Session F4B
Knowledge Management for E-learning based on Learning Objects: A Qualitative Focus Erla Morales Department of Theory and History of Education, University of Salamanca, Campus Canalejas, Pº de Canalejas, 169, 37008 Salamanca Spain,
[email protected]
Dr. Francisco García, Hugo Rego, Tiago Moreira, Héctor Barbosa Department of computer science, University of Salamanca, Plaza de la Merced s/n, 37008, Salamanca Spain
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected] Abstract - In today’s world, WWW as a platform to deliver instruction enables e-learning systems to manage a large quantity of different digital content. Teachers contribute their expert knowledge and students contribute their investigation works, tasks, etc. As a consequence of this, the content repository grows with a lot of information. Then, an urgent need exists to retrieve the specific information they really need through e-learning systems. Reusable learning object (LOs) concepts and standards for their application represent an advantage for knowledge management systems for e-learning systems. Users are able to manage and reuse content according to their needs without interoperability problems. However the quality of the LOs content is not guaranteed. This paper attempts to analyze what must be considered to Knowledge Management for e-learning systems together with LOs and standars implication. A definition of LOs is proposed and quality criteria are suggested to evaluate LOs according to their characteristics and specific contexts. Index Terms - Knowledge Management, Learning Objects, quality INTRODUCTION Due to continued technological advancements, the Web offers diverse opportunities for e-learning. However, in practice, many times technological development is considered synonymous with improved education. This does not take into account the appropriate use of systems and the importance of promoting systems for proper selection, delivery and construction of information, which allow for knowledge management. To support the topic of knowledge management for elearning, it is critical that we take into account the type of information in development. The evolution of the Web in regards to semantics supports the idea of giving more significance to content than to syntax. In this way, the machines can realize complex tasks to deliver users the necessary information to meet their needs. The challenge of defining the type of information to manage for e-learning systems is a topic that has led to the emergence of new concepts for resource development. One of 0-7803-9141-1/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
these concepts is the learning object, which considers resources as independent units that can be re-used for new educational situations. In order for this to be possible, specifications and standards are in development which allow for interoperability of these objects on diverse platforms. However, the ability to interchange learning objects does not mean that the results are of good quality. Research on the quality of objects is a topic that has had limited focus and there are only a few published works dealing with the evaluation. As stated before, the purpose of this paper is to provide an awareness of the elements that should be considered in the knowledge management based on quality learning objects for e-learning systems. To introduce our proposal, in the next section we talk about the means of knowledge management and their implication for e-learning system. After that, we propose our own LO definition explaining their characteristics as well as some issues to manage them. In the section “Quality Learning Objects Management” we explain issues relating to the LOs characteristics that help to improve their quality for a suitable management. To evaluate LOs we suggest to normalize them through a knowledge model according to our own definition, after that we suggest quality criteria to evaluate LOs taking into account specific context After LOs evaluation, in the section “quality learning objects composing” we mention some elements to consider in composing quality didactic units from LOs. Finally, we points out our conclusions and future work. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT FOR E-LEARNING BASED ON LEARNING OBJECTS In today’s world knowledge management is one of the most important sources of power in our society. People need to make right decisions and act in an appropriate way. Knowledge management and e-learning are closely related because e-learning users need a suitable knowledge management that can help them to obtain the kind of content they need together with as correct and complete information as possible.
