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

1. Long-Term Retention & Reuse of E-Learning Objects and Materials Dr Roger Rist Director ICBL Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Study Aims • Complementary to JORUM • Focusing 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

8. 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

9. Creation and Reuse • Why no large banks of E-Learning resources? • New and experimental – a lot of hype, plus some substance • Development has been driven by technology, not pedagogy • Technology itself is evolving • E-Learning is not yet commonly accepted by FE & HE staff • Still the domain of a small number of early adopters

10. 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

11. 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

12. Long-Term Implications • Custodianship • Coherent funding strategies • Who assesses quality, how is quality assessed • Maintaining pedagogical relevance • Other sustainability and preservation activities

13. 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

14. 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

15. E-Learning Objects • are Learning Objects comprised of digital resources • Reusability = the aim to reduce duplication of effort and improve quality

16. Factors Affecting Reusability • Granularity • Technical dependency • Content dependency

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

18. 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.

19. ‘-abilities’ • Interoperability • Re-usability • Manageability • Accessibility • Durability • Scalability • Affordability

20. Technical Considerations • Learning objects may contain any type of content • Wide range of preservation problems, and potential solutions • Need more connections between digital preservation work and e-learning work

21. Repositories and Learning Objects • Facilitate movement of resources • Allow cross searching • Support long term retention of materials, packaged as learning objects • Be able to cater for the varying different end user groups in FE and HE • Interoperability with institutional VLE

22. Model

23. Key Elements • E-Learning coordination • Institutions • National/regional/consortia? • Multiple implementations • National archival repository • Institutional + other types of repository

24. Current Work • IPR • Pedagogy for e-learning • Social and practical issues • May be implemented through metadata attached to e-learning objects

25. IPR • Institutions recognise value of learning materials and will want to control access • Individuals want rewards • Need 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

26. 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)

27. Future: Quality Assurance • Users want quality assurance • A ‘publishing’ process is needed • Peer review • Establishment of rights • Standardised quality mark?

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. Recommendations: Infrastructure • Greater communication between e-learning activities and digital preservation activities. • Support for a distributed network of repositories.

32. Contact • Dr Roger Rist • Institute for Computer Based Learning • Heriot-Watt University • roger@icbl.hw.ac.uk • Report on JISC website: www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=programme_preservation