Watson Argument Clarity

8/11/2019 Watson Argument Clarity

1/15

28 TechTrends March/April 2007 Volume 51, Number 2e application of computers to educationhas a history dating back to the 1950s, wellbefore the pervasive spread of personalcomputers (Reiser, 1987). With a maturehistory and varying approaches to utilizing

computers for education, a veritable alphabetsoup of terms and acronymsrelated to computers ineducation have found their wayinto the literature, most of themnon-standardized. LearningManagement System (LMS) isone approach to the applicationof computers to educationwhich holds great potentialand important concepts yet isoen misunderstood and the

term misused. is article willclarify the use of the term LMSby presenting a history anddenition of LMS, dierentiatingit from similar terms with which it is oenconfused, and discussing the role it can playin education. It will then describe currentapplication and available features of LMSs,and conclude by identifying trends andrecommending future research.History and denition of LMS:What are LMSs?e history of the application of computers

to education is lled with generic terms such ascomputer-based instruction (CBI), computer-assisted instruction (CAI), and computer-assisted learning (CAL), generally describingdrill-and-practice programs, more sophisticatedtutorials and more individualized instruction,respectively (Parr & Fung, 2001). LMS has itshistory in another term, integrated learningsystem (ILS) which oers functionality beyondinstructional content such as managementand tracking, personalized instruction andintegration across the system (Bailey, 1993;

Becker, 1993; Brush, Armstrong, Barbrow, &Ulintz, 1999; Szabo & Flesher, 2002).e term ILS was coined by Jostens Learn-ing, and LMS was originally used to describe themanagement system component of the PLATOK-12 learning system, content-free and separatefrom the courseware (R. Foshay, personal com-munication, October 24, 2006). e term LMSis currently used to describe a number of dier-ent educational computer applications, and wewould argue that it is oen used incorrectly. Lat-er sections of this article will dierentiate LMSfrom other terms with which it is oen confused,

but prior to describing what LMS is not; we willfocus on describing what an LMS is.e key to understanding the dierence


2/15

between LMS and other computer educationterms is to understand the systemic nature ofLMS. LMS is the framework that handles allaspects of the learning process. An LMS is theinfrastructure that delivers and manages in-structional content, identies and assesses in-dividual and organizational learning or training

goals, tracks the progress towards meeting thosegoals, and collects and presents data for super-vising the learning process of an organization asa whole (Szabo & Flesher, 2002). An LMS deliv-ers content but also handles course registrationand administration, skills gap analysis, trackingand reporting (Gilhooly, 2001).Bailey (1993) presents the following generalcharacteristics of an LMS in education:An Argument for Clarity:What are Learning ManagementSystems, What are They Not, and

What Should They Become?By William R. Watson and Sunnie Lee WatsonA veritablealphabet soupof terms andacronyms relatedto computershave foundtheir way intothe literature. Volume 51, Number 2 TechTrends March/April 2007

29

?? Instructional objectives are tied to indi-vidual lessons.?? Lessons are incorporated into thestandardized curriculum.??Courseware extends several grade levelsin a consistent manner.??A management system collects the resultsof student performance.?? Lessons are provided based on theindividual students learning progress.e American Society for Training &Development (Learning Circuits, 2005),recommends these following functionalrequirements for a corporate LMS:?? enable integration with the humanresources system?? incorporate tools which enable theadministration to:? manage user registrations and developuser proles? set curricula and certication paths? assign tutors and tutorial content? administer budgets? prepare schedules for learners,instructors and classrooms

?? provide access to content deliveryinvolving the medium (classroom,online), method (instructor-led, self-


3/15

paced), and learners (employees,customers)??develop content, including authoring,maintaining and storing?? integrate content with third-partycourseware?? assess learnerscompetency gaps and

manage skills acquisition and status??provide and support authoring ofassessments?? adhere to standards such as SCORM andAICC which allow for importing contentand courseware that complies withstandards regardless of the authoringsystem?? support conguration of the LMS tofunction with existing systems andinternal processes??provide security such as passwords and

encryptionWhile this list of features can be helpful inunderstanding what an LMS is, as a systemicapplication, it incorporates a great many featuresby providing the structure of the entire learningprocess within an organization. erefore,further clarity can be achieved by contrasting itwith related technologies with which it is oenconfused.Relating LMS to CMS, LCMS andRLO: What are LMSs not?As the application of computers toeducation is awash with acronym-driven, non-

