Guenter Hilmer - Phd Thesis - Glamorgan Dspace - University of ...

2.8 Knowledge and learning objects 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.8 Knowledge and learning objects
The development of high quality learning resources is a costly affair [127]. Boyle
and Cook show that a hugely promising aspect of educational technology is that it
offers the potential to slash the costs of learning resources development by select-
ing bits of material that can be used in various contexts. These reusable materials
are called learning objects. Furthermore, those learning objects, their perspectives
and their development are analysed and researched in the ongoing work in the
field [127].
The search for a universal definition of learning objects has not been fruitful.
It would rather be more advisable to find a model that throws light on learning
objects from various perspectives.
One point of view is that the goal should be to develop the smallest possible
learning objects, whereby information contained in the learning objects is entirely
separate from the educational context. This approach maximises the chances of
reusability.
McGreal at el., however, hold that content and educational context cannot be con-
sidered separately. In this view, a learning object is regarded as a learning resource
that sets a minimal educational objective. These outlooks are not considered to be
contradictory, but rather as different levels of abstraction, both of which merit
inclusion in a model for learning objects [128].
Currier et al. claim that the process of creating the actual metadata has largely
been ignored, and is often trivialised as being “straightforward” for the content
authors, where it cannot be generated automatically by the computer [129]. They
developed a taxonomy to classify learning objects. Their result was not as good
as expected. For example, only about 50% of the “ideal” classifications were
agreed upon by more than half of the users. There was a very significant variation
in classification, which leads to many inconsistencies which in turn drastically
decrease the value of the metadata.
Furthermore, a collaborative model for creating metadata may be most appropri-
ate: The content authors provide metadata such as their name and title of resource;
a metadata specialist then checks these metadata for accuracy and adds the clas-
57