Being able to share each other’s work is a way of forming new communities and meet people, where we can practice and engage in real collaboration. The Reusability Paradox (Wiley 2004) supports that as the module context is further elaborated and made more explicit the learner who works with the module has an easier understanding how this connects to what he or she already knows. “ The more context a learning object has, the more (and more easily) a learner can learn it.” (Wiley 2004,p.1). But to an instructional designer to be able to reuse learning object means placing it in a context other than that for which it was designed. “ To make learning objects maximally reusable, learning objects should contain as little context as possible” (Wiley 2004, p.1). Therefore pedagogical effectiveness and potential for reuse are completely at odds with one another.
Standardization and specifications for e-learning technologies has been actively developed by many organizations such as the IMS Global E-Learning Consortium, the IEEF Learning Technologies Standards Committee and the ISO Subcommittee on “Information Technology for Learning Education and Training.” Since the emergence of the Internet innumerable courses has been developed is such a manner that it is sometimes impossible to support their interchange or their successful interoperations. “ Standards in e-learning seek to address these shortcomings by ensuring the interoperability, portability and reusability of this content and of these systems” (Friesen, 2003,p.4).
SCORM seeks to accomplish e-standards by generating standards on its own, by simplifying, combining and interrelate them to a number of existing specifications and standards. (Friesen, 2003).
H817, week 8, activity 6
Being able to share each other’s work is a way of forming new communities and meet people, where we can practice and engage in real collaboration. The Reusability Paradox (Wiley 2004) supports that as the module context is further elaborated and made more explicit the learner who works with the module has an easier understanding how this connects to what he or she already knows. “ The more context a learning object has, the more (and more easily) a learner can learn it.” (Wiley 2004,p.1). But to an instructional designer to be able to reuse learning object means placing it in a context other than that for which it was designed. “ To make learning objects maximally reusable, learning objects should contain as little context as possible” (Wiley 2004, p.1). Therefore pedagogical effectiveness and potential for reuse are completely at odds with one another.
Standardization and specifications for e-learning technologies has been actively developed by many organizations such as the IMS Global E-Learning Consortium, the IEEF Learning Technologies Standards Committee and the ISO Subcommittee on “Information Technology for Learning Education and Training.” Since the emergence of the Internet innumerable courses has been developed is such a manner that it is sometimes impossible to support their interchange or their successful interoperations. “ Standards in e-learning seek to address these shortcomings by ensuring the interoperability, portability and reusability of this content and of these systems” (Friesen, 2003,p.4).
SCORM seeks to accomplish e-standards by generating standards on its own, by simplifying, combining and interrelate them to a number of existing specifications and standards. (Friesen, 2003).
References:
Reusability Paradox
http://cnx.org/content/m11898/1.18/
Three objections to learning objects and e-learning standards
http://www.learningspaces.org/papers/objections.html
http://barrydahl.com/2009/10/26/who-the-hell-is-brian-lamb/