Are the modules going to be only text based or do we have scope for multimedia components like flash animations, video clips and simulations embedded in the text?
Question posed by Uma Kanjilal, IGNOU
These are my thoughts. Modules will be developed on WikiEducator. This will largely be text based, with images, instructional devices etc - very much like the WikiEducator Newbie tutorials. This will facilitate easy production of print-based study guides, especially once we have the wiki to pdf feature completed (which is scheduled for 30 June 2007 if all goes to plan). That said, the nature of the subject content will necessitate multimedia components, for example:
- Screen movies to demonstrate how a feature works - see for example this screen movie which is a flash object. It is relatively easy to include flash objects in WikiEducator, and where possible I'd like us to include the source files that were used (eg. fla) to create the movies.
- We also have the capability to display movies if they're encoded in .flv format.
- We can also include MP3 audio clips like this one.
So I hope that there will be appropriate integration of multimedia components. We will need to think about how we will distribute these with print-based resources. Easily done on CDROM - so part of the design will need to think about how we reference these in the text resources. --Mackiwg 05:43, 16 February 2007 (CET)
I agree with Wayne, the nature of the subject lends itself to multimedia, especially short flash movies. For those who don't want to use Flash to create such objects, I have found Camtasia to be quick and easy to use. I also agree that in the spirit of open source, we should include links to the original files so that othes can build on whatever we have created.
--stewartmar 09:05, 16 February 2007 (Atlantic time)
I think this model can work pretty much like the Open Educational Resources NZ project:
- Develop initial design concept maps, text /media storyboards, technical specifications
Script the text (which we would do here in wikieducator)
- Create the multimedia elements (Note that for accessibility we should provide the learner with a text equivalent)
- Provide the 'packages' in final rendered output as units of learning and as source files
Note: We have created a showcase example of the course in Moodle for the NZ project, but as described above, we package so that users of any LMS can take them and re-create in another LMS, or as Wayne indicated, the resources can be utilised or distributed in another manner.
(Sue 06:50, 18 February 2007 (CET))
- Sue, can you provide us with a link to view the materials in the NZ project? This is an exemplary project and it would be good for us to see what how we can build on the successes you have achieved with this project. My concern is that we cannot package the resources within any predetermined LMS. The CCNC must be LMS independent. For two reasons (1) There are at least 3 Commonwealth Open Source LMSs - Moodle (Australia), Kewl (S. Africa) and Atutor (Canada) - not to mention the proprietary LMS systems and numerous home-grown systems. I feel that we should focus on the W3C html standards and leave the LMS packaging to individual institutions. IMS/SCORM packaging is an option, but I've not yet to see an elegant and user friendly implementation of these specifications. (2) I have my doubts about the longevity of LMSs - particularly given recent developments with personalised learning environments, Web 2.0 technologies and educational refinements in the pipe line for wiki technology ;-). --Mackiwg 07:12, 18 February 2007 (CET)
- We are still in final packaging mode at the moment, so while I could give a link to the showcase where one of the courses is live, it won't give you a view of the packaging aspects. We only use Moodle as a site where potential users of the 'course content' can see an example course put together in an LMS. We are still developing and packaging so that users can take the elements (objects) and re-use them in a variety of ways - independent of platform. The reason we develop a showcase example is because we find tutors who have never used online learning before need to visualise the course first (and we provide a tutor guide to make suggestions about local customisation or alternative uses). Educators then have the choice to take the source and re-create using a different mode, or even take some of the media elements and create their own online/multimedia version. Moodle is used for the showcase, Reload for the packaging + metadata and then moving the objects onto a Fez/Fedora repository.(Sue 02:24, 20 February 2007 (CET))
- Thanks Sue, I saw much earlier versions of this project. It's a very impressive project, with solid pedagogy. You make a good point about show casing the materials in a LMS. The source materials for the CCNC needs to be the wiki - I'd prefer to avoid using reload and prefer to use a static HTML version for referencing from multiple LMSs. Moodle is an excellent LMS - but it presumes a pedagogical approach that is difficult to replicate in other LMSs. Therefore I would recommend that the bulk of the learning content is packaged in the W3C standard <smile>. Then if folk want to recreate using a different mode - then we start from a de-fact standard. This will make more sense once we develop a sample set of resources --Mackiwg 07:06, 20 February 2007 (CET)
Level and type of interactivity to be embedded? Is it finally going to be integrated with a LMS?
Question posed by Uma Kanjilal, IGNOU
I envisage that we will need to think about multiple delivery formats - for example:
- Print-based study guide with CDROMs for multi-media and software. Many students will not have 24/7 access to the Internet. However, I do think that limited online activity through discussion would be beneficial.
- A self-contained web site which could be run locally for students who don't have connectivity - distributed on CDROM. These will be packaged using eXe
- An LMS version - Rather than use SCORM/IMS packaging - I think that its better for the LMS to reference the self-contained web site materials mentioned in the previous bullet.
