Comments on: Learning Objects R.I.P.

By: Mountebank » Local Learning Objects–the BMCC-GLO

Mountebank » Local Learning Objects–the BMCC-GLO — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:55:37 +0000

[...] As so many others have pointed out, there’s something so broad, and so inclusive about the term “Learning Object,” that it becomes shallow and almost meaningless. The standard or accepted definition is something like “a reusable, interoperable, educational activity, digital or non-digital, with meta-data attached for classification.” That’s my paraphrase of many different definitions, but the basic idea is that you build up a large collection (usually called a repository) of these things–usually a website, or set of instructions for an activity–make that collection public and searchable, and then sit back and wait for teachers to come and check it out. Then they’re so ecstatic about the range of items they find that they use them in their classes, and everybody benefits from the collective wisdom of the whole community. [...]

By: Teaching Generation Z » Flattening The Pyramid Of Influence

Teaching Generation Z » Flattening The Pyramid Of Influence — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:35:35 +0000

[...] But through the blogosphere I find support for my alternative point of view. I find information that explains to me what a federated repository is. I find posts via Alan Levine that query the whole definition of a Learning Object and then the next post leads onto another post from Artichoke, closer to home who is also uncomfortable with the funding obsession with these DLOs. I find myself nodding my head in agreement so much that in a fit of self opinionation, I leave a comment on Artichoke’s blog. I see Leigh’s already beaten me to it but that’s hardly a surprise. But I write anyway… My copy of CEGSA RAMpage magazine tells me that both the Aussie and Kiwi governments have committed more than $100 million to the Learning Federation project for 8000 Learning Objects. Using my LO calculator that works out to twelve and a half grand per object. That’s for an object that might (emphasis added) get used once a year in a lesson to show a one off concept if at all, while our schools cry out for more funds to keep their ICT basics up to date. And who’s designing and creating these objects – I’ve yet to meet an actual teacher who has contributed to this expensive experiment. A lot of eggs in that particular basket – keep the cynicism going, a lot of educators don’t know what a Learning Object is supposed to be but unfortunately are super impressed and feel that the bleeding edge must be close by. So already edubloggers are breaking open topics that were once the reserve of their line managers and their line managers’ line managers. And maybe it’s getting to the stage where we might be able to wield some influence, where a tech-savvy policy maker will actually “take the pulse” of the edublogosphere to gain some direction because issues are debated in full out here, educators are building collective knowledge and passing it onto their non-blogging colleagues and eventually, the Pyramid of Influence will start to flatten. So read, learn, debate, remix, propose, add to and let’s take back control of our profession. Do those higher up the totem pole really know what’s better for students and their future than you? [...]

By: Sami Nurmi

Sami Nurmi — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 05:53:08 +0000

Dear Alan,
Indeed, it’s all about the content and the context of use as you said – in addition to the pedagogical methods and ways to implement LOs in that context. There is no use for empty and too broad definitions of LOs (like the IEEE definition), but the essential issues are sharing and reusing of exisiting digital learning materials/resources. In my opinion two most important factors in the whole LO movement are 1) pedagogical implementation and 2) sharing of materials. Through material sharing we can increase the use of ICT in schools, and maybe even decrease the effort and time required by the teachers in preparing her/his teaching. Even so, strictly prescribed standards and definitions of LOs are only neccessary for computers and automated LO systems; humans are able to (re)use existing materials flexibly and meaningfully to meet their current needs. However, the save of time and effort when teachers are building new teaching materials(either starting from scratch or making new combinations/variations with existing materials) is more a fantasy than a real thing. Creating something new is always laborious, but then the value may come from reusing that material again.

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:43:17 +0000

That’s nicely said and nothing I would argue with. However, it still pre-supposes that there is a uniquely identifiable entity of what a learning objects is, so I can distinguish from say a door knob object or a french fry object.

What I think I heard was learning objects depend on their context

I sm astill waiting to read someinthfg more specific that provides a case study where ordinary teachers built content out of different pre-existing learning objects and actually did save the alleged time, money, hair loss, etc.

Bottom line, in my book, is that there is nothing special about these things we cannot identify, so why bother promiting more vagueness? If it is content and context we are talking about, then let’s talk about that.

By: Sami Nurmi

Sami Nurmi — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 06:52:50 +0000

Actually learning objects (or different kinds of digital learning resources/materials etc., whatever they are called) itself are not good or bad, but the ways to implement and the learning environments created around them determine the pedagogical value and usefulness of LOs. Due to LO’s flexible nature, they can be used to support almost all kinds of instructional strategies, methods and learning theories – both sophisticated and reductionist ones.

The LO approach offers both tremendous promises (like cost-effective production, maximal sharing and reusability, flexible adaptability, technical interoperability etc.), but also at the same time very serious shortcomings and fundamental problems. These problems are mainly related to flawed views of knowledge, learning and teaching, which are underlying the LO approach. Therefore it’s essential that every educator should evaluate the ways they are using (or planning to use) LOs in their teaching and reflect what kind of teaching and learning activities they are promoting with LOs. LOs need sound pedagogical grounding, because LOs itself won’t improve teaching and learning practices.

By: Wizard

Wizard — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:39:06 +0000

Where’s my wizard hat and robe…

By: Scott Stein

Scott Stein — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:33:33 +0000

Much ado about nothing! Everything we read, see, do, hear, touch, etc. is a “learning object.” The fact that we package small amounts of learning into comsumable bundles and name it a “learning object” doesn’t change the fact that people learn in chunks.

One of the weaknesses of training professionals seems to be the desire to argue over semantics an academic theories rather than how different approaches drive business results. And as Yoda so eloquently said, “And that is why you fail.”

By: Bird's Eye View

Bird's Eye View — Fri, 27 May 2005 15:25:05 +0000

learning objects dead?

In both Learning Objects R.I.P. and Learning objects – Is the Kind nakedAlan and Teemu suggest that the term ‘learning object’ is essentially useless, as anything could be termed a learning object (of course the famously broad and much-hated IEEE quo…

By: Bohemian Rhapsody » The Emperor is Naked - So Stop the Academic Acrobatics Already

Thu, 26 May 2005 16:48:23 +0000

[...] more willing to give you research funds. Been there, done that." Bingo.Excerpt from CogDogBlog:"What I find curious is a great deal of s [...]

By: Edublogs.be » Learning Objects - In Memoriam?

Edublogs.be » Learning Objects - In Memoriam? — Wed, 25 May 2005 14:07:43 +0000

[...] earning Objects – In Memoriam?

Deze week is in de edublog-wereld nogal wat ophef ontstaan over een post van een Finse collega, die het concept ̵ [...]