ࡱ> n8#͓G)CCzPNG  IHDR)IyPLTE)))1{119s99JkJJR!cRRZ!cZZk)Zkks)Rss{1J{{Ό9B֔9B֜B9ޭB1޵J)J!R!RZZccSabKGDH cmPPJCmp0712HsZIDATx^\i{: d#$iIـ3F$?m,gF#sv MƗX4n6˛̤Dž3S!wy<7Oӝn??ggun[O>N`˦~c_yOokrsI}m6ߣAN FyOnF/_4 ?ȯT̝g$<5;|;%fQ1}GP~\=Fa%?aR9 3:8{SL/#}:Y#]uyYwi0dh3pl^+ʛ^F 97B/c4}`l2gs86oFl5H9q\ lO~;_Ǻ+ͺyӨK(Ü= ڭ-d&*pJU <Vh0&Zppw%-Qk0fIY}s=yjE#(l͝~.&qvѺCtx,'lf< (OȚ1<lw"я|6+GyJ;p0!1KFg.|35wl%je@p ǹ)ꋗ8#=uz"'ӂ[!Q&Y6JҲieR6/2q- ϝ:64)S ִply1N^q)W+l^p|G&r}Tl,#H$T'M"Q#]hQ>VlπMSu'(Ѓ<_h  &~#Cə㓫t]#MLJȼmMbEЃ~мWVGrH D>GcnHG\-|'ؤϿ*EF^jI/ J 3 ʤ\WķXZ% ?\@l9j%jf|!_$"GGJ.;mU>B;EI˂L+Y@V 0M*xvp[-[5oa"L~q8hxo*~F*>@D3Nl9ۜ(]ωp/IcƟډ,)o+ZsP~qJU,sxYQU!YwFwL{TW|ɬ#|Ͻ9fRjfYy'$TxV1*9N(v|IU!;rȘKv7cY:E"yp7kWzdyK Nː?*Y/tCD}Ҹ1t%Y)` 5W#G vF-L/8nP5$;Gx9zO7*d~a@}!#kLQO£`ٿc&&v6*fCecXnA ꆏ >*3gK/~j!bcaMn0VZ^͢#S;{_2@W2C^C{ΌLX/BOPGTBAa w#/'K&|}NZ悥5%㳹(lb+&ˢ%ۖ%{=f~qikWr{IJ&Kbqsfɽ𨃼O=ORNKY"`.6 eڙ\:3[;/C40l 9STV.ܟ{N8o Ъ!'QUILbܖ[li-|_ߞ[uOw>Ա=jkʮ#KSᬏmf%˽h ̙5B)NPLTEؿ׼ֻպӶҵѳϰ̪ʧǣşĞۚ~ywwutsqpgdbaf[cYXWV^ONQ\QXQFDATS?=IH=;DC;C29{%z$z#y0y"y x.x vrqpoonml l k igfffeedcc``_^^][ZYXWV`ѬtRNSm)bKGD cmPPJCmp0712Hs=IDATXGYk0$t0ԫ! !ChN! G ,;?}=dMuĖ>{?䔭f/Y0'۟3y{y=+6:\_>φB@WI2K`\YQiUUEve`ZU)$9H|Bռf(=$-(vA O2\KMU%g6Ҍ̸\7x @ǓlyJw1$ꝥ(tȔr3W\Yvpl3 wSˏ. q"8b`te+mEM!YV8H\PxQ~8y{X"+2O!]fk^-qd )2}S,h›Tyt~'~?ŖTf^7&}@{!YhT_0T;~5ل,h( $I @EtmEѸCJ\  k:fgO5 L4{ 5yQcmt)79'N)Tv{; 59 c :p.Q⚜A1D)ϸ,]h Sʛ{>AA>>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!1!!$!!1>-''''->8;333;8AA>>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA@" 150!" !1AQ"2a# 0qBb3srR$t!1AaQq2 0@Rb 4>gV_-*\sh<Λͽ'@5zxyW}'s5+a8 okΰeP*^>.Gc(ؘA3uU Xչ%~[qR8ӠdD|cצ=Gvt< @ѩ WVw۫xBbel}iU׍-cKuԱ0vY]$jZߦBcXMrmM]VU$̡~F)"Vdס\ ^-:J"4V?i_"_{+uJW٪k3$RgaI$clGƤ$ ܪ D;Si2LgI*1cUw!`4/E4gWYH YܞPgep.m #3AbTI$Wfb<*ci߶2DɕjJKNZU{iU#UTno΀~j; TPNG  IHDR67pIJPLTEY4e√ͩMc^iaӵi߹sZK+xwbesboƠ# KtRNSKFbKGDH cmPPJCmp0712HsIDATHKV lB 1B}5m9Pb&3;zњpZ+, ^}i%-}nWݪ%1"i",F /'\ FhU?+D*~<ähu[E] *3'8H҈(OBI IK z?#W9yd٤>[00Sk+gl^!|Jz]`4};$-}PU}gM?s{\lVT00 ]#,VF~~$ jJӌ"Ä|{TXJi#&%ڕ NjT+[slrmIJ `rK׾) %α;rdCI$T1A``|-D챛 ~Ur\9ͫVNeL]\c%͍bN-lhI%e[8& Zmrw}&mY 7hgqk+16$mZL{ շFOYRO+FvBa&/,ŘQhl>ofw`MՐUXSG8[r4hYn$g| ȇm09a"%'g! \Xi:3MqͣajcA:(Tȧ 03Mr{ <>Q!uOuۻ= ϙXtpsO5.3B~(Ew=XK#?)i}F7ܧPQiڶMT0M4WE;eel@3!O0WtAsW0YIC Oye$ ,SMUJIENDB`nYYOܑƃ.~HcPNG  IHDR_ikwPLTE9Zk1Rs!!!)!!)!9))))1))11111111J11s9)BB)!B99BBBBJBJ9)JJZRJBRRJRRZRRsZZ)!ZB)ZZZZcZcJ9cccckkck{cskkcBkcZkskk{ssJBscJssksssss{s{{{kJ{kZ{sk{s{{{{s{sZs{BB{sckZ{R{ZscsZcksckccss{sƭεֽƽƵƽνZZƽƽ΄ενbKGDH cmPPJCmp0712HsIDAThCZ_ZWG-V F(KbĬłHiuMYvL;f2}$[oW{}A(>޻{=?KmLnx>ʽF,t3~3=`pҷ䟙ܜgn&8?375An|yh.?`0?${۴ZFۨMVVTjT+5ZOZN=tu;\y^u}pw>u;|pπ_SYMwMMS57bW{8@>?O x8 nx8\.a!gqt :Exi OV4`p :Vb6#$q禺6:[ [~=Q,"Y!QSB"Қp]5|M5wm(֕ީ4T/B[{We/}njvbd}!.P]V 5lɷGgX>* TWax/:2¯!DC7jk1%bd;7aǦ[d=tqvRCg6OO:|QiG>D>Zp}14UX\ =IԤtf%,_ G./ ޵o?P10&nF0FRs[ kS_ݸškJJ_;_̌_nIbL\*P:"X"5r#XL~;c#y?U5=޴&TB?.+?,݀A`GF>̿}]H~ZyyiE*|_]RVƲE*G!+V⟵xhJjз9V^OI~ Oe\f{~γ%ҊnּuCR$f7E_;"FI:k 4hQ mL鏨v1T! +[3%֒, Ctw ;;B\XoT)+D{.1hX_..z+fc#⣸X9w)O_$J_>XP?Ci dÓOڶGZa؞8PF 8@;&Y# 2L5t]xuz]Eз#|6| {ތ:>w~7S~KVny9l#a@9#>кZ;0`  @_C}ҫoHm6/|,}JO,8<'AbI!i O302 R7 Evaluation Criteria: Interoperability Why not? IEEE defines interoperability as:  The ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged. (IEEE, 1990). Therefore & 0Z#ZZZ%$ $ &(?8 Evaluation Criteria: Interoperability Why not? Interoperability is not a property of a resource; rather it is a property of the relationship between systems in a particular context. Therefore it is impossible to evaluate the  interoperability of JISC content. r0ZZZ&( ( &*$ 1Aggregation Levels: IEEE LOM Levels The smallest level of aggregation, e.g. raw media data or fragments. A collection of level 1 learning objects, e.g. a lesson. A collection of level 2 learning objects, e.g. a course. The largest level of granularity, e.g. a set of courses that lead to a certificate. %Z " ZZ$  S&C< Aggregation Levels / Top Level Content Categories Information object Information resource Learning object Unit of study Module Course Collection \3ZaZ2  _JC Aggregation Levels / Top Level Content Categories Information object Information Information resource Information Learning object Educational Unit of