-
Please support me in the 2010 Ride to Conquer Cancer - last year we were able to raise $6.9 million for the Alberta Cancer Foundation - hopefully we can raise even more in 2010! -
Blog under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
Oct
10
(2004)
Learning Objects as Molecular Compounds
Filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: learningobjects.
I’ll preface this by saying this is an off-the-top-of-my-head post. I’ve been thinking about this off and on for some time now, but thought I should dump a snapshot into the online brain for safe keeping.
I conceive of learning objects as being analogous to molecular compounds. They are composed of atomic units (assets, or elements), and can be used to perform a highly specific role in the compound state (learning object), or broken down into the atomic/elemental state to be used as raw materials for a new compound (learning object).
Describing learning objects as words in a sentence oversimplifies the atomic bits (images, text, audio) as being interchangeable. It de-emphasizes context, and the value of strategically combining assets/elements to produce more elaborate constructs. It makes for nice examples, because lots of people use words and sentences, but I don’t know that it captures the real value of the concept of learning objects (if there is any).
Words and sentences also imply linear order. You read from left to right (or up and down, or right to left, depending on language), but there isn’t really branching or interactivity. The conclusion of a sentence does not depend on the interaction of the previous words, as much as on a predetermined sequence of concepts.
Yes, a word can be used in a different sentence, but the different context colours the interpretation of that word such that it may have a slightly different meaning. That’s great for a word that is just a collection of letters, but if a word is a video (or animation, or website, or whatnot), the different context may not have any meaning. We need to be able to deconstruct the learning object and build it back up to take advantage of the new context, in order for it to have the proper meaning (if we keep following this sentence analogy).
This is where I see the next generation of “learning object repository” applications being applied – in managing both the atomic/elemental assets, as well as providing tools to facilitate the construction and deconstruction of more complex compound constructions. This is where both APOLLO and Pachyderm are heading (although neither fully addresses deconstruction yet).
The strategic and intelligent construction of these compound learning objects could also be done along the lines of Michael Feldstein’s learning experience objects.
The molecular analogy can be extended ad infinitum – loosely bound tools acting as enzymes to catalyze reactions that build or break down molecules, etc…
Bunch-o-links:
- David Wiley’s “Learning Atoms and Learning Crystals” paper (written in 1999 – he’s been waay ahead of the curve on this one…)
- Michael Feldstein: Re-usable Learning Content Objects or Re-Usable Learning Experience Objects
- Stephen Downes’ response to that article
- Michael Feldstein’s Learning Objects Aren’t Legos (part 1, part 2)
- Michael Feldstein: Pattern Languages as Human Languages
- Ulises Ali Mejias’ Learning Molecules white paper (which mentions a patent… wtf? going to have to check this out… (Thanks to Brian for the link – hadn’t seen this before)
Don’t you think this is where Dave Wiley was going with the Post-Lego section of his article in The Instructional Use of Learning Objects (pp. 15-20 http://www.reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc) where he argues we should be comparing LOs to atomic structures instead of legos?
eidosabi – yes, exactly! I’m sorry I didn’t reference that (it was off the top of my head). That’s exactly what I was talking about. David has been thinking along these lines for years now. I’m just trying to start to put a few convergent concepts together (and the molecular learning object is just one of them)
So then, I wonder, in this molecular compound/learning object analogy, where would metadata fit in…what would it be analogous to?
Preston, that’s a good question. The stuff we’re doing here (which is corroborated by Flickr, del.icio.us, etc…) shows that metadata is most effective when loosely bound. If so, it would not be part of the molecule (or atoms) directly.
Perhaps some kind of primitive subatomic particle linked via spooky action at a distance? OK. The metaphor gets in the way a bit
I see some metadata within the atoms (EXIF data in an image), perhaps some of the atoms are purely metadata (a SCORM manifest), and perhaps some metadata lives completely separate from the atoms and molecules…
It should be possible for people to add their own metadata without having to modify the compound learning objects…
Ulises Ali Meijas at eCornell has a white paper on “Learning Molecules”…
http://ideant.typepad.com/ideant/2003/08/learning_molecu.html
Since we’re thinking off the top of our heads, here’s the metadata point that just flew out of my head in regard to Preston’s comment…
Just like there are “properties” of atomic material, think atomic number and mass, there are “properties” of learning objects, think type (e.g. instructional or content) and metadata. In this way, we can start to organize learning objects into something similar to a periodic table. (granted, a lot bigger than a periodic table, but similar in concept)
Yes. Perhaps where the metaphor breaks down here, is that the “metadata” (atomic number, name, etc… ) are all externally applied (either empirically or qualitatively), and aren’t intrinsic to the “atom” itself. There is nothing about a carbon atom that calls itself “carbon” or “14″ or “represented by a black ball in a stick diagram” – these are all things applied or measured externally.
Perhaps that may be a good thing to apply to learning objects, since they are currently so focused on metadata – they are more like metadata objects now.
Hi D’Arcy. I’ll tell you wtf. Whenever people hear the word ‘patent’ they assume the most evil intentions are at work, but in this case there’s nothing for the online learning community to worry about. I came up with the Learning Molecules model in 2002. Believe it or not, I had not read Wiley’s piece (which I just found out about thanks to your post), or anything else suggesting learning objects are like molecular elements. But it’s kind of obvious, don’t you think? So I am not surprised that people who have thought about this matter have made that connection. Based on that idea, my colleagues and I at eCornell put together a model that serves as a design metaphor, a pedagogical guide, a taxonomy and a set of metrics. No talk about patents yet, so, so far so good. As a matter of fact, we are presenting these ideas at Techlearn and ASTD this year and next, so that people can take them and hopefully be inspired to come up with their own models. Now, eCornell also put together a very nice set of software tools to produce these learning molecules, and THAT’S what we are within our right to patent (actual code that does something). So this is not like some companies who claim they have a patent on the idea of video streaming and then try to collect money from everybody who’s ever used video as a component in their online courses. That’s not eCornell’s business model. BTW, I’d be interested to hear what you have to say about the model after you read the white paper.
Ulises, thanks for the clarification. I apologize for assuming the worst. It’s become a knee-jerk reaction to all things software-patent-related. (I was almost part of one myself, so I do understand both sides of the issue, to some extent).
I will definitely check out your software. It sounds interesting! I will also make some time to read the white paper. I’ll try harder to not assume the worst
You are right, though, that these concepts really are common sense (or at least should be). I’m looking forward to seeing (and building) software that lets people actually use their digital assets and learning objects in a more molecular way.