- Technology Enhanced Learning and Learning Technology
The Software Freedom Law Center has filed a reexamination request with the USPTO regarding Blackboard’s eLearning patent. I told you about this patent and mentioned I had written about this it for LWN back in August, shortly after Blackboard sued Desire2Learn, another educational software maker.
Read the whole storry at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061130104032942
Från idg.se
En grupp från det brittiska parlamentet kritiserar den institution som rekommenderar IT-teknologi till skolorna i Storbritannien. I en motion menar de på att gamla regler stänger ute små företag som erbjuder mjukvara baserad på öppen källkod.
Motionen , närmare bestämt "Early Day Motion No 179 - Software in Education", diskuteras på Schoolforge-UK Discussions.
Technorati Tags: öppen källkod, oss, skola, utbildning
To understand the Learning Objects concept it is often described using metaphors. There are two main metaphors: the “Lego” metaphor and the “Atomic” metaphor. The Lego metaphor was the first metaphor to occur (as far as I know), and it describes Learning Objects as pieces of Lego building blocks that can be assembled to form larger learning units or modules. The Lego metaphor implies that it is very easy to assemble Learning Objects and that it can be done by anyone, without deeper prior knowledge. The Lego metaphor has been criticized for being over simplified. Critiques means that every Learning Object cannot be assembled with every other Learning Object, and that pedagogical knowledge and knowledge about instructional design is needed in order to do a god job.
This has lead to the adoption of the Atomic metaphor. The main idea of the Atomic metaphor is that not all Learning Objects can be assembled with every other Learning Objects, and that some Learning objects attracts certain Learning Object, while repelling other. The rules for how Learning Objects can be assembled and used are stricter and the “interfaces” tend to be more complex – as with chemistry. The atomic model is commonly regarded to be a more realistic model and is probably the most accepted metaphor.
However, when working on the article “Establishing technical quality criteria for Learning objects ” I came to think a little bit further than I have done before and I am not so sure any more about the superiority of the atomic metaphor. Even though the atomic Learning Object metaphor is favoured in several of my papers (as well as in others), it can be argued that the Lego metaphor has some advantages from the object technology perspective. If you think about Lego blocks: the most distinguishing quality of Lego blocks is that they have an extremely simple, but still powerful, interface for interacting with other pieces. This actually means that, with some limitations, all Lego pieces can be assembled together with any other Lego piece to form something new, that is more than the sum of the used Lego blocks, and that produces an added value. This doesn’t mean that anyone can build good and useful things, just because they can put together a number of Lego pieces – certain skills are still required to actually produce something useful.
As an example: this is the Lego production of my two-year-old son.
This is about as simple as it gets, and not particularly useful, but fun to build – if you are a two-year-old and has nothing to tear down.
Below on the other hand is the work of a slightly more skilled Lego builder.
This is a fully working differencing machine entirely built using ordinary Lego blocks.
So, it is possible to build simple things as well as complex things, using Lego, much thanks to the simple, but still powerful interface.
The basis for my reasoning about Lego is that, historically (from an object/component technology point of view) the frameworks and technologies that have the simplest (but still powerful) interfaces, and least complex rules have the best chance of surviving and being used. This becomes important when regarding Learning Objects from a technology perspective, and especially from a object technology perspective. It is very easy to assign properties to Learning Objects (both pedagogical and functional), but much harder to find a general, standardized way in which they can be implemented!
This is also in a way the core of our article on Establishing technical quality criteria for Learning Objects
