InfoTech Volume 31, Number
4, April 2004
Laurel A. Clyde
Digital Learning Objects
At the Online Information 2003 conference in London
last December, people were talking about a wide range
of topics, including search engines, knowledge management,
information quality, content management systems (CMS),
intranets, wireless networks (WiFi), accessing information
services via a mobile phone, electronic publishing, digital
libraries, weblogs, “resource discovery,” virtual
learning environments, and “learning objects.” Some
of these topics, including weblogs and WiFi, have already
been discussed in past InfoTech articles; learning objects
will be discussed here; while others will be the focus
of future articles.
At the Online conference, learning
objects (or, more specifically, digital learning objects)
were discussed
mostly in relation to universities and to continuing
professional education or workplace learning, areas
where funding seems to be available for development,
on the
basis of assumed gains or efficiencies (particularly
in business). It was predicted that the “online
learning market” (outside of schools) would be
valued at US$11.5 billion by the end of 2003, and that
this would attract major levels of investment funding.
It would nevertheless pay school library professionals
to monitor the emergence of learning objects, since they
do have considerable applicability at the school level
(even if most of the funding is going to other sectors
at the moment). What are learning objects?
The concept of learning objects
is based in both instructional technology and computer
science. Instructional technology
has been a factor in the current shift of instruction
towards more student-centered, problem-based strategies.
Computer science has contributed the ideas associated
with object-oriented programming and computing. This
object-oriented approach is based on the creation of
digital components (called “objects”) that
can be used and re-used in different contexts and even
for different purposes. The outcome of “instructional
technology meets object-oriented computing” is “small,
reusable chunks of instructional media” (Wiley,
2000, p.3). These objects are “highly interoperable
and reusable modular building blocks for e-learning content
based on widely shared specifications or already accredited
standards” (e.g., for metadata and content packaging)
(The Networker, 2003).
While learning objects may be “chunks” of
content, they may also be simulations, communication
tools, assessment activities and learning management
tools. The Field guide to learning objects, compiled
by the American Society for Training and Development
(ASTD) and SmartForce (2002), lists the following types
of learning objects, among others: lessons (a combination
of “text, graphics, animation, audio, questions,
and exercises”), articles, case studies, mentored
exercises, discussion boards, role-play simulations,
software simulations, research projects, performance
tests. Australian teacher-librarian Barbara Braxton has
described learning objects as “multimedia snippets
that illustrate, demonstrate, simulate particular items,
processes and so forth that cannot readily be replicated
in the classroom environment” (Braxton, 2003).
She used as an example a demonstration of a spider spinning
a web. There are, however, almost as many definitions
of the term “learning objects” as there are
people writing about the topic. This not only makes communication
among experts confusing, but it also makes it difficult
for people new to the field to grasp the essentials.
Further
confusion is created through different terminology
used by different writers and different organizations.
In the literature related to learning objects, a number
of other phrases are used, including “instructional
object,” “educational object,” “knowledge
object,” “data object,” “intelligent
object” and “instructional component.” Although
the use of different terminology may reflect different
theoretical approaches, this does not always seem to
be the case. Yet another complicating factor is that
for most writers on the topic, learning objects do not
stand alone, but rather are part of a wider environment
that includes the theory and practice of instructional
technology on the one hand, and on the other hand, metadata
and other strategies for describing, indexing and organizing
learning objects. Learning objects, then, reflect their
origins in a number of theories, ideas and instructional
strategies from
different fields. Nevertheless, modularity, standardization,
reusability, and the use of metadata to provide access
are key concepts.
Advantages and limitations of learning
objects
With appropriate
technology standards in place (by no means a certainty
at present), and the use of metadata
and other indexing strategies to make learning objects
accessible to instructors, then “learning object-based
instruction” has a number of advantages. These
include efficiency, time savings and reusability. The
Learning Objects Metadata Working Group (Learning Technology
Standards Committee of IEEE, the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers, Inc.) has had among its purposes,
enabling instructional designers to automatically and
dynamically compose personalized lessons for an individual
learner (LOM, 2000). With course development cycles shortening
to keep pace with current needs and events, then reusable
learning objects (particularly in standard or generic
formats) will allow classroom teachers and instructional
designers to work more quickly. Nevertheless, “defined,
open standards” are “crucial to the continuing
successful adoption of e-learning” (Urdan & Weggen,
2000, p.16), whether the learning objects are purchased
by the school or available free through web-based learning
objects repositories. However, one of the problems is
to persuade the creators of learning objects to use
specified metadata when making
their learning objects available through repositories.
Another problem is that the standards for metadata
do not always provide for the inclusion of instructional
design information. Says Wiley (2000, p.11), “this
sets the stage for learning objects to be used simply
to glorify online instruction, the way clip-art and
dingbats are used … to decorate elementary school
newsletters.” It
becomes, he says, nothing more than “clip-art
instruction” (Wiley,
1999).
If a number of learning objects are to be brought
together to create a learning experience, then the
objects will
be of various kinds, such as “content-bearing
objects,” interactive
systems, sets of problems and feedback systems. In
addition, instructors will have to be able to locate,
compare and
select learning objects to incorporate them into a
learning experience. A widely accepted taxonomy (or
classification)
of learning objects seems a long way off, but without
it, teachers and instructional designers will find
it difficult to establish the real purpose of a learning
object and to use it to best advantage. “While
object categorizations exist specific to particular
instructional design theories,” (Wiley, 2000,
p.21), a broadly-applicable taxonomy or classification
of learning objects does not.
This makes it harder for teachers to locate, select
and use appropriate learning objects.