July 7 – 9, 2005, Juan Dolio, Dominican Republic ITHET 6th Annual International Conference F4B-12
Session F4B However the knowledge management concept is not easy to define because it is fairly wide. In a enterprise context [12] this concept is defined as “some actions intended for enterprises to organize and structure process, mechanisms and infrastructures with the proposes to create, save and reuse organization’s knowledge”. In another way, [19] emphasize people participation in a knowledge management process. According to this he defines this concept as “a process to support creation, storing and sharing of value information as well as experience and perceptiveness inside or through people and organizations communities with similar interest and necessities”. Taking into account both definitions, we think knowledge management for e-learning systems must support all the issues that involve the teaching and learning process, specially content management because it is one of the most important issue in distance learning. The possibility of managing content through e-learning systems has an additional value. Knowledge is a source of power that needs to be shared and acquired, e-learning systems mean the possibility of managing information taking into consideration people that can contribute with their experience and enrich the information independent of time and place limits. However, many organizations have created their own elearning platform solutions for knowledge management. As a consequence they have had interoperability problems at the moment their content is shared with other e-learning platforms or at the moment it is updated. Today, Web development has enabled some solutions in a way to respond to actual demands. An important contribution form computer science to knowledge management for e-learning system is the learning object concept [7]-[16]-[17]-[24]. LO concept has characteristics of independent units, which are able to be reused in other educational situations. On agreement with this, knowledge management for elearning based on reusable units of learning means the possibility of accessing specific content according to the learners’ needs. One of the most important answer to respond about this concept is what we understand as LOs LOs should represent a single instructional objective as well as all of the related materials required to support an objective at least. We define a LO as a unit with a learning objective, together with digital and independent capabilities containing one or a few related ideas and accessible through metadata to be reused in different contexts and platforms. LOs must have a learning objective because it enables to direct the contents and material related to them. Ideally a LO must contain different types of element which help to clarify the main idea. In this way learning could be reinforced, for example a unit of learning web site to teach some topic according to some objectives, content, images, etc. For reusing LOs in many educational levels and contexts, it must include a principal or a few related ideas, in this way 0-7803-9141-1/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
teachers are free to decide in which learning context they must be used. It is possible because LOs are not necessarily related to any time, methodology or instructional design. Independent LOs characterized by one or few related ideas means the possibility to teach some topic by itself avoiding reusability problems. Accessible through metadata capabilities is very important because metadata (data about data) through their nine categories deliver the LOs characteristics providing different kind of information about the LOs. Finally, LOs reusability means the possibility that a LO could be reused many times independent of software and platforms changes. This issue reflect their interoperability and durability characteristics To avoid interoperability problems there are some organizations that are working to develop standards and specifications to manage resources for e-learning systems [1][6]-[9]. For example there are specifications to classify the LO content by metadata (data about data) [11], as well specifications to pack LOs [8] for their importation and exportation, etc. Thanks to reusable units of learning and standards for their treatment, knowledge management becomes more easy and efficient QUALITY LEARNING OBJECTS MANAGEMENT A first issue we must consider in managing quality LOs is to define what we understand for quality concept and the characteristics that LOs must have to be of quality. According to [18] quality is a “property or group of properties inherent to something, that aim to appreciate it as equal, better or worse than other ones”. If we take into account this definition in managing quality LOs for e-learning systems, it is necessary to define some criteria that aim to evaluate LOs characteristics or properties. About LOs evaluation, [22] emphasize that LOs characteristic makes their definition and evaluation different from other resources, for this reason they could not to be evaluated in the same way. This is because LOs content according to [13] may be created as sort of double vision, as part of a larger whole (such as a course) and as stand-alone information. LOs have some inherent properties according to their characteristics that may be evaluated independent of the context. Next we analyze LOs characteristics and some issues to consider to manage them in a suitable way. I. LOs quality characteristics Principal LOs characteristics are explained in our LOs definition: durability, interoperability, accessibility and reusability. However according to [21] LOs have inherent characteristics that can be use as beforehand quality measure. For this reason, in this section we explain issues related with the LOs characteristics which help to improve their quality for a suitable management.
