Group items tagged

– a great resource that is essentially impossible to reuse, or a really poor resource that you can easily reuse

an interest in providing teachers real-time suggestions about the best way to use their next 10 minutes, are relatively new areas for me.

• Online Self-Organizing Social Systems. http://opencontent.org/docs/ososs.pdf

I would like to invite students to reflect on the practical impact on people they would like to their educational technology / educational research work to have.

grounded in the object-oriented paradigm of computer science.

build small (relative to the size of an entire course) instructional components that can be reused a number of times in different learning contexts

Moreover, those who incorporate learning objects can collaborate on and benefit immediately from new versions. These are significant differences between learning objects and other instructional media that have existed previously.

Supporting the notion of small, reusable chunks of instructional media, Reigeluth and Nelson (1997) suggest that when teachers first gain access to instructional materials, they often break the materials down into their constituent parts.

if instructors received instructional resources as individual components, this initial step of decomposition could be bypassed

The Learning Technology Standards Committee chose the term “learning objects” (possibly from Wayne Hodgins’ 1994 use of the term in the title of the CedMA working group called “Learning Architectures, API’s, and Learning Objects”)

provided a working definition

Learning Objects are defined here as any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology supported learning. Examples of technology-supported learning include computer-based training systems, interactive learning environments, intelligent computer-aided instruction systems, distance learning systems, and collaborative learning environments. Examples of Learning Objects include multimedia content, instructional content, learning objectives, instructional software and software tools, and persons, organizations, or events referenced during technology supported learning (LOM, 2000).

The proliferation of definitions for the term “learning object” makes communication confusing and difficult.

It would seem that there are almost as many definitions of the term as there are people employing it.

In addition to the various definitions of the term “learning object,” other terms that imply the general intention to take an object-oriented approach to computer-assisted instruction confuse the issue further.

Depressingly, while each of these is something different, they all conform to the Learning Technology Standards Committee’s  “learning object” definition. An in depth discussion of the precise meanings of each of these terms would not add to the main point of this discussion: the field is still struggling to come to grips with the question, “What is a learning object?”

At the same time, the creation of yet another term only seems to add to the confusion. While the creation of a satisfactory definition of the term learning object will probably consume the better part of the author’s career, a working definition must be presented before the discussion can proceed.

Therefore, this chapter will define a learning object as “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning.”

This definition includes anything that can be delivered across the network on demand, be it large or small.

This definition of learning object, “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning,” is proposed for two reasons.

First, the definition is sufficiently narrow to define a reasonably homogeneous set of things: reusable digital resources. At the same time, the definition is broad enough to include the estimated 15 terabytes of information available on the publicly accessible Internet (Internet Newsroom, 1999).

Second, the proposed definition is based on the LTSC definition (and defines a proper subset of learning objects as defined by the LTSC), making issues of compatibility of learning object as defined within this chapter and learning object as defined by the LTSC explicit

With that compatibility made explicit, the proposed definition differs from the LTSC definition in two important ways.

First, the definition explicitly rejects non-digital

The definition also drops the phrase "technology supported" which is now implicit, because all learning objects are digital.

Second, the phrase "to support" has been substituted in place of "during" in the LTSC definition. Use of an object "during" learning doesn't connect its use to learning

The definition adopted for this chapter emphasizes the purposeful use (by either an instructional designer, an instructor, or a student) of these objects to support learning

Armed with a working definition of the term learning object, the discussion of the instructional use of learning objects can proceed.

Instructional design theory and learning objects

Reigeluth

[I]nstructional design theories are design oriented, they describe methods of instruction and the situations in which those methods should be used, the methods can be broken into simpler component methods, and the methods are probabilistic. (p. 7).s11 {margin-left:0; line-height:2.400000; text-indent:36;}

Because the very definition of “theory” in some fields is “descriptive,” design theories are commonly confused with other types of theories that they are not, including learning theory and curriculum theory (Reigeluth, 1999a).

The following discussion takes a step in this direction, by recasting two of the largest issues in the learning objects area – combination and granularity – in instructional design terms

Combination

there is astonishingly little conversation around the instructional design implications of learning objects.

item (d) in the Learning Objects Metadata Working Group’s PAR (LOM, 2000) reads as follows:

To enable computer agents to automatically and dynamically compose personalized lessons for an individual learner

at this point a brief discussion of metadata, the focus of the Learning Object Metadata Working Group’s efforts, is necessary.

Metadata, literally “data about data,” is descriptive information about a resource

he Learning Objects Metadata Working Group is working to create metadata for learning objects (such as Title, Author, Version, Format, etc.) so that people and computers will be able to find objects by searching

​The problem with 7(d) arose when people began to actually consider what it meant for a computer to “automatically and dynamically compose personalized lessons.”

his meant taking individual learning objects and combining them in a way that made instructional sense, or in instructional design terminology, “sequencing” the learning objects.

The problem was that no instructional design information was included in the metadata specified by the current version of the Learning Objects Metadata Working Group standard.

​The lack of instructional design discussion at this standards-setting level of conversation about learning objects is disturbing, because it might indicate a trend.

Once technology or software that does not support an instructionally-grounded approach to learning object sequencing is completed and shipped to the average teacher, why would he or she respond any differently

Wiley (1999) called this “the new CAI – ‘Clip Art Instruction’” (p. 6).

Discussion of the problem of combining learning objects in terms of “sequencing” leads to another connection between learning objects and instructional design theory.

Granularity

The most difficult problem facing the designers of learning objects is that of “granularity” (Wiley, et al., 1999).

How big should a learning object be?

Reuse is the core of the learning object notion, as generativity, adaptivity, and other –ivities are all facilitated by the property of reuse.

designating every individual graphic and paragraph of text within a curriculum a “learning object” can be prohibitively expensive