Skip to content

A stroll through repositories of days gone by

As part of his course on open educational resources, Peter Tittenberger hosted a case study on Collaborative Learning Object Exchange (recording and slides). The contrast in thinking during the learning object repository days vs. thinking on social information creation and management (emerging technologies, social networks, tagging) is remarkable. While it’s obvious in hindsight, I was surprised at the many assumptions made in CLOE (and other repositories) that seemed to ignore how people work with information (creating, sharing, reusing). Imagine filling out a form to post your object, waiting for peer review before inclusion in the repository, then filling out another form to use objects created by others. The process was antagonistic to affordances of technologies. I guess that’s why so many repositories failed…

3 Comments

  1. Alan Levine wrote:

    Hey, I built a repository that did NOT have forms or approval needed for submission or for re-use. And it still was a flop.

    Thursday, July 30, 2009 at 7:27 pm | Permalink
  2. Mike Bogle wrote:

    This just gave me a major flash back – ours didn’t work out to well either. It certainly was an interesting period and I certainly learned a lot about academia, but more along the lines of how NOT to approach a project. There was indeed a sense of systemic ignorance about learning objects and how they were perceived by the wider academic community.

    Oooh the mandatory metadata fields we used to require!

    I did meet Brian Lamb during that period though, so it wasn’t all bad.

    Thursday, July 30, 2009 at 8:26 pm | Permalink
  3. Geoff Cain wrote:

    This is really interesting – would anyone mind if I copied this as a text file to Gopher space? I did a search there on connectivism and couldn’t find anything:
    gopher://hal3000.cx:2347/7?connectivism

    Friday, July 31, 2009 at 9:30 am | Permalink