Previously on CDB, on the doubts of “Learning object repositories”… “The folly is that educators will give up some time to share information about resources they have created or used”.
Now a different slant. I had lunch recently with a colleague working on a new grant funded project– creating discipline-specific “learning objects” and yes, their project was also going to build Yet Another Repository. The definition of “learning objects” was so vague, it was almost white text on white paper. “Online instructional learning modules that are innovative and engaging” was pretty much it. And while this person did say they had considered my suggestion of just using MERLOT to deposit the so-called objects, that was discarded were going to spend time building a new database.
There is nothing wrong with building a collection. Heck, I thought it was worth it.
Maybe someday we might need a “repository of repositories” but it seems but a re-hash of what I am now calling Field of Dreams Syndrome (FoDs)- “If you build it, they will come and dump their objects in” (very unlikely) along with “If you Build it, the Objects Will Magically Re-Assemble Themselves Into Something Else”. I am still looking for examples of meaningful content built from objects. I would love to given some thing to sink my teeth into.
Collecting learning resources, materials, heck “objects” is fine and worthy, but again, is not the whole enchilada. It is the instructional context around the technology doo-hickies that is more interesting (and perhaps more re-usable). The technology of an interactive Flash gizmo is going to have s short shelf life, but an idea of building an inquiry-based exploration around it….. well good ideas live longer, you can always put a new gizmo in the middle.
But I hear them clearing more cornfields…