Presentation on theme: "Libraries and the Enchantment of E-learning: Report from an OCLC sponsored Task Force Lorcan Dempsey JISC/CNI Conference, Brighton 8/9 June 2004."— Presentation transcript:
Libraries and the Enchantment of E-learning: Report from an OCLC sponsored Task Force Lorcan Dempsey JISC/CNI Conference, Brighton 8/9 June 2004
Libraries and the Enhancement of E-learning: Report from an OCLC sponsored Task Force Lorcan Dempsey JISC/CNI Conference, Brighton 8/9 June 2004
Background on Task Force Why? –Elearning an influential force –A question for libraries Composition –Diverse, geographically, functionally, demographically Charge –To explore issues of interaction of the academic library and e-learning and what role OCLC might play in this arena Timeframe -spring to fall, 2003
Task Force Patricia Albenese (Chair) Bradley F Baker David Cohen Lorcan Dempsey Susan L Henderson Jennifer Jopling Paul C. LePore Prepared and edited by: Neil McLean Heidi Sander John MacColl Richard Madaus Edward Meachen Susan Metros Scott Siddall Greg Siering Pat Stevens Karen Williams Also distributed to a diverse review group
An influential force …. New learning and teaching behaviors A new context for systems and services –Course management system –Learning objects –Content packages –E-portfolio Organizational flexing –Technology –Service Under construction Increase in number of courses which use course management systems 20002002 Change Carnegie Mellon University* 150567378% Denison University* 25150600% [i][i] * Information Technology and Libraries, June 2003 (p. 80). * personal communication, Scott Siddal
A question for libraries CMSs also provide a collaborative workplace for students to work with each other. … When strategically placed, courseware environments provide a logical place for information and knowledge to be created, accessed and used. Students find that CMSs meet many of their information needs and tend to use them as a kind of primary gateway. Currently, vendors market course management systems to academic information technology units or to individual faculty departments. Typically, libraries are left our of the decision-making and implementation processes. This means that libraries have the challenge of deploying their services in a new learning environment using a technology outside of their control. Money follows perception of value?
The words of things entangle and confuse … E-learning Learning Object Courseware Management Systems/learning management systems/VLEs Repositories –Content management systems –Learning object repositories –Digital asset management systems –Preservation? Different traditions, legacies, world-views,...
Some important differences Libraries Elearning An object view An assetAn asset with pedagogical context A process view Highly routinized and high-volume An organization view Established Stability inertia Under construction within broader realignments Think of metadata models Under construction Diffused responsibilities
Learning objects … Dominates debate Shared view? Ongoing metadata discussion Life-cycle view also emerging, leading to.. organizational management questions. Picture courtesy Dan Rehak, Carnegie Mellon University
Metadata and repositories Different conceptions of repository –Objects –Interfaces –Presumption of preservation? Responsibilities diffused –Creation –Rights –Management –Discovery and disclosure Shared metadata and controlled vobularies With careful consideration, libraries need to reposition themselves to be viewed by the academic community that they serve as managers and overseers of the repository space. It was clear from the responses to the Task Force member survey that preservation and reusability of learning content are essential requirements in repository management, yet libraries were rarely involved in meeting this management challenge.
Technical infrastructure Is anybody responsible for institutional applications architecture? Applications and shared services Secure provisioning over time … Task Force members noted that libraries and IT organizations often seem to have very different perceived philosophies for advanced technical infrastructure.
Standards Significant recent activities in elearning space –IMS Imperfect points of contact and comparison between digital library and e-learning work –Metadata –Search protocols –Content packaging Increases costs of institutional adoption? Alt-i-lab
The institutional context The Task Force agreed unequivocally that the faculty, the library, and the IT and instructional design departments need to collaborate in developing sustainable and seamless infrastructure. … very few institutions have systemically attained such a coherent strategic approach, principally because there is no common shared language on which to build strategic initiatives. Most institutional stakeholders still function within their particular views of the world and no consistent pattern of partnership can yet be detected to sustain successful e-learning environments. …. Almost invariably there is no common view of the e-learning infrastructure and its associated problems or issues … Does the MLE provide a common view in the UK?
Organizational structures again Organizational convergence is not the same as convergence around a shared mission Unformed geographies Pedagogy, research, and learning