standardized terms, it is not surprising thatthere is oen confusion as to which term isappropriate to use. A major goal of this articleis to recommend a consistent use of the termLMS in the literature. In order to do this, itis important to identifysome of the ways in whichwe believe LMS is beinginappropriately used todescribe separate butrelated technologies.Course ManagementSystemse inappropriate useof LMS in the literature isperhaps most commonlyassociated with computerapplications which wewould identify as Course Management Sys-tems (CMS). ese systems are used primarilyfor online or blended learning, supporting theplacement of course materials online, associ-ating students with courses, tracking studentperformance, storing student submissions andmediating communication between the stu-

dents as well as their instructor. Some of thissame functionality can be seen within LMSsas well, so it is understandable why confusion


4/15

might exist. However, the systemic nature of anLMS does not limit its functionality to that ofa CMS.A CMS provides an instructor with aset of tools and a framework that allows therelatively easy creation of online course contentand the subsequent teaching and management

of that course including various interactionswith students taking the course(EDUCAUSEEvolving Technologies Committee, 2003, p.1). Examples of a CMS include Blackboard,Angel, Sakai, Oncourse and Moogle. However,Blackboard is a good example of the confusionthat exists regarding these terms as it iscommonly referred to in the literature as anLMS.A Google Scholar search of the phraseblackboard lmsreturned 36 articles identi-fying Blackboard as an LMS, while the Black-

board company itself refers to its product as aCMS: Blackboards online learning applica-tion, the Blackboard Learning System, is themost widely-adopted course management sys-tem [emphasis added] among U.S. postsecond-e term LMSis currentlyused to describea number ofdierent computerapplications.30 TechTrends March/April 2007 Volume 51, Number 2

ary institutions(Blackboard Company, 2006b).While Blackboards Learning System does notcomprise their entire Academic Suite, the ad-ditional products support better managementof learning objects, student portfolios, and thecreation of online portals,which collectively Black-board calls a NetworkedLearning Environment(Blackboard Company,2006a), does not meet thefull functionality necessaryto be identi

ed as an LMS.

e scope of functional-ities does not encompassthe entire organization,and the course-focused na-ture of the applications is not systemic. ere-fore, while a CMS could be seen as a part of anLMS, it is certainly not equivalent to an LMS.e technologies were developed for very dif-ferent reasons even if they share certain func-tionalities (Carliner, 2005).Learning Content ManagementSystems

While also being frequently confused witheach other, Learning Content ManagementSystems (LCMS) and LMSs can be more


5/15

simply contrasted as they are very well suitedto integration with each other. LCMS is oenused interchangeably with LMS or touted asa newer version of LMS. In reality, the twoapplications focus on dierent functions andcomplement each other well. e key dierencebetween the two technologies is as simple as

the one word separating them: content. Oakes(2002) reports that the IDC denes an LCMSas a system used to create, store, assembleand deliver personalized e-learning contentin the form of learning objects(p. 73). efocus with LCMS is content as it tackles thechallenges of creating, reusing, managing, anddelivering content(Oakes, 2002, p. 74). AnLMS, however, is learner and organizationfocused: Its concerned with the logistics ofmanaging learners, learning activities andthe competency mapping of an organization

(Oakes, 2002, p. 74).LCMS and LMS certainly have a dierentfocus but integrate very well; the LCMS allowsfor the creation and delivery of learning objects(LO) while LMS manages the learning processas a whole, incorporating the LCMS withinit (Greenberg, 2002). Or as Connolly (2001)puts it, LMS provides the rules and the LCMSprovides the content(p. 58).Learning objects and integratingthese related technologiesHaving described the complementary na-ture of LCMSs and LMS as well as the dierent

focus of CMS and LMS, and understanding thesystemic nature of LMS as providing the struc-ture within which CMS and LCMS can function,we will now examine an important technology,learning objects, which is not typically confusedwith LMS but which is inherently important tothe integration of these related technologies. ALO represents the smallest component of con-tent within an LCMS or LMS. LOs oer power-ful potential due to their promise of reusabilityacross multiple contexts, generativity (integrat-ing LOs to generate new instruction), adaptabil-ity to meet the needs of individual learners andscalability to meet the needs of both larger andsmaller audiences without signicant changesin cost (Gibbons, Nelson, & Richards, 2002;Hodgins, 2002; Wiley, 2002).Essentially, a learning object can be denedas any digital media that can be reused to supportlearning (Watson, Lee, & Reigeluth, 2007). Itis the reusable nature of the LO which holdsthe most promise and challenges for success.In order to maximize LOs reusability, it mustadhere to standards, such as SCORM or LOM,which utilize metadata to describe the object

as well as the context for its use. Unfortunately,there are multiple standards for describingLOs in use as well as multiple standards for


