Long-Term Retention & Reuse of
E-Learning Objects and Materials
Dr Roger Rist
Director ICBL
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh
Team of ICBL and AHDS
Institute for Computer Based Learning
Roger Rist
Ed Barker
Colin Milligan
Arts and Humanities Data Service
Hamish James
Gareth Knight
Malcolm Polfreman
JISC Requirement
The Joint Information Systems Committee
(JISC) commissioned this study on longterm retention and re-use for e-Learning
Objects and Materials.
Part of the implementation of the JISC
Continuing Access and Digital Preservation
Strategy 2002-5 and its support for elearning programmes.
ICT for Learning
There is growing recognition that
Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) has a considerable
amount to offer as a tool to support many
areas of learning and teaching from its
administration, through to face-to-face or
remote delivery.
E-Learning
The perceived potential of ICT to help
colleges and universities address the
challenges presented by increased
student numbers, new student
demographics and widening participation
has brought the concept of ‘E-Learning’ to
the fore.
Still in early stages
E-Learning is at an early phase of
evolution and current research
and development is focussed on the
creation of materials and implementation
and inter-operability of current systems.
Study Aims
Complementary to JORUM
Focusing on:
Creation and use of useful e-learning
materials
Infrastructure for long-term management of
e-learning materials
Digital preservation issues with e-learning
materials
Intended Audience
Study on three major levels
Findings and recommendations for three
constituencies:
JISC as a central agency within UK HE/FE
Individual HE/FE institutions
Individual teachers and staff
Creation and Reuse
Why no large banks of E-Learning resources?
New and experimental – a lot of hype, plus
some substance
Development has been driven by technology,
not pedagogy
Technology itself is evolving
E-Learning is not yet commonly accepted by FE
& HE staff
Still the domain of a small number of early adopters
History
Since 1990 many “Learning Technology”
initiatives e.g. CTI, TLTP, Use of MANs,
5/99, ...
Little evidence that outputs of UK projects
have been retained and reused on a
significant level to date
Some Long-Lived Projects
Developed with clear short term advantages
SCRAN, COLEG, EUROMET
What these projects have in common:
Focus on distinct market areas
Responsive to end users
Clear and specific aims about what sort of materials
they are accepting/producing
Emphasis on quality and evaluation of outputs
Avoid reliance on external websites or other
resources
Long-Term Implications
Custodianship
Coherent funding strategies
Who assesses quality, how is quality
assessed
Maintaining pedagogical relevance
Other sustainability and preservation
activities
Current Developments
Focus is on development of interoperable
repository infrastructure to support elearning:
Development of standards for E-Learning
Repository Projects are being set up: HLSI,
JORUM, institutional repositories, NLN etc
VLE use is increasing
Repositories to manage learning objects
A Learning Object is
“an aggregation of one or more digital
assets incorporating metadata which
constitute an educationally meaningful
stand-alone unit”, Dalziel
Defined here as “any resource that can be
used to facilitate learning and teaching
and has been described using metadata”,
JORUM
E-Learning Objects
are Learning Objects comprised of digital
resources
Reusability = the aim to reduce
duplication of effort and improve quality
Factors Affecting
Reusability
Granularity
Technical dependency
Content dependency
Granularity
If a LO is too large or conceptually complex it
may be difficult to reuse in different contexts.
Increasing Flexibility
0% granular
100% aggregated
(i.e. whole courses)
Optimal
Granularity
100% granular
0% aggregated
(raw digital content)
Increasing Eductional Value
Technical and Content
dependency
Technical dependency: is the LO technically
dependent on other resources? E.g. HTML
linked in a linear navigation sequence,
interactive content with server side scripts.
Content dependency: does the content of the
LO reference other related, but external,
resources? E.g. a glossary or the next module in
a sequence.
‘-abilities’
Interoperability
Re-usability
Manageability
Accessibility
Durability
Scalability
Affordability
Technical Considerations
Learning objects may contain any type of
content
Wide range of preservation problems, and
potential solutions
Need more connections between digital
preservation work and e-learning work
Repositories and Learning
Objects
Facilitate movement of resources
Allow cross searching
Support long term retention of materials,
packaged as learning objects
Be able to cater for the varying different
end user groups in FE and HE
Interoperability with institutional VLE
Model
Resource
Creator/
Modifier
'updates'
resource
make resource
available
'updates'
resource
Data Storage
delivers
make resource
available
Discovery
System
Delivery
System
queries
harvests
alerts
Preservation
Services
Data Storage
delivers
Resource
User
Key Elements
E-Learning coordination
Institutions
National/regional/consortia?
Multiple implementations
National archival repository
Institutional + other types of repository
Current Work
IPR
Pedagogy for e-learning
Social and practical issues
May be implemented through metadata
attached to e-learning objects
IPR
Institutions recognise value of learning materials
and will want to control access
Individuals want rewards
Need to allow for variety of IPR scenarios e.g.
sharing, buying etc
Need clarity and simplicity for end user
Needs to be considered at creation and publishing
phase
Needs to be retained in the long term
Pedagogy
Learning Object Theory
Granularity, disaggregation/ reaggregation
Brick and Mortar analogy
Dangerous to enforce pedagogy
Experimentation necessary for different
purposes (especially for face to face teaching)
Future: Quality Assurance
Users want quality assurance
A ‘publishing’ process is needed
Peer review
Establishment of rights
Standardised quality mark?
Summary of Requirements
Creation of E-Learning objects needs to
be focussed on requirements of end-users
Encourage uptake of E-Learning objects
Plan and build a sustainable infrastructure
for discovery, delivery and management of
E-Learning objects
Recommendations: End
Users
More awareness of the limitations of e-learning
resources and this may mean large-scale enduser studies that start from a non-technical
perspective before looking at how technology
can help.
Work has been done into looking at reusing
resources for distance learning by the Open
University.
Research still needed into the practicalities of
reusing learning materials in Face-To-Face
situations.
Recommendations: Uptake
Studies into how end users make use of existing
e-learning objects
Efficient methods of resource discovery must be
established
Development and promotion of portals
Adoption of standards for descriptive metadata
Improved communication between end-users
and resource creators.
Recommendations:
Infrastructure
Greater communication between elearning activities and digital preservation
activities.
Support for a distributed network of
repositories.
Contact
Dr Roger Rist
Institute for Computer Based Learning
Heriot-Watt University
roger@icbl.hw.ac.uk
Report on JISC website:
www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=program
me_preservation