Xavier Ochoa
ABSTRACT
The field of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) in general, has the potential to solve one of the most important challenges of our time: enable everyone to learn anything, anytime, anywhere. However, if we look back at more than 50 years of research in TEL, it is not clear where we are in terms of reaching our goal and whether we are, indeed, moving forward. The pace at which technology and new ideas evolve have created a rapid, even exponential, rate of change. This rapid change, together with the natural difficulty to measure the impact of technology in something as complex as learning, has lead to a field with abundance of new, good ideas and scarcity of evaluation studies. This lack of evaluation has resulted into the duplication of efforts and a sense of no "ground truth" or "basic theory' of TEL. This article is an attempt to stop, look back and measure, if not the impact, at least the status of a small fraction of TEL, Learning Object Technologies, in the real world. The measured apparent inexistence of the reuse paradox, the two phase linear growth of repositories or the ineffective metadata quality assessment of humans are clear reminders that even bright theoretical discussions do not compensate the lack of experimentation and measurement. Both theoretical and empirical studies should go hand in hand in order to advance the status of the field. This article is an invitation to other researchers in the field to apply Informetric techniques to measure, understand and apply in their tools the vast amount of information generated by the usage of Technology Enhanced Learning systems.
- T. C. Almind and P. Ingwersen. Informetric analyses on the world wide web: methodological approaches to webometrics. Journal of Documentation, 53(4):404--426, 1997.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- C. Anderson. The long tail. Hyperion, 2006.Google Scholar
- R. G. Baraniuk. Opening Up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education through Open Technology, Open Content, and Open Knowledge, chapter Challenges and Opportunities for the Open Education Movement: A Connexions Case Study, pages 116--132. MIT Press, 2007.Google Scholar
- J. Barton, S. Currier, and J. M. N. Hey. Building quality assurance into metadata creation: an analysis based on the learning objects and e-prints communities of practice. In S. Sutton, J. Greenberg, and J. Tennis, editors, Proceedings 2003 Dublin Core Conference: Supporting Communities of Discourse and Practice - Metadata Research and Applications, pages 39--48, Seattle, Washington, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Broadus. Toward a definition of bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 12(5):373--379, 1987.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Campbell. Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to E-Learning, chapter Engaging with the learning object economy, pages 35--45. Kogan Page Ltd, 2003.Google Scholar
- A. Chapman and O. Massey. A catalogue quality audit tool. Library Management, 23(6--7):314--324, 2002.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. Chu and M. Rosenthal. Search engines for the world wide web: A comparative study and evaluation methodology. In S. Hardin, editor, Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, volume 33, pages 127--135, Baltimore, MD, 1996. Softbound.Google Scholar
- E. Duval. Policy and Innovation in Education - Quality Criteria, chapter LearnRank: the Real Quality Measure for Learning Materials, pages 457--463. European Schoolnet, 2005.Google Scholar
- E. Duval, K. Warkentyne, F. Haenni, E. Forte, K. Cardinaels, B. Verhoeven, R. Van Durm, K. Hendrikx, M. Forte, N. Ebel, et al. The ariadne knowledge pool system. Communications of the ACM, 44(5):72--78, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Egghe and R. Rousseau. Generalized success-breeds-success principle leading to time-dependent informetric distributions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6):426--445, 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Elliott and K. Sweeney. Quantifying the reuse of learning objects. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2):137--142, 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Eschenfelder and A. Desai. Software as Protest: The Unexpected Resiliency of US-Based DeCSS Posting and Linking. The Information Society, 20(2):101--116, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Garfield. The impact factor. Current Contents, 25(20):3--7, 1994.Google Scholar
- C. Harrington, S. Gordon, and T. Schibik. Course management system utilization and implications for practice: A national survey of department chairpersons. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(4):13, 2004.Google Scholar
- J. Hirsch. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46):16569--16572, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. Hood and C. Wilson. The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics, 52(2):291--314, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Jacsó. A deficiency in the algorithm for calculating the impact factor of scholarly journals: The journal impact factor. Cortex, 37(4):590--594, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Joyce. OECD Study of OER: Forum Report. Technical report, UNESCO, 2007.Google Scholar
- X. Liu, K. Maly, M. Zubair, and M. L. Nelson. Arc - an oai service provider for digital library federation. D-Lib Magazine, 7(4):12, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Lotka. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12):317--323, 1926.Google Scholar
