Comments on: Kiwi Artichoke Barks At Learning Objects

By: P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » SCORM: replacing “subject-oriented” curricula with “object oriented” curricula

Mon, 15 May 2006 07:28:06 +0000

[...] However, Sean Fitzgerald, co-maintainer of our P2P Learning Concepts page, informs us that such Learning Objects are controversial and have been debated for several years already. Here’s an example of a critical conversation. [...]

By: Rory McGreal

Rory McGreal — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:48:13 +0000

* After all this time, maybe 6, 8, 11 years, why are there so few documented
examples (and not the airline industry widget training sequences) of
compelling learning content that has been assemble lego-like as the theory
goes? Is it we lack the ability to track re-use?

RORY>>>>> According to Downes’ and Teemu’s definitions there are +10 billion
Learning Objects on the Web. I don’t believe too many serious researchers
are using the “lego” analogy anymore, except in a simple sense. Other use
molecular and even biological analogies to convey the complexity. And, we
may not lack the ability, but we lack the research time in setting up an
investigation.

* After all this time, we are still focused on the building the collections
of “objects” not the creation of content from them. So I empathize with the
Kiwi Artichoke who is eyeing with doubt Yet Another Repository, Yet Another
Pile of Objects.

RORY>>> I respectfully disagree. We are focusing on the content, which is
increasing exponentially. What other repository??? The repositories are
failing NOT the content creation.

I have trouble with the book metaphor. It is very clear to someone whether
something is or is not a book (with some grey area between books and
journals). Yet, there is, after all this time, no clear sense of whether
something is or is not a learning object.
. RORY>>> Quite, there is no accepted definition yet. But eh, it’s early!
.
. And we still get mired down in hashing out the definitions. When learning
objects are reduced to “digital content used for learning” and almost
anything can be a learning object (as instances where I have found thins
referred to as “HTML objects”), then learning obejcts themselves have no
unique characteristic that makes them worth applying. The term means
nothing. If it content, let’s talk about content.
RORY>>>> The IEEE, Downes and Teemu believe everything is a LO. I believe I
agree with you that such a definition is useless. We can talk about content
AND we can talk about what makes content a learning object. I would suggest
that there is room for digital ‘information objects’ that can be used in an
educational context and digital LOs which are specifically designed for a
learning context (my definition). What we need are the means to make these
objects eminently interoperable – That is the worth of LOs. Encapsulating
the content in a container with metadata to facilitate use in a wide variety
of applications and environments – that is an LO. So, we can talk about
learning content as pedagogues OR we can talk about LOs as computer
scientists – how do we make this content (whatever the orientation or
methodology) accessible, searchable and interoperable.
The book analogy is simple: We make the content accessible by putting the
books in libraries (repositories) and searchable (Call Numbers [LofC
standard] -metadata) and they are interoperable because they are all
formatted in standard ways (left – right orientation, page numbers etc.).
LOs make digital content accessible when in repositories (the WWW can be
viewed as a huge repository)- searchable using IEEE LOM metadata standard
and interoperable using a standard content packaging [IEEE/SCORM].

Soi please, bring on more content, make it available, share it, re-use it,
but please someone else start yelling that the Learning Object King is
wearing no clothes (meta data optional).

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 03:57:27 +0000

Rory, I am honored you’d visit my little corner of the web. While I am 10000% in favor of sharable, reusbale content, whatever contained they are put in, I remain a sideline skeptic because:

* After all this time, maybe 6, 8, 11 years, why are there so few documented examples (and not the airline industry widget training sequences) of compelling learning content that has been assemble lego-like as the theory goes? Is it we lack the ability to track re-use?

* After all this time, we are still focused on the building the collections of “objects” not the creation of content from them. So I empathize with the Kiwi Artichoke who is eyeing with doubt Yet Another Repository, Yet Another Pile of Objects.

* I have trouble with the book metaphor. It is very clear to someone whether something is or is not a book (with some grey area between books and journals). Yet, there is, after all this time, no clear sense of whether something is or is not a learning object. And we still get mired down in hashing out the definitions. When learning objects are reduced to “digital content used for learning” and almost anything can be a learning object (as instances where I have found thins referred to as “HTML objects”), then learning obejcts themselves have no unique characteristic that makes them worth applying. The term means nothing. If it content, let’s talk about content.

Soi please, bring on more content, make it available, share it, re-use it, but please someone else start yelling that the Learning Object King is wearing no clothes (meta data optional).

By: Rory McGreal

Rory McGreal — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:21:53 +0000

These terms are tossed like Brassica sprouts into the (e) conversations of the digerati with a facility and confidence that belies the fact that these resources and design environments are contentious, as yet not well defined, and often do not support contemporary understandings of meaningful learning environments…
RORY>>> Design environments for education are (and I suggest will remain so, at least for our lifetimes). What I find difficult is to find out is WHO is stating that LOs MUST conform to any particular educational approach or technique??? Many put their particular approach into LOs, but they do not insist that everyone must do so. Constructivists and behaviourists and those who simply want to put lectures on the web can all use LOs OR not. LOs are simply a means of formatting the content and making it available in a STANDARD capsule that can be then used in a variety of online applications. Because content is reusable it does not preclude anyone using it for whatever interactive purpose they desire. It just makes it easier to use in your application. Perhaps everything cannot fit into a standard capsule – so what? – if 10% or 50% or whatever % can, this will be useful to SOME educators, perhaps more useful than NOT having a standard.

When I question the digerati it seems that learning management systems are all about managing content for consumption, and digital learning objects all about creating the content for consumption.
RORY>>> Yes, and having the content readily available in a standard format (as the book format has served us for centuries) will empower those who wish to use constructivist or other methodologies. I do not see how having content in a standard container can hinder them.