Long-Term Retention & Reuse of E-Learning Objects and Materials Dr Roger Rist Director ICBL Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh.
Download ReportTranscript Long-Term Retention & Reuse of E-Learning Objects and Materials Dr Roger Rist Director ICBL Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh.
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 Malcolm Polfreman JISC Requirement The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) commissioned this study on longterm 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 elearning programmes. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 Long-Term Implications Custodianship Coherent funding strategies Who assesses quality, how is quality assessed Maintaining pedagogical relevance Other sustainability and preservation activities Current Developments Focus is on development of interoperable repository infrastructure to support elearning: 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 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 E-Learning Objects are Learning Objects comprised of digital resources Reusability = the aim to reduce duplication of effort and improve quality Factors Affecting Reusability Granularity Technical dependency Content dependency Granularity If a LO is too large or conceptually complex it may be difficult to reuse in different contexts. Inc re as ing Fle xibility 0% granular 100% aggregated (i.e. w hole c ours es ) O ptim al G ranularity 100% granular 0% aggregated (raw digital c ontent) Inc re as ing Educ tio nal Value 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. ‘-abilities’ Interoperability Re-usability Manageability Accessibility Durability Scalability Affordability 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 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 Model Res ourc e Creator/ M odifier 'updates ' res ourc e m ake res ourc e available 'updates ' res ourc e D ata S torage delivers m ake res ourc e available D is c overy S ys tem D elivery S ys tem queries harves ts P res ervation S ervic es alerts D ata S torage delivers Res ourc e Us er Key Elements E-Learning coordination Institutions National/regional/consortia? Multiple implementations National archival repository Institutional + other types of repository Current Work IPR Pedagogy for e-learning Social and practical issues May be implemented through metadata attached to e-learning objects 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 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) Future: Quality Assurance Users want quality assurance A ‘publishing’ process is needed Peer review Establishment of rights Standardised quality mark? 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 Recommendations: End Users More awareness of the limitations of e-learning resources and this may mean large-scale enduser 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. 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. Recommendations: Infrastructure Greater communication between elearning activities and digital preservation activities. Support for a distributed network of repositories. Contact Dr Roger Rist Institute for Computer Based Learning Heriot-Watt University [email protected] Report on JISC website: www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=program me_preservation