|
Introduction
In a recent book, The Instructional Use of Learning
Objects (URL-A1), several authors propose various definitions of
"Learning Object". This book as well as the references and URLs listed at
the end of this article will lead you to the increasing literature on this
topic. For the purposes of this discussion I have selected components from
the definitions of learning objects proposed by several authors that seem
to me to fit both the original conceptual intent of learning objects, the
requirements suggested by authoring programs, and the needs of the user
(teacher or student). My definition of learning objects: "Learning objects
are digital resources that are small, focused, reusable blocks of
instruction that can be combined in a variety of ways to build larger
components of teaching and learning materials".
The eventual goal is to have available a large collection
of learning objects stored in a database available to teachers and
learners alike that will enable them to combine and link these objects in
an effective and efficient way in order to produce high quality learning
materials. The concept of shared resources is not a new one, see for
example EOE (URL-E1), Merlot (URL-E2), and Scout (URL-E3).
Wiley has proposed a taxonomy of Learning Objects types
(URL-A1a) that is reproduced as Table 1 in the Appendix. Wiley's
definitions of five learning object types are shown in Table 2.
First, a sample of various definitions of learning objects
and learning technology standards :
Learning Objects:
David A. Wiley, II: "any digital resource that can
be reused to support learning." (URL: A1a)
IEEE LTSC: "Learning Objects are defined here as any
entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or
referenced during technology supported learning." (URL: C3c)
Learning Standards:
Professional organizations?
Learning Technology Standards
(Distribution)
ADL: "By making learning software accessible,
interoperable, durable, reusable,
adaptable and affordable, the ADL initiative will ensure
that academic, business and government users of learning software gain
the best possible value from the materials they purchase." (URL: D2)
IMS: " is developing and promoting open specifications
for facilitating online distributed learning activities such as
locating and using educational content, tracking learner progress,
reporting learner performance, and exchanging student records between
administrative systems." (URL: D1)
Microsoft eLearn: " Learning Resource iNterchange
(LRN) is Microsoft's implementation of the Instructional Management
Systems Global Learning Consortium (IMS) Content Packaging 1.1 and
Metadata 1.2 Specifications, an industry standard for the interchange
of online learning content. LRN also supports the Sharable Content
Object Reference Model (SCORM) 1.2 reference model developed by the
ADL." (URL: D3)
Learning Object Examples
At the Center for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching
(CALT) web site (URL-B3) you will find some examples of learning objects I
have created with Macromedia Flash (URL-B1). Some of these examples
illustrate how student responses can be tracked and saved to a text file
(ASP page) or to an Microsoft Access database for student self-assessment,
group projects, or course analysis (URLs B-2,3,4).
During the rest of this session we will discuss some of
these examples (see List) and how they
might be characterized using Wiley's taxonomy. A form has been
passed out that will allow you to assign your own characterization to each
of the examples presented. There is also room on the form to respond
to the question: "Will students learn anything from the exercise?".
Please feel free to add any other comments or suggestions for improvements
that you believe would make the example a better learning object.
The forms will be collected, edited, and placed at the end of this
web page. Any material used from these forms will be attributed to a
"faculty response group".
Conclusions
This brief review of learning objects, learning
technology standards, and the creation of interactive, animated learning
objects that can store student tracking data suggests that we are moving
into a new phase of instructional technology. In order to participate
effectively in this new phase colleges will need to re-think the
allocation of resources in order to provide the necessary support
structure for faculty. Many colleges have started this process by
developing instructional design teams that include faculty, instructional
designers, graphics and media designers, and instructional
programmers.
I have recently established a web site, MINDdrops.com, that I hope will prove
useful to students, faculty, instructional design teams, and instructional
programmers as they attempt to create effective, efficient, and
appropriate applications of technology to teaching and learning.
(URL-B4)
Meet you on the web.