The same problem of
standardization surrounds authoring tools for creating
learning objects. These tools need
to be operable across different types of computers
and software, and they need to be able to interact with
other
tools if digital content and courseware is to be used
across a range of technology platforms and in a variety
of settings. Although a LEGO metaphor is often used
when discussing learning objects, in fact this is far
too
simplistic. It assumes, for example, that any LEGO
block can be combined with any other LEGO block, and
that the
blocks can be put together in any way the user chooses.
Neither assumption is valid at present in the learning
objects environment.
While the discussion of learning
objects is often focused on their design or their efficiency,
nevertheless some
commentators have been concerned primarily with the
potential of learning objects to support inquiry-based
or project-based
learning (Orrill, 2000). In this environment, learning
objects can offer an easier development cycle, greater
interchangeability of components, and increased individualization.
When instruction is grounded in a constructivist approach,
for example based on Carol Kuhlthau’s theories,
students need access, among other things, to quality
information sources and opportunities to explore information
sources. Learning objects can be used as a support tool
in inquiry-based settings (Orrill, 2000), as resources
for learning and as scaffolding for learning, though
their use will need to be based on careful consideration.
The learner needs “a rich holistic learning environment” (Orrill,
2000, p.8) if a constructivist approach is to be successful.
Barbara
Braxton (2003) raises a number of issues for teacher-librarians,
in terms of learning objects. Will
the teacher-librarian in a school be responsible for
finding learning objects that meet a teacher’s
needs? If a teacher needs resources on a particular topic,
will there be an expectation that the resources will
include learning objects, in the same way that they include
web links now? Will the learning objects be available
through the school library’s online catalog? How
will learning objects be cataloged? Should teacher-librarians
be proactive in searching free and commercial (paid)
learning objects databases to identify and acquire those
that support the key areas of the curriculum? Should
digital learning objects be acquired for the school library
collection in the same way that books and CDs are now?
Assuming that the answer is “yes,” then teacher-librarians
will also have a role in promoting the use of these resources
and providing professional development opportunities
for teachers. Learning objects repositories
Learning objects are already
available free or for a fee from learning objects repositories.
Some repositories
have been set up by education authorities or by professional
organizations; others by commercial organizations.
Some are cooperatives; for example, organized by groups
of
universities to share resources and development costs.
It has even been suggested that the creation and distribution
of learning objects represents “a new economy of
education” at the university level (Downes, 2002).
The majority of learning objects repositories today contain
resources for tertiary education or for continuing professional
education and training. However, commercial services
are already targeting key schools and known innovators
in the field of learning technology at the school level.
It is probable that schools and school libraries in the
future will budget for digital learning resources in
the same way that they budget for textbooks and for access
to online information services today. Nevertheless, a
few free learning object repositories do exist now, serving
primary and secondary schools. One example is Canada’s
SchoolNet (see the “Learning Resources” section);
another is MERLOT (maintained by the Educational Object
Economy Foundation in the US). A directory of learning
objects collections is available
on the Web. References
American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), & SmartForce.
(2002) A field guide to learning objects. ASTD online
booklet. Retrieved November 7, 2003 from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/jul2002/smartforce.pdf
Braxton, B. (2003, March 20). “Learning objects.” Message
posted to the OZTL_NET electronic discussion list.
Canada¹s SchoolNet. (2003). Retrieved December
13, 2003 from http://www.schoolnet.ca/
Downes, S. (2002). Design and reusability of learning
objects in an academic context: A new economy of education?
Conference paper. Retrieved December 13, 2003, from http://www.downes.ca/files/milan.doc
Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers.
(2000). WG-12 Learning objects metadata. Retrieved December
13, 2003, from http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/index.html
Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning & Online
Teaching (MERLOT). (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2003,
from http://www.merlot.org/
Learning objects from cultural and scientific heritage
resources. (2003, November 12). The Networker, 2.
Orrill, C. (2000). Learning objects to support inquiry-based
online learning. Retrieved December 13, 2003, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/orrill.doc
Urdan, T., & Weggen, C. (2000). Corporate e-learning:
Exploring a new frontier. Retrieved December 13, 2003,
from http://www.wrhambrecht.com/ind/pr/2000/0302elearn.html.
This report is no longer publicly available; however,
a press release describing the report can be found at
http://www.wrhambrecht.com/ind/pr/2000/0302elearn.html (retrieved January 6, 2004).
Wiley, D. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional
design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy.
Retrieved December 13, 2003, from http://www.reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc
Wiley, D. (1999). Learning objects and the new CAI:
So what do I do with a learning object? Retrieved December
13, 2003, from http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/instruct-arch.pdf
Other resources
Beck, R. (2003). Learning objects: Select bibliography.
Center for International Education, University of Wisconsin
Milwaukee. Retrieved November 7, 2003 from http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CIE/AOP/LO_bib.html
Downes, S. (2000). Learning objects. Retrieved November
7, 2003, from http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/downes/naweb/Learning_Objects.htm
Gibbons, A., Nelson, J., & Richards, R. (2000).
The nature and origin of instructional objects. Retrieved
December 13, 2003, from http://www.reusability.org/read/chapters/gibbons.doc
Ip, A., & Mornson, I. (2001). Learning objects in
different pedagogical paradigms. Conference paper. Retrieved
November 7, 2003, from http://www.medfac.unimelb.edu.au/Ascilite2001/pdf/papers/ipa.pdf
 Laurel A. Clyde is Professor in the Faculty of Social
Science at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik. She
can be reached at anne@rhi.hi.is.
|
