Advertisement

Phantom Tasks and Invisible Rubric: The Challenges of Remixing Learning Objects in the Wild

  • David E. Millard
  • Yvonne Howard
  • Patrick McSweeney
  • Miguel Arrebola
  • Kate Borthwick
  • Stavroula Varella
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5794)

Abstract

Learning Objects are atomic packages of learning content with associated activities that can be reused in different contexts. However traditional Learning Objects can be complex and expensive to produce, and as a result there are relatively few of these available. In this paper we describe our work to create a lightweight repository for the language-learning domain, called the Language Box, where teachers and students can share their everyday resources and remix and extend each others content using collections and activities to create new Learning Objects more easily. However, in our interactions with the community we have discovered that practitioners find it difficult to abstract their teaching materials from their teaching activities and experiences; this results in Phantom Tasks and Invisible Rubrics that can make it difficult for other practitioners to reuse their content and build new Learning Objects.

Keywords

Open Educational Resources Remixing Learning Objects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Downes, S.: Learning Objects: Resources for distance education worldwide. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 2(1) (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., Wiley, D.: Open educational resources: Enabling universal education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 9(1) (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Millard, D., Howard, Y., McSweeney, P., Borthwick, K., Arrebola, M., Watson, J.: The Language Box: Re-imagining Teaching and Learning Repositories. In: International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Riga, Latvia, July 14-18 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IEEE LTSC, IEEE standard for learning technology-learning technology systems architecture (LTSA), IEEE Std 1484.1-2003, pp. 1–97 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    IEEE LOM, The learning object metadata standard, IEEE, Tech. Rep. (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morrison, I., Currie, M.: What is a learning object, technically? In: Proceedings of WebNet (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bratina, T., Hayes, D., Blumsack, S.: Preparing Teachers To Use Learning Objects. The Technology Source (November/December 2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nash, S.S.: Learning objects, learning object repositories, and learning theory: Preliminary best practices for Online Courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neven, F., Duval, E.: Reusable learning objects: a survey of LOM-based repositories. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM international Conference on Multimedia, Juan-les-Pins, France, December 1-6, pp. 291–294. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hatala, M., Richards, G., Eap, T., Willms, J.: The interoperability of learning object repositories and services: standards, implementations and lessons learned. In: Proceedings of the 13th international World Wide Web Conference (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klerkx, J., Duval, E., Meire, M.: Using information visualization for accessing learning object repositories. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International IEEE Conference on Information Visualisation (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thomas, A., Rothery, A.: Online repositories for learning materials: the user perspective. Ariadne (45) (October 2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schell, G.P., Burns, M.: A Repository of e-Learning Objects for Higher Education. E-Service Journal, 53–64 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoermann, S., Hildebrandt, T., Rensing, C., Steinmetz, R.: ResourceCenter - A Digital Learning Object Repository with an Integrated Authoring Tool Set. In: Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2005, pp. 3453–3460. AACE, Chesapeake (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diakopoulos, N., Luther, K., Medynskiy, Y.E., Essa, I.: The evolution of authorship in a remix society. In: Proceedings of the eighteenth ACM conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pp. 133–136 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lamb, B.: Dr. Mashup or, Why Educators Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Remix. Educause review, 12–24 (July/August 2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • David E. Millard
    • 1
  • Yvonne Howard
    • 1
  • Patrick McSweeney
    • 1
  • Miguel Arrebola
    • 3
  • Kate Borthwick
    • 2
  • Stavroula Varella
    • 3
  1. 1.School of ECSUniversity of SouthamptonEngland
  2. 2.School of HumanitiesUniversity of SouthamptonEngland
  3. 3.School of Languages and Area StudiesUniversity of PortsmouthEngland

Personalised recommendations