Subject: Re: Re-usability of LOs & Instructional Purposes
From: Errol Thompson (errol.thompson@wnp.ac.nz)
Date: Mon 14 Feb 2000 - 22:56:06 MET
From: "Errol Thompson" <errol.thompson@wnp.ac.nz> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:56:06 +1200 Subject: Re: Re-usability of LOs & Instructional Purposes
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Any material that is specifically *designed* for an instructional
> purpose is designed to meet one or more specific learning objectives.
> I can imagine a unit, for example, that is designed to meet the
> objective "By the end of the unit the student will be able to
> construct a Web page using HTML and animated GIFs." To the extent
> that material is designed to meet a specific objective, it must be
> less effective at meeting other, somewhat similar objectives. I would
> have to tweak my unit, for example, if I wanted the students to use
> simple Javascript in the Web page, or some JPGs.
You said you had a background in computer science and
instructional design. Reconsider the object models and especially
the concepts of composition. I would argue that your learning
object is too large to be anything other than a composite learning
object. For a start, you are teaching a number of different
techniques. Apply the concepts of cohesion and coupling in
defining your learning objects. This will mean smaller more focused
objects joint with others to form larger chunks of learning.
> Also, any material that is specifically *designed* for an
> instructional purpose is designed for use with a specific pedagogical
> method. For example, my unit might teach Web pages, HTML, and GIFs by
> a lab-based tutor-guided discovery method. To take those unit
> materials and use them in a mass live-lecture situation would require
> a pretty thorough re-write.
When I put together a course from a range of learning objects, I will
select those that I feel match the pedagogical method that I want
to use. I may select a number of alternatives in order to give
students an option based on their perceived preference of learning
style.
In a course that focuses on student centred or student directed
learning, why shouldn't I allow a number of different pedagogical
methods. Some resources will be lecture style and others might be
problem-based or active learning. To me, this is the bueaty of
learning objects. There can be alternative objects just as there are
alternative text books. Give the students more freedom of choice
with the lecturer / tutor providing guidance where necessary.
> I might also guess that only LOs designed to very broad and very
> general objectives will find any wide-spread re-use. Such a
> generally useful LO will turn out to be a very substantial object,
> like a book, in order to ensure some coherence. Smaller LOs will be
> of almost no use to anyone other than a full-time properly-trained
> instructional designer, whose professional job might well involve the
> design of instruction using such objects.
Why should they be very broad and very general? Why not a
learning object that focuses on teaching core / basic html concepts
and another that talks about the use of graphics? Most distance
learning students will do their study in small chunks (maybe 2 or 3
hours at a time) yet the traditional book chapter or learning unit in a
distance learning course is deisgned for up to 30 hours of study.
Why not use a pedagogy and object size that better matches their
available learning chunks. Give them a sense of achievement.
Combine these smaller chunks into a larger composite object to
achieve a higher level goal. The total time on the composite object
(including the contained objects) and you might have a 30 or 60
hour object but the students has chunks that they can handle in
shorter periods of time.
The common thread in a problem based strategy is the teaching
problem. I may use objects that teach concepts that will feed back
into that teaching problem but they don't need to be so closely tied
to it that they can be of no use in other contexts. I want my
students to develop critical thinking skills including synthesis. If I
do not give them the opportunity to think outside the narrow
confines then many of them will never develop the lateral thinking
and knowledge transfer skills that I desire of them.
Errol Thompson
Senior Lecturer
Business Information
College of Business
Massey University at Wellington
Private Box 756
63 Wallace Street
Wellington
New Zealand
Email: E.L.Thompson@massey.ac.nz
Phone 64 4 801 2794 ext: 8531
or 64 21 210 1662
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue 15 Feb 2000 - 01:09:02 MET