Lessons from LOM for eLearning Standardization

1
Lessons from LOM for e-Learning Standardization

• Dr. Norm Friesen
• Presented at
• International Open Forum Global trends of
  e-Learning - Policies, technologies, and
  application. Tokyo, March 14, 2005

2
Outline

• LOM what is it, how where is it implemented
• Overview of LOM implementation surveys
• Survey Results
• Lessons for Standardization

3
LOM Learning Object Metadata

• IEEE 1484.1.1 2002 facilitates search,
  evaluation, acquisition, and use of learning
  objects, for instance by learners or instructors
  or automated software processes.
• It also facilitates the sharing and exchange of
  learning objects, by enabling the development of
  catalogs and inventories.
• aims at instructional neutrality (Blandin 04)

4
Learning Object Metadata

• 77 Elements 9 Categories

• Element
• Iteration
• vCard
• Dublin Core (16)

5
Defining Learning Objects
6
Defining Learning Objects
7
Defining Learning Objects
8
Defining Learning Objects
9
LOM Implementation

• Japan METI, MEXT, ALIC (Hirata, 2004)
• Canada CanCore (Oncore, ABCore)
• UK LOM Core
• Singapore SingCORE
• China CELTSC
• EU Celebrate, ARIADNE,
• Application profile A set of metadata
  elements, policies, and guidelines defined for a
  particular application.

10
Opportunity for survey analysis

• Local Surveys
• Hey, J.M.N., Currier, S. Barton, J. (2003).
• Kabel, S., de Hoog, R., Wielinga, B.J. (2003).
• Najjar, J., Ternier, S. Duval, E. (2003).
• International Surveys
• Canada Finland, (2003) How people planned to
  use the LOM.
• Canada, (2004) How the LOM and its elements are
  actually used

11
Preliminary Survey findings

• Many of the elements selected for use are in the
  Dublin Core Element Set
• Educational elements are not often selected for
  use
• LOM structures elements for 9Classification
  are utilized very effectively and precisely.
• Problems with vCard encoding and elements

12
Final Survey Sample sets used

• Sets of records varying in size from 75 to over
  3000 50 randomly selected from each (n250)
• ARIADNE Project (EU)
• the LTSN (UK)
• Metalab (France)
• CELTS (China)
• CAREO (Canada)

• Public sector private commercial sector records
  more difficult to obtain
• General education, not technical training

13
Two types of Findings

• What elements are used?
• What are the values assigned to these elements

14
Data Portability

• Data portability and reuse the raison d'être of
  the LOM!
• Conventional and low cost technologies cannot
  easily be used to realize LOM data aggregation,
  portability and reuse
• Not at all a positive indicator for increased
  sharing and reuse between implementa-tions and
  across jurisdictions

15
Frequency of Element Use
16
Frequency of Element Use

• The most frequently used elements (not container
  elements -tage)
• Title, Description, Keyword
• Format (e.g. .html, .jpg, .doc)
• Language (human)
• Author
• Learning Resource Type (simulation, exercise,
  etc.)
• Subject Classification (PurposeDiscipline)

17
Least Frequently Used Elements
18
Most and Least Used Elements

• Least (lt 20 gt 0)
• Duration
• Difficulty
• Structure
• Granularity
• Version
• Structure
• Semantic Density

19
Types of Contributors
20
Information about Contributors
21
Formats
22
Educational.LearningResourceType
23
Conclusions Elements and Values Selected
Frequently

• The LOM is used to describe intellectual content
  of resources
• General Identifier, Title, Description, Keyword
• LifeCycle.Contribute (role Author and
  publisher)
• Classification (PurposeDiscipline)
• The LOM is used to describe file and media
  characteristics
• Technical.Format, Technical.Size, Location
• Educational.Learning Resource Type (text,
  hypertext, notes, etc.)

