Comments on: Learning Objects as Molecular Compounds http://www.darcynorman.net/2004/10/10/learning-objects-as-molecular-compounds/ apparently much happier in person Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:35:07 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: eidosabi http://www.darcynorman.net/2004/10/10/learning-objects-as-molecular-compounds/#comment-79298 eidosabi Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-79298 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? 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?

]]> By: D'Arcy Norman http://www.darcynorman.net/2004/10/10/learning-objects-as-molecular-compounds/#comment-79299 D'Arcy Norman Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-79299 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) 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)

]]> By: Preston Parker http://www.darcynorman.net/2004/10/10/learning-objects-as-molecular-compounds/#comment-79300 Preston Parker Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-79300 So then, I wonder, in this molecular compound/learning object analogy, where would metadata fit in...what would it be analogous to? So then, I wonder, in this molecular compound/learning object analogy, where would metadata fit in…what would it be analogous to?

]]> By: D'Arcy Norman http://www.darcynorman.net/2004/10/10/learning-objects-as-molecular-compounds/#comment-79301 D'Arcy Norman Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-79301 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... 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…

]]> By: Brian http://www.darcynorman.net/2004/10/10/learning-objects-as-molecular-compounds/#comment-79302 Brian Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-79302 Ulises Ali Meijas at eCornell has a white paper on "Learning Molecules"... http://ideant.typepad.com/ideant/2003/08/learning_molecu.html Ulises Ali Meijas at eCornell has a white paper on “Learning Molecules”…

http://ideant.typepad.com/ideant/2003/08/learning_molecu.html

]]> By: eidosabi http://www.darcynorman.net/2004/10/10/learning-objects-as-molecular-compounds/#comment-79303 eidosabi Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-79303 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) 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)

]]> By: D'Arcy Norman http://www.darcynorman.net/2004/10/10/learning-objects-as-molecular-compounds/#comment-79304 D'Arcy Norman Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-79304 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. 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.

]]> By: Ulises Mejias http://www.darcynorman.net/2004/10/10/learning-objects-as-molecular-compounds/#comment-79305 Ulises Mejias Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-79305 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. 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.

]]> By: D'Arcy Norman http://www.darcynorman.net/2004/10/10/learning-objects-as-molecular-compounds/#comment-79306 D'Arcy Norman Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 #comment-79306 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. 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.

]]>