6/15

evaluating interoperability between LMSs andcontent(Connolly, 2001, p. 57).e lack of agreement and adherence tostandards with both the creation of LOs and theirinclusion in LMSs results in a negative impact onreusability, exibility and functionality. Ideally,LOs, CMS, and LCMS would be integrated

together within the LMS which would act asthe infrastructure to seamlessly bring togetherthese complementary technologies. LOs wouldact as the smallest form of content handled bythe LMS, created and delivered within an LCMSaccording to each individual learners need basedon current assessments and performance towardcustomized learning goals. e CMS wouldfunction as a course environment, organizinginstructional content into discrete courses andsupporting communication between learnersand instructors.

Role of LMS in education: Whatshould LMSs become?e importance of understanding LMS aswell as its related technologies lies in the role itLMS is theframework thathandles all aspectsof the learningprocess. Volume 51, Number 2 TechTrends March/April 2007

31will play in future approaches to instruction as

the needs of todays learners are not being metby current approaches. Society has shied fromthe Industrial Age into what many are callingthe Information Age (Reigeluth, 1994; Senge,Cambron-McCade, Lucas, Smith, Dutton, &Kleiner, 2000; Toer, 1984). Todays educationsystem remains mired in the Industrial Age, put-ting the onus for learning on teachers, encour-aging students to remain passive, and treatingall students as if they are the same and forcingthem to do the same things in the same amountof time (Reigeluth, 1994). is forces achieve-ment to vary among the students, leaving thelow-achieving students behind and holdingthe higher-achieving students back (Reigeluth,1997). e alternative to holding time constantand forcing learning to occur at a single rate isto hold achievement at a constant mastery level.is requires education to shito an entirelynew paradigm, from one with a focus on stan-dardization and sorting with a high rate of fail-ure to one that supports customization to meetall learnersneeds.In an Information Age-appropriate para-digm of education, students will be allowed

as much time as they need to achieve masteryand move on immediately upon demonstratingthat mastery, requiring a customized pace and


7/15

sequencing of instruction (Schlechty, 1991). In-struction will move to a more learner-centeredapproach as teachers cease acting primarily asknowledge sources and instead become facili-tators of the knowledge acquisition process byacting as guides, coaches, and motivators as stu-dents become more active in their learning pro-

cess (McCombs & Whisler, 1997).In order for the learner process to be cus-tomized for each individual learner, technologywill need to play a key role. Schlechty (1991)argues that technology will be needed to trackeach students progress towards mastery, assesstheir learning, help teachers understand whatsort of guidance is needed, provide and appro-priately sequence instruction, store evidence ofattainments and systemically integrate each ofthese functions. It is clear that this description isclosely aligned to the functions of an LMS.

In an Information Age model of education,an LMS will assess learnerscurrent knowledgeand skill level, work with teachers and learnersto identify appropriate learning goals, identifyand sequence instruction appropriate for theindividual learner, assess learner performanceproducts, store evidence of attainments, sup-port collaboration and generate reports to pro-vide information to maximize the eectivenessof the entire learning organization. While LMSscan currently perform some of these functions,limitations exist which are hindering the fullrealization of LMSspotential.

