. We want e-contents that can be recycled,
so that we do not need to re-invent
the wheel all the time.
Monday, April 9, 12

14. We want blended e-contents,
combining traditional perspectives
with socio-constructivist ones.
(Schneider, 2003)
Monday, April 9, 12

15. a p
traditional school
e g
t h
g e
b r id
to
15
Monday, April 9, 12

16. learning object ?
http://www.uwlax.edu/faculty/kosiak/projects/index.html
16
Monday, April 9, 12

17. yes, learning object
6.5 kg 4.1 kg 2 kg
17
Monday, April 9, 12

18. from e-contents to learning objects,
or how to ...
store
e
categorize
retrieve
classify
...e-contents reuse
18
Monday, April 9, 12

19. e-Contents as Learning Objects
The term Learning Object [LO] was first popularized by Wayne Hodgins
in 1994 when he named the CedMA working group "Learning
Architectures, APIs and Learning Objects".
An LO is “a
discrete reusable collection of content used
to present and support a single learning objective.”
Peter Jacobsen (2002)
“Reusable Learning Objects- What does the future hold?”
LOs have become the Holy Grail of content creation and aggregation in
the field of computer-mediated learning.
19
Monday, April 9, 12

20. Why Learning Objects ?
interoperable (thanks to standards)
reusable (thanks to CC, OER, etc)
easy to retrieve (thanks to metadata)
Learning objects (LOs) facilitate the (re)-use of educational content online.
Internationally accepted specifications and standards make them interoperable and
reusable by different applications and in diverse learning environments.
Metadata (tags, index) describe them, facilitate search and make them accessible.
20
Monday, April 9, 12

21. Evaluation Criteria
Pedagogical Quality
Content clarity and conciseness, instructional strategies aligned to the
learning objectives, appropriate media according to target audience, etc…
Ergonomy
User-friendliness, motivating, visually attractive, built-in accessibility
features, etc..
Interoperability, reusability
Technical independence and robustness, metadata schema and tagging
procedures, conformance to standards
Karin Lundgren-Cayrol, Suzanne Lapointe,
Gilbert Paquette, LICEF, TÉLUQ - UQAM
21
Monday, April 9, 12

22. open nature ?
drill & practice microworlds
behaviorist socio-constructivist
fully automated affordances
individual only individual / collaborative
no human interaction needed facilitates human interaction
closed set of predefined answers open-ended answers
Monday, April 9, 12

23. context free ?
“we haven’t resolved the tension between
including context for effective instruction and
excluding it to ensure maximum reuse of the
object.”
From “Reusable Learning Objects- What does the future hold?”
By Peter Jacobsen, e-learning Magazine, November 1, 2002
http://www.elearningmag.com/elearning/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=5043
23
Monday, April 9, 12

24. > > >
E ?
C L
C Y
F E- expensive
> LI
> > long
life-cycle
e.g. in line with
course or program
review cycle
medium
life-cycle
e.g. semester
short
life-cycle
e.g. class
Monday, April 9, 12

25. Types of Repositories for Learning Resource
Private repositories A few metadata, quality is in the
usefulness of the repository to
author bibliography and productions the participants
students personal portfolio
course student production showcase
larger effort/investment
Community repository higher degree of quality insurance,
a university department, needs a domain ontology
a community of practice (specific classification and
relation between resources)
a research repository
Public repository Protect the consumer
totally open
(e.g. Creative commons) Protect the IP through CC or a digital
limited access or repository rights management (DRM) system.
Monday, April 9, 12

26. manufacturing
using
storing re-using Learning
integrating customizing Objects
re-purposing
Hamdan Bin Mohammed e-University
Case Study
26
Monday, April 9, 12

27. http://repository.hbmeu.ac.ae/lor/access/searching.do
“Le arning objects are THE MAIN
course material, not simply
additional support for self-study.”
re-using
27
Monday, April 9, 12

28. Reference documents semester-wise
[syllabus, timetable, outcome-
LOs’ role assessment maps, etc]
similar to
digital [Selected LOs +
text-books User Generated Contents]
Context will be
embedded THERE
LIFE-CYCLE
in line with
long course/program short semester
review cycle
Monday, April 9, 12

29. interactivity
low level high level
close set of questions, open-ended questions
fully automated human interaction
tools
Equella discussion forums,
search engines wikis, blogs, etc
29
Monday, April 9, 12

30. 30
Monday, April 9, 12

31. OERs
Open Educational Resources (OER)
are defined as “technology- enabled,
open provision of educational
resources for consultation, use and
adaptation by a community of
OERs
users for non-commercial purposes.”
OERs
31
Monday, April 9, 12

32. 32
Monday, April 9, 12

33. thank you for your attention
33
Monday, April 9, 12