study Educational Module Educational Course Educational Collection Information  3ZZ2           @9 Aggregation Levels (1) Information object: A simple object that does not have a specific educational objective and is not situated within an educational scenario e.g. an image or text file. Information resource: An aggregation of information objects, which does not have a specific educational objective, and which is presented as a cohesive unit e.g. an online encyclopaedia or e-journal. ZoZZ  &&A: GAggregation Levels (2) Learning object: An object that demonstrates, or focuses on, a specific educational concept, e.g. a learning activity task or assessment. Unit of study: An aggregation of learning objects and information objects. Sometimes referred to as a lesson. Module: An aggregation of lessons and learning objects.Z0Z  x&^&/&B; Aggregation Levels (3) Course: A large aggregation of lessons, modules and other related resources. Collection: An aggregation of two or more of any of the above types of resources, which does not have a specific educational objective overall, and which is not presented as a cohesive unit, but rather is tied together via a search or browse mechanism such as a catalogue or search engine e.g. a collection of digitised slides, a database of learning objects. ZZZ  &B& [&-' AReusability: Factors to consider Technical format. Is the resource tied to a single delivery platform or technology? Contextual dependency. Does the content of the resource reference other related, but external, resources? E.g. a resource may refer to a glossary or to the next module in a sequence. Technical dependency. Is the delivery of the content technically dependent on other resources? E.g. HTML pages that are linked in a linear navigation sequence, interactive content that relies on server side scripts, Java applets with class files residing on remote servers. !Z!Z! D&&KD mEvaluation Criteria: Reusability (1) Reusable: May be delivered via a wide variety of platforms or technologies, do not reference related external content, are not technically dependent on external resources. Somewhat reusable: May be restricted to a single delivery technology but are still relatively reusable due to the ubiquitous nature of that technology. %Z-ZG-Z%  && &&6/ 0Evaluation Criteria: Reusability (2) Potentially reusable: Have potential for reuse, i.e. they may be delivered in a standard format, e.g. HTML, but are dependent on related resources. Not reusable: Restricted to a specific delivery platform or technology, and/or highly dependent on related resources.%- -%$&~&& &h&92 bEvaluation Criteria: Vertical reusability No: Resources that are only appropriate for use at a single specific level of study. Potential: Resources that are not necessarily developed with vertical reusability in mind, but that may be used at different levels of study. Yes: Resources that include specific support for use at different levels of study. *9*  Q& &&M&&:3 qEvaluation Criteria: Horizontal Reusability / Subject Specificity (1) Generic: Resources that can be used for teaching and learning in any subject field or discipline. Interdisciplinary: Resources whose subject content makes them applicable to teaching and learning in more than one discipline or subject. * These two define resources which are horizontally reusable. FZ,Z 1 Y&w&=;4 DEvaluation Criteria: Horizontal Reusability / Subject Specificity (2) Subject specific: Resources that are designed only for use within a specific subject or discipline. Resource specific: Resources that are designed only for use with a specific resource. * These two define resources which are NOT horizontally reusable. FZZ 1 R&C&& BMF Summary Most 5/99 content is Somewhat or Potentially reusable, and has Potential for vertical reuse. About half of projects produced horizontally reusable content. Only 39% had actually implemented metadata. The 2 projects which created Reusable content were those which had intended to do so from the beginning as a core aim. They both consisted of Collections of Learning Objects and/or Units of