We have previously discussed the challengespresented by lack of agreement and adherenceregarding standards that result in a negativeimpact on the reusabilityof learning objects and theeectiveness and eciencyof LMSs. LOs are dicultenough to create but thechallenge of then applyingstandards which will resultin easy implementationwithin an LCMS or LMSare an additional headachefor instructional designers.Without eective use of standards, even an LOwell suited to broad reuse is unlikely to be re-used due to the lack of awareness regarding itsavailability. Some work is currently being doneon Automatic Metadata Generation (AMG) inorder to ease the load on designers to have to tietheir instruction to standards themselves (Au-tomatic Metadata Generation, 2006).e challenges of creating eective LOsneeds to be addressed with better authoringtools allowing for the creation of eective in-

struction suitable for specic types of learners.Many of the current K-12 LMS platforms uti-lize older instruction which has been minimally


8/15

updated if at all. e reason is the immense costin developing the instruction, estimated as highas $100 million to build a comparative systemtoday (R. Foshay, personal communication,October 24, 2006). By incorporating authoringtools to allow for easier creation of learning ob-jects by practitioners, some of these challenges

can be overcome.e increasing availability of open-sourcetechnologies is another potential advantage,dispersing the resource load for creating, updat-ing, and maintaining these technologies across aglobal community of developers rather than oneor two private companies. Ultimately, LMSs needto??provide more constructivist-based instruc-tion, focusing on exible, learner-denedgoals (Reigeluth & Garnkle, 1994)??support collaborative learning inside and

outside of the school in order to extend thelearning environment to the home and fur-ther involve parents (Taylor, 2004)??better address personalized assessment,progress tracking, reporting, and respon-siveness to learner needs (Reigeluth & Gar-nkle, 1994)It is not surprisingthat there is oenconfusion as towhich term isappropriate to use.32 TechTrends March/April 2007 V

olume 51, Number 2??truly become systemic, integrating systemsseamlessly to allow for improved collabora-tion across systems and among stakeholders(Sherry, 1992)??improve support for professional diagnosisand development for stakeholders, includ-ing teachers??improve cost eectiveness and better leverageexisting resources currently available inschools and LMSs (Szabo & Flesher, 2002)While serious challenges are currentlyimpeding LMSs from realizing their fullpotential, perhaps the greatest possibility forimproving these technologies lies in the handsof learners, teachers, and other stakeholders inthe current educational system. at is, oncethey demand a shito an Information Ageparadigm of instruction, the full and centralizedimplementation of LMSs will be necessary, andthe attention to maximizing their potential willnaturally be realized.is nal section will present an overviewof the status of several major LMSs availabletoday. LMSs are more typically utilized in

corporate settings with many available systemson the market, including NetDimensions EKP,Saba and SumTotal Systems (Carliner, 2005),


9/15

as well as Lotus, OracleiLearning and CornerstoneOnDemand, among others(Learning Circuits, 2005).A 2006 survey highlightsthe features most common-ly found in the corporate

LMSs currently beingutilized (2006 Survey ofLearning ManagementSystems, 2006).In the K-12 market,two major systems havebeen absorbing thesmaller products over the last several years.e following table reects a summary of theprevious research we have conducted in whichwe generated a conceptual framework of majorfeatures in order to evaluate and compare the

major K-12 LMSs (Watson, Lee, & Reigeluth,2007). We reviewed corporate literature toidentify which features each LMS oered,and with the exception of PLATO, whoserepresentatives declined comment, had eachcompany review and approve our conclusions.It should be stated that while the table representsour conclusions, the LMSs are composedof multiple products, and it is unclear howwell these products function together, so it ispossible that not all features listed will functiontogether as a complete package. Furthermore,some of the features are more of a matter of

degree rather than a simple yes or no.We have updated the table as Pearson DigitalLearning recently purchased Co-nect, and wemade a small change in wording regarding thedirect instruction feature to better reect ouroriginal intentions of the meaning of the wordin the LMS context. Within the list of features,the table shades features that are importantfor instruction within the Information Ageparadigm.ConclusionLMSs are a powerful technology that haveyet to reach their full potential and are impor-tant for the Information Age paradigm of edu-cation. Because of their importance, greatercare and under-standing needs tobe used when ap-plying the term inresearch literature.By coming to anunderstanding ofwhat LMSs are andhow complementa-ry technologies can

be integrated withan LMS, research-ers and practitio-


10/15

ners will better beable to communi-cate regarding thestate and future ofcomputers in education. However, understand-ing and consistent use of terms alone is not suf-cient for the potential of computer technolo-

