An Ontological Representation of Learning Objects and Learning Designs as Codified Knowledge

In current organizations, the models of knowledge creation enunciate concrete processes and elements that drive the production of knowledge aimed at satisfying organizational objectives. The Knowledge Life Cycle (KLC) model of the KMCI provides a comprehensive framework for situating learningoriented artefacts as part of the organizational context. Recent work on the design and creation of learning resources can be compared to this model of knowledge production, as well as the so-called integration processes may be considered to subsume programmed organizational learning activities. In this paper, we discuss about the similarities between the life cycle of KM and the processes in which learning objects are created, evaluated and used. The learning object concept will then be connected to existing KLC models in order to provide a more comprehensive framework for reuse-oriented e-learning and KM. This paper also depicts the framework’s integration into the KLC of the KMCI in the form of ontological definitions. Introduction Models of knowledge creation inside organizations are considered as dynamic processes of development that evolve over time (Cavaleri and Reed, 2000). Such models provide a breakdown of the creation process in terms of concrete processes and elements that drive the overall production of knowledge as targeted to satisfy organizational expectations. For example, the Knowledge Life Cycle (KLC) model of the KMCI distinguishes the Knowledge Processing Environment (KPE) from the Business Processing Environment (BPE), describing the latter as the context of actual usage and field assessment of the claims produced and evaluated in the former. This emphasizes the fact that knowledge codified in artefacts as part of Knowledge Production (KP) processes and disseminated as part of Knowledge Integration (KI) processes will be subject to further validation in actual business experience. KLC models provide a comprehensive framework for situating learning-oriented artefacts as part of the organizational context. Concretely, the design and creation of learning resources (Downes, 2004) is not different at its essence from knowledge production, and integration processes may be considered to subsume programmed organizational learning activities. Furthermore, meta-claims about the knowledge produced – in the case of learning oriented artefacts – may be interpreted as the recording of usage conditions, hypotheses and assumptions on the learning resources being created. In consequence, the relationships between Knowledge Management (KM) and the design of reusable learning resources can be approached from two perspectives. On one hand, there is some similarity between the life cycles of KM and the processes in which learning objects (Polsani, 2003) are created, evaluated and used in organizational contexts. On the other hand, the application of the learning object concept can be put in connection with existing KLC models, in an attempt to provide a comprehensive framework for reuse-oriented elearning and KM. This latter view is the one addressed in this paper, following the rationale that e-learning can be considered an important component of the KM function, as described by Wild, Griggs, and Downing (2002). The described relationships provide a direct mapping both for the codification of ontological commitments about learning theories (Sicilia and Lytras, 2005), and also for metadata approaches that follow a contractual paradigm (Sicilia and SánchezAlonso, 2003). In this paper, we approach the integration of concepts related to learning resources into the framework of the KLC. This would clarify the relationships between Knowledge Management and e-learning paradigms that have been yet addressed elsewhere in its main directions (Sicilia and García, 2005). The method to develop the conceptual integration is that of engineering an initial ontological description for the main concepts, 1 http://www.kmci.org An Ontological Representation of Learning Objects and Learning Designs as Codified Knowledge Salvador Sánchez-Alonso and Dirk Frosch-Wilke connecting them to existing ontological databases. This continues existing work described by Sicilia, Lytras, Rodríguez and García (2005) regarding the ontological description of learning activities as an extension of the ontology of KM described recently by Holsapple and Joshi (2004). Formal ontologies (Baader et al., 2003) are a vehicle for the representation of shared conceptualizations that is useful for technologyintensive organizations. Ontologies based on description logics (Gruber, 1995) or related formalisms provide the added benefit of enabling certain kinds of reasoning over the terms, relations and axioms that describe the domain. A pragmatic benefit of the use of formal ontologies is that it is accompanied by a growing body of Semantic Web (Berners-Lee, Lassila and Hendler, 2001) tools, techniques and knowledge. Previous work considered here as a point of departure (Sicilia, García, Sánchez-Alonso and Rodríguez, 2004) has described the integration e-learning technology concepts with the OpenCyc knowledge base, the open source version of the Cyc system (Lenat, 1995). Additionally, the provision of knowledge representations integrating KM and e-learning standards has been pointed out as an important research direction (Sicilia and García, 2005). The rest of this paper is structured as follows. The second section describes learning objects and learning designs and depicts their integration into the KLC of the KMCI. Then, the third section provides the main ontological definitions required to represent the proposed integration, putting them into relation with previous research in the topic. Finally, conclusions are provided in the fourth section. Integrating learning objects and learning designs in a KLC ontology In this section, the related concepts of learning object and learning design are described as the two main elements to be integrated as resources in the KLC. Then, their integration inside the KLC model of the KMCI is described. Learning objects and learning designs The increasing interest in Web-based education has resulted in a number of standardization efforts aimed at fostering the portability and shared usage semantics of learning contents and learner information