|
|
||
|
Carsten Jopp According to standardsSome thoughts on current attempts to meta-describe a field like (e)learning.
19/11/2001
Standardisation within net-based learning, eLearning, is definitely a big issue right now. I've just filled out a questionaire as part of a survey that will be presented at a Norwegian conference on the topic (by Norgesuniversitetet, 5th of December). The survey is meant to be the starting point for an Norwegian initiative that aims at establishing an educational analysis model within academia -- a lingua franca that guarantees the free float of (digital) learning objects within digital learning environments, across classrooms, disciplines, institutions. This might be an important initiative. To say it right away: so far I'm not overly impressed by the proposals the current (mainly US-based) standardisation initiatives have come up with. Okay, standards are important: Without a note system no symphony, without HTML no web. But how does learning fit in here? After technological interoperability on the Internet, deviced by standards like TCP/IP and HTML, semantic interoperability is the next step. And eLearning, often quoted as the next killer application of the Internet, has been on top of many players' to-do list, both within "big business", the learning industry and academia. The over-all question is how a highly complex process like learning can be analysed and meta-modelled in a comprehensive and fruitful way. The logistics and efficiency potential of such efforts is evident, f.ex. when tailoring courses -- if a standard is implemtented and used on a large scale. But there is reason to be more sceptical about the pedagogical implications the suggested frameworks might support. Let's have a look at SCORM (Sharable Courseware Object Reference Model), a standard that has been initiated by the Advanced Distributed Learning Network (ADLNet). It is probably the most influential educational meta-model that has been developed until now; it is a "catalyst approach" and it partly embraces other major initiatives like IMS (Instructional Management System, by the Global Learning Consortium). Yes, SCORM's documentation is comprehensive. Its Content Aggretation Model lists tags and rules for metadata that enable a user to name, label, categorize -- describe in standardized form -- the content of a learning resource or object. It fills a manual of more than 180 pages. How well-suited is such an appearantly comprehensive standard to express typical paramaters of the domain it is aiming at, learning? Student activity, in its broadest sense, is definitely a term an educational meta-language has to cover. A lot of research is directed at exploring, analysing and reflecting on types of students' activity and interaction, not only in web-/net-based virtual environments (eg. the discipline CSCL), but in socio-cultural frameworks in general. How are these adressed by SCORM? Here we have to dive deeply into the 180-pages document, down to section 2.2.3.1.5.1. It introduces the <interactivitytype> element. Quote: "Description: This data element describes the type of interactivity supported by the learning resource. The vocabularies defined for this element are restricted vocabularies. [...] Restricted Vocabulary: - Active, - Expositive, - Mixed, - Undefined." I have no reason to doubt that SCORM can (and probably will) function adequately within its context of origin. ADLNet is a working group initiated by the US Department of Defefence and supported by major actors in the industry. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that the standard is unfit to represent different pedagogical approaches. Any meta-model is an analytical description of a perceived 'reality', in the form of selected elements, their structure and combinatory rules. Thus, any standard is bound to contain and express a world view. Complying to a standard also means, to a certain degree, subscribing to its conception of 'reality'. This is not necessarily a problem: a standards' epistemological problems might (or rather: should) be more than outweight by its pragmatical benefits. After all, no one questions, problematises or worries about why a standard A4-sheet of paper measures 21 x 29 cm. The benefits of having compatible paper sizes are immediately evident to all users, even if there might be other or better systems to follow. But: In our case we are not talking paper sizes, but educational frameworks. For both epistemological and practical/pragmatical reasons life-cycle considerations of a standard should be paid extra attention to. In particular, any (educational) meta-language should try to address as broad a specter of contemporary pedagogical approaches and 'world views' as possible. In my eyes, SCORM's problem is not that its authors seem to support a pedagogical framework which can be said unsuitable within other domains. But it is problematic that the meta-model does not give a voice to different approaches. Thus, the standard may be outdated or irrelevant within large parts of the sector even before it is introduced on a large scale. Jon Lanestedt, USIT/UiO, has written an interesting article on the need of standardisation within learning environments (Lanestedt, 2001). He argues that easy and comprehensive access to all kinds of learning resources forms the basis for an almost playful and individual tailoring of a student's learning needs and requirements. Teacher, student and the institution can stop 'worrying about the technical stuff' and focus on the subject matter and the learning process. While this may sound somewhat idealistic, his main point is that standards are a necessary prerequisite for "more colorful" interaction in a given learning situation within a learning environment. He calls standards for "a lingua franca" that give room for "richer forms of interaction", thus putting emphasis on pedagogical innovation. This is an interesting perspective: it combines "logistics" with a focus on pedagogy. The rationale behind standardisation is not (only) efficiency, but quality and pedagogy. Having pointed out the SCORM-standards weaknesses, the question remains how a well-formed educational meta-language may look like. Maybe a Scandinavian model has to be established? Or, at least, a European? Rob Koper from the Open University, the Netherlands, has made an important and promising contribution (Koper 2001). He presents the Educational Markup Language (EML), a pedagogical meta-model which explicitly aims at analysing and describing pedagogical design. He also reflects on such a model's epistemological status, its life cycle, the world view it inevitably contains, as well as practical considerations like the question if "picking resources from the right shelf" alone can guarantee success in net-based learning (of course, not). Interestingly and plausibly, he argues that working with a meta-model itself promotes pedagogical reflection, a factor "needed to enhance the quality of pedagogical design" -- regardless a teacher's position in the educational universe, one could add. If anchored in a framework like this, the work on and the application of meta-models could become an important platform for educational reflection (and maybe experimentation?!) on all levels. So there is all reason to support the ongoing 'domestic' attempts mentioned above. Especially if their aim is to establish alternatives to the initiatives from 'abroad'. For these will, in a globalised marked, inevitably influence our ways to organise nett-based learning. Or to say it with Gorbachev: "Life will punish the latecomers".
PS: But that's a different story, I guess. ... last minute[added 15.10.02] Time moves fast. The article above was written in November 2001. New interesting ideas have been discussed since then -- like the possibility to let students add use(r)-oriented, subjective data to a given learning object's metadata. Links and literature[from the article:]
[related links:]
|