Comments for Sheila's work blog http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill Just another Blogs.cetis.ac.uk weblog Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:13:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 Comment on PRODing around Curriculum Design - what happened to content packaging? by Sheilamacneill http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/2010/03/09/proding-around-curriculum-design-what-happened-to-content-packaging/comment-page-1/#comment-86976 Sheilamacneill Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:45:25 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/?p=363#comment-86976 HI Lorna Yes, lack of really easy to use tools has had an impact. Sheila HI Lorna

Yes, lack of really easy to use tools has had an impact.

Sheila

]]> Comment on PRODing around Curriculum Design - what happened to content packaging? by Sheilamacneill http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/2010/03/09/proding-around-curriculum-design-what-happened-to-content-packaging/comment-page-1/#comment-86975 Sheilamacneill Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:42:47 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/?p=363#comment-86975 Hi Sam Thanks for your comments. I think is also shows how important vendor buy-in to standards are. I bet if BB had more support for CP we'd have a lot more usage. Like you I like Warwick's demo as it does make a strong case for having content in standard form and then it can have really flexible deployment. Sheila Hi Sam

Thanks for your comments. I think is also shows how important vendor buy-in to standards are. I bet if BB had more support for CP we’d have a lot more usage.

Like you I like Warwick’s demo as it does make a strong case for having content in standard form and then it can have really flexible deployment.

Sheila

]]> Comment on Distributed Learning Environments Briefing paper by JISC Assemblies, Conferences and Publications « SSBR Newsletter http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/2010/02/26/distributed-learning-environments-briefing-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-86920 JISC Assemblies, Conferences and Publications « SSBR Newsletter Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:21:54 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/?p=381#comment-86920 [...] Distributed Learning Environments Briefing paper [...] [...] Distributed Learning Environments Briefing paper [...]

]]> Comment on PRODing around Curriculum Design - what happened to content packaging? by Lorna http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/2010/03/09/proding-around-curriculum-design-what-happened-to-content-packaging/comment-page-1/#comment-86769 Lorna Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:39:17 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/?p=363#comment-86769 I've been thinking about the lack of CP use recently too. While I fully take on board David's comments I've always thought of CP (and QTI) as being one of the more useful learning technology interoperability specs. I wonder if part of the problem is the fact that we expect people to use it as a spec, or as a conscious technology choice? Do users really need to know what spec their tools use? I don't think so. Developers might, but not users. Users need tools that do something useful. So either the specs themselves are not useful or they have not been integrate in tools in ways that are useful. Reload is an interesting example, it's a handy wee tool but I think the spec is just a bit upfront for most users. So I certainly wouldn't advocate dumping specs, unless of course they really are useless, but I do think they need to be a bit less visible. I’ve been thinking about the lack of CP use recently too. While I fully take on board David’s comments I’ve always thought of CP (and QTI) as being one of the more useful learning technology interoperability specs. I wonder if part of the problem is the fact that we expect people to use it as a spec, or as a conscious technology choice? Do users really need to know what spec their tools use? I don’t think so. Developers might, but not users. Users need tools that do something useful. So either the specs themselves are not useful or they have not been integrate in tools in ways that are useful. Reload is an interesting example, it’s a handy wee tool but I think the spec is just a bit upfront for most users. So I certainly wouldn’t advocate dumping specs, unless of course they really are useless, but I do think they need to be a bit less visible.

]]> Comment on PRODing around Curriculum Design - what happened to content packaging? by Sam Rowley http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/2010/03/09/proding-around-curriculum-design-what-happened-to-content-packaging/comment-page-1/#comment-86743 Sam Rowley Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:35:42 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/?p=363#comment-86743 Speaking as someone with a foot in both curriculum design and UKOER camps, I think a big barrier is the surprising lack of support for content packaging at the technical level. We're currently packaging Blackboard content for deposit in JorumOpen and have had to resort to exporting the course from Blackboard and hand-stiching a content package together to recreate the structure because there is no "export as a content package" option. Then, once a package is in JorumOpen it fails to display the structure correctly. The JorumOpen development team are working on this issue but given the timescale and publicity surrounding the OER projects, you might have thought this would be fixed earlier. If we migrate content from Blackboard to our Hive repository, the structure doesn't come with it, so you end up with a bag of bits and have to recreate the structure by hand. Then, when you've finished knitting your content package, you need to pay for Icodeon (or some other viewer) to allow users to view it properly, i.e. package preview is not part of the repository feature set. I suspect another factor that might affect the OER projects use (or not) of packaging is that often repositories are not learning content repositories (i.e. no integration with VLEs) and management of the repository sits naturally with library staff whose background is more cataloguing/Dublin Core/archiving rather than VLE integration/LOM/'live' content. In that context, content packaging might not appear on the radar. We've certainly had that experience implementing our repository. We see content packages as an integral part of managing and diversifying the delivery of our learning content. If we use a content package to capture course structure based on learning content in our repository we can deliver the same course via moodle, blackboard, standalone and other platforms. It's not just about delivery, though. The content package provides useful information about the learning context in which the individual bits are used. The key issue is that end users need to be able to easily create, find, view and reuse packages (or their component parts), and that's currently not up to scratch. On a more positive note, I think the Icodeon Common Cartridge Platform Warwick demonstrated looks very good (shame it's not available yet) and Giunti are pushing their Packager tool (package-based content authoring) so there are some packaging activities afoot. Speaking as someone with a foot in both curriculum design and UKOER camps, I think a big barrier is the surprising lack of support for content packaging at the technical level. We’re currently packaging Blackboard content for deposit in JorumOpen and have had to resort to exporting the course from Blackboard and hand-stiching a content package together to recreate the structure because there is no “export as a content package” option. Then, once a package is in JorumOpen it fails to display the structure correctly. The JorumOpen development team are working on this issue but given the timescale and publicity surrounding the OER projects, you might have thought this would be fixed earlier. If we migrate content from Blackboard to our Hive repository, the structure doesn’t come with it, so you end up with a bag of bits and have to recreate the structure by hand. Then, when you’ve finished knitting your content package, you need to pay for Icodeon (or some other viewer) to allow users to view it properly, i.e. package preview is not part of the repository feature set.

