Polsani (2003) waxes lyrical about LO’s or Learning Objects, which for the moment have more conceptual clarity than digital assets by way of their educative objective being stated, whereas the ends to which an asset have made it valuable are not semantically salient in ‘asset’. It is maddeningly neutral. This user brings up Learning Objects only because he has the vaguest suspicion LO’s are, or in the right context can be, digital assets, and that in Polsanis description of LO’s he unwittingly sketches the basics of an asset at his most general, somewhere in the thick of his technical particularizing of LO’s and their higher learning function. So basically, Learning Object, and thus Digital Asset, is an umbrella term for any digital content which is of relative value (which with LO’s is learning); however Polsani’s LO specifics are minimally applicable to the Asset. Accessibility and Reusability seem to be, if not requisites, then conducive features to an asset’s credibility, concordant value and ultimate longevity as an asset; they are also basic meta-structural requisites of a digital object, the walls of the container even before it has content. They give it form on the web. This is pretty esoteric stuff; an example might be in order. Pending.
Polsani, P. R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital Information. 4, 1-7. Retrieved from http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/viewArticle/89/88
No comments:
Post a Comment