Describing Learning Features of Reusable Resources: A Proposal
One of the main advantages of the LO paradigm is to
allow the availability of good quality, shareable learning material
through the Web. The effectiveness of the retrieval process requires a
formal description of the resources (metadata) that closely fits the
user-s search criteria; in spite of the huge international efforts in this
field, educational metadata schemata often fail to fulfil this
requirement. This work aims to improve the situation, by the
definition of a metadata model capturing specific didactic features of
shareable learning resources. It classifies LOs into “teacher-oriented"
and “student-oriented" categories, in order to describe the role a LO
is to play when it is integrated into the educational process. This
article describes the model and a first experimental validation process
that has been carried out in a controlled environment.
[1] C. Alexander, S. Ishikawa, and M. Silverstein. A Pattern Language,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1977.
[2] S. Alvino, P. Forcheri, M. G. Ierardi, and L. Sarti, "Un modello per la
descrizione pedagogica di learning objects", Pubblicazioni IMATI-CNR,
TR n. 12, 2007.
[3] S. Alvino, and L. Sarti, "Learning Objects e Costruttivismo", Proc. of
Didamatica 2004, Consorzio Omniacom Ed., Ferrara, 2004, pp.761-772
[4] L. E. Anido, M. J. Fernandez, M. Caeiro, J. M. Santos, J. S. Rodriguez,
and M. Llamas, "Educational metadata and brokerage for learning
resources", Computers & Education, vol. 38, 2002, pp.351-374.
[5] B. S. Bloom, "Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification
of Educational Goals", in Handbook I, Cognitive Domain. B. S. Bloom,
Ed. New York: Longman, 1956.
[6] E. Busetti, G. Dettori, P. Forcheri, and M. G. Ierardi, "A pedagogical
approach to the design of learning objects for complex domains", in Int.
Journal of Distant Education Technologies, vol. 5, no. 2, 2007, pp. 1-17.
[7] E. Duval, W. Hodgins, S. A. Sutton, and S. Weibel, "Metadata
Principles and Practicalities", DB magazine, vol. 8, no. 1, 2001.
[8] F. Farance, "IEEE LOM Standard Not Yet Ready For "Prime Time"",
Learning Technology, January 2003. Available:
http://lttf.ieee.org/learn_tech/issues/january2003/index.html.
[9] A. Fini, and L. Vanni. Learning Object e Metadati: quando, come e
perché avvalersene. Trento: Erickson, 2004.
[10] N. Friesen, J. Mason, and N. Ward, Building Educational Metadata
Application Profiles", in Proc. Int. Conf. on Dublin Core and Metadata
for e-Communities, Firenze University Press, 2002, pp. 63-69.
[11] N. Friesen, "A Report on the International Learning Object Metadata
Survey", International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, vol. 5, no. 3, 2004.
[12] J. Griffith, G. Stubbs, and M. Watkins, "From course notes to granules:
A guide to deriving Learning Object components"in Computers in
Human Behavior, vol. 23, no. 6, Nov. 2007, pp. 2696 - 2720.
Available: www.sciencedirect.com.
[13] IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee, Learning Object
Metadata, Final Draft Standard, IEEE 1484.12.1-2002. Available:
http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/20020612-Final-LOM-Draft.html, 2002.
[14] IMS 2003: IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. Available:
http://www.imsglobal.org/
[15] A. Ip., and I. Morrison. "Learning objects in different pedagogical
paradigms", in Meeting at the Crossroads. Proc. of the 18th Annual
Conf. of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary
Education, Kennedy, G., Keppell, M., McNaught, C. & Petrovic, T.
(Eds.) Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, The University of
Melbourne 2001, pp. 289-298. Available:
http://users.tpg.com.au/adslfrcf/lo/LO(ASCILITE2001).pdf
[16] D. Jonassen, and D. Churchill,"Is there a learning orientation in learning
objects?", in Int. Journal of e-learning, vol. 3, no. 2, 2004, pp. 32- 41.
Available: http://learnactivity.com/resources/Jonassen&Daniel.pdf
[17] D. Jonassen, and S. L. Land, Theoretical foundations of learning
environments, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000.
[18] E. J. Koper. Combining re-usable learning resources and services to
pedagogical purposeful units of learning. In Reusing Online Resources:
A Sustainable Approach to eLearning, A. Littlejohn (Ed.) London:
Kogan Page, 2003, pp. 46-59.
