LeMill learning resourses, methods and tools
I want to continue this investigation of web 2.0 approaches to repositories of learning objects. The LeMill web community is formed around finding, authoring and sharing learning resources. This is a side goals of the JEM thematic network also: to build a community of new authors of educational mathematics content. I find it quite intriguing that the setup of LeMill presupposes to share 3 types of resources which we also have in JEM:
- learning resources in the traditional sense, even described by a LOM fragment
- tools, which is very similar to our JEM Software type
- methods, which is also similar to our wiki pages in the users wiki for which I was considering setting up a new type called Use case. LeMill also has teaching and learning stories, namely descriptions of how some content, methods, and tools have been used together in a single learning event, such as a study course. It is again something for which our users wiki was intended.
Technorati Tags: Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.jem-thematic.net/en/trackback/299
- Olga.Caprotti's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 3670 reads
LeMill really web-2 oriented ?
Olga,
could you feel the web-2.0 orientation of LeMill that is claimed at other places?
At least, this is yet another repository which stores everything. Yet another community... and it's not like it tracks the rest.
paul
Well, for me the feel comes
Well, for me the feel comes from using some web 2.0 technologies such as tags, title clouds, and from building a community of interest - it all looks very similar to flickr or youtube. In the background however, learning resources are still submitted using LOM metadata. Most of the metadata however is derived by the user's profile so as to make it quite simple to register a resource. The overload of having to describe a resource in terms of too much metadata might have been one of the reasons why people tend not to register their material. But you are right, one still need to register a resource and the Mill is not just harvesting the web. Another missing feature is some kind of reviewing process, whether by comments or by ratings or by an editorial board. They do have feeds on the resources, e.g. by tag mathemaatika.
potential ?
How do you see the potential of such an initiative?
paul
I really cannot say. All
I really cannot say. All efforts I have been involved in concerning repositories of some sort (including the registries of mathematical web services, the public CDs, etc) always needed a core group of people devoted to doing exactly that: uploading resources to the repository. I once asked Bernd Wegner about the success of some of the projects which led to big digital libraries (NUMDAM for instance), and he said that people have been hired mainly to compile metadata records for the resources. Clearly one cannot say the same for the success of YouTube - where possibly the main motivation is visibility (is it?). Visibility would be a motivating factor also for LeMill or for a JEM repository however such an activity has to become recognized and academic recognition for providing the most downloaded Calculus course is not yet there. In JEM we are trying: the JEM Quality Committee is steered by Ari Laptev: the President of the European Mathematical Society. It is a start.