July 7 – 9, 2005, Juan Dolio, Dominican Republic ITHET 6th Annual International Conference F4B-13
Session F4B •
Reusability This is the principal characteristic of value for LOs. However, it is not easy to evaluate LOs reusability because it is related with the context of use. In the case of LOs (as well as software engineering) exact measures do not exist, however it is possible to define quality indicators of usability that may be confirmed according to the reusability level. It is an heuristic evaluation according to a context of use. When a LO is reused into a one or different organizations, users may be able to evaluate them in a empirical way, then, it is possible to watch and save results about LOs management and add this information to their metadata. In this way metadata could provide more complete information for LOs reusability. In the section “LOs quality evaluation according to a context” we will explain some criteria we propose to made a LOs evaluation into a context of use. • Suitable format: LOs reusability depends of their content as well as their metadata information. However metadata compatible with some standards like LOM [11] or SCORM [20] is not enough to make them reusable. According to [2] Semantic Web is an extension of the current web in which information is given well-defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in cooperation. The idea is that machines can read information to develop complex tasks for users. To make it possible LOs metadata must have a format directed to automated process. • Metadata information: Metadata is the most important thing to know LOs characteristics for this reason according to [22] metadata information must be as correct and complete as possible because it is necessary to know all the information as possible about the LO to reuse it in a suitable way. Metadata are grouped into nine categories, however we have to take special attention to educational category because it contains ten sub-categories with different kind of pedagogical information as: interactivity type, learning resource type, interactivity level, semantic density, intended end user rol, learning context, typical age range, difficulty, typical learning time, and description. • Size or degree of granularity: Other important issue to reuse LOs is their degree of granularity because it is related to their capability to be reused in another contexts and platforms for e-learning systems. However the degree of granularity could to affect LOs reusability depending of their size and metadata information. It is known that too litlle LOs as well as too big LOs have less probabilities to be reused because their possibilities of interchange decrease. In the case of too little LOs like a video without sound or a figure it is not easy to manage for e-learning systems because they have a lack of intention and their metadata may result too poor. However if we manage LOs according to our definition, it is means LOs that has a few related ideas is 0-7803-9141-1/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
more easy to reuse them than a big content like a software because it is created for a very specific situation. Taking into account our definition teachers are free to decide in which learning context they must to be used. This is because they do not be necessarily related to any time, methodologies, instructional design, etc. II. LOs normalization LOs quality characteristics mentioned above are inherent properties of them. However, according to a predictable context it is possible to define their usability. According to [5] “usability in e-learning is defined by the ability of a learning object to support […] a very particular concrete cognitive goal”. In this definition the principal focus is directed to determinate context to teach an specific goal. According to our definition a LO must support an objective an a few related ideas. However, if we desire to import LOs we think it is necessary to normalize them according to our definition. In this way it is possible to guarantee a suitable degree of granularity. For this reason, once the LO has been imported, we suggest to normalize them according to a knowledge model as shown in Figure 1. It represents the components of our proposed knowledge model and the relationships between them. First, teachers must to define the context of using LOs, according to this they must to import LOs called to compose didactic units or lessons. Following this model, we suggest the next steps to normalize LOs. • Clasiffy LOs objectives according to their cognitive level. In this way it is easier knowing about their compatibility for a suitable new educational situations. Then, we suggest Bloom’s cognitive domain taxonomy [3] because it has been widely used in e-learning to define cognitive objectives and also it divides objectives into high and low complexity levels. It is means some group of verbs classified according their complexity, for example: knowledge, comprehension and application cognitive domains are classified according as low complexity level. Analysis, synthesis and evaluation cognitive domain are classified as high complexity level. Cognitive domain indicate what and how to learn, for this reason it could help to present LOs contents in different ways according to user needs. • Define the difficulty level to each one of LOs, for this issue we propose three kinds of complexity levels: basic, medium and advanced because this kind of classification would help teachers to select the LO content according to their teaching objectives. • Classify the imported LOs into three kind of content areas: data and concept, procedure or processes, and reflection or attitude. This classification aims to define the kind of content according to the learning objectives. This is an issue that may be important when teachers search LOs to structure their courses.
July 7 – 9, 2005, Juan Dolio, Dominican Republic ITHET 6th Annual International Conference F4B-14
Session F4B The classifications of LOs provided for the knowledge model allow teachers to find content according to the subject
area, type of content, and level of difficulty (retrieving content associated with Bloom’s cognitive domain categories).