[19] R. Koper, and R. van Es. Modeling units of learning from a pedagogical
perspective. In Online education using learning objects, R. McGreal
(Ed.) London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004.
[20] A. Littlejohn, "An incremental approach to staff development in the
reuse of learning resources", in Reusing on line resources: a sustainable
approach to e-learning, A. Littlejohn, Ed. London: Kogan Page, 2003,
pp. 221-233.
[21] D. MacLoad, "Learning Object Repositories: Deployment and
Diffusion", CANARIE discussion paper, CANARIE Inc., 2005.
[22] P. McAndrew, P. Goodyear, and J. Dalziel,. "Patterns, designs and
activities: unifying descriptions of learning structures", in Intern.
Journal of Learning Technology, vol. 2, no 2-3, 2006, pp. 216-242.
[23] D. Mwanza, and Y. Engestrom, "Managing content in e-learning
environments", in British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 36,
no. 3, 2005, pp. 453-463.
[24] J. Qin, and C. J. Godby, "Incorporating Educational Vocabulary in
Learning Object Metadata Schemas", in Research and Advanced
Technology for Digital Libraries, LNCS 2769/2004, Berlin: Springer,
2004, pp. 52-57.
[25] J. Qin, and S. Paling, "Converting a controlled vocabulary into an
ontology: the case of GEM", in Information Research, vol. 6 , no. 2,
2001. Available: http://InformationR.net/ir/6-2/paper94.html
[26] B. Simon, and J. Quemada, "A Reflection of Metadata Standards Based
on Reference Scenarios", in Proc. der GMW, Tagung 2002, 2002.
[27] D. Suthers, S. Johnson, and B. Tillinghast, "Learning Object Meta-data
for a Database of Primary and Secondary School Resources", in
Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 9, no. 3, 2002, pp. 273-289.
[28] TLF - The Learning Federation. Metadata application profile, version
2.2 - june 2007. Available:
http://www.thelearningfederation.edu.au/tlf2/sitefiles/assets/docs/specifi
cations/metadata_application_profile_2.2.pdf
[1] C. Alexander, S. Ishikawa, and M. Silverstein. A Pattern Language,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1977.
[2] S. Alvino, P. Forcheri, M. G. Ierardi, and L. Sarti, "Un modello per la
descrizione pedagogica di learning objects", Pubblicazioni IMATI-CNR,
TR n. 12, 2007.
[3] S. Alvino, and L. Sarti, "Learning Objects e Costruttivismo", Proc. of
Didamatica 2004, Consorzio Omniacom Ed., Ferrara, 2004, pp.761-772
[4] L. E. Anido, M. J. Fernandez, M. Caeiro, J. M. Santos, J. S. Rodriguez,
and M. Llamas, "Educational metadata and brokerage for learning
resources", Computers & Education, vol. 38, 2002, pp.351-374.
[5] B. S. Bloom, "Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification
of Educational Goals", in Handbook I, Cognitive Domain. B. S. Bloom,
Ed. New York: Longman, 1956.
[6] E. Busetti, G. Dettori, P. Forcheri, and M. G. Ierardi, "A pedagogical
approach to the design of learning objects for complex domains", in Int.
Journal of Distant Education Technologies, vol. 5, no. 2, 2007, pp. 1-17.
[7] E. Duval, W. Hodgins, S. A. Sutton, and S. Weibel, "Metadata
Principles and Practicalities", DB magazine, vol. 8, no. 1, 2001.
[8] F. Farance, "IEEE LOM Standard Not Yet Ready For "Prime Time"",
Learning Technology, January 2003. Available:
http://lttf.ieee.org/learn_tech/issues/january2003/index.html.
[9] A. Fini, and L. Vanni. Learning Object e Metadati: quando, come e
perché avvalersene. Trento: Erickson, 2004.
[10] N. Friesen, J. Mason, and N. Ward, Building Educational Metadata
Application Profiles", in Proc. Int. Conf. on Dublin Core and Metadata
for e-Communities, Firenze University Press, 2002, pp. 63-69.
[11] N. Friesen, "A Report on the International Learning Object Metadata
Survey", International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, vol. 5, no. 3, 2004.
[12] J. Griffith, G. Stubbs, and M. Watkins, "From course notes to granules:
A guide to deriving Learning Object components"in Computers in
Human Behavior, vol. 23, no. 6, Nov. 2007, pp. 2696 - 2720.