Study (i.e. educational aggregations).8 ZZ     i "NG  Some Conclusions Creating reusable content with potential for granularisation and interoperability requires: Understanding of the requirements and issues. Planning. Time. Resources (particularly people with the right expertise: learning technologists; librarians). fnZZZ  \LE 0Other Useful Resources Writing and Using Reusable Educational Materials: A Beginner s Guide by Mhairi McAlpine and John Casey (CETIS Educational Content SIG): http://www.gla.ac.uk/rcc/staff/mhairi/index.html Pac-Man (JISC project) tutorial on creating reusable learning materials by Boon Low: http://www.met.ed.ac.uk/pac-man/tutorial-access.shtml CETIS Educational Content & Metadata SIGs: http://www.cetis.ac.uk/ Design Principles for Authoring Dynamic, Reusable Learning Objects by Prof. Tom Boyle (Full paper session 5C, Tues.) ZZ1ZUZ6Z+ZZzZ  D'u'G'D'+''C'1'''''T`00V0,{00&[070 <Finally Keep an eye on DNER&LO website for more from the study: http://www.strath.ac.uk/Departments/CAP/dnerlo/index.html Further discussion of issues on CETIS EC SIG mailing list: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/CETIS-ECSIG.html Public versions of documents are now available. Contact: sarah.currier@strath.ac.uk r=  19fA9< :e0Azf0g0 : ` ` ̙33` 333MMM` ff3333f` f` f` 3>?" dd@,|?" dd@   " @ ` n?" dd@   @@``PR    @ ` ` p>> (    6P "P  T Click to edit Master title style! !$  0 "  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  0< "``  >*  0 "`   @*  0 "`   @*H  0޽h ? ̙33f 6Why do we need LT standards @8(    0/ 18   >*   03 g 8  @*   6D7  1X   >*   6L;  g X  @* H  0bf ? ̙33  0D(  r  S [P  [   S  [<$0 [   C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@g  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\jiscproject.gif@  C A|C:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\hull.jpg   C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\newark.gifp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\strath.gif <H  0޽h ? ̙33  PP(  x  c $`GP     c $@HP<$0    C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@g  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\jiscproject.gif@  C A|C:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\hull.jpg   C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\newark.gifp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\strath.gif <H  0޽h ? ̙33  `@(  x  c $,NP     c $Y<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33  p@(  x  c $pP     c $v<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33  <@(  <x < c $0P    < c $aY<$0  "p`Pp < C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH < 0޽h ? ̙33  @(  x  c $P     c $<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33  @(  x  c $P     c $PY<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33  @(  x  c $P     c $\<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33  @(  x  c $P     c $h<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33  $@(  $x $ c $P    $ c $䮌<$0  "p`Pp $ C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH $ 0޽h ? ̙33  @@(  @x @ c $ΌP    @ c $[<$0  "p`Pp @ C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH @ 0޽h ? ̙33  @(  x  c $pP     c $p[<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33  @(  x  c $P     c $,Y<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33   @(   x   c $h P      c $<$0  "p`Pp   C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH   0޽h ? ̙33  0@(  x  c $!P     c $<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33  @D@(  Dx D c $D,P    D c $ [<$0  "p`Pp D C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH D 0޽h ? ̙33  P@(  x  c $1P     c $47<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33  p@(  x  c $VP     c $5[<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33  @(  x  c $rP     c $P[<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33  @(  x  c $|P     c $][<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33  L@(  Lx L c $P    L c $[<$0  "p`Pp L C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH L 0޽h ? ̙33  P@(  Px P c $эP    P c $[<$0  "p`Pp P