I (still) spend a fair amount of time thinking about the learning object repositories work that was done back at the turn of the century. A bunch of folks (myself included) took up the task of building software to let people easily publish, describe, share, find (and hopefully use) digital assets or learning objects (assets with a bunch of metadata tacked on the side).

I think it’s fair to say that the experiments failed pretty dramatically. The only content that was added to CAREO was done under the auspices of Large Projects and/or Institutions. Individuals, by and large, didn’t spend much time with it, or its ilk. Why is that? Why have other applications and platforms gone on to be much more successful, by any definition of the word? Well, here are some reasons:

1. Sharing. With all of the talk about interoperability, all that really happened was some loose agreement that “metadata is important, for some reason, and that people will want to write lots and lots of stuff to describe every resource, for some reason.” We wound up with a bunch of quasi-standardized metadata, but no real way to share it – sure, there was the OAI. That’s a pretty powerful end-user strategy.
2. API. The closest the Learning Object Repositories got to an API would be either OAI or EduSource. Name 3 apps that you use today that use either or both of those. Both are rather cumbersome to implement, and not too mashup-friendly. Nowadays, as David Wiley is fond of saying, people “just use RSS”. Sure, you can add other APIs if needed (atom? custom?), but RSS is good enough for most interaction between systems.
3. Social. Sure, CAREO had a threaded discussions feature, and a wiki for every resource in its database, but without PEOPLE, it was just a bunch more empty web pages. One of the lessons I’ve learned from David Wiley’s recent presentations is that we should be leveraging what people are already doing, where they are already doing it. Don’t make them come to CAREO to comment on something. Let them comment on del.icio.us, or digg, or wherever. And work on ways to tie those conversations together. That’s not to say that this functionality isn’t necessary, but that it shouldn’t be exclusionary. Play well with others (see points 1 and 2 above).

I’ve mentioned before that much of the functionality of a “learning object repository” could be implemented for free with Google and del.icio.us. That’s a bit facetious, but not that far off the mark. I’m seeing some recent stuff that is really promising. Most recently, fOUnd It, from the Open University. It’s just a Pligg install. That’s it. But it lets people add resources (“news items”) that can be tagged, referencing any web page. And it supports rating/reputation (thumbs up/down, promoting to front page, etc…) and discussions. This takes care of 99% of CAREO’s functionality. For free. And, because it’s not a Learning Object Repository project, there are more developers working on it (because it’s more generalizable – there is NO need to build special apps just for education).

Or, you could just grab a copy of Drupal, install a couple of modules, and have a learning objects community site that could connect with del.icio.us, flickr, or any other app/platform that supports RSS. And have full-on blogging, forums, etc… for free, out of the box. Without any focus on metadata, or interoperability, or any of those other helpful things that just get in the way of individuals connecting. If we’d just waited 5 years, the “learning object repository” work would have been completely different, and would have been able to focus on important stuff, like content and context.

The problems with the adoption and implementation of the previous versions of the LOM are apparently solved by the addition of more definitions of structured taxonomy-driven authoritative metadata systems.

I’m posting this to remind myself to not get sucked into this stuff. It’s good that people are thinking about how to improve on the LOM, and even deprecating the term “learning object” (replaced by “resources”) but for the love of all that is holy and good, please focus on the content, context, and pedagogy and not on the metadata.

Whew.

David Wiley just wrote an excellent post about the “death” of learning objects. He’s right on the mark, emphasizing the learning part of the buzzword, while us geeks who were attempting to implement some of the early LO-based software got so woefully distracted by the object and reuse angles. He’s also much more articlate than I am, so give his article a read, then come back here. I’ll wait. Go ahead.

OK. You’ve read his post. Good, eh? Now, I just wanted to add some thoughts from the perspective of a “learning objects” software developer (I was rather involved with the development of CAREO, which has apparently been championed as one of the early Learning Object Management Systems).

