Learning Object Metadata Application Profiles: Lithuanian Approach

1. Learning Object Metadata Application Profiles: Lithuanian Approach • E. Kurilovas • S. Kubilinskienė • Centre for IT in Education, MoE Lithuania

2. Main Notions (1) • Digital Library of Educational Resources and Services(DLE) –the aggregate of knowledge repositories, and services, organized as complex information system • Learning Object(LO) –any digital resource that can be reused to support learning • Learning Asset (LA) –small pedagogically decontextualised part(s) (piece(s)) LOs can be combined of • Unit of Learning(UoL) –Unit of Learning itself and all its components are considered here as embedded LOs, including learning objectives, prerequisites, learners’ or trainers’ roles, activity assignment, information objects, communication objects, tools and questionnaire objects

3. Main Notions (2) • Learning Object Repository(LOR) – any collection of resources (learning objects) that are accessible via a network without prior knowledge of the structure of the collection • LOM – IEEE LTSC Learning Object Metadata Standard • Reusability –the extent to which LO can operate effectively for a variety of users in a variety of digital environments and a variety of educational contexts over time. LO reusability is affected by technical, pedagogic and social factors • Interoperability – the capability to communicate, execute programs, or transfer data among various functional units in a manner that requires the user to have little or no knowledge of the unique characteristics of those units

4. Lithuanian ICT in Education Strategy 2008-2012 (1) • The vision: • To create qualitative new and flexible students and teachers learning environments which would provide them personalized (customized) learning possibilities in electronic space • and • stimulate creation and implementation of modern ICT-based teaching and learning methods

5. Lithuanian ICT in Education Strategy 2008-2012 (2)

6. Lithuanian ICT in Education Strategy 2008-2012 (3)

7. DLE Components Interoperability (1) • The need for reusability of LOs has at least three elements: • Interoperability: LO is interoperable and can be used in different platforms. • Flexibility in terms of pedagogic situations: LO can fit into a variety of pedagogic situations. • Modifiability to suit a particular teacher’s or student’s needs: LO can be made more appropriate to a pedagogic situation by modifying it to suit a particular teacher’s or student’s needs.

8. DLE Components Interoperability (2) • Recommendations prepared: • To create Learning Objects Metadata strategies: • To integrate curriculum with Learning Objects. • To prepare Lithuanian LOM AP. • 2. For all DLE components interoperability.

9. DLE Components Interoperability (3) • Interoperability literature and experience analysis (conclusions): • The majority of standards and specifications are not adopted and do not conform with educational practice. • There exists a problem of complex solutions for application of standards and specifications in education. • Standards and specifications often do not cooperate.

10. Curriculum Integration with Learning Objects

11. Recommendations for LOM AP

12. DLE Components Scheme

13. DLE Components Interoperability (4)

14. Learning Objects Technical Evaluation Criteria (1) • Learning objects technical evaluation literature and experience analysis (conclusions) • Well-known LOs evaluation tools have a number of limitations: • LORI, Paulsson & Naeve and MELT do not examine different LOs life cycle stages. • Q4R insufficiently examines technical evaluation criteria before LOs inclusion in the repository.

15. Learning Objects Technical Evaluation Criteria (2) • Approved Lithuanian Computer Teaching Aids evaluation tool analysis (conclusions) • The tool has a number of limitations: • All LOs and services (e.g., LAs, UoLs, LORs, VLEs) have to be evaluated against the same criteria. • No metadata-related criteria are included. • Approved technical evaluation criteria for e-content, activities, services and tools do not reflect their reusability aspects overall.

16. Learning Objects Technical Evaluation Criteria (3)

17. Experimental Lithuanian DLE Implementation (1) • Creation of Central Learning Object Metadata repository: • EUN LOM AP 2.0 was localised to Lithuanian by the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics • More than 1200 Lithuanian LRs were described in conformity with this AP by specially trained LOs indexers • Centralised LO metadata (LOM) repository based on MySQL database management system, PHP software package (internet programs handling environment) and Java technology was created. ITC Apache web server and Linux operating system were used for creation of LOM repository. • User–friendly interface to aggregate LOs metadata into LOM repository was created. • All evaluated and approved LOs metadata was created and filled into LOM repository on ITC server. • All approved distance learning courses were disaggregated to smaller courses and even to LOs level and were described in conformity with LOM. • Disaggregated smaller courses were introduced as SCORM 2004 packages to reuse in different VLEs. • All these LOs are available in centralised LOM repository.

18. Experimental Lithuanian DLE Implementation (2)

19. Experimental Lithuanian DLE Implementation (3)

20. Experimental Lithuanian DLE Implementation (4) • Central Learning Object Metadata repository. All Learning Objects repositories and metadata services available: • Information services (open for users): http://lom.emokykla.lt/nauja • Administrator’s services:http://lom.emokykla.lt/nauja/public/index2.php

21. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! • Eugenijus.Kurilovas@itc.smm.lt • Svetlana.Kubilinskiene@itc.smm.lt