C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH P 0޽h ? ̙33   H@(  Hx H c $[P  [  H c $H[<$0 [ "p`Pp H C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH H 0޽h ? ̙33  @(  x  c $hP     c $<$0  "p`Pp  C AC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\DNERLOM\logo_sm_2.gif@gH  0޽h ? ̙33r M!0Z'f/i%?o*Wx-3 #V`6 ϥ90>`GrOuow_{I`7lg~ǢEרNM(X 3  erhOh+'0hR hp T`   AWhy do we need learning technology standards and specifications?SLorna M. Campbellrn:C:\Interoperability\CETIS\Why do we need LT standards.potti.Department of Computer & Information Sciencesan302Microsoft PowerPointr &@7@Z-@HQGPg  R('& &&#TNPP<2OMi & TNPP &&TNPP     'A x(xKʦ """)))UUUMMMBBB999|PP3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙f3333f3333333333f3333333f3f33ff3f3f3f3333f3333333f3̙33333f333ff3ffffff3f33f3ff3f3f3ffff3fffffffff3fffffff3f̙ffff3ff333f3ff33fff33f3ff̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff̙̙3̙f̙̙̙3f̙3f3f3333f333ff3fffff3f3f̙3ffffffffff!___www¼¼M,,,,,,,,,,,MSMSMSM,ݼ޼,,,,,,,,,,,,SuSuSMS,񼼶ݼpHpkppHpHNC񼒼ýýýýýݵµݵݼppppqpkuzÔφݼpppwpwqN⼼񼼼¼S2Mϋpppqqpkm’,MSϮݼݼ׻ⶼppppqq,,u,,Ϯ׼ݵݵ޵ppppqpqp,SMMݼppppppkgM,uݼppppppNhF,Muuuuϋpqpppppk@tÚφ񯼵ϼppqqppnFF⼧ýýuݻqqqqqiFtoF􆋵 oJFoEnf⼆E EDffnnJnsnnJJmnmnmJKmngh`hEgD,`+݆E,,EgEg+,+,,+ֆϵE,%FL%g,L,,Dh,,fFL`g,L,_F,,gKG+LL`gF+gF%,g`K+,ϯϨυEgFDgEf,%,+hEEgEEgg%+,gE,+L%,_,Lg+`EgEgL`,gag`LgFf&ֵϵEggEgEFEL,LE,,EϵϧϻEgDLa+gLf,`,DF,,`,L`,,,EgFDFgFf,Eg,`+fF,gEgEhg,E%,`g,`+EgF+Ea+FL`LFgF+FL`L%Lg&L%L`LgEL,EEg%Lgh+FfF+g%LEM++g,_+,L+,L,υFgF`,L,EEgFfaL```g````--&TNPP &ail.ac.uk/lists/CETIS-ECSIG.htmlHg4sarah.currier@strath.ac.ukt`http://www.gla.ac.uk/rcc/staff/mhairi/index.html~jhttp://www.met.ed.ac.uk/pac-man/tutorial-access.shtmlB.http://www.cetis.ac.uk/b/ 0DTimes New Roman,t\!0thz0hDArialNew Roman,t\!0thz0h" ` .  @n?" dd@  @@`` TU'(7;?     !    `$$$b$8#͓G)CCzb$ޟMsD^[R$%"cHPe 8b$o΀~j; T%)b$YYOܑƃ.~Hc 0c $P3@ʚ;2Nʚ; g4dddd!0hppp@ <4!d!d0$<4dddd0$<4BdBd0$~v___PPT9XzD$,? %A! Evaluating Learning Resources for Reusability The  DNER & Learning Objects Study Sarah Currier DNER&LO Research Fellow / CETIS EC SIG Coordinator Lorna M. Campbell Assistant Director, CETIS Dept. of Computer & Information Sciences & Centre for Academic Practice University of Strathclyde Full paper presentation, ASCILITE 2002, Auckland New Zealand _.$3)7=4- OVERVIEW Aimed to evaluate whether JISC content could be made available for reuse in elearning across UK FE/HE. Funded by the JISC Learning & Teaching Programme. Project partners: University of Hull; Newark & Sherwood College; University of Strathclyde's Centre for Academic Practice and Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences. CETIS Educational Content SIG gave invaluable help! ^ { $f&"  7Survey and Evaluation of 5/99 Content Map 5/99 content, identifying categories and aggregation levels. Identify key issues regarding use and reuse of 5/99 content as learning objects for each category and level. Develop criteria for evaluation of reusability of content. Evaluate content by these criteria. 'ZZZZ&$ Al&b#! Methodology Identified 27 content producing 5/99 projects. Examined and gathered data about the content. Developed criteria for evaluating content. Evaluated the content of 18 selected projects. 33% complete; 50% incomplete/pilot; 17% none! Summarised and analysed the data.  ZZZ.Z"ZZZ $$.$IB $But, Please Note: Content was not evaluated for educational merit. No criticism of projects is implied: 5/99 began BEFORE these issues became prominent; DNER Guidelines were made available after most projects planning stages. Evaluation criteria and other definitions are not intended to be authoritative or final; we hope they will be useful contributions to ongoing dialogue within elearning. ZZzZZZZZ  z%# Evaluation Criteria Granularity and Aggregation Level Reusability Vertical Reusability Horizontal Reusability / Subject Specificity Metadata (Gathered data only; did not evaluate use) Interoperability (Not evaluated by!) f$>7 Evaluation Criteria: Interoperability Why not? IEEE defines interoperability as:  The ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged. (IEEE, 1990). Therefore & 0Z#ZZZ%$ $ &(?8 Evaluation Criteria: Interoperability Why not? Interoperability is not a property of a resource; rather it is a property of the relationship between systems in a particular context. Therefore it is impossible to evaluate the  interoperability of JISC content. r0ZZZ&( ( &  !"