gies in education to be realized. ere is a realdearth of solid research on LMSs.Studies about the implementation and ef-fectiveness of the LMS products discussed inthis article are needed. ese studies shouldexamine more closely what features these prod-ucts oer and identify the additional featuresthat are needed. Student, teacher, parent andother stakeholder perceptions of these productsas well as the individual features should be de-scribed. Furthermore, more research is neededin the area of learning object authoring and ad-

herence to standards.With the constant adoption and discard-ing of terms in the fast-paced world of comput-ers, communication can be hindered, conceptsblurred and research stunted. It is important tokeep an eye on the needs of todays learners andOverview of major LMS: What docurrent LMSs oer?Perhaps thegreatest possibilityfor improving thesetechnologies lies inthe hands of learners,

teachers, and otherstakeholders.We will needto conductresearch tohelp guidedecisionsand futureapplicationsof technology. Volume 51, Number 2 TechTrends March/April 2007

33Features(grayed features support information-age needs) PLATOPearsonDigitalLearningAchievementTechnologiesInstructionalMethodStandardfeaturesContent presentation ? ? ?

Curriculum standards ? ? ?Supporting teacher-directedinstruction


11/15

?Bilingual ? ? ?Self-paced learning ? ? ?Project-based work ?Group work ?Authentic, real-world problems ? ?Individualized instruction ? ? ?

Teachercustomiz-abilityAdaptive sequencing ? ? ?Adaptive lesson plans ? ?Customizable instructionalcontent? ?Prescription of lessons ? ? ?OutsideschoolOnline message center ?

Online discussion board ?Project-based work ?Activities/homework withparent involvement? ? ?Community relations andsupport? ?Online lesson planmanagement for teachers?Data managementAttendance ?

Health information ?Parent/guardian information ?Enrollment ?Class schedule ?Record of attainmentsmastered? ? ?Mastery progress ? ? ?AssessmentPost test / Pre test ? ? ?Formative tests ?Practice tests ? ?Diagnostic tests ? ? ?Mastery-level tests ? ? ?ReportingSummative test report toteachers/ parents? ? ?Formative test report toteachers/ parents? ? ?Student information report toteachers/ parents?Record of attainments report to

teachers/ parents? ? ?Mastery progress report to


12/15

teachers/ parents? ? ?Customizable reporting forteachers?Table 1: Comparison of major features of K-12 LMS products

34 TechTrends March/April 2007 Volume 51, Number 2how technology can be maximized tobest meet those needs and to conductresearch to help guide decisions andfuture applications of technology.William R. Watson is a lecturer in Com-puter and Information Technology, PurdueSchool of Engineering Technology, Indiana Uni-versity - Purdue University Indianapolis and adoctoral student in the Instructional SystemsTechnology Department at Indiana University,

Bloomington. His research interest focuses onadvanced technologies for Information Age in-struction, including the design of instructionalvideo games and Learning Management Sys-tems. He may be reached at [email protected] Lee Watson is an associate instruc-tor and doctoral student in the InstructionalSystems Technology Department at IndianaUniversity, Bloomington. Her research focuslies in the learner-centered paradigm of instruc-tion, technology integration in K-12 classrooms,and systemic change in education. She may be

reached at [email protected] Metadata Generation. (2006).Introduction: Why we need AMG,rst version, and redesign. RetrievedNovember 20, 2006, from http://ariadne.cs.kuleuven.be/amg/Intro.jspBailey, G. D. (1993). Wanted: A road mapfor understanding Integrated LearningSystems. In G. D. Bailey (Ed.), Computer-based Integrated Learning Systems (pp.3-9). Englewood Clis, NJ: EducationalTechnology Publications.Becker, H. J. (1993). A model for improvingthe performance of Integrated LearningSystems. In G. D. Bailey (Ed.), Computer-based Integrated Learning Systems (pp.11-31). Englewood Clis, NJ: EducationalTechnology Publications.Blackboard Company. (2006a). BlackboardAcademic Suite brochure. RetrievedNovember 14, 2006, from http://library.blackboard.com/docs/as/bb_academic_suite_brochure_single.pdfBlackboard Company. (2006b). Evaluating

education. Retrieved November 21,2006, from http://www.blackboard.com/company/


13/15

Brush, T. A., Armstrong, J., Barbrow, D., &Ulintz, L. (1999). Design and delivery ofIntegrated Learning Systems: eir impacton students achievement and attitudes.Educational Computing Research, 21(4),475-486.Carliner, S. (2005). Course management sys-

tems versus learning management sys-tems. Learning Circuits. Retrieved No-vember 20, 2006, from http://www.learn-ingcircuits.org/2005/nov2005/carliner.htmConnolly, P. J. (2001). A standard for success.InfoWorld, 23(42), 57-58.EDUCAUSE Evolving Technologies Commit-tee. (2003). Course Management Systems(CMS). Retrieved November 20, 2006,from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/DEC0302.pdf

