Abstract

When introducing the metadata standard LOM, objectives such as the ability to find or to reuse learning objects were followed. These objectives are actually achieved in LOM only to a limited degree, despite the designation as de-facto standard for description of electronic learning content: Based on the complexity of the standard a high theoretical potential faces rejection in practice. One reason for this is that the process of metadata generation - for example, who creates which metadata attributes - is not defined in detail yet. This paper illustrates an approach which guarantees a high quantity as well as a high quality of learning object metadata records bringing together known ways of metadata creation and the new paradigm of users describing content as implemented in recent Web 2.0 applications. In the context of a concrete e-learning platform we exemplarily define who creates which metadata records of LOM in which way at what time.

Social Networks

Introduction

Electronic learning, in particular in the form of Blended Learning, is applied by a rapidly increasing number of universities and companies. Realizing the concept of learning objects (Wiley, 2002) the ability to find and reuse content is generally based on the use of metadata. Due to its wide dissemination IEEE LOM (http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/20020612-Final-LOM-Draft.html) can be considered as de-facto standard: With more than 40 attributes, subdivided into 9 main categories, a broad description of learning objects is enabled. Metadata is collected and stored in a central place, making content available for potential users. In this way transparency of existing e-learning content and its integration within varying context is enabled. While the great number of attributes enables a detailed description of learning objects, in practice a comprehensive usage of these is rare. Studies show that common attributes like title or format are filled quite often, while fields like difficulty or structure of learning object receive only little attention. As long as metadata is only used in a single context respectively in a single system, a reduction of the attribute amount might even be reasonable, as the focus can be set regarding the specific end user; by doing so, complexity is decreased and usability increased (Or-Bach, 30).

Problems arise if repositories communicate and interact with each other, for example when querying distributed e-learning catalogues: While on the one side metadata records might be considered as crucial and obligatory, the same attributes might never be used on the other side as they are only optional. With a small intersection of filled IADIS International Conference e-Learning 2007 107 metadata records the primary objectives like finding and reusing learning objects become impossible to achievable. Furthermore, if metadata is created the way it is mostly today a high risk for superficial records arises when a single person tries to fill as many metadata fields as possible: In result a high quantity might face a low quality. In order to enable cross-system finding and cross-system reusability of learning objects, a high quantity along with a high quality of metadata must be guaranteed, which actually seldom is the ...