$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwyz{|}~Root EntrydO)`Q@ PicturesDCurrent User"SummaryInformation(xRPowerPoint Document(#=DDocumentSummaryInformation8Pttp://www.strath.ac.uk/Departments/CAP/dnerlo/index.htmltf`http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/CETIS-ECSIG.htmlHg4sarah.currier@strath.ac.ukt`http://www.gla.ac.uk/rcc/staff/mhairi/index.html~jhttp://www.met.ed.ac.uk/pac-man/tutorial-access.shtmlB.http://www.cetis.ac.uk/b/ 0DTimes New Roman,t\!0thz0hDArialNew Roman,t\!0thz0h" ` .  @n?" dd@  @@`` TU'(7;?     !    `$$$b$8#͓G)CCzb$ޟMsD^[R$%"cHPe 8b$o΀~j; T%)b$YYOܑƃ.~Hc 0c $P3@ʚ;2Nʚ; g4dddd!0hppp@ <4!d!d0$<4dddd0$<4BdBd0$~v___PPT9XzD$,? %A! Evaluating Learning Resources for Reusability The  DNER & Learning Objects Study Sarah Currier DNER&LO Research Fellow / CETIS EC SIG Coordinator Lorna M. Campbell Assistant Director, CETIS Dept. of Computer & Information Sciences & Centre for Academic Practice University of Strathclyde Full paper presentation, ASCILITE 2002, Auckland New Zealand _.$3)7=4- OVERVIEW Aimed to evaluate whether JISC content could be made available for reuse in elearning across UK FE/HE. Funded by the JISC Learning & Teaching Programme. Project partners: University of Hull; Newark & Sherwood College; University of Strathclyde's Centre for Academic Practice and Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences. CETIS Educational Content SIG gave invaluable help! ^ { $f&"  7Survey and Evaluation of 5/99 Content Map 5/99 content, identifying categories and aggregation levels. Identify key issues regarding use and reuse of 5/99 content as learning objects for each category and level. Develop criteria for evaluation of reusability of content. Evaluate content by these criteria. 'ZZZZ&$ Al&b#! Methodology Identified 27 content producing 5/99 projects. Examined and gathered data about the content. Developed criteria for evaluating content. Evaluated the content of 18 selected projects. 33% complete; 50% incomplete/pilot; 17% none! Summarised and analysed the data.  ZZZ.Z"ZZZ $$.$IB $But, Please Note: Content was not evaluated for educational merit. No criticism of projects is implied: 5/99 began BEFORE these issues became prominent; DNER Guidelines were made available after most projects planning stages. Evaluation criteria and other definitions are not intended to be authoritative or final; we hope they will be useful contributions to ongoing dialogue within elearning. ZZzZZZZZ  z%# Evaluation Criteria Granularity and Aggregation Level Reusability Vertical Reusability Horizontal Reusability / Subject Specificity Metadata (Gathered data only; did not evaluate use) Interoperability (Not evaluated by!) f$>7 Evaluation Criteria: Interoperability Why not? IEEE defines interoperability as:  The ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged. (IEEE, 1990). Therefore & 0Z#ZZZ%$ $ &(?8 Evaluation Criteria: Interoperability Why not? Interoperability is not a property of a resource; rather it is a property of the relationship between systems in a particular context. Therefore it is impossible to evaluate the  interoperability of JISC content. r0ZZZ&( ( &*$ 1Aggregation Levels: IEEE LOM Levels The smallest level of aggregation, e.g. raw media data or fragments. A collection of level 1 learning objects, e.g. a lesson. A collection of level 2 learning objects, e.g. a course. The largest level of granularity, e.g. a set of courses that lead to a certificate. %Z " ZZ$  S&C< Aggregation Levels / Top Level Content Categories Information object Information resource Learning object Unit of study Module Course Collection \3ZaZ2  _JC Aggregation Levels / Top Level Content Categories Information object Information Information resource Information Learning object Educational