1. Knowledge Generation and Exchange in a Distributed Research Project Patrick Carmichael and Richard Procter University of Cambridge Faculty of Education and “Learning how to Learn” http://www.learntolearn.ac.ukhttp://www.learntolearn.ac.uk

2. The Learning how to Learn Project Key features: Project Team of 15-20 in 4 separate institutions Over 40 schools in 6 LEAs Hundreds of teachers, thousands of students Design Experiment involving both Research and Development 17 separate data collection instruments Reflective diaries/logs maintained by key respondents Classroom data including observation schedule data, audio, video, interviews, paper resources Outputs aimed at different audiences Commitment to sustainability and ‘leaving things behind’.

3. Website Developments FromTo Information ProvisionConversation Space Data ManagementMetadata Aggregation Static ContentDynamic Content Metadata used to make resources discoverable Metadata used to ‘model’ knowledge Huge metadata recordsTiny metadata ‘packets’ XMLRDF Project SpecificProject Independent

4. Some other Developments Friesen and Hirhamo, (2003) Survey of LOM Implementations Preliminary Report (ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36 WG4 N0057) –Small proportion of the LOM Elements are used in practice –Use of ‘educational’ metadata elements is not high –Widespread misuse of some metadata elements –Local vocabularies are widely used but not always referenced “Fewer and better-defined elements might be more effective than the range of choice and interpretative currently allowed.” “Clear and easily-supported ways of working with local, customized vocabularies would be useful [but] retaining interoperability between these variant vocabularies.”

5. Transaction Objects Concept borrowed from dynamic domains in which knowledge exchange is a critical element –Financial Services –News Services Not ‘Assets’ or ‘Resources’ –characteristically small ‘packets’ or ‘components’ –although descriptive language may be verbose! –domain-specific and frequently ‘knowledge-laden’ –may contain or be contained by other transaction objects –can be aggregated into other formats Broader in scope than ‘Learning Objects’: closer to ‘Activity Theory’s ‘mediating artefacts’

6. What are our Transaction Objects? Initially we needed TO’s to help monitor and manage the project: –bibliographical records –log entries –dates and times of events –contact details for schools … and so on But we also needed ways to describe, store, disseminate and facilitate the exchange of examples of classroom practice. –audio clips and video clips –learning plans, evaluations, products –excepts from transcripts –‘strategies’, ‘anecdotes’ and other mediating artefacts

7. An Example Description of a short video clip of classroom interaction might require elements and vocabularies from a range of sources: –technical information about availability of different formats, length, resolution, size on screen etc –authorship, date, rights, general description –domain-specific information about curriculum and social context, teacher learning issues –project-specific information about the underpinning research, principles demonstrated, interpretations and annotations –relationships to other materials

8. The Best of Both Worlds? Tier 0: Machine-readable Data used to Tailor Content –Technical, download and display information: SMIL Tier 1: LCD Interchange Data –Bibliographical Data: Dublin Core –Project Descriptions: CERIF –Personal Descriptions: FOAF Tier 2: Domain Specific Data –Project Descriptions: CERIF and TLRP Metadata Set Tier 3: Project Specific Data –Project-specific and domain specific vocabularies All ‘wrapped’ in a common interchange format (RDF)