Learning Object Repository

1. Learning Object Repository Suzanne Lapointe GTN-Québec Member Cogigraph and Télé-Université Key for success

2. Plan • Vision • Context • keys for Success • Case Studies • Université du Québec • CREPUQ’s Tool Box • Francocommunauté virtuelle

3. … Learning Object repository…. Vision To increase the quality of teaching by giving access to better quality resources. The idea is to stop doing the version 0,1

4. Promotion • Access requisite (open, limited, pay-per-use) • Interoperability • Quality Control • Reutilisability Create and preserve resources ! Use and Reuse resources Pedagogical integration of those resources How : 3 steps

5. … Challenges • At the university Level - professor • Increase the faculty member’s interest to diffuse the LO they produced and to reuse the one already done. • Implement intellectual property functionalities that suits their needs • Explain how to produce LO. • At the university Level – Develop internal expertise to support the faculty members

6. OR’s paradox • Success rely on A) quantity B) quality C) accessibility of the banks D) integration with platform

7. How to fill the gap? 1 Association with other banks  federation 2 … 3 ….. 4 …… Conclusion

8. … GLOBE consortium • Merlot  USA (36,000 resources) • Nime  Japan (250,000 resources) • Edna  Australia (260,000 resources) • ARIADNE  EUROPE (50,000 resources) • CANADA LORNET (4,000 resources)

9. Federation : Key for quantity

10. How to fill the gap? 1 Association with other banks  federation 2 Metatagging easy for the users 3 ….. 4 …… Conclusion

11. Metatagging easy for the users

12. Behind the Scene : LOM

13. Federated Search

14. Federated Search

15. Passport :

16. How we diffuse expertise • Workshop in 2005 with library experts, content developers and archivist diffusing the expertise of Normetic • Conference in 2006 with CREPUQ – Faculty members and technopedagogical specialists were invited. • Training for users .

17. How to fill the gap? 1 Association with other banks  federation 2 Metatagging easy for the users 3 Respect Intellectual Property 4 …… Conclusion

18. Rights by folders

19. Specify the rights

20. How to fill the gap? 1 Association with other banks  federation 2 Metatagging easy for the users 3 Respect Intellectual Property 4 Integration to platform Conclusion

21. … Context - PROCENA • Platform in each university • A large amount of faculty members doing their own resources • Each resource is done for themselves, few shared their resources.

22. Integration of PALOMA

23. Other platforms with LOR

24. Projet 1 : Projet FODAR : UQ • Who’s involved? • Why ? • Technology developed for the project • Plan : Second Phase

25. Who’s involved ? • The universities member of the Réseau de l’Université du Québec

26. Funding • FODAR (UQ funding) • 90,000$ first year • Around 90,000$ second year

27. … Innovation and learning object repository … technical nature Develop an environment web based easy to use with friendly user interface for referencing the objects; doing research; applying rights to the resources. • Giving access to a system easy to use. • Utilize standards for referencing the objects • Being able to connect one repository to another • Avoid the necessity of expertise by the development of an user friendly interface. • . ……

28. …Innovation and learning object repository First action : encouraging the faculty members to reference their resources in a bank 1. Which resource? 2. How can we insure quality ? 3. Which options of access limitation? 4. Who will be involved in the institution From the organization point of view: Which strategies to implement to encourage the professors referencingtheir object and encouraging reuse ? … editorial nature Facilitate access of the objects descriptions and encouraging reuse!

29. Technology used • Already developed with research fundings • System complete and operational but difficult to use for non experts • Core of the technology  federated search

30. What we learned • Involving library experts is a good way • with library experts (4$ per record) • In successful universities (top down approach combined with bottom up) • Specialized Object repositories are easier

31. Plan for Second Phase • At least, 1 LOR in each institution • System REA.UQ fully operational • Document the experiences • Expertise in metareferencing in each institution • Editorial policy regarding learning objects diffusion in each institution

32. Project II : Projet CREPUQ • Why ? • Who’s involved ? • Similar experiences

33. Tool-Team Mandate • Identify the technopedagogical tools developed and used by the universities (forum, portfolio, wikis…). • Implement a learning object repository with those tools and encourage reuse.

34. Who participate ? • Quebec universities ; coordinate by the CREPUQ

35. Similar experiences • Similar previous experience (public services) • Knowledge Exchange Service : 15 years • Adullact : French project : 10 years

36. New Project : still waiting for funding Partners in Francocommunauté virtuelle project • Moncton University • University of Ottawa • Téluq and Cogigraph Create a portal giving access to the OR from different french universities in Canada

37. Conclusion : grouping isolate experiencesAt the beginning of the implementationThink about quality