FIGURE 1
Knowledge Model Nevertheless, the classification of the LOs according to a knowledge model like this is not enough to guarantee their quality. III LOs quality evaluation according to a context Into educational area, one of the most important elements to define the quality of instructional material is their usefulness to help students to achieve their learning objectives. There exists is a plethora of quality criteria to value digital sources but there are only a few proposals about how to evaluate LOs [14]-[23]-[25]. In order to achieve an optimal evaluation of the LOs, it is necessary considering quality criteria from different kinds of categories to each one of LOs. In this way, it is possible to consider different points of view with regard to the same object. According to this we suggest an instrument which considers different evaluation criteria in four categories. • Psychopedagogical category: This category contains pedagogical criteria related to the psychology of learning. This kind of criteria aims to determine if the LO is suitable to promote learning, for example: learner’s motivation, learner’s characteristics, etc.
0-7803-9141-1/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
• •
•
Didactic-curricular category: This kind of criteria aims to evaluate if an object is related to curricular objectives according to the context in which it will be applied. Technical- aesthetic category: Technical-aesthetic criteria are very important to making an integral LO evaluation because in this way it is possible to know the efficiency of the LO. An example of quality criteria are legibility, color-contrast, suitable size, interface design, etc. Functional category: It is clear that a suitable functionality of an LO, has a lot in common with its quality. For example, if we have an object which doesn’t work correctly it could obstruct the learning process. According to this it is possible to define several quality criteria depending of the LO type.
For getting the final result, we propose calculating the average score gained for each object with the following rating scale: 0 = Criteria is not present; 1 = Very low; 2 = Low; 3 = Medium, 4 = High, 5 = Very high. Due to the fact that an optimal LOs evaluation considers criteria from different kinds of categories, we suggest the participation of different kinds of experts during the evaluation, for example: instructional designers, subject experts, and so on.
July 7 – 9, 2005, Juan Dolio, Dominican Republic ITHET 6th Annual International Conference F4B-15
Session F4B According to [23] the participation of at least two subject experts encourages not only different points of view over the subject under evaluation, but also a critical objectivity and a reliable LO evaluation. We propose two modes of applying the instrument suggested above in order to value the LO: individual and synchronic communication. According to this concept, individual evaluation provides us with an initial appreciation of the quality of the LO based on the judgment of each participant. For making easy this evaluation, we propose the possibility to view the LO Metadata through the e-learning platform. In this way evaluators could to relate quality criteria with metadata information, specially educational category. It allows to the evaluators knowing quickly which LO they are testing or sampling and their reusability possibilities. Evaluators must evaluate LOs according to categories mentioned previously through an evaluation instrument because facilitate comparison among objects by providing a common review format. In the didactic-curricular category we suggest some subcategories to evaluate LOs according to the knowledge model presented in figure 1 (objectives and contents). For the evaluation of LOs characteristics we suggest two criteria. First, LO reusability, which means assessing whether the LO can be reused for other educational situations. Second, ensuring standard compliance, which means that it must be evaluated in the technical-aesthetic category. The possibility of completing an evaluation through collaborative method enables one to contrast the individual’s initial evaluation with the others experts’ evaluations. It aims to share different points of view to achieve an advanced and reliable evaluation [23]. However, the emergence of consensus is not always a fact, so we suggest publishing evaluators’ disagreements, and as a result it will be possible to consider this information before the LO is reused. Finally the LOs evaluated must be saved on a normalized repository, so teachers may have quality and uniform LOs content from which to choose. QUALITY DIDACTIC UNITS COMPOSING Once LOs have been normalized and evaluated, they needs to be enabled with other ones to build the largest units (didactic units, courses, etc.) possible to deliver selected LOs for students [4]-[16]. In this way, to compose didactic units we think it is necessary to add other elements like this. • Lesson overview: According to Cisco Systems [4] and [16] a didactic unit needs a General Vision in which may be explained general objectives and introduction about the LOs content. • Activities: Activities may be directed to promote new knowledge acquisition and prepare users for a final assessment. Activities may be included into any kind of content during all teaching and learning process. They 0-7803-9141-1/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
•
•