Available: www.sciencedirect.com.
[13] IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee, Learning Object
Metadata, Final Draft Standard, IEEE 1484.12.1-2002. Available:
http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/20020612-Final-LOM-Draft.html, 2002.
[14] IMS 2003: IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. Available:
http://www.imsglobal.org/
[15] A. Ip., and I. Morrison. "Learning objects in different pedagogical
paradigms", in Meeting at the Crossroads. Proc. of the 18th Annual
Conf. of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary
Education, Kennedy, G., Keppell, M., McNaught, C. & Petrovic, T.
(Eds.) Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, The University of
Melbourne 2001, pp. 289-298. Available:
http://users.tpg.com.au/adslfrcf/lo/LO(ASCILITE2001).pdf
[16] D. Jonassen, and D. Churchill,"Is there a learning orientation in learning
objects?", in Int. Journal of e-learning, vol. 3, no. 2, 2004, pp. 32- 41.
Available: http://learnactivity.com/resources/Jonassen&Daniel.pdf
[17] D. Jonassen, and S. L. Land, Theoretical foundations of learning
environments, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000.
[18] E. J. Koper. Combining re-usable learning resources and services to
pedagogical purposeful units of learning. In Reusing Online Resources:
A Sustainable Approach to eLearning, A. Littlejohn (Ed.) London:
Kogan Page, 2003, pp. 46-59.
[19] R. Koper, and R. van Es. Modeling units of learning from a pedagogical
perspective. In Online education using learning objects, R. McGreal
(Ed.) London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004.
[20] A. Littlejohn, "An incremental approach to staff development in the
reuse of learning resources", in Reusing on line resources: a sustainable
approach to e-learning, A. Littlejohn, Ed. London: Kogan Page, 2003,
pp. 221-233.
[21] D. MacLoad, "Learning Object Repositories: Deployment and
Diffusion", CANARIE discussion paper, CANARIE Inc., 2005.
[22] P. McAndrew, P. Goodyear, and J. Dalziel,. "Patterns, designs and
activities: unifying descriptions of learning structures", in Intern.
Journal of Learning Technology, vol. 2, no 2-3, 2006, pp. 216-242.
[23] D. Mwanza, and Y. Engestrom, "Managing content in e-learning
environments", in British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 36,
no. 3, 2005, pp. 453-463.
[24] J. Qin, and C. J. Godby, "Incorporating Educational Vocabulary in
Learning Object Metadata Schemas", in Research and Advanced
Technology for Digital Libraries, LNCS 2769/2004, Berlin: Springer,
2004, pp. 52-57.
[25] J. Qin, and S. Paling, "Converting a controlled vocabulary into an
ontology: the case of GEM", in Information Research, vol. 6 , no. 2,
2001. Available: http://InformationR.net/ir/6-2/paper94.html
[26] B. Simon, and J. Quemada, "A Reflection of Metadata Standards Based
on Reference Scenarios", in Proc. der GMW, Tagung 2002, 2002.
[27] D. Suthers, S. Johnson, and B. Tillinghast, "Learning Object Meta-data
for a Database of Primary and Secondary School Resources", in
Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 9, no. 3, 2002, pp. 273-289.
[28] TLF - The Learning Federation. Metadata application profile, version
2.2 - june 2007. Available:
http://www.thelearningfederation.edu.au/tlf2/sitefiles/assets/docs/specifi
cations/metadata_application_profile_2.2.pdf
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:56262", author = "Serena Alvino and Paola Forcheri and Maria Grazia Ierardi and Luigi Sarti", title = "Describing Learning Features of Reusable Resources: A Proposal", abstract = "One of the main advantages of the LO paradigm is to
allow the availability of good quality, shareable learning material
through the Web. The effectiveness of the retrieval process requires a
formal description of the resources (metadata) that closely fits the
user-s search criteria; in spite of the huge international efforts in this
field, educational metadata schemata often fail to fulfil this
requirement. This work aims to improve the situation, by the
definition of a metadata model capturing specific didactic features of
shareable learning resources. It classifies LOs into “teacher-oriented"
and “student-oriented" categories, in order to describe the role a LO
is to play when it is integrated into the educational process. This
article describes the model and a first experimental validation process
that has been carried out in a controlled environment.", keywords = "Learning object, pedagogical metadata, experimental
validation.", volume = "1", number = "6", pages = "200-7", }
