canadian core learning resource metadata application profile

T.H.E. Forum, 2002 www.cancore.org 1

Canadian Core Learning Resource Metadata Application Profile

Norm [email protected]

www.cancore.org


Overview

What is Metadata Rationale for CanCore’s development CanCore’s place in standards

evolution Understanding of Learning Objects Repositories, Alliances and Support Future of CanCore


What is Metadata? Data about data A way of structuring and sharing descriptions


A new vision for Educational Applications

"stand-alone applications are incompatible with typical production, distribution, and usage patterns for educational software."

J. Roschelle, et.al.


Educational Object: Example

Content Pedagogical purpose; to augment learning about:

Paris 1839 Urban environments Architecture Daguerre Photography Daguerreotypes

Granularity: an object can be a course, unit, lesson, image, Web page, exercise, image, multimedia clip; but it must have a specified pedagogical purpose


Approaches to Learning Objects

Context provided by technical specifications: SCO’s (SCORM) RLO’s (Cisco)

Context provided by pedagogical practice: CAREO MERLOT


CanCore and Repositories

CAREO and Alexandria Repositorieshttp://careo.netera.ca

Alberta Learning Portalhttp://www.edusplash.net/

POOL/Splashhttp://www.edusplash.net/

MERLOT http://www.merlot.org

http://careo.netera.ca/

http://www.edusplash.net/


http://www.merlot.org/


Rationale

Repository projects in Canada and elsewhere Realize economy of scale by coordinating

the implementation and interpretation of metadata for learning objects (and other e-learning specifications)

Canada: population of California in the country with the 2nd largest land mass: used to working together


Rationale: Simplicity

IMS: leading educational metadata specification

IMS Metadata Model too complicated for effective implementation:

“Many vendors [have] expressed little or no interest in developing products that [are] required to support a set of meta-data with over 80 elements”

Best Practices and Implementation Guide, IMS, 2000


Rationale: Simplicity, con’t

Solution: core set of IMS elements most important for exchangeable resource descriptions

Mid-way between structuralist (IMS) and minimalist (Dublin Core) approaches to metadata


Rationale: Specificity

Effective implementation requires a consistent interpretation of each element’s purpose and use

Best accomplished through Close consultation with development

community guidelines document


Rationale: Examples

IMS Element 5.4 Semantic Density: “subjective measure of the learning object's usefulness as compared to its size or duration”

omitted in CanCore IMS Element 1.2 Title

“Learning Object's name.” Word order, subtitles, multilingual titles, series/episode

titles IMS Classification Element Group

“Description of a characteristic of the resource by entries in classifications.”

CanCore seeking coordinated definition of classification uses, purposes, and vocabularies: e.g. for object granularity, accessibility


Rationale: Semantics

E-learning specifications community is largely concerned with syntax and technical interoperation

Effective metadata requires semantic specification and consensus

Incorporate best practice from library and heritage communities

No other body is doing this across e-learning projects


CanCore: Element Groups & Numbers

1. General (7)2. LifeCycle (4)3. Metametadata

(6)4. Technical (7)5. Educational (5)6. Rights (3)

6. Relation (2)7. Annotation

(omitted)8. Classification (7 x

2):– Discipline (i.e.

subject)– PedagogicType

(i.e. granularity)


Rationale: Overview

IMS MetadataInformation Model: appx. 80 elements, little interpre-tation

Complexity decreases

Specificity and Interoperability increases

ImplementationCanCore - CAREO


CanCore as an “Application Profile”

Data elements drawn from one or more specifications optimized for particular implementations

Emphasis on tighter constraints on definitions and acceptable values, and on re-use of specification work

Rachel Heery, UK Makx Dekkers, EU, Dublin Core Jane Hunter, Australia


Approaches to Learning Objects

Context provided by technical specifications: SCO’s (SCORM) RLO’s (Cisco)

Context provided by pedagogical practice: CAREO MERLOT


Educational Object: Example

Content Pedagogical purpose; to augment learning about:

Paris 1839 Urban environments Architecture Daguerre Photography Daguerreotypes

Granularity: an object can be a course, unit, lesson, image, Web page, exercise, image, multimedia clip; but it must have a specified pedagogical purpose


Learning Objects: Granularity

Smaller: Easier: reusability

and adapability More difficult:

discovery and metadata creation

Larger: Easier: discovery

and metadata creation

More difficult: reusability and adaptibility


CanCore and ADL-SCORM

Different definitions of “educational objects”

Many specifications referenced and combined vs. just metadata

Public education vs. training emphases


CanCore and Repositories

CAREO and Alexandria Repositorieshttp://careo.netera.ca

Alberta Learning Portalhttp://www.edusplash.net/

POOL/Splashhttp://www.edusplash.net/

MERLOT http://www.merlot.org

http://careo.netera.ca/



http://www.merlot.org/


Support

Industry Canada (via the Netera Alliance)

CAREO (Campus Alberta Repository of Learning Objects)

Alberta Learning TeleCampus.edu Electronic Text Centre at UNB


CanCore’s Future Completion and Promotion of CanCore

guidelines document Hope to provide similar (implementation)

assistance to implementers in other specifications work (e.g. metadata harvesting)

Looking internationally for collaboration opportunities

Looking to establish a permanent office, possibly in Canada’s National Research Council


Find out more about

CanCore at:

www.cancore.org

canadian core learning resource metadata application profile

Documents

learning objects usefulness

title learning objects

interpretation of metadata

alberta learning portal

elements purpose

core set of ims elements

poolsplash http

merlot http