Unit of study Educational Module Educational Course Educational Collection Information  3ZZ2           @9 Aggregation Levels (1) Information object: A simple object that does not have a specific educational objective and is not situated within an educational scenario e.g. an image or text file. Information resource: An aggregation of information objects, which does not have a specific educational objective, and which is presented as a cohesive unit e.g. an online encyclopaedia or e-journal. ZoZZ  &&A: GAggregation Levels (2) Learning object: An object that demonstrates, or focuses on, a specific educational concept, e.g. a learning activity task or assessment. Unit of study: An aggregation of learning objects and information objects. Sometimes referred to as a lesson. Module: An aggregation of lessons and learning objects.Z0Z  x&^&/&B; Aggregation Levels (3) Course: A large aggregation of lessons, modules and other related resources. Collection: An aggregation of two or more of any of the above types of resources, which does not have a specific educational objective overall, and which is not presented as a cohesive unit, but rather is tied together via a search or browse mechanism such as a catalogue or search engine e.g. a collection of digitised slides, a database of learning objects. ZZZ  &B& [&-' AReusability: Factors to consider Technical format. Is the resource tied to a single delivery platform or technology? Contextual dependency. Does the content of the resource reference other related, but external, resources? E.g. a resource may refer to a glossary or to the next module in a sequence. Technical dependency. Is the delivery of the content technically dependent on other resources? E.g. HTML pages that are linked in a linear navigation sequence, interactive content that relies on server side scripts, Java applets with class files residing on remote servers. !Z!Z! D&&KD mEvaluation Criteria: Reusability (1) Reusable: May be delivered via a wide variety of platforms or technologies, do not reference related external content, are not technically dependent on external resources. Somewhat reusable: May be restricted to a single delivery technology but are still relatively reusable due to the ubiquitous nature of that technology. %Z-ZG-Z%  && &&6/ 0Evaluation Criteria: Reusability (2) Potentially reusable: Have potential for reuse, i.e. they may be delivered in a standard format, e.g. HTML, but are dependent on related resources. Not reusable: Restricted to a specific delivery platform or technology, and/or highly dependent on related resources.%- -%$&~&& &h&92 bEvaluation Criteria: Vertical reusability No: Resources that are only appropriate for use at a single specific level of study. Potential: Resources that are not necessarily developed with vertical reusability in mind, but that may be used at different levels of study. Yes: Resources that include specific support for use at different levels of study. *9*  Q& &&M&&:3 qEvaluation Criteria: Horizontal Reusability / Subject Specificity (1) Generic: Resources that can be used for teaching and learning in any subject field or discipline. Interdisciplinary: Resources whose subject content makes them applicable to teaching and learning in more than one discipline or subject. * These two define resources which are horizontally reusable. FZ,Z 1 Y&w&=;4 DEvaluation Criteria: Horizontal Reusability / Subject Specificity (2) Subject specific: Resources that are designed only for use within a specific subject or discipline. Resource specific: Resources that are designed only for use with a specific resource. * These two define resources which are NOT horizontally reusable. FZZ 1 R&C&& BMF Summary Most 5/99 content is Somewhat or Potentially reusable, and has Potential for vertical reuse. About half of projects produced horizontally reusable content. Only 39% had actually implemented metadata. The 2 projects which created Reusable content were those which had intended to do so from the beginning as a core aim. They both consisted of Collections of Learning Objects and/or