learningobjects

Albert totally nails it in his post on the Learning Objects “debate”. Basically – get over it. Move along. Do (and use) whatever is appropriate to what you’re trying to do. One size does not fit all. Caveat emptor, etc…

I especially like his tips for subscribers to “information transfer” vs. “social constructivitistic” paradigms of learning objects (and, I would suggest, of learning in general).

But wait! There’s more! Albert offers a website/wiki on “virtual apparatus“, which appears to be a set of guidelines for creating content in a consistent manner (did I interpret that right?).

We’ve been talking about “learning objects” a lot around the software side of the Learning Commons over the last few weeks. We’ve been sort of stuck in discussion, tripping over the concept of “reusability” – there’s the technical reusability (interoperability, via things like IEEE LOM, SCORM etc…) – and then there’s pedagogical reusability (dealing with the content itself, and not the transport/interchange format used to squirt it over the ‘net).

In our discussions, we’re trying to plan out what we want to accomplish over the next year or so – what software needs to be built to achieve the goals we set (once we set the goals, of course). It’s been interesting, if frustrating, but I think we’re making progress as we start to realize we’re all talking about essentially the same thing – just coming at it from different angles (pedagogical vs. technical reusability).

So, there’s a pretty solid example that the definition of “learning objects” – and the implications that come with it – can be confusing or misleading even within a small team. No wonder there hasn’t been any real consensus in the education community as a whole…

{ 2 comments }

The XPlanaZine article by Susan Smith Nash appears to have kindled some thoughtful commentary on the blogosphere (on a Saturday, no less). I agree completely with her reservations (as well as those of Darren Cannell). Reusability is pretty much a fallacy, especially when attempted with highly complex “learning objects” like websites, powerpoints, etc…

Real reusability becomes more difficult (and less useful) as a resource becomes tailored for any specific context (by adding complexity via structure and content). This is David Wiley’s “reusability paradox“, and there’s no easy way to get around it.

Real reusability is only effectively possible when dealing with smaller resources. Images. Video clips. Audio clips. These smaller bits can then be more readily recombined with additional contextual information (structure, content) to provide another use of the assets.

Once a complex resource becomes meaningful enough to be use used in any particular context, it’s usefulness in other contexts is reduced or eliminated. But, if you can go back to the source, to the image/video/audio assets that make up the complex resource, then you can build a new “learning object” that is tailored to your particular needs. Which will almost automatically be unusable in any other context. But that’s OK, if other people can go back to your source assets and create their own complex resources…

That’s pretty much the idea behind Pachyderm, and it’s why I’m so excited by what the software can do. Reusability does not live in the final output product – the interactive, highly contextualized resource. It lives in the raw assets that were used to create that resource. By using the Rip, Mix, Burn philosophy, you can recombine assets as needed to fit your own particular needs, at a particular time, for a particular audience.

{ 7 comments }

This sounds interesting… A new dead-trees and online Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects. They’ve put out the call for papers… Not sure if this will fare better than Pitch did/does, but maybe a dead-trees journal carries more cred with the higher ed. folks?

I’d have tossed this to del.icio.us instead of blogging it, but the Del is acting up today…

{ 0 comments }

Alan Levine just created a real, bonafide learning object using Flickr.

Alan’s description of the resource, and the process, and the learning object itself.

{ 0 comments }

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)

{ 9 comments }