The issue here is that we cannot prescribe the LMS because different institutions use different LMS technologies - therefore if the bulk of the learning resources are in HTML we avoid a range of interoperability problems. --Mackiwg 05:43, 16 February 2007 (CET)
This sounds good to me. I can't comment on the packaging using eXe though 'coz I haven't used it.
--stewartmar 09:15, 16 February 2007 (Atlantic time)
- I think the ideal output is source content which can be output in a variety of ways. We provide the base, which can be in HTML (and include any media files created using flash etc) and then provide the flexibility for the end user to package it in ways that will meet local needs. (Sue 06:55, 18 February 2007 (CET))
- As indicate above, the source content should be in Wikiformat. We have a project which is working on converting MW format into multiple target formats - see Wiki to pdf project. Once the content is quality approved by the development, packing into a static website is a relatively simple process. We will provide .elp source files that will enable users to reconfigure with ease.
Is the template ready?
Question posed by Uma Kanjilal, IGNOU
No, the learning design template is not ready yet. Completion of the learning design template is scheduled for 15 March 2007 according to our project schedule. The idea is for us to collaborate and develop a shared understanding of the template with the OPNZ. These questions are an excellent contribution to moving this forward. Thanks --Mackiwg 05:47, 16 February 2007 (CET)
What standards are to be followed for content packaging? Are we also required to provide metadata?
Question posed by Uma Kanjilal, IGNOU
As indicated above, I recommend that we develop self contained websites using eXe. This is adavantages because:
- We can provide the source .elp files which would make it easy for institutions to modify and adapt the materials for their own context.
- eXe can export the content as a self contained web site as indicated above.
- eXe can export the content as an IMS/SCORM content package - so providing access to the source .elp files it would be easy to package for this format
- On metadata - I think we should keep this as simple as possible, my recommendation would be Dublin Core. --Mackiwg 05:53, 16 February 2007 (CET)
I think we can provide the 'source' text - which in this case would should be in wikieducator too. (I think we need a discussion as to whether to provide any other source content developed outside of these tools too).
Metadata - I can share what we arrived at for the Open Educational Resources NZ project. We have looked across what is happening internationally on this and come up with a simplified schema based on the IEEE LOM. We are using Reload to create this. (Sue 06:58, 18 February 2007 (CET))
What will be the maximum size of the module?
Question posed by Uma Kanjilal, IGNOU
I don't have an accurate answer to this question in terms of notional student learning hours. We will need to be guided by the ICDL/ECDL curriculum guidelines and base the learner workload on our assessment of the curriculum. OPNZ had set out a framework for this mapping process and we need to get this sorted by the end of the month. So now is a good time to assist with this task. This is being done directly on the wiki. --Mackiwg 06:07, 16 February 2007 (CET)
Any restrictions on file size?
Question posed by Uma Kanjilal, IGNOU
My view on this is that we should not be constrained unnecessarily by file size. As long as it can fit on a CDROM <smile>. That said, we must think about reasonable download size for a broad band connection. Narrow band or dialup connections, we should distribute the rich media resources on CDROM. I believe we should be forward looking and not constrain our pedagogy by a dial-up modem common denominator. --Mackiwg 06:07, 16 February 2007 (CET)
I agree with Wayne. Let's build everything for broadband web delivery, but also with rich media resources on CDROM for those without the requisite connectivity.
--stewartmar 09:35, 16 February 2007 (Atlantic time)
IGNOU would like to nominate developing Modules 1 and 7
Question posed by Uma Kanjilal, IGNOU
We've not taken any decisions about the allocation of modules yet. Ideally I would like us to use a consensus model to arrive at these decisions. I have the following guidelines in mind:
- I'd like to give the first offer to select a Module to the World Campus, Pennsylvania State University. They are financing their participation in this project from their own resources, and I feel that it is fair and reasonable to give them the first option on choosing their preferred module.
- Where possible that we match available expertise and skills at the participating institutions with what the feel they can do best. So I think that a nomination approach should be used as I starting point. Lets see how this goes. If there is duplication then we can think about how best to achieve consensus.
Therefore:
First option:
- World Campus - <enter nomination here>
Second options:
- IGNOU - Module 1 and Module 7 <enter reasons/motivations here>
- UWC - <enter nomination plus reasons/motivations here>
- UWIDEC- <enter nomination plus reasons/motivations here>
- Wawasan OU - <enter nomination plus reasons/motivations here>
We are still looking for another institution to take on one module.
- One of the existing institutions is free to take on an additional module with corresponding modification to the contract for an extra module
- We approach another institution.
Wayne - I believe that this has been answered by your email of 16 February, in which you suggest an allocation of modules.
--stewartmar 09:45, 16 February 2007 (Atlantic time)
- Hi Stewart - the allocation of the modules in my email of 16 Feb was for the curriculum mapping exercise. I still think that its worthwhile for us as a group to collectively chat about the best fit between experience, interest and module allocations for the actual development. That said, folk may be happy with keeping the same modules for their development. The list above is for institutions to nominate their first choices for development with the understanding that we give Penn State first choice. How do folk feel about this? --Mackiwg 22:47, 16 February 2007 (CET)
|