help users to know if they must to take the next lesson or a content feedback. Some kind of activities are suggested by [4] though their RLO strategy including lab exercises, role playing, case studies, games quizzes and simulations. According to this, to respond to different complexity levels contents and cognitive domains, we suggest taking into account three kind of activities: Initiation, Restructuring and Application. Initiation activities classification may be for all LOs, which are designed to teach basic content for a specific subject. An example of this is a quiz. Restructuring activities classification may be directed to promote new knowledge acquisition, such as activities that promote questions, investigation, etc. Finally, applying classification activities may be directed to promote students’ experience in order to achieve their new concepts acquisition. An example of this activity is a case study. To acquire new knowledge acquisition, it is advisable to propose activities at the end of a lesson, unit of learning or course. Due to LOs characteristics, didactic unit activities may be checked to avoid consistency problem with new LOs adaptation. Summary: As whatever kind of teaching and learning process, it is advisable a summary after contents review. In this way it is possible to reinforce the contents and learner progress. For a suitable summary it is advisable to point out the principal ideas and relation between them. Assessment: This is one of the most important issue in educational area. An evaluation must take into account each one of the learning objectives. For this reason we suggest to make a final evaluation taking into account each one of the LOs contents.
LOs are individual units of learning or modules which are part of a didactic unit, it’s mean they are part of the whole, however each one of LOs must be useful to be reused by itself in other didactic units. To reuse LOs avoiding interoperability problems, an educational modeling language is needed. We also suggest IMS Learning Design [10] because it has a flexible structure that supports pedagogical diversity. The classification provided by the knowledge model could help for this work. However, the LOs evaluation we suggested is not definitive. Once the LO evaluation has ended, it is necessary to make a LO re-evaluation, which considers a learners’ experience about the efficacy of the LO to improve its quality [15]. Therefore a re-feeding process is needed which taking into account students’ and teachers’ contributions to the LOs quality. CONCLUSIONS Today, e-learning users need a suitable knowledge management that can help them to obtain the kind of content
July 7 – 9, 2005, Juan Dolio, Dominican Republic ITHET 6th Annual International Conference F4B-16
Session F4B they need together with as correct and complete information as possible. Knowledge management is a concept widely used for enterprises. For e-learning systems we suggested to emphasize content management due its relevance for e-learning systems and take into account people participation to rich the knowledge considering their experience. The possibility of accessing specific information results in a powerful means of obtaining fast and efficient information. The reusable capability aims to avoid lost time in the creation of new information, and allows for flexibility and adaptation to other educational situations. However, the first thing to consider is to take in mind a suitable concept of leaning objects. We think our definition respond for the main characteristics that a LO must be, because it reflect their principal characteristics. By one side our definition refers to LOs that can be accessible, interoperable and reusable and by the other side it responds to characteristics which made them useful for the learners through e-leaning systems. It is because our definition talk about a basic unit of learning with a principal idea that can be joined to other ones to form a lesson or didactic unit of learning. To guarantee a suitable level of granularity, we suggest a LOs normalization that could help teachers to import LOs according to our definition and classify them to make easier their search and selection. Once normalization be made, we suggest some criteria into four kind of categories to evaluate LOs. It could help students make use of quality content by taking into account a variety of educational, curricular, technical and functional points of view. Finally, we suggest some issues to compose didactic units with quality LOs, then teachers are free to apply instructional design to didactic units to define teaching methodologies in a way to respond actual demands of learning promoting their autonomy, reflection, collaborative and cooperative work, etc Our future work is to implement this model in order to make possible adjustments and modifications. ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to thank the AWEG – Adaptive Web Engineering Group – of the University of Salamanca for its ideas and support to the elaboration of this article. Erla Morales thanks the National Council for Science and Technology (CONICYT –Chile) for its financial support. This work was partly financed by The Regional Government of Castile and Leon through research projects SA017/02 and US/0503. REFERENCES [1]
Advanced Distributed http://www.adlnet.org
Learning
(ADL)
[2]
Berners Lee, T, Hendler, J, Ora, L, “The Semantic Web” , Scientific American, 2001, may, 284 (5): 34-43.
