Learning objects: achievements and challenges Tom Boyle CETL for Reusable Learning Objects London...

Learning objects: achievements and

challenges

Tom Boyle

CETL for Reusable Learning Objects

London Metropolitan University

Simposio OD@06, Oviedo, 26.09.2006

The term Learning Object has become the Holy Grail of content creation and aggregation in the computer-mediated learning field.

Polsani (2003)

The use of learning objects promises to increase the effectiveness of learning…

Duval et al 2003

Themes of talk

Learning objects: main achievements to date Significant challenges

What do we mean by learning objects? Better models of composition and decomposition Linking learning objects and learning designs

Questions explored within a three dimensional model of the ‘learning object’ space

Work of the CETL for Reusable Learning Objects Conclusions

Learning Object achievements

Major achievements in international specifications and standards– IMS Content Packaging– IEEE LOM– SCORM

Repositories built on these standardsUniversal impact of conceptMany fine examples of learning objects

Packaging and metadata

ManifestMetadata

Organizations

Resources

Physical files/content

IMS Package file

Manifest

Content

‘Objects’ versus ‘learning’

‘Learning objects’ as knowledge objects– packaged

– described

– stored

– retrieved

Based on international specifications and standards

Much less emphasis on ‘learning’ and the design of effective learning objects

CETL for Reusable Learning Objects places a strong emphasis on design for effective learning

CETL for Reusable Learning Objects

Started in April 2005 with £3.3 million funding from HEFCE for the period 2005-2010

Partners: London Metropolitan University, University of Cambridge, University of Nottingham

Design and develop reusable learning objects (RLOs) – with a strong pedagogical focus

Use and evaluate these RLOs with substantial student cohorts

Extensive staff development and dissemination programme

Some questions

What are learning objects?How do ‘bigger’ and ‘smaller’ learning objects fit

together?What is the relationship between learning objects and

learning designs?What is the model for reuse – is it based on content or

content + pedagogical design?

The term ‘learning objects’ has been used with multiple meanings.

We need to clarify the different meanings used and how they might relate to each

other.

Learning objects as granular

"Learning Objects are a new way of thinking about learning content. Traditionally, content comes in a several hour chunk. Learning Objects are much smaller units of learning, typically ranging from 2 minutes to 15 minutes." (Wisconsin Online Resource Center)

"[A Learning Object] is defined as the smallest independent

structural experience that contains an objective, a learning activity and an assessment." (L'Allier 1997)

Learning objects as anything?

“a learning object is defined as any entity that … may be used for learning, education or training.” IEEE LOM

A Learning Object is an independent and self-standing unit of learning content that is predisposed to reuse in multiple instructional contexts. (Polsani 2003)

Mapping the learning object space

Object Pattern

Holo

Base Raw

Packaged

The Learning Object Cube - LOC

Exploring the LOC space

Packaged

Instance Pattern

Base

Holo

Raw

Def: “a learning object as any entity that … may be used in learning” …. IEEE LOM

Learning objects as basic units

Object Pattern

Holo

Base Raw

Packaged

“the smallest independent structural experience”

- the minimum meaningful pedagogical unit

Packaged

Instance Pattern

Base

Holo

Raw

Definitions sound as if they are focused on the bottom left quadrant, but in practice are applied almost all the way along the aggregation

dimension

Complex or higher order learning objects

Aggregation models of composition

Aggregation– aggregation of assets into learning objects– aggregation of smaller ones learning objects to form bigger

ones independent reuse of components

– composition and decomposition ‘Lego’ brick scenario But this has little to do with how learning objects are actually

classified and used There is no adequate pedagogical model. The ‘aggregation

model totally avoids the key issues of the nature of the learning objects (at each) level and how they fit together

Packaged

InstancePattern

Base

Holo

Raw

“A micro-context for learning”

Reusable pedagogical patterns

Extract the reusable learning design – the pedagogical pattern and make it reusable

Generative learning objects (GLOs)

The basis for reuse is the pedagogical pattern rather than ‘content’ of the learning object

A richer basis for reuse and repurposing

This gives a tremendous increase in productivity

Allows local tutors to repurpose learning objects to meet their local needs and preferences

Some examples of learning objects

EASA learning objects

Winner of European Academic Software Award 2004

Engage

students

with familiar

every day

examples

Graphic examples

Active

student

learning

Reference for a book

Acids and Alkalis

Mobile multimedia learning objects

Linking learning objects and learning designs -

Generative learning Objects (GLOs)

GLOs separate design pattern

from

Concrete learning object

How to elucidate and articulate these patterns?

and

How to make the result usable by tutors?

Challenges

GLO Authoring Tool

Conclusions: productive questions

What are base learning objects?

How do we create higher order learning objects from these base objects?

How do we extract and make available reusable learning designs at this level?

How do we involve tutors – as re-users of content? – or (also) as adapters of reusable pedagogical patterns?

RawObject Pattern

Holo

Base

Packaged