I was as guilty as anyone, if not moreso. CAREO was intended to provide a central clearinghouse of these magically reusable bits of buzzword compliant digital goodness. I was sucked into the hype, along with an entire generation of implementors. We had an entire nationally funded project (EduSource) with the goal of working out the plumbing problems to get these wondrous Learning Objects flowing. As geeks, that’s all it was – a plumbing problem. All we had to do was hook a few things together, attach an input or thirteen, throw a switch, and revel in the magical incredibleness that would Just Happen Because We Built It.

And, of course, outside of carefully scripted demos, nothing really happened. EduSource sort of dissolved. CAREO continued to operate, sortof, but without any financial or institutional support. There are still some users of the system, but it’s basically running as a snapshot. A postcard from 2002.

Was CAREO a failure, then? I’d argue an emphatic “absolutely not, bucko!” because it served (and continues to serve) a crucial role. Before CAREO, there wasn’t a solid, concrete example that we could all point to and say “there’s learning objects!” We didn’t have a testbed, a sandbox, a lab. Through CAREO, and an entire generation of “learning object management” software, we learned a heck of a lot about the concept. We were right sometimes (metadata should be as transparent as possible, people to want to share stuff…) and we were wrong sometimes (the UI as a thin veneer over the database, overemphasis on metadata specifications and interoperability…). But we learned.

Also, I get the feeling that the Learning Objects Movement was just a few years ahead of itself. Now, social software is oozing out of the woodwork. Tagging and folksonomies are pushing metadata into every corner of the networks. Mashups via “Web 2.0″ web-application-API layers are amplifying and exposing network effects to connect and layer sources of information that were previously relegated into locked silos.

Personally, I learned a very valuable lesson that can best be distilled into Ward Cunningham’s description of the original wiki software:

The simplest online database that could possibly work.
- Ward Cunningham

I used to have a version of that written in big block letters across the top of my whiteboard.

It’s something that was essentially ignored by all of us Early Learning Object Implementors. We wound up with insanely complicated data schemas (have you ever looked at the full IMS/IEEE LOM?) and attempted to find elegant ways to store the XML directly in databases (before XML-in-databases was in vogue). We came up with these funky national networks of unique and distinct flavours of webservices, so we could share our overly complex data. We invented new, innovative and cool ways of connecting these systems.

But, we completely lost sight of the simple fact that the reuse that is important. and actually much more difficult, is the pedagogical use of content and not a futile pursuit of technical interoperability. I suggest that learning objects are not dead. Far from it. New ideas like implementations of the semantic web, and structured blogging, and social software for creating and sharing resources – they all combine to breathe new and fresh breath into the concept of the learning object. But, with the ability to place the emphasis on learning rather than object.

I’ve got a nagging feeling that the whole buzz over ePortfolios is following a familiar path. Which is why I’m choosing to ignore the buzz on that topic and play with some of my own ideas.

Whew. OK. That’s off my chest. Albatross released. Monkey off of back. Thanks to David for the cognitive nudge required.

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…

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.

Susan Smith Nash raises some very good points about learning objects – what are they? why would anyone care? how would someone reuse them?

CAREO is mentioned specifically, and the concerns with it are entirely valid. It should be noted that CAREO and its ilk are from the first generation of learning object repositories – a necessary step in the evolution of the concept – and we’ve got some stuff that begins to address many of these concerns (Pachyderm, APOLLO, etc…).

This “second generation” learning object repository stuff is just starting to see the light of day – and even that isn’t anywhere near where we want to end up. It’s all just baby steps along the way…

Disclosure: I built a good chunk of CAREO, and am pretty deeply involved with the development of APOLLO and Pachyderm.

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…

I completely forgot about the 2 Amigos at Educause! It was originally a “3 Amigos Production”, but that’s a long story. Alan and Brian made the trek to Denver, and it sounded like fun of course!

The presentation wiki is available as well. Links to other stuff are available via Alan’s description of the presentation.

This Rip, mix & feed style of dealing with resources (content, learning objects, whatever) is very cool. Using small pieces loosely joined…

Man, I wish I was able to make the trip to Denver!

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.

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)