I remember an IMS conference in Texas, at which one delegate said that what we needed was the verbs of learning, not just the nouns. I think he was saying the same thing that I am saying here: we need the activities, not just the information. When we look to data standards, that means we should not just be talking about file formats or insisting that all data is open. The ability to use proprietary data formats to protect your rights in innovative types of software encourages people to invest in the difficult and risky process of developing those new types of instructional software.
And we really need that investment. We should not think that open standards are incompatible with proprietary technologies. Quite the contrary. We live in a digital world in which we are used to plugging proprietary technologies together. We plug our iPods into our amplifiers and headphones, just as we have plugged our toasters into the electricity supply for fifty years.
In , I did some work for Becta, conducting a survey of 18 leading publishers supplying learning content to UK schools. I asked them to prioritize a range of requirements for interoperability—and the results are shown on this graph.
At the top of their priorities came a group of requirements which, in the SCORM tradition, would be referred to as run-time data: reporting scores to a common mark-book, saving state, managing authorization i. All these are types of interoperability which allow individual suppliers to develop innovative, activity-driven software, unconstrained by any common file format—yet at the same time to plug-in to common services and exchange data.
All these common file formats focus on either expositive media or in the case of QTI encode activity in a way which limits further innovation. Unlike the flat grass, which is how I pictured our current ecosystem, we need rich, activity-driven ecosystem, with many nested and interlinked infrastructures, and many different types of content. This is a complex ecosystem which is going to be created by innovators. For both reasons it cannot be described by standards. What the standards community ought to be doing is trying to find the abstract principles which will allow such an ecosystem to grow.
Fractal theory has shown that much of the complexity of nature is based on relatively simple mathematical formulas. We should be looking for the same kind of simple, enabling principles.
In order to find those principles, we need to have some idea of the range of content that will be contained within the ecosystem. But It will also contain the activities which will use those media in educationally productive ways creative tools, assessment, communication, games. It will contain the services which will deliver those activities apps, widgets, web-services, tools, hardware drivers. It will contain the learning objectives which define the purposes for which those activities will be used in a formal, educational context abilities, competencies, aptitudes, curricula.
It will contain the metadata which will describe not just the bibliographic information such as rights and coverage , but also the technically-precise behaviors, and the subjective opinions of different user communities about how good something is and how it is best used. It will contain different types of aggregation which will orchestrate the services, sequence the activities, and lay-out or organize the media resources.
It will contain the management data what in SCORM was called runtime data , which will track activity and outcomes grades, authentication, interactions data, reflections and comments, creative product. And it will contain the information required to manage proprietary technology appropriately: file associations which link particular types of data with their corresponding players, viewers, plug-ins or editors.
These eight different types of content will all be defined by other people—not by the formal standards community. But I believe that there is a ninth type of content which does need to be defined by the standards community. In order to explain what that ninth form of content should be, I want to run through some of the basic types of interaction which are going to occur in the ecosystem; an ecosystem which is populated by services the verbs and data objects the nouns.
Data objects cannot actively discover each other but they can be aware of each other that awareness given them at the time of authoring …. All of these interactions require that all participants can understand the metadata. In the past, we have achieved this understanding by creating standard data specifications. Anyone wanting to read the metadata just has to look up the meaning of particular terms in a standardized set of definitions. Where one specification is not enough, specifications are grouped together into reference models, like SCORM, or families of specifications produced by a single organization.
The trouble with these standardized data models is that they are rigid and brittle. They are difficult to change and if you try, more often than not they break. As soon as a standard specification achieves traction in the market which is what we are aiming for then it becomes very difficult to introduce changes.
What matters in a standard is not quality or fitness-for-purpose but currency. Wheels are meant to turn—this represents iterative innovation and development—but the spanner stops this happening.
If education technology is to be used to transform education, then it requires innovation. And innovation requires interoperability because no-one can do it all; because innovation is often driven by small niche companies; and because at the same time, education is a continuous and interlinked process in which individual activities and services have to play their part in a single, integrated environment.
And interoperability requires some sort of common understanding, which has normally been encoded within a standard. But as soon as you fix that understanding in a standard, further innovation is blocked. The solution is not to standardize the data model but to create the standards perhaps we could call them meta-standards to allow for the flexible specification of data models. You're quite easily contented, aren't you? My explanation seemed to content him.
Causing pleasure. Phrasal verb content yourself with sth. Skating this year with a sprained ankle , he said he was content just to make the Olympic team. Our dog leads a happy and contented life. Her greatest happiness and contentment was found in being a devoted wife , mother , and grandmother. We had to content ourselves with watching the sea lions from the shore.
This type of milk has a lower fat content. A spokesman has refused to disclose the contents of the shipment. Her parents ' home contents insurance policy covered her for the loss of the phone.
New guidelines cover the content of advertising for children. Our description of the contents of the report was completely accurate. The next generation of DVDs will have to provide more content.
If you want to make money from online advertising , you need content. The trade agreement stipulated that a certain percentage of the content of the manufactured goods should be obtained locally. The Supreme Court ruled that a beer's alcohol content can be noted on the label. This research dramatically illustrates that the food industry can produce food with much lower salt content.
See also local content. Examples of content. Since streams were live, the content was timely. From Fast Company. I think the potential for content is really cool. From CNET. This is very noticeable on specific types of content like movie credits or star fields but generally local dimming works really well.
And because the fruit is more concentrated, so is the sugar content. From CNN. And the water content can help you stay hydrated. The company has a reputation for playing hardball with the content companies whose work it licenses. From TIME. Music was downloaded more than any other type of content. From Billboard. We're interested in how people take action on stories, co-creating content with us. From Huffington Post. There are numerous examples of how content created by brands can perform well against content from journalistic organizations.
As here the term content often refers to the digital web content. Christina Halvorson in her article about the content strategy refers to the term in a very generic sense: the web is content and content is the web. Information or an idea that means something to a person in a specific time and place. Digital Content viewed narrowly, includes texts, images, sounds or anything that is published via digital media and can be consumed directly by the user.
However, in a broader sense , any type of content that exists in the form of digital data can be considered as content. According to the latter definition, even a like or dislike on a published post in the social media can be considered as user generated content.
0コメント