http://fm.ea-tel.eu/flashmedia/flashmeeting/fm1188_9d8ae2-1188 http://fm.ea-tel.eu/fm/memo.php?pwd=9d8ae2-1188 http://fm.ea-tel.eu/public lomi prolearn 0:28:0 32:118:0 125:4196:0 0:546:1 547:617:0 618:3709:1 2:4431:0 2:188:0 202:4191:0 36:4175:0 69:4489:0 85:4202:0 192:1851:0 1865:4173:0 196:245:0 277:321:0 326:3942:0 218:229:0 232:4424:0 348:4188:0 1042:1054:0 1079:1978:0 1986:1992:0 1998:2035:0 2042:2054:0 2064:2210:0 2223:2429:0 2435:3373:0 3379:4471:0 4719:4796:1 4797:4828:0 4829:4831:1 4872:4955:0 4999:5049:0 5084:5340:0 Marie, I only hear noise from you It's the same for me Marie - only noise! Static noise for me in New Brunswick Canada. Sorry, I only heard the last few words. But sound is working now from you. Yes. Hello, I'm Toni Roberts from Mount Allison University in New Brunswick Canada (sorry I don't have a mic with me). I also don't have a camera. There is a great amount of criticism around structuralism, named aptly poststructuralism. The major critcism revolves around the lack of integration around issues of power into structuralist theory. Pierce's theory's revolve around some very rigid notions of categories he identified something like 50,000 categories of signs. Similar to Kant who had about 13 categories of knowledge, Pierce seems to expand on this. Although Pierece applied his theory to art and saw it as very broad, it seems to implicate a positivist approach. He also made no distinction between information and knowledge. I think this is a major problem as for me these are quite distinct. Hello, I'm Duy-Cu NGUYEN from European schoolnet. I don't have a Mic and Camera with me so I join to listen only. Thank you. If not distinction is made, would computers be the smartest things around? If no distinction I agree with Jehad in that the only value is this paper seems to come from the fact that a learning context needs to be attached to a learning object. Does anyone think that there is a definitive difference between information and knowledge? Toni - So you think there is no value in the process Polsani proposes? speaking semiotics: information = (sign+interpretant's interpretation mechanisms) knowledge = can become signs (issuing another semiosis) Hi Andrew. I do like the idea that context is necessary for a learning object and also the discussion re level of reuseability is definitely important, but none of this is new to me. Some people claim that the "market" will define is learning objects are used, i.e., those learning objects that are useful will be used and those that are not will not be produced. The "market" will define how learning objects are produced. "market" will define if learning objects I agree with you Toni The same as books The books that are best-sellers re-edit... the others disappear Yes. Seems that way. :) or server niche market Do any of you see RDF as being able to provide the context and help support reuse? A related remark used by Wayne Hodgins: A half of the books bought at Amazon cannot be found in the traditional bookstores as there is not enough demand for them. Hi Marie, some people have made that claim re RDF. I think that it may help provide context. The IEEE LOM definition is not practically useful. If everything is a LO, according to the IEEE, definition, then in a sense how do we identify them? Thanks Toni. I've been pondering your earlier question about information versus knowledge Opps, the IEEE definition, not IEEE LOM definition. and while I am not aware of a definitive difference, I would say the the difference is related to the context/interpretation (as Polsani and several others have tried to articulate) It may be simplistic, but for me, knowledge is like bits of information that you can store in a book, on a hard drive, etc. while knowledge has more to do with the sythesis of this information. agreed! i have trouble with copypasting... just a moment... Xavier, what do you mean by anything that has information about itself? How about a washing machine? Is it a LO? but providing a definitive difference is still problematic, for example the Galileo picture, for the object to exist there had to be knowledge If you can use in a learning enviroment it is Just imagine a washing machine repair course Then it isn't everything. The IEEE definition is very broad and is anything digital and non-digital. For me, to be practical, a LO is digital. http://flosse.dicole.org/ I would clarify Xavier's statement and say it is useful for a learner in a learning context thanks, that is more precise Yes, but is my washing machine in my house that no one can see or access and is non-digital a learning object? of course not, because you do not use it in a learning context the class "washing machines" is not a learning object Yes, that's all I am getting at, i.e., the learning context. the washing machine in the washing machine repair course is is the object, not the class agreed with Xavier, but if it were providing a learning exp. (you take it apart and put it back together again) then yes it is a learning object, even though it isn't "reused" or digital (but it isn't particulaly useful to other learners) Sure, my point is simply that everything is not a learning object but has the potential to be a learning object. I think we all agree. :) Just saying it differently. Learning Atom can be helpful too. I hope we can talk about it next week. I mean, next meeting rather than next week. or learning sign ;) however, we do not want to (and cannot) coin a new notion. I like the term ;) Let's create a new field :) I think we might be able to coin a new term, although it isn't actually new to be honest and I can't claim that I came up with that term. Ditto, I like the term, and it's relationship to OOP I like it too, it is more "reactive", i.e., atoms react with things in different ways. And I have a chemistry background, so maybe that's why. I think perhaps it is just that sometimes we need to be reminded of some of these issues. ok - that is a valid point, Toni, but doesn't sound like a naked emperor to me :) I have a background in critical pedagogy from OISE for example, and when I first became involved in this field, there were very few educators involved. Many years ago, I jokingly told a colleague that one day we would have a 'periodic table' for learning objects. Since then, I have come to the conclusion that we won't have that. I think we are moving more toward the realm of OOP, i.e. you have objects that are very reusable and thus in libraries, and you have many more new, customized objects that we as instructional technologists, designers, developers, etc. are responsible for creating. The field has taken a decidedly technical direction. I think that this field is missing designers... Yes, I agree Hans. Thanks Andrew! In the near future, David Wiley and I will be posting a call for papers related to Learning Objects and Pedagogy to be published in Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning. http://www.oldcitypublishing.com/TICL/TICL.html Marie: can you send me a copy: fridolin.wild@wu-wien.ac.at ? Fridolin, as soon as we have a final draft of the call, I will send you a copy. Hi Marie, I wouldn't mind either if you could include me in or point me to your posting when it beomes available aroberts@nbnet.nb.ca just read about it is it in the field of LT or LO? email address to send it? erik.duval@cs.kuleuven.ac.be Hi Erik, no just couldn't find my mic (I just moved). bye! Ok, Thanks ALL Thanks! Bye and thanks!