Appendix
|
Learning Object Characteristics |
Fundamental Learning Objects |
Combined-Closed
Learning Object |
Combined-Open
Learning Object |
Generative-Presentation
Learning Object |
Generative-Instructional
Learning Object |
|
Number of elements combined |
One |
Few |
Many |
Few - Many |
Few - Many |
|
Type of elements contained |
Single |
Single, Combined-
Closed |
All |
Single, Combined-
Closed |
Single,
Combined-
Closed, Generative-Presentation |
|
Reusable
Component
objects |
(Not applicable) |
No |
Yes |
Yes/No |
Yes/No |
|
Common function |
No |
Pre-designed instruction or practice |
Pre-designed instruction and/or
practice |
Exhibit, display |
Computer-generated instruction and/or
practice |
|
Extra-object dependence |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes/No |
Yes |
|
Type of logic: contained in object |
(Not applicable) |
None, or answer sheet scoring |
None, or domain-specific instructional
strategies |
Domain-specific presentation
strategies |
Domain-independent presentation, instructional,
& assessment strategies |
|
Potential for inter-contextual reuse |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Medium |
High |
|
Potential for intra-contextual reuse |
Low |
Low |
Medium |
High |
High |
Table 1 Wiley's Preliminary Taxonomy of
Learning Object Types
|
Fundamental |
An individual digital resource uncombined with any other, the
fundamental learning object is generally a visual (or other) aid
that serves an exhibit or example function. (URL,4) |
|
Combined-Closed |
A small number of digital resources combined at design time by
the learning object's creator, whose constituent learning objects
are not individually available for reuse (recoverable) from the
combined-closed learning object itself. A video clip exemplifies
this definition, as still images and an audio track are combined in
a manner which renders these constituent pieces unrecoverable ( or
at least difficult to recover). The combined-closed learning object
may contain limited logic (e.g., the ability to perform answer
sheet-referenced item scoring) but should not contain complex
internal logic ( e.g., the capacity to intelligently grade a set of
item forms or case types), since this valuable capability would not
be reusable with other learning objects. Combined-closed learning
objects are generally single purpose -- they provide either
instruction or practice. |
|
Combined-open |
A larger number of digital resources combined by a computer in
real-time when a request for the object is made, whose constituent
learning objects are directly accessible for reuse (recoverable)
from the combined-open object. A Web page exemplifies this
definition, as its component images, video clips, text, and other
media exist in reusable format and are combined into a learning
object at request time. Combined-open learning objects frequently
combine related instruction and practice, providing combined-closed
and fundamental objects in order to create a complete instructional
unit. |
|
Generative-presentation |
Logic and structure for combining or generating and combining
lower-level learning objects (fundamental and combined-closed
types). Generative-presentation learning objects can either draw on
network-accessible objects and combine them, or generate (e.g.,
draw) objects and combine them to create presentations for use in
reference, instruction, practice, and testing.
(Generative-presentation objects must be able to pass messages to
other objects with assessment logic when used in practice or
testing.) While generative-presentation learning objects have high
intra-contextual reusability (they can be used over and over again
in similar contexts), they have relatively low inter-contextual
reusability (use in domains other than that for which they were
designed). |
|
Generative-instructional |
Logic and structure for combining learning objects (fundamental,
combined-closed types, and generative-presentation) and evaluating
student interactions with those combinations, created to support the
instantiation of abstract instructional strategies (such as
"remember and perform a series of steps"). The transaction shells of
Merrill's Instructional Transaction Theory
(Merrill, 1999) would be classified as generative-instructional
learning objects. The generative-instructional learning object is
high in both intra-contextual and inter-contextual
reusability |
Table 2 Wiley's Learning Object Type
Definitions
Resources
A. Learning Objects
1. The
Instructional Use of Learning Objects
2. Some Online
Educators Turn to Bite-Sized Instruction
3. Learning
Objects
4. Stephen's Web
5. Learnativity
6. Learning
Object Pioneers
7.
A Primer on Metadata for Learning Objects
9.
Objects
of interest
B. Software and Learning Object Examples
1. Macromedia Flash
MX <http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/>
2. Creating Learning
Objects Using Macromedia Flash 5 <http://www.syllabus.com/fall2001/proceedings2.asp?proceeding_code=96>
3. Center for the
Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT) <http://www.aacc.cc.md.us/calt/>
Flash 3 Examples <http://www.aacc.cc.md.us/calt/flash_movies.htm>
Flash 4 Examples <http://www.aacc.cc.md.us/calt/flash_4_movies.htm>
Flash 5 Examples <http://www.aacc.cc.md.us/calt/Flash5/flash_5_movies.htm>
Flash 5 and ASP Example
<http://www.aacc.cc.md.us/calt/ASP/examplesdataexchangeflash5asp.htm>
Flash 5 and Access
DatabaseExamples
<http://www.aacc.cc.md.us/calt/Access/accessfromflash5.htm>
CALT Teaching
Templates
<http://www.aacc.cc.md.us/calt/calt_teaching_templates.htm>
4. MINDdrops.com <http://www.minddrops.com/>
C. Learning Technology
Standards
1. HOW THE STANDARDS MOVEMENT PLANS TO REVOLUTIONIZE ELECTRONIC
LEARNING
2. LineZine (Learning in the
New Economy e-Magazine)
3. IEEE
Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC)
4. Joint Information
Systems Committee (UK)
D. Learning Distribution
1. IMS
Global Learning Consortium Inc.
2. Advanced Distributed
Learning (ADL)
3. Microsoft
eLearn
4. Open
Knowledge Initiative at MIT
Open
Knowledge and Open Source Initiatives: An Interview with MIT's Phil
Long (The Technology Source, March/April
2002)
E. Shared Resources
-
EOE (Education Object Economy) http://www.eoe.org/
2. MERLOT http://www.merlot.org/Home.po
3. Scout http://scout.cs.wisc.edu/
F. Information Design
1. STC
Information Design SIG
2. Models, Processes,
and Techniques of Information Design
3.. Seven
Deadly Sins of Information Design
4. MIT Media
Laboratory Aesthetics + Computation Group
5. Information:
Organized
6. InformationDesign.org
7. InfoDesign
8. Diagrammatic
Reasoning
9. Visual Design
for Instructional Content
10. What
is Interaction Design and What Does It Mean to Information
Designers? (Part 1) by Craig Marion
11. Make
Way for Interactive Assistance (part 2) by Craig Marion
12. Information Design, Robert Jacobson, editor,
MIT Press, 1999
|