Rome Wasn't Digitized in a Day - Council on Library and Information ...

209
learn<strong>in</strong>g object that focused on an artifact and <strong>in</strong>tegrated <strong>in</strong>terpretations of that artifact from different
discipl<strong>in</strong>es (a classicist, an archaeologist and a historian). “The workshop participants had identified
what humanities discipl<strong>in</strong>es aim to do and the means by which they do it,” OKell et al. expla<strong>in</strong>ed,
“This was achieved <strong>in</strong> a context where educational technologists keen to create the next generation of
e-Learn<strong>in</strong>g resources could identify this aim and determ<strong>in</strong>e whether it could be modelled
electronically” (OKell et al. 2010, 158).
Thus, this project sought to address the challenges of digitally model<strong>in</strong>g the pedagogical approaches of
a particular discipl<strong>in</strong>e by hav<strong>in</strong>g discipl<strong>in</strong>ary practitioners def<strong>in</strong>e a set of tasks and then hav<strong>in</strong>g
educational technologists see if they could successfully model them. In this case, the “powerful
pedagogical pattern” that they modeled as a Generative Learn<strong>in</strong>g Object was that of “evaluat<strong>in</strong>g
Multiple Interpretations” (eMI). JISC funded the development of a proof-of-concept software, 639 and
doma<strong>in</strong> experts were <strong>in</strong>volved for the entire process. The Altar of Pergamum was chosen as the
artifact; a three-step process of storyboard<strong>in</strong>g and ref<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g ideas, mockup and digital design, and f<strong>in</strong>al
implementation and test<strong>in</strong>g was then undertaken. The participat<strong>in</strong>g academics were asked to def<strong>in</strong>e
questions that they wanted their students to be able to answer, and this resulted <strong>in</strong> three general types
of questions: Orig<strong>in</strong>, Purpose, and Mean<strong>in</strong>g.
Their attempt “to storyboard the learn<strong>in</strong>g process” faced a number of challenges because the scholars
wanted to support both a l<strong>in</strong>ear (step-by-step from orig<strong>in</strong> to mean<strong>in</strong>g for each discipl<strong>in</strong>e) and branch<strong>in</strong>g
navigation (e.g., compar<strong>in</strong>g different discipl<strong>in</strong>ary perspectives on the artifact’s orig<strong>in</strong> or mean<strong>in</strong>g)
through the module, but were uncerta<strong>in</strong> if this was possible to design. While the orig<strong>in</strong>al storyboard
presented by scholars <strong>in</strong>volved hav<strong>in</strong>g students move sequentially through one discipl<strong>in</strong>e at a time <strong>in</strong>
order to avoid confusion, the learn<strong>in</strong>g technologists suggested an alternative where students could
compare multiple <strong>in</strong>terpretations of each microtheme (e.g., “orig<strong>in</strong>”) to enable the comparison of
multiple <strong>in</strong>terpretations. This design choice was enthusiastically agreed upon and was consequently
labeled “Access Views.” In addition, as knowledge acquisition was a major goal of eMI, the module
<strong>in</strong>cluded various forms of multiple-choice questions to assess student learn<strong>in</strong>g.
A number of discipl<strong>in</strong>ary audiences positively recognized the eMI module, and OKell et al. concluded
that by computationally model<strong>in</strong>g a specific pedagogical process the eMI framework could be easily
repurposed by other groups design<strong>in</strong>g digital learn<strong>in</strong>g objects. They also recognized, however, that
there are limits to design<strong>in</strong>g for reusability. “Some parts of the process can be noted and replicated to
ensure useful outcomes,” OKell et al. acknowledged, “but, overall, success when design<strong>in</strong>g for reuse is
dependent on the work<strong>in</strong>g relationship between the discipl<strong>in</strong>ary practitioners driv<strong>in</strong>g the process and
the learn<strong>in</strong>g technologists support<strong>in</strong>g them” (OKell, et al. 167). The eMI project thus illustrated the
importance of a good work<strong>in</strong>g relationship between <strong>in</strong>formation technologists and doma<strong>in</strong> specialists
for the long-term reusability of a digital object.
Look<strong>in</strong>g Backward: State of Digital Classics <strong>in</strong> 2005
In 2005, the now-defunct AHDS conducted a subject extension feasibility study to survey recent and
current digital resource creation <strong>in</strong> areas not served by the AHDS, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g classics, philosophy, and
theology, to see what level of service these discipl<strong>in</strong>es might require from the AHDS. The study report
noted that both classics and ancient history were “relatively digitally mature and <strong>in</strong> need of advanced
services.” The report’s author, Reto Speck, conducted a number of <strong>in</strong>terviews with subject specialists
<strong>in</strong> the field and also surveyed a number of digital projects. He noted that the digital projects <strong>in</strong> classics
639 http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/hca/themes/e-learn<strong>in</strong>g/emi_glo