1 / 32

Long-Term Retention & Reuse of E-Learning Objects and Materials

Long-Term Retention & Reuse of E-Learning Objects and Materials. Dr Roger Rist Director ICBL Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh. Team of ICBL and AHDS. Institute for Computer Based Learning Roger Rist Ed Barker Colin Milligan Arts and Humanities Data Service Hamish James Gareth Knight

ima
Télécharger la présentation

Long-Term Retention & Reuse of E-Learning Objects and Materials

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Long-Term Retention & Reuse of E-Learning Objects and Materials Dr Roger Rist Director ICBL Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh

  2. Team of ICBL and AHDS • Institute for Computer Based Learning • Roger Rist • Ed Barker • Colin Milligan • Arts and Humanities Data Service • Hamish James • Gareth Knight • Malcolm Polfreman

  3. JISC Requirement • The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) commissioned this study on long-term retention and re-use for e-Learning Objects and Materials. • Part of the implementation of the JISC Continuing Access and Digital Preservation Strategy 2002-5 and its support for e-learning programmes.

  4. ICT for Learning • There is growing recognition that Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has a considerable amount to offer as a tool to support many areas of learning and teaching from its administration, through to face-to-face or remote delivery.

  5. E-Learning • The perceived potential of ICT to help colleges and universities address the challenges presented by increased student numbers, new student demographics and widening participation has brought the concept of ‘E-Learning’ to the fore.

  6. Still in early stages • E-Learning is at an early phase of evolution and current research and  development is focussed on the creation of materials and implementation and inter-operability of current systems.

  7. Study Aims • Complementary to JORUM • Focusing on: • Creation and use of useful e-learning materials • Infrastructure for long-term management of e-learning materials • Digital preservation issues with e-learning materials

  8. Intended Audience • Study on three major levels • Findings and recommendations for three constituencies: • JISC as a central agency within UK HE/FE • Individual HE/FE institutions • Individual teachers and staff

  9. Creation and Reuse • Why no large banks of E-Learning resources? • New and experimental – a lot of hype, plus some substance • Development has been driven by technology, not pedagogy • Technology itself is evolving • E-Learning is not yet commonly accepted by FE & HE staff • Still the domain of a small number of early adopters

  10. History • Since 1990 many “Learning Technology” initiatives e.g. CTI, TLTP, Use of MANs, 5/99, ... • Little evidence that outputs of UK projects have been retained and reused on a significant level to date

  11. Some Long-Lived Projects • Developed with clear short term advantages • SCRAN, COLEG, EUROMET • What these projects have in common: • Focus on distinct market areas • Responsive to end users • Clear and specific aims about what sort of materials they are accepting/producing • Emphasis on quality and evaluation of outputs • Avoid reliance on external websites or other resources

  12. Long-Term Implications • Custodianship • Coherent funding strategies • Who assesses quality, how is quality assessed • Maintaining pedagogical relevance • Other sustainability and preservation activities

  13. Current Developments • Focus is on development of interoperable repository infrastructure to support e-learning: • Development of standards for E-Learning • Repository Projects are being set up: HLSI, JORUM, institutional repositories, NLN etc • VLE use is increasing • Repositories to manage learning objects

  14. A Learning Object is • “an aggregation of one or more digital assets incorporating metadata which constitute an educationally meaningful stand-alone unit”, Dalziel • Defined here as “any resource that can be used to facilitate learning and teaching and has been described using metadata”, JORUM

  15. E-Learning Objects • are Learning Objects comprised of digital resources • Reusability = the aim to reduce duplication of effort and improve quality

  16. Factors Affecting Reusability • Granularity • Technical dependency • Content dependency

  17. Granularity • If a LO is too large or conceptually complex it may be difficult to reuse in different contexts.

  18. Technical and Content dependency • Technical dependency: is the LO technically dependent on other resources? E.g. HTML linked in a linear navigation sequence, interactive content with server side scripts. • Content dependency: does the content of the LO reference other related, but external, resources? E.g. a glossary or the next module in a sequence.

  19. ‘-abilities’ • Interoperability • Re-usability • Manageability • Accessibility • Durability • Scalability • Affordability

  20. Technical Considerations • Learning objects may contain any type of content • Wide range of preservation problems, and potential solutions • Need more connections between digital preservation work and e-learning work

  21. Repositories and Learning Objects • Facilitate movement of resources • Allow cross searching • Support long term retention of materials, packaged as learning objects • Be able to cater for the varying different end user groups in FE and HE • Interoperability with institutional VLE

  22. Model

  23. Key Elements • E-Learning coordination • Institutions • National/regional/consortia? • Multiple implementations • National archival repository • Institutional + other types of repository

  24. Current Work • IPR • Pedagogy for e-learning • Social and practical issues • May be implemented through metadata attached to e-learning objects

  25. IPR • Institutions recognise value of learning materials and will want to control access • Individuals want rewards • Need to allow for variety of IPR scenarios e.g. sharing, buying etc • Need clarity and simplicity for end user • Needs to be considered at creation and publishing phase • Needs to be retained in the long term

  26. Pedagogy • Learning Object Theory • Granularity, disaggregation/ reaggregation • Brick and Mortar analogy • Dangerous to enforce pedagogy • Experimentation necessary for different purposes (especially for face to face teaching)

  27. Future: Quality Assurance • Users want quality assurance • A ‘publishing’ process is needed • Peer review • Establishment of rights • Standardised quality mark?

  28. Summary of Requirements • Creation of E-Learning objects needs to be focussed on requirements of end-users • Encourage uptake of E-Learning objects • Plan and build a sustainable infrastructure for discovery, delivery and management of E-Learning objects

  29. Recommendations: End Users • More awareness of the limitations of e-learning resources and this may mean large-scale end-user studies that start from a non-technical perspective before looking at how technology can help. • Work has been done into looking at reusing resources for distance learning by the Open University. • Research still needed into the practicalities of reusing learning materials in Face-To-Face situations.

  30. Recommendations: Uptake • Studies into how end users make use of existing e-learning objects • Efficient methods of resource discovery must be established • Development and promotion of portals • Adoption of standards for descriptive metadata • Improved communication between end-users and resource creators.

  31. Recommendations: Infrastructure • Greater communication between e-learning activities and digital preservation activities. • Support for a distributed network of repositories.

  32. Contact • Dr Roger Rist • Institute for Computer Based Learning • Heriot-Watt University • roger@icbl.hw.ac.uk • Report on JISC website: www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=programme_preservation

More Related