Determinando la relevancia de los recursos educativos abiertos a través de la integración de diferentes indicadores de calidad

  1. Sanz Rodríguez, Javier
  2. Dodero Beardo, Juan Manuel
  3. Sánchez Alonso, Salvador
Journal:
RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal

ISSN: 1698-580X

Year of publication: 2011

Volume: 8

Issue: 2

Pages: 46-60

Type: Article

DOI: 10.7238/RUSC.V8I2.1031 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal

Abstract

The aim of the open educational resource (OER) development movement is to provide free access to high-quality educational materials in repositories. However, having access to a large amount of educational materials does not provide any assurance of their quality, and the mechanisms so far used to recommend educational resources have shown themselves to be lacking for a variety of reasons. Most evaluation systems are based on a costly manual inspection, which does not allow all materials to be evaluated. Moreover, it is often the case that other useful pieces of information are ignored, such as the use that users make of the materials, the evaluations that users perform on them and the metadata used to describe them. To try and improve this situation, this article presents the shortcomings of existing proposals and identifies every possible quality indicator that is able to provide the necessary information to enable materials to be recommended to users. By studying a significant set of materials contained in the MERLOT repository, the relationships among various, currently available quality indicators were analysed and numerous correlations among them were established. On the basis of that analysis, a measure of relevance is proposed, which integrates all existing quality indicators. Thus, the explicit evaluations made by users or experts, the descriptive information obtained from metadata and the data obtained from the use of the latter are employed in order to increase the reliability of recommendations by integrating various quality aspects. In addition, this measure is sustainable because it can be calculated automatically and does not require human intervention; this will allow all educational materials located in repositories to be rated.

Bibliographic References

  • AKPINAR, Y. (2008). “Validation of a Learning Object Review Instrument: Relationship between Ratings of Learning Objects and Actual Learning Outcomes”. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects. Vol. 4, pages 291-302.
  • BARANIUK, R. G. (2007). “Challenges and Opportunities for the Open Education Movement: A Connexions Case Study”. In: Opening Up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education through Open Technology, Open Content, and Open Knowledge. California: MIT Press. Pages 116-132.
  • BOSKIC, N. (2003). Faculty Assessment of the Quality and Reusability of Learning Objects. PhD thesis. Alberta (Canada): Athabasca University.
  • BROWNFIELD, G.; OLIVER, R. (2003). “Factors influencing the discovery and reusability of digital resources for teaching and learning”. In: G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten et al. (eds.). Interact, Integrate, Impact: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Adelaide. pages 74-83.
  • CLAYPOOL, M.; LE, P.; WASED, M. et al. (2001). “Implicit interest indicators”. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. New Mexico. Pages 33-40, doi: 10.1145/359784.359836.
  • CUEVA, S.; RODRÍGUEZ, G. (2010). “OERs, Standards and Trends”. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC). Vol. 7, No 1. UOC.
  • FOX, S.; KARNAWATT, K.; MYDLAND, M. et al. (2005). “Evaluating Implicit Measures to Improve Web Search”. ACM Transactions on Information Systems. Vol. 23, No 2, pages 147-168.
  • GARCÍA-BARRIOCANAL, E.; SICILIA, Miguel A. (2009). “Preliminary Explorations on the Statistical Profiles of Highly-Rated Learning Objects”. Metadata and Semantic Research. Proceedings of Third International Conference. Milan: MTSR 2009. Pages 108-117.
  • HAN, K (2004). Quality Rating of Learning Objects using Bayesian Belief Networks. PhD thesis. Canada: Simon Fraser University.
  • KAY, R.; KNAACK, L. (2009). “Assessing learning, quality and engagement in learning objects: the Learning Object Evaluation Scale for Students (LOES-S)”. Educational Technology Research and Development. Vol. 57, No 2, pages 147-168.
  • KAY, R.; KNAACK, L. (2007). “Evaluating the learning in learning objects”. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning. Vol. 22, No 1, pages. 5-28.
  • KELTY, C. M.; BURRUS, C. S.; BARANIUK, R. G. (2008). “Peer Review Anew: Three Principles and a Case Study in Postpublication Quality Assurance”. Proceedings of the IEEE. Vol. 96, No 6, pages 1000-1011.
  • KUMAR, V.; NESBIT, J.; HAN, K. (2005). “Rating Learning Object Quality with Distributed Bayesian Belief Networks: the why and the how”. Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. ICALT 2005, pages 685-687.
  • KURILOVAS, E.; DAGIENE, V. (2009). “Learning objects and virtual learning environments technical evaluation criteria”. EJEL - Electronic Journal of e-Learning. Vol. 7, No 2, pages 147-168.
  • LI, J. Z.; NESBIT, J. C.; RICHARDS, G. (2006). “Evaluating learning objects across boundaries: The semantics of localization”. Journal of Distance Education Technologies. Vol. 4, No 1, pages 17-30.
  • MCGREAL, R.; ANDERSON, T.; BABIN, G. et al. (2004). “EduSource: Canada’s Learning Object Repository Network”. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Vol. 1, No 3.
  • OCHOA, X.; DUVAL, E. (2006). “Quality Metrics for Learning Object Metadata”. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications. ED-Media 2006. Pages 1004-1011.
  • OCHOA, X.; DUVAL, E. (2008). “Relevance Ranking Metrics for Learning Objects”. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. Vol. 1, No 1, pages 34-48.
  • SANZ RODRÍGUEZ J.; DODERO, J. M.; SÁNCHEZ ALONSO, S. (2009). “A preliminary analysis of software engineering metrics-based criteria for the evaluation of learning objects reusability”. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. Vol. 4, No 1, pages 30-34.
  • SCHAFFERT, S.; GESER, G. (2008). “Open Educational Resources and Practices”. eLearning Papers. No 7. Available at www.elearningpapers.eu. [Accessed: 26 October 2010].
  • TZIKOPOULOS, A.; MANOUSELIS, N.; VUORIKARI, R. (2007). “An Overview of Learning Object Repositories”. In: Learning Objects for Instruction: Design and Evaluation. Idea Group Publishing. Pages 44-64.
  • VUORIKARI, R. Tags and self-organisation: a metadata ecology for learning resources in a multilingual context. PhD thesis. Open Universiteit Nederland.
  • YEN, N. Y.; HOU, F. F.; CHAO, L. R. et al. (2009). “Weighting and Ranking the E-Learning Resources”. Proceeding of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. ICALT 2009. Pages 701-703.
  • ZIMMERMANN, B.; MEYER, M.; RENSING, C. et al. (2007). “Improving retrieval of re-usable learning resources by estimating adaptation effort backhouse”. First International Workshop on Learning Object Discovery and Exchange.
Data source: Dialnet