24
Conclusions Elements and Values Seldom Selected

• LOM use does NOT emphasize description of an
  educational context or level
• Educational.Semantic Density 0
• Educational.Context lt20
• EndUserRole 40
• LOM is NOT used to describe resources in terms of
  software objects
• Structure, Version (i.e. Alpha, Beta), Status
  lt18
• Aggregation level lt27
• Contribute.Role"terminator" technical
  implementer/validator 0

25
Lessons What is a learning object?
26
Lessons What is a learning object?
X
X
27
Lessons What is a learning object?

• Has attributes of resources generally
• Title
• Description
• Keyword
• Author
• Format, Size, Location
• Resource Type
• Audience

28
Lessons What is a learning object?
Core Metadata

• Has attributes of resources generally
• Title
• Description
• Keyword
• Author
• Format, Size, Location
• Resource Type
• Audience

29
Lessons What is a learning object?

• A learning object an existing or new resource
  used and combined in ways that we already use
  resources.

30
What should Learning Resource Metadata do?

• Be Simple Follow simplicity tests or heuristics
  - Wilson (2005)
• "notepad test" - can you create a valid data
  instance in Notepad in less than 4k?
• "reading test" - can you read and understand the
  basics of the specification in under an hour?
• "scripting test" - can you create a simple client
  or service provider in a scripting language in a
  day?

31
CanCore Moving LOM in this direction

• Online Print Guidelines

32
CanCore www.cancore.ca LOM Best Practices

• Sharing information among LOM developers
• Monitoring meeting userrequirements

33
Further Lessons from LOM

• In the place of "neutral" standards, need to
  think of developing pedagogically "engaged" or
  "committed" conceptions of content and systems
  that serve existing and readily specifiable
  educational purposes, situations and methods.
  (Friesen 2004)
• Allows for increased focus on the whats not
  confusion with new hows

34
SC36 Metadata for Learning Resources

• adopt, correct, amend, and/or improve upon the
  technical work in a related IEEE standard called
  Learning Object Metadata
• harmonized with the LOM
• Canadian Principal Serve the small economies of
  scale and limited resources of educational and
  training entities and their technical
  capabilities

35
References I

• Blandin, B. (2004). Are E-Learning Standards
  Neutral? International Conference on Computer
  Aided Learning in Engineering Education.
  http//www-clips.imag.fr/calie04/actes/Blandin_fin
  al.pdf.
• Friesen, N. (2004). Learning Objects and
  Standards Pedagogical Neutrality and Engagement.
  Proceedings of the IEEE ICALT. learningspaces.org/
  n/papers/pedagogical_neutrality.pdf
• Friesen, N. (2004). Final Report on the
  International LOM Survey. http//jtc1sc36.org/do
  c/36N0871.pdf http//www.cancore.ca/ppt/LOM20S
  urvey.ppt

36
References II

• Hey, J.M.N., Currier, S. Barton, J. (2003).
  Building Quality Assurance into Metadata
  Creation an Analysis based on the Learning
  Objects and e-Prints Communities of Practice.
  2003 Dublin Core Conference Proceedings.
  http//www.siderean.com/dc2003/201_paper60.pdf
• Hirata, K. (2004). LOM Activity Implementation
  in Japan http//mdlet.jtc1sc36.org/doc/SC36_WG4_N0
  081.pdf.
• Kabel, S., de Hoog, R., Wielinga, B.J. (2003).
  Consistency in indexing learning objects an
  empirical investigation. ED-MEDIA 2003,
  Proceedings. http//www.aace.org/conf/edmedia/LO20
  03Symposium.pdf

37
References III

• Najjar, J., Ternier, S. Duval, E. (2003). "The
  Actual Use of Metadata in ARIADNE An Empirical
  Analysis", Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Ariadne
  Conference. http//www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/najjar/
  papers/EmpiricalAnalysis_ARIADNE2003.pdf
• Wilson, S. (2005) In Praise of Simpler Standards.
  (Blog Publication/) http//www.cetis.ac.uk/members
  /scott/blogview?entry20050121223821