Units of Study (i.e. educational aggregations).8 ZZ     i "NG  Some Conclusions Creating reusable content with potential for granularisation and interoperability requires: Understanding of the requirements and issues. Planning. Time. Resources (particularly people with the right expertise: learning technologists; librarians). fnZZZ  \LE 0Other Useful Resources Writing and Using Reusable Educational Materials: A Beginner s Guide by Mhairi McAlpine and John Casey (CETIS Educational Content SIG): http://www.gla.ac.uk/rcc/staff/mhairi/index.html Pac-Man (JISC project) tutorial on creating reusable learning materials by Boon Low: http://www.met.ed.ac.uk/pac-man/tutorial-access.shtml CETIS Educational Content & Metadata SIGs: http://www.cetis.ac.uk/ Design Principles for Authoring Dynamic, Reusable Learning Objects by Prof. Tom Boyle (Full paper session 5C, Tues.) ZZ1ZUZ6Z+ZZzZ  D'u'G'D'+''C'1'''''T`00V0,{00&[070 <Finally Keep an eye on DNER&LO website for more from the study: http://www.strath.ac.uk/Departments/CAP/dnerlo/index.html Further discussion of issues on CETIS EC SIG mailing list: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/CETIS-ECSIG.html Public versions of documents are now available. Contact: sarah.currier@strath.ac.uk r=  19fA9< :e0Azf0g0 :rEsNM(X 3  erhttp://www.strath.ac.uk/Departments/CAP/dnerlo/index.htmltf`http://www.jiscm  !#$՜.+,D՜.+,l    $ On-screen ShowUniversity of Strathclydea=D2 Times New RomanArialWhy do we need LT standardsPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint PresentationPowerPoint Presentation  Fonts UsedDesign Template Slide Titles 8@ _PID_HLINKSAX$:http://www.strath.ac.uk/Departments/CAP/dnerlo/index.html1http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/CETIS-ECSIG.html"mailto:sarah.currier@strath.ac.uk1http://www.gla.ac.uk/rcc/staff/mhairi/index.html6http://www.met.ed.ac.uk/pac-man/tutorial-access.shtmlhttp://www.cetis.ac.uk/E_D-Department of Computer & Information SciencesDepartment of Computer & Information Sciences*$ 1Aggregation Levels: IEEE LOM Levels The smallest level of aggregation, e.g. raw media data or fragments. A collection of level 1 learning objects, e.g. a lesson. A collection of level 2 learning objects, e.g. a course. The largest level of granularity, e.g. a set of courses that lead to a certificate. %Z " ZZ$  S&C< Aggregation Levels / Top Level Content Categories Information object Information resource Learning object Unit of study Module Course Collection \3ZaZ2  _JC Aggregation Levels / Top Level Content Categories Information object Information Information resource Information Learning object Educational Unit of study Educational Module Educational Course Educational Collection Information  3ZZ2           @9 Aggregation Levels (1) Information object: A simple object that does not have a specific educational objective and is not situated within an educational scenario e.g. an image or text file. Information resource: An aggregation of information objects, which does not have a specific educational objective, and which is presented as a cohesive unit e.g. an online encyclopaedia or e-journal. ZoZZ  &&A: GAggregation Levels (2) Learning object: An object that demonstrates, or focuses on, a specific educational concept, e.g. a learning activity task or assessment. Unit of study: An aggregation of learning objects and information objects. Sometimes referred to as a lesson. Module: An aggregation of lessons and learning objects.Z0Z  x&^&/&B; Aggregation Levels (3) Course: A large aggregation of lessons, modules and other related resources. Collection: An aggregation of two or more of any of the above types of resources, which does not have a specific educational objective overall, and which is not presented as a cohesive unit, but rather is tied together via a search or browse mechanism such as a catalogue or search engine e.g. a collection of digitised slides, a database of learning objects. ZZZ  &B& [&-' AReusability: Factors to consider Technical format. Is the resource tied to a single delivery platform or technology? Contextual