[3]
Bloom, B, “Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I, Cognitive Domain”, Davis McKAy”, 1956.
0-7803-9141-1/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
Initiative.,
1997.
[4]
Cysco Systems, “Reusable learning object authored guidelines: How to build modules, lessons and topics”, White papers 2004, www.cisco.com
[5]
Feldstein, M, “What is usable e-learning”, ACM eLearn Magazine, 2002.
[6]
IEEE. Learning Technologies Standards Committee (LTSC)., 2001. http://www.ieee.org/portal/index.jsp
[7]
IEEE LOM. IEEE Learning Object Metadata Specification., 2002. http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/
[8]
IMS CP. IMS Content Packaging Specification., http://www.imsglobal.org/content/packaging/index.cfm
[9]
IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc., 1997. http://www.imsproject.org
[10] IMS LD. IMS Learning Design Specification., http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/index.cfm
2003.
2003.
[11] IMS LOM. Learning Resource Metadata Specification., 2003. http://www.imsglobal.org/metadata/mdinfov1p1.html [12] Kuang-Tsae, H., Lee Yang, W., Wang Richard, " Calidad de la información y gestión del conocimiento", Editorial AENOR, Madrid, 2000. [13] Longmire, W “A primer on learning object”, ASTD Learning Circuits, 2000, http://www.learningcircuits.org/2000/mar2000/Longmire.htm [14] MERLOT, “Multimedia Educational Resources for Learning and Online Teaching”, 2003, http://merlot.org. [15] Morales, E, García, F, “Quality content management for e-learning: General issues for a decision support system”, Procedings of 7th international conference on enterprise information system (ICEIS), Miami, Mayo 2005. http://www.iceis.org [16] Moreno, F, Bailly-Baillière, M, “Diseño instructivo de la formación online. Aproximación metodológica a la elaboración de contenidos”, Editorial Ariel Educación, 2002. [17] Polsani, P, “Use and abuse of reusable learning objects”. Journal of Digital information, 3(4). 2003, http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i04/Polsani [18] RAE, Real Academia Española, www.rae.es [19] Rosenberg, M, J, " E-learning. Estrategias para transmitir conocimiento en la era digital ", Editorial Mc Graw Hill., 2001. [20] SCORM (Sharable Content Object Model)., http://www.lsal.cmu.edu/lsal/expertise/projects/developersguide/
2003.
[21] Sicilia, M, A, “Sobre la usabilidad de los objetos didácticos”, Procedings of Interacción persona-ordenador, 2003. [22] Sicilia, M, A, “Reusabilidad y reutilización de objetos didácticos: mitos realidades y posibilidades” I Simposio Pluridisciplinar sobre Diseño, Evaluación y Descripción de Contenidos Educativos Reutilizables. Guadalajara, Octubre 20-22, 2004. [23] Vargo, J, Nesbit, Belfer, K, Archambault, A, “Learning object evaluation: computer-mediated collaboration and inter-rater reliability”, International Journal of Computers and Applications, Vol, 25, Nº 3, 2003. [24] Wiley, D. A., “Learning object design and sequencing theory”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Bringham Young University, Provo, UT. 2000, http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc. [25] Williams, D, D, “Evaluation of LOs and instruction using LOs”. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of LOs, 2000, http://reusability.org/read/chapters/williams.doc
July 7 – 9, 2005, Juan Dolio, Dominican Republic ITHET 6th Annual International Conference F4B-17