across vendors, platforms and systems. As a matter of fact, it is possible today to package a Web-oriented course according to standard formats e.g. according to SCORM packaging models – and then importing and using that same content inside any Learning Management System (LMS) that is compliant with the given standard packaging rules. In addition, the scope of such standards and specifications is continuously expanding and covering new areas; for example, the SCORM “sequencing and navigation” specification addresses the standardization of complex navigation and 2 http://www.adlnet.org sequencing strategies. Another interesting example is that of IMS “Learning Design”, which is targeted to modelling rich learning activities and their pedagogical considerations. The concept of Learning Object (LO) is at the centre of the new paradigm for instructional design of Web-based learning that emphasizes reuse as a quality characteristic of learning contents and activities. For example, Polsani (2003) includes reuse in his definition of learning object as “an independent and self-standing unit of learning content that is predisposed to reuse in multiple instructional contexts”, and Wiley (2001) also mentions the term in his learning object definition “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning”. The basic metadata elements associated to learning objects have been described in the IEEE LOM standard (IEEE, 2002). Learning objects are considered as reusable elements that can be used as part of Learning Designs (LD). The IMS LD provides a powerful language for the expression of learning designs targeted at the realization of activities. An activity is considered as a piece of interaction among a number of specified roles played by persons that produce a tangible outcome by using a concrete environment made up of learning objects and services (facilities available at runtime). Activities can be further decomposed in subactivities, and they are aggregated into methods, that specify the conditions for application of the learning design, along with the planned objectives that will eventually match the outcomes of the activities. Methods can be structured around concurrent plays and these in turn can be structured in sequential acts, the latter allowing the specification of execution conditions. This schematic description of LD gives an idea of the flexibility the specification provides in describing activity-based learning programs. The practical use of LD-based tools would then allow for the definition of the activities resulting from a process of instructional design that takes as point of departure a concrete perspective about learning that drives the crafting of the activities. A conceptual framework for integration The main elements of the integration are depicted in Figure 1, which has been elaborated from the original KLC of the KMCI by including mappings to concrete LO and LD usage points. As depicted in Figure 1, both LOs and LDs are part of organizational knowledge, and concretely, they can be classified as Codified Knowledge Claims (CKC) in a general sense. Nonetheless, the nature of such claims is of a diverse nature: • Some of them may be considered as “elementary” in the sense that they will not usually be subject to a formal cycle of evaluation in the Business Processing Environment. The reasons for this are that some external codified knowledge as courses on basic computer skills are not actually related to 3 http://www.imsproject.org An Ontological Representation of Learning Objects and Learning Designs as Codified Knowledge Salvador Sánchez-Alonso and Dirk Frosch-Wilke “business processing outcomes”, so that they are not subject to direct revision processes by business experience, even though they may be subject to revision as part of other revision processes in which they are required as prerequisites. This is why, they “survive” while they are useful for operational reasons. Another example is that of LOs that are used to communicate internal information like the distribution of the office building or the way to find somebody in the company. These will be “falsified”, i.e. changed as part of the normal functioning of administrative processing, not necessarily related to business functions. These less controversial elements can be considered as simple “information” and not “knowledge” that have survived an evaluation process. • The knowledge provided by LDs as opposed to the learning objects it uses, is of a pedagogical or methodological nature, i.e. their contents are related to how produce learning in purposefully arranged learning activities. In consequence, they will be subject to evaluation in processes of Knowledge Integration (teaching, sharing or similar ones), rather than in the Business Processing Environment. In context of KM such evaluations must be often different from evaluations of “traditional” course design, because production of knowledge (and the LOs that spin out of that) is mostly a collective activity (Allee, 2000). In consequence, this might imply that social constructs (e.g. Communities of Practice, Virtual Teams) of corporations have to be integrated in activitybased learning programs. The effectiveness of this integration as well as the relevance of communities in Knowledge Integration processes have to be evaluated here. The Knowledge Production part of the model must be extended to cope with a specific form of Problem Claim Formulation that we have called “LO/LD contract/goal”. The idea of this extension is that the knowledge gap may in some cases be stated in terms of learning goals. Contract-based techniques (Sicilia and Sánchez-Alonso, 2003) can be interpreted as claim-producing procedures for educational goals, specially targeted to LO and LD selection and/or composition. Individual and group learning activities may produce knowledge from LOs and the activities that surround them, and Information Acquisition can in some cases take the form of processes of search and composition of learning objects or activities. This is a form of reuse in the process of production that is complementary to the reuse taking place routinely in the business processing environment. Finally, the critical process of Knowledge Claim Evaluation will in some cases entail the evaluation of learning objects via existing validated instruments (Vargo et al., 2003) or quality criteria.