Partly related to H5P discussions/reflections (most recently here), and partly because of some events in my personal life, I’m connecting some dots in my usual strange ways.
What if we classified interactive resources using concepts from games libraries?
For instance, some Francophones use a classification system based on Piaget: Accueil - Système ESAR (systeme-esar.org). I’m told it’s taught in programs for Library Technicians… and that it might relate too closely to childhood development to prove useful in Higher Ed (which, to some members’ chagrin, is the core of the OE movement).
There’s an alternative by a French games librarian: LudoPro: Création d’un Système de Classification des Jeux - Dans la Tête de Yahndrev (over-blog.fr). Sounds like that approach encompasses more of the complexity of games libraries.
Surely, there are other systems designed by librarians around the World. And they could serve as inspiration for our work.
But, Alex, we already have norms and standards to classify OERs and other “Learning Objects”!
We sure do!
In fact, one of them is an international standard from ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC36 (Information technology for learning, education and training).
I’m convinced that these (international) standards and (local) norms are sufficient to cover any OER. In a way, my impression is that our work on learning resources is more likely to help work on games than the reverse…
…unless we start focusing more on resource usage instead of OERs as “content”.
Even LOM had/has an element set for “interactivity type” (Active, Expositive, Mixed, Undefined). That’s… something.
Not nearly enough for a games library, of course.
And maybe not enough for many of the H5P modules people create. I’m sure there are enough descriptors in existing standards and norms to fully convey the type of interaction provided by any interactive OER. I’m also convinced that doing so would require quite a bit of effort.
Again, I realize this random thought is quite strange. I’m putting it here for a few reasons:
- I’m fond of documenting my thoughts publicly
- Many people are on vacations
- Questions of metadata keep coming back in discussions throughout the OE movement, particularly when we focus on OER
- Thinking about interactive modules (instead of, say, textbooks) can be a way to link OER and OEP
- Addressing board games as learning resources might help in reminding us that OERs don’t have to be digital
- It can be fun to bring (socio-)constructivism in our discussions
- It’s important to remind ourselves that OERs can have an impact from kindergarten to postdoc and from professional development to community-based learning
- Using unlikely analogues is a useful trick in the Design Thinking toolbox