Hi Wayne,
What I'm suggesting by the “lowest common denominator” comment is that rich media and interactivities commonly associated with LMSs can be over-looked in the desire to keep perceived barriers to the content as low as possible. In terms of reusability it is fair to say there are shades of openness as more complex learning objects will require more technical knowledge for reuse. That is not a comment on quality per se, more a comment that engaging use of MM or interactivities can be overlooked and that can lead to less engaging outcomes. That tension can be alleviated by standardising on open formats (e.g. XML) for source materials but like open source, I still see the need for skilled artesans for good eLearning experiences to be developed on top of that - it's asking a lot from the learner otherwise. Polansi (2003) suggests that an ideal situation would be to develop several interface and stylistic environments that are user-controlled, which would enable the user to choose the most suitable form of interacting with and exploring the knowledge. That still requires initial creation which can be complex hence shades of openness. In eLearning to me, there's a spectrum between technology and content - we operate at that nexus. PLEs, wikis, ePortfolios and multi-user virtual environments like Second Life make it possible to move in Polansi's direction to some degree but I'm also of the view that even if architectural drawings were open content I still might like to hire a builder - the lowest common denominator approach won't meet all needs.
Sorry, probably haven't answered this that clearly. Got to go, I'm cooking dinner!
cheers, Richard
- 821 reads
