Learning design and learning objects

Tom Boyle

Learning Technology Research Institute (LTRI)

London Metropolitan University

Leuven Jan 10 2008

“The use of learning objects

promises to increase the

effectiveness of learning …”

Duval et al 2004

How can this be achieved?

Perspective 1: standards, interoperability and reuse

– knowledge engineering based approach

Perspective 2: through improving the design of reusable learning objects

– design/pedagogy based approach

The wider picture – a global view of the (inter)relationship between learning objects and learning design

Themes of talk

Standardization approach (briefly)– focusing on content as the reusable learning

resource A ‘learning design’ perspective

– focusing on design as the reusable learning resource

– Generative Learning Objects (GLOs) Towards a synthesis relating content-oriented and

design- oriented approaches Productive questions

Standardization and reuse?

Standards, interoperability and reuse

IMS-CP

IEEE LOM

SCORM

“.. by making content more readily available, by reducing the cost and effort of producing quality content, and by allowing content to be more easily shared”

Vision and outputs

Vision of the “learning object economy” – “Pedagogical neutrality”– Divide the problem space so the design quality is

deliberately excluded

Repositories of learning objects based on standards to support search, retrieval and reuse

Tool support for packaging learning objects etc

Perspective 2: pedagogy/design focus

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

Began with a real and significant problem

– Need to design high quality resources

– That could be reused and exchanged

Viewed learning objects as “micro-contexts” for learning in which the most important factor was the quality of the pedagogical design

Learning objects for programming (2002 --)

“This chapter argues that high quality design and development of learning objects is crucial before we

get to issues of metadata and software packaging. The primary message of the chapter is good pedagogical design is at the heart of effective learning objects”.

“The Design of Learning Objects for Pedagogical Impact” Boyle (2008)

(In Handbook of Learning Objects and Learning Design)

Design of the EASA learning objects

Winner of European Academic Software Award 2004

Two major dimensions

Pedagogical effectiveness

– achieve a clear learning goal or objective

Structural design for reuse

– cohesion – decoupling (Boyle 2003)

Design for reuse

Cohesion– each unit should do one thing and one thing only

– minimum pedagogically meaningful unit

Decoupling– the unit should have minimal bindings to other units

– there should be no necessary navigational bindings to other units (embedded hyperlinks)

– learning object content should not refer to the content in another source so as to cause necessary dependencies

Engage

students

with familiar

every day

examples

Active

student

learning

Interact with

samples

of code

Scaffold student

learning

Module results

Course

LondonMet HNDLondonMet BScBolton BSc

LondonMet MSc

Percentage point increase2002-3 2003-4

+19 +27 +15 +21 +23 +12 +12 +19

Note: based on number of students completing modules compared with 2001-2

Pass rates increased for all modules

These increases exceeded our expectations

Pass rates

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

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 Advance the conceptual basis for RLOs

Critique of the EASA learning objects

Successful educationally

but

Limitations in productivity

Weak support for repurposing and local adaptation

Successful designs are implicit and not easily available for reuse

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

GLOs separate design pattern

from

Instantiation

(specific learning object)

How to elucidate and articulate these patterns?

and

How to make the result usable by tutors?

Challenges

Elucidating design patterns

Grounded analysis

Elucidating deep structure• influence of linguistics

• generative structure

Representing the pattern• Pedagogical patterns literature

• Capturing meaning

Implementation• Object oriented design/programming

Linguistics

Pedagogical patterns

Object Oriented thinking

Deep structure of GLO

1. Hierarchical decision structure not (just) linear sequence

2. Each node has a pedagogical function

3. Which is refined/expanded through options available at that choice point

4. Pedagogical commentary makes explicit the pedagogical function and choices available

It maps the decisions underlying a certain class of learning objects

Surface structure

Each GLO pattern binds to a default surface structure, which consists of a -

Sequence

of Pages (screen layouts)

consisting of and co-ordinating Components

into which are loaded Assets/content

Generative learning object (GLO) definition

“An articulated and executable learning design that produces a class of learning objects.”

The representation in a GLO is articulated in two distinct ways:

The first form relates to human understanding. A GLO articulates and renders explicit (the often implicit) decisions involved in design for learning. It does this by using a form of representation borrowed and adapted from generative linguistics.

The second form of articulation is rendering explicit these decisions in a way that can be executed by computer software to produce learning objects based on the design.

Making GLOs available to users

In practice, the pedagogical designs are represented as ‘plug-in’ patterns to the GLO Authoring tool.

The tool can be used to create specific learning objects based on the chosen pattern.

Each of these learning objects developed in this way can be re-purposed by local tutors (or learners), using the same tool, to adapt the resources to their local needs and preferences.

All the learning objects so created, or adapted, run as stand-alone Web based learning objects.

GLO Authoring Tool

How does it all fit together – a preliminary view

Traditional content oriented approaches to learning objects

GLO design oriented approach

Wider approaches to learning design e.g. IMS LD

Towards an initial problem representation space for visualizing the relationship between different approaches to learning objects and learning designs

Mapping the learning object space

Object Pattern

Complex

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

Content aggregation models

Complex or higher order learning objects

such as ALOCOM – five levels of aggregation

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 rich 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

Deep Meaning

Form

Realization

Hierarchical intention structure

Layered learning design?

The Design of Learning Objects for Pedagogical Impact –

Boyle (2008)

Course

Session

Activity

Learning object

Each layer provides services to the layer above– e.g. GLOs provide resources for lesson level learning designs

JISC D4L (2007)

Relationship on IMS LD to learning objects

There is a shortcircuiting of the design space

Generative learning object layer

Develop layering model of design space

Explore correspondences between design layers and content aggregation levels

IMS Learning Designs

Learning objects

Layering correspondence?

Assets

Design

Courses

Sessions

Aggregation

Larger objective

Single objective

Content objects

Content fragments

Content

?Learning

object

Component

Some productive questions

How do we extract and make available reusable learning designs at all levels?

Develop a richer integrated view of the relationship between learning designs and learning objects

– Learning objects as instances of learning designs

Explore the relationship between content aggregation models and layered learning design?

Finally, provide a comprehensive, articulated view of the problem space that relates learning design and learning object work

RawObject Pattern

Holo

Base

Packaged