I suspect another factor that might affect the OER projects use (or not) of packaging is that often repositories are not learning content repositories (i.e. no integration with VLEs) and management of the repository sits naturally with library staff whose background is more cataloguing/Dublin Core/archiving rather than VLE integration/LOM/’live’ content. In that context, content packaging might not appear on the radar. We’ve certainly had that experience implementing our repository.

We see content packages as an integral part of managing and diversifying the delivery of our learning content. If we use a content package to capture course structure based on learning content in our repository we can deliver the same course via moodle, blackboard, standalone and other platforms. It’s not just about delivery, though. The content package provides useful information about the learning context in which the individual bits are used. The key issue is that end users need to be able to easily create, find, view and reuse packages (or their component parts), and that’s currently not up to scratch.

On a more positive note, I think the Icodeon Common Cartridge Platform Warwick demonstrated looks very good (shame it’s not available yet) and Giunti are pushing their Packager tool (package-based content authoring) so there are some packaging activities afoot.

]]> Comment on PRODing around Curriculum Design - what happened to content packaging? by Sheilamacneill http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/2010/03/09/proding-around-curriculum-design-what-happened-to-content-packaging/comment-page-1/#comment-86732 Sheilamacneill Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:12:06 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/?p=363#comment-86732 Hi David thanks for you thoughts. good points! S Hi David

thanks for you thoughts. good points!

S

]]> Comment on PRODing around Curriculum Design - what happened to content packaging? by David Davies http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/2010/03/09/proding-around-curriculum-design-what-happened-to-content-packaging/comment-page-1/#comment-86730 David Davies Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:39:39 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/?p=363#comment-86730 I think that content interoperability within VLEs - at least in terms of the space occupied by educational technology standards and specifications typified by IMS etc - was only ever a side branch of evolution. Perhaps like a lot of technical specifications around educational technology generally. Two driving forces that seem to be behind some of this, not the only forces for sure, are people interested in technical specifications because there are interesting problems to work with, researchers & developers for example, and commercial publishers of content. There's nothing wrong with either of these, but none are doing what they do primarily because most teachers have declared problems that need to be solved by these activities. You don't need content packaging for example to be able to share most content. The OER projects are working with what actually gets shared between one teacher and another, rather than what could be shared between one VLE and another. It also probably didn't help that there were never any easy to use readily available content packaging tools. But since when did an educational technology specification like CP ever come after a period of tools development and use by teachers and their students who had identified problems they had in their teaching and learning? Anyway, IMS common cartridge won't make that mistake. Oh, wait... I think that content interoperability within VLEs - at least in terms of the space occupied by educational technology standards and specifications typified by IMS etc - was only ever a side branch of evolution. Perhaps like a lot of technical specifications around educational technology generally. Two driving forces that seem to be behind some of this, not the only forces for sure, are people interested in technical specifications because there are interesting problems to work with, researchers & developers for example, and commercial publishers of content. There’s nothing wrong with either of these, but none are doing what they do primarily because most teachers have declared problems that need to be solved by these activities.

You don’t need content packaging for example to be able to share most content. The OER projects are working with what actually gets shared between one teacher and another, rather than what could be shared between one VLE and another. It also probably didn’t help that there were never any easy to use readily available content packaging tools. But since when did an educational technology specification like CP ever come after a period of tools development and use by teachers and their students who had identified problems they had in their teaching and learning? Anyway, IMS common cartridge won’t make that mistake. Oh, wait…

]]> Comment on 2nd Linked Data Meetup London by inkdroid › a middle way for linked data at the bbc http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/2010/02/26/2nd-linked-data-meetup-london/comment-page-1/#comment-86455 inkdroid › a middle way for linked data at the bbc Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:12:24 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/?p=372#comment-86455 [...] a good summary/discussion of the event…and they have: thanks Pete Johnston, Ben Summers, Sheila Macneill, Martin Belam and Frankie [...] [...] a good summary/discussion of the event…and they have: thanks Pete Johnston, Ben Summers, Sheila Macneill, Martin Belam and Frankie [...]

]]> Comment on Design Bash 09 by Sheila’s work blog » Sharing great ideas - LAMS 2010 Conference and Design Bash http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/2009/07/09/design-bash-09/comment-page-1/#comment-85971 Sheila’s work blog » Sharing great ideas - LAMS 2010 Conference and Design Bash Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:26:38 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/?p=199#comment-85971 [...] For more of an insight into the design bash an overview of last year’s event is available here and you can also explore the cloudscape of the day including designs and related [...] [...] For more of an insight into the design bash an overview of last year’s event is available here and you can also explore the cloudscape of the day including designs and related [...]

]]> Comment on Blackboard moving towards IMS standards integration by Tamon http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/2010/02/11/blackboard-moving-towards-ims-standards-integration/comment-page-1/#comment-85955 Tamon Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:28:22 +0000 http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/sheilamacneill/?p=364#comment-85955 Thanks for the article, very helpful. I will study it. Thanks for the article, very helpful. I will study it.

]]>