Ontologies and the Semantic Web for E-learning - Educational ...

artefact. Likewise, learning processes cannot be fixed and we are challenged to find optimal learning and
teaching processes and to know the interaction between them. To assume that a singular learning process would
suffice may be a huge error in design. Another particular area of messages and events of the subject domain
relates to e.g., logical operability within course structures, knowledge mining, curricula, and computational
algorithms.
De facto, presently known definitions of learning objects for e-Learning artefacts have not taken the diverse
cognitive and logical rationales into account, which primarily come from the domain of learning (based on
pedagogy and psychology). In more detail, the working with subject domains has helped us decompose entities,
events, messages, laws, nature, norms, and alike leading to an OO approach which would be most suitable to
satisfy these stringent requirements. Although the “e” before learning has brought forth new complexities of
interaction, mutual intelligibility, situated action, planned action, pedagogical and psychological validity the “e”
is maybe also about to bring forth a new shift of paradigm to conventional learning. We are challenged to reevaluate
how humans perceive computer-based e-Learning artefacts, design learner-centred e-Learning systems
and their objects while being involved in e-Learning. As e-Learning stretches across many subject areas, there is
a need to resolve semantic spaces between pedagogical and psychological learning theories, models, and
principles to make them identifiable for computer-based systems, whilst constructing teaching models where the
educator, the system, and the learner evolve together.
6. Questions for Discussion
6.1. Interdisciplinary issues to e-Learning artefacts:
a) Where are the intersections between different disciplines when it comes to system development of e-
Learning artefacts?
b) What are the (functional and non-functional) commonalities of requirements for system development by the
disciplines?
6.2. If a computer-based artefact must be intelligent and psychologically valid, then an e-Learning artefact
and its objects must also hold true pedagogical validity:
a) Is pedagogical and psychological validity inseparable (cf. IMS Global Learning Consortium, 2004)?
b) What are the pedagogical and psychological requirements for an artefact to be pedagogically and
psychologically valid?
c) What are the concise pedagogical and psychological learning theories, models, or principles to accomplish
pedagogical and psychological validity for an e-Learning artefact? (Including semantic spaces between
learning theories, models, and principles)
6.3. Degrees of pedagogical and psychological validity of e-Learning artefacts and their objects:
a) Which pedagogical and psychological validity is the artefact to accomplish in view of levels of interaction,
authority, trust, and responsibility?
6.4. Meaningfulness of plan, action, and intent to build a packaged e-Learning course system:
a) Should pedagogical requirements for an artefact be expressed in terms of purposeful actions and plans,
heuristics (situated actions) or both?
b) What models and theories formulate a structured approach considering situated actions?
6.5. The subject domain of packaged e-Learning course systems and inferred types of e-Learning objects:
a) What should be the responsibilities of a system delivering packaged e-Learning courses referring to our
discussion regarding user and system roles, issues of interaction, relevance of contents, and alike? For
example, conventional courses are different from the idea of concept maps (cf. Passmore, 1998; Novak &
7