Toward a Distributed Learning Object Repository Network

1. Toward a Distributed Learning Object Repository Network Stephen Downes National Research Council May 2, 2002

2. Overview • Learning Objects and Learning Object Metadata • 2. Wrappers, or, How to Think About Learning Objects • 3. Huge Ugly LCMSs • 4. A POOL of Distributed Repositories • 5. Pan-Canadian Learning Object Repositories

3. Overview (cont.) • 6. The NB Connection • 7. Layering Metadata on Metadata • 8. A Marketplace of Services

4. Learning Objects and Learning Object Metadata • Content – any digital resource • Presumed to be educational material • More likely to be self-contained • Think of as more like an application than like a book chapter

6. Metadata – describes the digital resource • Base on specifications – IMS – the metadata language • Defined by standards - IEEE-LOM – the metadata syntax • Used in application profiles – SCORM, CanCore – the metadata semantics

8. 2. Wrappers, or, How to Think About Learning Objects • Learning Management Systems • Wrappers

9. Learning Management System – runs the LO • Like a more flexible web browser • Recording and tracking features • May communicate with management systems

11. Wrappers – communicate with LMS • Attached to learning objects • Reports start, stop, errors • Turns ordinary text into a computer program

13. 3. Huge Ugly LCMSs • Learning Content Management Systems • Learning Object Libraries

14. Learning Content Management System • More or less an authoring tool • Provides access to learning objects • Tools to organize learning objects

15. Learning Object Libraries (LOL) • The system of choice by most LCMSs • Learning objects stored on site • Proprietary material, proprietary formats

17. 4. A POOL of Distributed Repositories • A Better Way • POOL – LO Repository Network

18. A better way • Store Learning Objects on vendors’ servers • Provide access to LO metadata • Deliver LO as needed to the LMS

20. POOL – LO repository network • Like the web, distributed • Desktop applications • Feed metadata through P2P system

22. 5. Pan-Canadian Learning Object Repositories • CANARIE Funding Project – about $3.5 million • May 31 application deadline, fall start • To build networks of repositories • Implementation Trials and Work Packages • Builds on Existing Projects • Work must be coordinated • Work must be CanCore compliant • (But that’s a moving target, as we shall see) • Canadian Repository Action Group (CRAG) • Intended to maintain existing projects • National Representation • May submit common proposal

24. 6. The NB Connection • NB’s History of Involvement • Proposed NB Contribution

25. NB’s history of involvement • Many E-Learning Companies in corporate, government learning • TeleEducation & E-Text Centre in POOL and Cancore • Many individual initiatives, eg. NBCC

27. Proposed NB Contribution • Host learning object registry • Continue work with CanCore in metadata development • Provide Digital Rights Management systems

28. 7. Layering Metadata on Metadata • Beyond IEEE, Beyond SCORM • IMS, IEEE leave room for extensions (eg. Classification) • These extensions refer to additional specifications, schemas • Allows for more detailed descriptions of learning objects • Example: classification of subject material • Refer to external classification system, eg. Library of Congress • Assign LoC classification number to Learning Object • Allows LoC based searches, curricula, etc.

30. 8. A Marketplace of Services • Core idea – allow multiple parties to describe learning objects • Third party information essential, eg., in evaluating • Third party metadata refers to object (through registry index) • This info used (if desired) by the LO consumer

32. Some Third Party Services • Classification by professional associations or libraries • Rankings or evaluations by the Siskel and Ebert of Learning Objects • Assignment of payment or DRM information