Long-Term Retention & Reuse of E-Learning Objects and Materials

Dr Roger RistDirector ICBLHeriot-Watt UniversityEdinburgh

Team of ICBL and AHDS

Institute for Computer Based Learning Roger Rist Ed Barker Colin Milligan

Arts and Humanities Data Service Hamish James Gareth Knight Malcolm Polfreman

JISC Requirement

The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) commissioned this study on long-term retention and re-use for e-Learning Objects and Materials.

Part of the implementation of the JISC Continuing Access and Digital Preservation Strategy 2002-5 and its support for e-learning programmes.

ICT for Learning

There is growing recognition that Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has a considerable amount to offer as a tool to support many areas of learning and teaching from its administration, through to face-to-face or remote delivery.

E-Learning

The perceived potential of ICT to help colleges and universities address the challenges presented by increased student numbers, new student demographics and widening participation has brought the concept of ‘E-Learning’ to the fore.

Still in early stages

E-Learning is at an early phase of evolution and current research and  development is focussed on the creation of materials and implementation and inter-operability of current systems.

Study Aims

Complementary to JORUMFocusing on:

Creation and use of useful e-learning materials

Infrastructure for long-term management of e-learning materials

Digital preservation issues with e-learning materials

Intended Audience

Study on three major levels Findings and recommendations for

three constituencies: JISC as a central agency within UK HE/FE Individual HE/FE institutions Individual teachers and staff

Creation and Reuse

Why no large banks of E-Learning resources?New and experimental – a lot of hype, plus

some substanceDevelopment has been driven by technology,

not pedagogyTechnology itself is evolvingE-Learning is not yet commonly accepted by

FE & HE staff Still the domain of a small number of early

adopters

History

Since 1990 many “Learning Technology” initiatives e.g. CTI, TLTP, Use of MANs, 5/99, ...

Little evidence that outputs of UK projects have been retained and reused on a significant level to date

Some Long-Lived Projects

Developed with clear short term advantages SCRAN, COLEG, EUROMET

What these projects have in common: Focus on distinct market areas Responsive to end users Clear and specific aims about what sort of

materials they are accepting/producing Emphasis on quality and evaluation of outputs Avoid reliance on external websites or other

resources

Long-Term Implications

CustodianshipCoherent funding strategiesWho assesses quality, how is quality

assessedMaintaining pedagogical relevanceOther sustainability and preservation

activities

Current Developments

Focus is on development of interoperable repository infrastructure to support e-learning: Development of standards for E-Learning Repository Projects are being set up: HLSI,

JORUM, institutional repositories, NLN etc VLE use is increasing

Repositories to manage learning objects

A Learning Object is

“an aggregation of one or more digital assets incorporating metadata which constitute an educationally meaningful stand-alone unit”, Dalziel

Defined here as “any resource that can be used to facilitate learning and teaching and has been described using metadata”, JORUM

E-Learning Objects

are Learning Objects comprised of digital resources

Reusability = the aim to reduce duplication of effort and improve quality

Factors Affecting Reusability

Granularity

Technical dependency

Content dependency

Granularity

If a LO is too large or conceptually complex it may be difficult to reuse in different contexts.

0 % g r an u lar1 0 0 % ag g r eg ated( i. e . w h o le c o u r s es )

1 0 0 % g r an u lar0 % ag g r eg a ted

( r aw d ig ita l c o n ten t)

O ptim alG ranular i ty

Inc re as ing F le xibi l i ty

Inc re as ing E duc t io nal Value

Technical and Content dependency

Technical dependency: is the LO technically dependent on other resources? E.g. HTML linked in a linear navigation sequence, interactive content with server side scripts.

Content dependency: does the content of the LO reference other related, but external, resources? E.g. a glossary or the next module in a sequence.

‘-abilities’

InteroperabilityRe-usabilityManageabilityAccessibilityDurabilityScalabilityAffordability

Technical Considerations

Learning objects may contain any type of content Wide range of preservation problems,

and potential solutionsNeed more connections between

digital preservation work and e-learning work

Repositories and Learning Objects

Facilitate movement of resourcesAllow cross searchingSupport long term retention of

materials, packaged as learning objectsBe able to cater for the varying different

end user groups in FE and HEInteroperability with institutional VLE

D ata S to r ag e

D ata S to r ag e

R es o u r c eC r ea to r /M o d if ie r

D is c o v er yS y s tem

D eliv er yS y s tem

m ak e r es o u r c eav a ilab le

R es o u r c eUs er

q u er ies

d e liv er s

P r es er v a tio nS er v ic es

m ak e r es o u r c eav a ilab le

'u p d a tes 'r es o u r c e

h ar v es ts

'u p d a tes ' r es o u r c e

a le r ts

d e liv er s

Model

Key Elements

E-Learning coordination Institutions National/regional/consortia?

Multiple implementations National archival repository Institutional + other types of repository

Current Work

IPRPedagogy for e-learningSocial and practical issuesMay be implemented through

metadata attached to e-learning objects

IPR

Institutions recognise value of learning materials and will want to control access

Individuals want rewardsNeed to allow for variety of IPR scenarios

e.g. sharing, buying etc Need clarity and simplicity for end user Needs to be considered at creation and

publishing phase Needs to be retained in the long term

Pedagogy

Learning Object Theory Granularity, disaggregation/

reaggregation

Brick and Mortar analogy Dangerous to enforce pedagogy Experimentation necessary for different

purposes (especially for face to face teaching)

Future: Quality Assurance

Users want quality assurance

A ‘publishing’ process is needed Peer review Establishment of rights

Standardised quality mark?

Summary of Requirements

Creation of E-Learning objects needs to be focussed on requirements of end-users

Encourage uptake of E-Learning objects

Plan and build a sustainable infrastructure for discovery, delivery and management of E-Learning objects

Recommendations: End Users

More awareness of the limitations of e-learning resources and this may mean large-scale end-user studies that start from a non-technical perspective before looking at how technology can help.

Work has been done into looking at reusing resources for distance learning by the Open University.

Research still needed into the practicalities of reusing learning materials in Face-To-Face situations.

Recommendations: Uptake

Studies into how end users make use of existing e-learning objects

Efficient methods of resource discovery must be established Development and promotion of portals Adoption of standards for descriptive metadata

Improved communication between end-users and resource creators.

Recommendations: Infrastructure

Greater communication between e-learning activities and digital preservation activities.

Support for a distributed network of repositories.

Contact

Dr Roger RistInstitute for Computer Based Learning Heriot-Watt Universityroger@icbl.hw.ac.uk

Report on JISC website: www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=programme_preservation