- R. McGreal. A typology of learning object repositories. {pre-print}. Retrieved December 19, 2007 from http://hdl.handle.net/2149/1078, 2007.Google Scholar
- J. Najjar, J. Klerkx, R. Vuorikari, and E. Duval. Finding appropriate learning objects: An empirical evaluation. In A. Rauber, S. Christodoulakis, and A. M. Tjoa, editors, Proceedings of: 9th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. ECDL 2005, volume 3652 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 323--335, Vienna, Austria, 2005. Springer Verlag. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Najjar, S. Ternier, and E. Duval. User behavior in learning objects repositories: An empirical analysis. In L. C.. C. McLoughlin, editor, Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA 2004 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, pages 4373--4378, Chesapeake, VA, 2004. AACE.Google Scholar
- F. Neven and E. Duval. Reusable learning objects: a survey of lom-based repositories. In M. Muhlhauser, K. Ross, and N. Dimitrova, editors, MULTIMEDIA '02: Proceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 291--294, New York, NY, 2002. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Newman. Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law. Contemporary Physics, 46(5):323--351, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- X. Ochoa. Connexions: a social and successful anomaly among learning object repositories. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, 2(1):11--22, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- X. Ochoa and E. Duval. Quantitative analysis of user-generated content on the web. In D. De Roure and W. Hall, editors, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Understanding Web Evolution (WebEvolve2008), pages 19--26, Beijing, China, 2008. Web Science Research Initiative. ISBN: 978 085432885 7.Google Scholar
- X. Ochoa and E. Duval. Relevance ranking metrics for learning objects. IEEE Transaction on Learning Technologies, 1(1):15, 2008. in Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- X. Ochoa and E. Duval. Automatic evaluation of metadata quality in digital libraries. International Journal of Digital Libraries, 10(2):67--91, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- X. Ochoa and E. Duval. Quantitative analysis of learning object repositories. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2(3):226--238, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Price. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5--6):292--306, 1976.Google ScholarCross Ref
- V. Schoner, D. Buzza, K. Harrigan, and K. Strampel. Learning objects in use: lite assessment for field studies. J. Online Learning Teaching, 1(1):18, 2005.Google Scholar
- B. Simon, D. Massart, F. van Assche, S. Ternier, E. Duval, S. Brantner, D. Olmedilla, and Z. Miklos. A simple query interface for interoperable learning repositories. In D. Olmedilla, N. Saito, and B. Simon, editors, Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Interoperability of Web-based Educational Systems, pages 11--18, Chiba, Japan, 2005. CEUR.Google Scholar
- L. Sokvitne. An evaluation of the effectiveness of current dublin core metadata for retrieval. In Proceedings of VALA (Libraries, Technology and the Future) Biennial Conference, page 15, Victoria, Australia, 2000. Victorian Association for Library Automation Inc.Google Scholar
- S. E. Thomas. Quality in bibliographic control. Library Trends, 44(3):491--505, 1996.Google Scholar
- H. Van de Sompel, M. Nelson, C. Lagoze, and S. Warner. Resource Harvesting within the OAI-PMH Framework. D-Lib Magazine, 10(12):1082--9873, 2004.Google Scholar
- K. Verbert and E. Duval. Evaluating the ALOCOM Approach for Scalable Content Repurposing. In E. Duval, R. Klamma, and M. Wolpers, editors, Creating New Learning Experiences on a Global Scale: Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, volume 4753, pages 364--377, Crete, Greece, 2007. Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Verbert, E. Duval, M. Meire, J. Jovanovic, and D. Gasevic. Ontology-Based Learning Content Repurposing: The ALOCoM Framework. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(1):67--74, 2006.Google Scholar
- D. Wiley, S. Waters, D. Dawson, B. Lambert, M. Barclay, D. Wade, and L. Nelson. Overcoming the limitations of learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4):507--521, 2004.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Learnometrics: metrics for learning objects
Recommendations
Providing culturally contextualized metadata to promote sharing and reuse of learning objects
SIGDOC '09: Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on Design of communicationThis paper presents some proposals to formalize the creation of Learning Objects (LO) that define rules concerned to the content organization and/or the set of metadata used to describe and to document the LOs. This paper presents Cognitor (COGNItive ...
A Practice-Oriented Review of Learning Objects
Reusable learning objects support packaging of educational materials allowing their discovery and reuse. Open educational resources emphasize the need for open licensing and promote sharing and community involvement. For both teachers and learners, ...
From learning objects to educational itineraries: helping teachers to exploit repositories
ICWL'07: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Advances in web based learningIn this paper we describe an experience with the construction of educational itineraries based on Learning Objects (LOs). The experience was carried out with a group of 130 trainee teachers of secondary school using LODE, a collaboration environment ...
Comments