dependency. Does the content of the resource reference other related, but external, resources? E.g. a resource may refer to a glossary or to the next module in a sequence. Technical dependency. Is the delivery of the content technically dependent on other resources? E.g. HTML pages that are linked in a linear navigation sequence, interactive content that relies on server side scripts, Java applets with class files residing on remote servers. !Z!Z! D&&KD mEvaluation Criteria: Reusability (1) Reusable: May be delivered via a wide variety of platforms or technologies, do not reference related external content, are not technically dependent on external resources. Somewhat reusable: May be restricted to a single delivery technology but are still relatively reusable due to the ubiquitous nature of that technology. %Z-ZG-Z%  && &&6/ 0Evaluation Criteria: Reusability (2) Potentially reusable: Have potential for reuse, i.e. they may be delivered in a standard format, e.g. HTML, but are dependent on related resources. Not reusable: Restricted to a specific delivery platform or technology, and/or highly dependent on related resources.%- -%$&~&& &h&92 bEvaluation Criteria: Vertical reusability No: Resources that are only appropriate for use at a single specific level of study. Potential: Resources that are not necessarily developed with vertical reusability in mind, but that may be used at different levels of study. Yes: Resources that include specific support for use at different levels of study. *9*  Q& &&M&&:3 qEvaluation Criteria: Horizontal Reusability / Subject Specificity (1) Generic: Resources that can be used for teaching and learning in any subject field or discipline. Interdisciplinary: Resources whose subject content makes them applicable to teaching and learning in more than one discipline or subject. * These two define resources which are horizontally reusable. FZ,Z 1 Y&w&=;4 DEvaluation Criteria: Horizontal Reusability / Subject Specificity (2) Subject specific: Resources that are designed only for use within a specific subject or discipline. Resource specific: Resources that are designed only for use with a specific resource. * These two define resources which are NOT horizontally reusable. FZZ 1 R&C&& BMF Summary Most 5/99 content is Somewhat or Potentially reusable, and has Potential for vertical reuse. About half of projects produced horizontally reusable content. Only 39% had actually implemented metadata. The 2 projects which created Reusable content were those which had intended to do so from the beginning as a core aim. They both consisted of Collections of Learning Objects and/or Units of Study (i.e. educational aggregations).8 ZZ     i "NG  Some Conclusions Creating reusable content with potential for granularisation and interoperability requires: Understanding of the requirements and issues. Planning. Time. Resources (particularly people with the right expertise: learning technologists; librarians). fnZZZ  \LE 0Other Useful Resources Writing and Using Reusable Educational Materials: A Beginner s Guide by Mhairi McAlpine and John Casey (CETIS Educational Content SIG): http://www.gla.ac.uk/rcc/staff/mhairi/index.html Pac-Man (JISC project) tutorial on creating reusable learning materials by Boon Low: http://www.met.ed.ac.uk/pac-man/tutorial-access.shtml CETIS Educational Content & Metadata SIGs: http://www.cetis.ac.uk/ Design Principles for Authoring Dynamic, Reusable Learning Objects by Prof. Tom Boyle (Full paper session 5C, Tues.) ZZ1ZUZ6Z+ZZzZ  D'u'G'D'+''C'1'''''T`00V0,{00&[070 <Finally Keep an eye on DNER&LO website for more from the study: http://www.strath.ac.uk/Departments/CAP/dnerlo/index.html Further discussion of issues on CETIS EC SIG mailing list: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/CETIS-ECSIG.html Public versions of documents are now available. Contact: sarah.currier@strath.ac.uk r=  19fA9< :e0Azf0g0 :r0 DNRoot EntrydO)R]dPicturesDCurrent User"5SummaryInformation(xR  !http://www.cetis.ac.uk/_DCurrierCurrierInformation SciencesDepartment of Computer & Information Sciences