Gibbons, A. S., Nelson, J. M., & Richards, R.(2002). e nature and origin of instruc-tional objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), einstructional use of learning objects: Onlineversion. Retrieved November 20, 2006,from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/gibbons.docGilhooly, K. (2001). Making e-learning eec-tive. Computerworld, 35(29), 52-53.Greenberg, L. (2002). LMS and LCMS: Whatsthe Dierence?. Retrieved November 20,2006, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/dec2002/greenberg.htm.

Hodgins, H. W. (2002). e future of learn-ing objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), e in-structional use of learning objects: Onlineversion. Retrieved November 20, 2006,from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/hodgins.docLearning Circuits. (2005). A eld guide tolearning management systems. Re-trieved November 12, 2006, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/NR/rdon-lyres/BFEC9F41-66C2-42EF-BE9D-E4FA0D3CE1CE/7304/LMS_eldguide1.pdfLearning Circuits. (2006). 2006 Survey ofLearning management systems. Re-trieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2006/August/2006LMSresults.htmMcCombs, B., & Whisler, J. (1997). e learner-centered classroom and school. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.Oakes, K. (2002). E-learning: LCMS, LMSeyre not just acronyms but powerfulsystems for learning. Training & Develop-ment, 56(3), 73-75.

Parr, J. M., & Fung, I. (2006). A review of theliterature on computer-assisted learning,particularly Integrated Learning Systems,


14/15

and outcomes with respect to literacy andnumeracy. Retrieved November 20, 2006,from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=5499&indexid=6920&indexparentid=1024Reigeluth, C. M. (1994). e imperative for sys-temic change. In C. M. Reigeluth & R. J.

Garnkle (Eds.), Systemic change in edu-cation (pp. 3-11). Englewood Clis, NJ:Educational Technology Publications.Reigeluth, C. M. (1997). Educational standards:To standardize or to customize learning?Phi Delta Kappan, 79(3), 202-206.Reigeluth, C. M., & Garnkle, R. J. (1994). En-visioning a new system of education. InC. M. Reigeluth & R. J. Garnkle (Eds.),Systemic change in education (pp. 59-70).Englewood Clis, NJ: Educational Tech-nology Publications.

Reiser, R. A. (1987). Instructional technol-ogy: A history. In R. M. Gagne (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations (pp.11-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.Schlechty, P. C. (1991). Schools for the 21st cen-tury: Leadership imperatives for educa-tional reform. San Francisco: Jossey-BassInc.Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T.,Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000).Schools that learn: A h discipline eld-book for educators, parents, and everyone

who cares about education. Toronto, Can-ada: Currency.Sherry, M. (1992). Integrated learning systems:What may we expect in the future? Edu-cational Technology, 32(9), 58-59.Szabo, M., & Flesher, K. (2002). CMI theoryand practice: Historical roots of learningmanagement systems. Paper presented atthe E-Learn 2002 World Conference onE-Learning in Corporate, Government,Healthcare, & Higher Education, Mon-treal, Canada.Taylor, F. P. (2004). Education technologyhelps unite school communities, improveacademic achievement. T.H.E. Journal,31(10), 46-48.Toer, A. (1984). e third wave. New York:Bantam.Watson, W. R., Lee, S., & Reigeluth, C. M.(2007). Learning management systems:An overview and roadmap of the system-ic application of computers to education.In F. M. M. Neto & F. V. Brasileiro (Eds.),Advances in computer-supported learning(pp. 66-96). London: Information Science

Publishing.Wiley, D. (2002). Connecting learning objectsto instructional design theory: A deni-


15/15

tion, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.), e instructional use oflearning objects: Online version. RetrievedNovember 20, 2006, from http://reusabil-ity.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

Watson Argument Clarity

Documents

Transcript of Watson Argument Clarity