·:[ frepa.blog ]:·
• • • • •

Yesterday, I presented my paper titled "Establishing Technical Quality Criteria for Learning Objects". The idea of keeping the pedagogical process representation separated from the Learning Object is apparently very controversial. The fact that this is controversial also shows that there is a considerable distance between the pedagogical comprehension of Learning Objects, and the technical comprehension of Learning Objects. That the pedagogical process should not be hard-coded into the Learning Object does not mean that the pedagogical unit, used for learning, isn’t put into a pedagogical context by the use of a specific pedagogical approach. It just means that the taxonomy as well as the technical architecture and design need to be a little bit different in order to (technically) give Learning Objects the properties that they are usually ascribed.

When I discuss this with people, I get the feeling that this issue needs to be discussed much more and that there is a need for consensus building in order to reach a common understanding of terms and concepts to sort out how technical qualities and pedagogical qualities relates to each other. Pedagogical qualities have a strong relationship to technical quality – much stronger than most people like to think!

Idag, en vecka innan omröstningen i EU-parlamentet, publicerade Dagens Industri min debattartikel om hur mjukvarupatent hotar e-lärande. Artikeln är publicerat i något redigerad form, men annars identisk med den som jag publicerat här på bloggen. Tyvärr så har jag inte kunnat hitta den i digital form på DI så det blir till att läsa den här istället.

My article, titled " A Service Oriented Architecture-framework for modularized Virtual Learning Environments ", was accepted for presentation at the m-ICTE2006 conference. Read the abstract here .