XplanaZine

In Part 2 of this series I addressed taxonomies, or organizational structures for educational content. I explained that the first step towards a new education technology paradigm (where content is more important that distribution platforms) is having a clear organizational structure for content. This structure, represented by common classification systems of taxonomies, will allow users to search for and share content easily and freely, regardless of the specific platform or technology system they are using at the time.

The second step towards the future of educational technology is found in the actual storage of learning content. For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to the structures that house this content universally as Learning Object Repositories (LOR). These are, ideally, special libraries designed to hold learning content that can range from syllabi and Web pages, to assessments and simulations.

Now, one of the more discussed things regarding LORs is how to define the content they hold — the packages themselves. This is generally posed in the form of a familiar question — what is a learning object? We’re not going to worry about that sticky wicket here, at least not at the complex level. For our purposes, it will suffice to divide all our educational content into two categories — learning objects and learning bits. A learning object (for our discussion) is a complete learning task that has some stated or obvious learning objective and an outcome that can or is measured. A learning bit is a fragment of text or media that, when combined with other bits, can be made into an object.

A quiz would qualify as a learning object, as would a video viewing assignment complete with instructions. The individual items of the quiz or the video clip by itself without context (assuming the clip itself did not contain obvious learning instructions), would be considered bits.

So once we have bits and put them together as objects, the job becomes building a LOR that can house them. Generally speaking this LOR must meet several fundamental requirements (if you want to see a more complete list of LOR requirements, you can review the comparative study completed by Edutools in February of this year):

• It must recognize both objects and bits
• It must have a clear classification and organization of the content metadata (taxonomies and other things with which you want to be able to associate information)
• It must allow users to customize the information about the objects or bits they put into the LOR
• It must allow users to search for objects
• It must offer protection for intellectual property
• It must must allow users to create personal collections
• Users must be able to export their content easily

As you can see, these basic requirements make a LOR something that can allow users to store and share content easily. Some LORs encourage peer commenting and evaluation while others focus on letting users author new content into the system through a series of learning object authoring tools.

LORs and Who Uses Them

LORs are obviously important because without them we would have no hope of keeping up with the onslaught of digital content in education or of sharing it with others. LORs also provide us the commercial option of digital stores for purchasing and downloading only the content we want from publishers or other content providers (iTunes is a very successful “LOR” and a model for digital content distribution).

They are also becoming more abundant at institutions and in the general educational space. There are an increasing number of public and commercial LORs available to teachers, the better examples including MERLOT, CAREO, and Maricopa Learning Exchange.

And yet, as important as they are, LORs have yet to take the educational marketplace by storm. This is not because they aren’t needed — they are not only essential but they are also inevitable — but rather because there are other factors at play and gaps that still exist between what we have and what we need.

When LORs Will Rule

One of the unseen forces at play in the LOR world are LMS platforms such as BlackBoard, WebCT, and D2L. Currently, these platforms are where most instructors in the higher education world create and store most of their digital content. The LMS providers have recognized this and are offering integrated LORs as part of their strategy for customer loyalty. The strategy goes something like this — if you own a customer’s content, why would he or she want to leave you?

Another “invisible” force acting on the LOR world is another type of player that is not generally regarded as a LOR but in many ways it is — the blog. Blogs, for all practical purposes, are everyman’s Web publishing solution. People put both objects and bits in blogs and these systems come with very nice organizational and sharing tools. They re obviously deficient in some LOR areas, but they are a de facto player, especially on the student side (Portfolios, etc.).

And the very fact that we have blogs, and LMS platforms, e-portfolios, and public and commercial LORs, and that they are all competing and overlapping, means that we still have some gaps (as well as definitions and competition) to overcome before we’re ready for prime time.

Below, I have listed what I see as the primary gaps that must be addressed with regards to LORs before we can become one big and happy sharing universe.

Gaps

1. What do we put in them? Many are still unclear as to what kinds of objects are best placed in LORs. We don’t have enough experience yet to know what will be most useful for the academic community as a whole.
2. How do we create content to go in them? — We still lack adequate authoring tools to make LORs viable. You can build the best library in the world but it’s not really a library without lots of books. We still haven’t made it easy enough for teachers to create the content they need for their classes.
3. How do we organize them? — And who is best suited to organize them? What are the universal taxonomies that will make them easiest to use?
4. How do we make money? — No product is completely viable these days (or attracts enough attention) without some glitter of gold. LORs are the future for publishers but they have yet to jump in. How do LORs function in an embay model?
5. How do we protect our privacy? — Personally, I think most teachers (including yours truly) overestimate the value of their intellectual property. But it is still a key issue in the success of this technology.
6. How do we share content from one LOR to another or with other applications? — As we all learned in kindergarten, sharing is very important.

Conclusion

Once the proper taxonomies and metadata have been created, and once our LORs bridge the gaps of usability, critical mass, and interoperability, we will be on the cusp of a revolution in education. The technology is available to us now. The blueprints have been drawn. All that remains is getting everyone to jump in and make it happen.