I’ve been thinking about learning objects. Not quite sure what to make of them yet. Learning objects have a variety of definitions – ranging from a simple Word document to a learning task that includes an objective, content and evaluation. Learning objects have their background in object oriented programming…the reuse of snippets of code to accelerate software development.
For background information on learning objects see:
elearnspace Learning Objects
Learning Objects – Downes
Learning Content Management System
Specifications and Standards
As learning objects develop and increase in popularity, repositories like Merlot and POOL offer valuable services of connecting developers of learning objects with potential users. This brings in additional concerns of validating learning object quality, finding them, negotiating price, etc. Essentially, it is the economic and procedural redevelopment of the existing publishing industry.
So far, no problem, I like learning objects…however, once we get to the use stage that my confusion increases. Two statements I’ve recently heard: “Educational facilities will begin to share and collaborate at the learning object level”…”the reuse of learning objects is a fairy tale. You don’t expect a great movie to be made up of recycled bits and pieces; the great ones are made from scratch. We want engagement. Why expect reuse?” (from Internettime…hmm both provocative (irreconcilable?) statements.
The first benefit of learning objects is usually listed as “reducing cost of future development”. Ok…I’ll buy that. In object oriented programming, costs are reduced by using bits of code (e.g. drop down menu in a software application) across many design stages. The same piece of code is not rewritten every time – it’s reused. This is the premise of learning objects. BUT…computers process objects the same way every time. People do not. This is a significant liability of learning objects (mind you, an argument could be made that a textbook is the same every time, and it is the instructors task to make learning come alive through interaction…so online, it is the instructors task of creating interaction around LO’s).
I don’t think reusability is a myth…I think the type of reusability currently being pursued by educational facilities is mislead. Learning objects have their greatest value in creating personalized learning…not in reusing objects developed by others. For example, our current notion of a “course” will change significantly over the next few years. Learning will be more closely linked to need or task – more like training with a scalpel versus our current machete model. In this environment, a student will go through an assessment stage, and (based on the needs determined by the assessment), content will be dynamically generated to create a personalized “course”. This process requires learning objects…and I think this is where they ultimately will (should) find their greatest adoption. Why this model? It makes sense…and it is learning based. Uses of learning objects that serve institutional purposes (i.e. reduce expenses) overlooks the centricity of tomorrows’ student in the learning process.