Subject: Learning Objects: adaptable?
From: Jim Schuyler (jschuyler@knowledgeplanet.com)
Date: Tue 15 Feb 2000 - 01:45:40 MET
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:45:40 -0800 From: Jim Schuyler <jschuyler@knowledgeplanet.com> Subject: Learning Objects: adaptable?
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to:
>Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 18:08:35 -0500
>From: Kurt Rowley <krowley@megatutor.com>
>Subject: Learning Objects: adaptable?
>As an instructional designer I can not imagine using externally constructed
>learning objects in commercial-grade computer-based courses, as every nuance
>of every visual and interactive component of the system must be fine-tuned
>to harmonize with the course themes, topics, learning objectives, examples,
>and often a customized instructional strategy. Only learning objects from a
>nearly-identical course would be useful in that sort of application. On the
>other hand, for casual learning the abruptness of differing treatments that
>one would expect with interoperable learning objects might be acceptable.
I hear this often, and I agree. Those implementing commercial-grade courses
are undoubtedly going to benefit primarily from re-using their own objects,
or from using other objects created within their own organizations. Nothing
looks good if the graphic approach varies from page to page, grammar and
wording are variable, and there's no similarity from object to object.
What that means is that the primary benefits of an object orientation will
be within the larger courseware creation organizations or groups where
objects can be re-used and re-purposed. Organizations spending huge amounts
on creating courseware can reap sizeable benefits from going to an
object-oriented metaphor and process. [Jim]
Concomitantly, it's important for any "authoring" organization which is
going to adopt an object orientation to carefully consider what standards
to use, and to adopt and "enforce" those standards so that objects can
be reused. Object re-use will take place *within* their organizations,
not *without*. [Jim]
(Interesting provocative side-question: what if publishers
were to insist on common approach from all of their authors? Some do, and
most don't.) [Jim]
I agree that individuals involved in "casual learning" will
not care as much about consistency of presentation or pedagogy, and
I think that's just fine. [Jim]
Think also about how you search for information using the web vs how you
use a reference library. You may "search the web" and get hundreds of
references to materials, and be very tolerant of the low quality of what
you retrieve. Using the reference library, you will have a much more
tightly focused search strategy, and will find individual publications,
each of which (hopefully) is well thought out, integrated, progresses
nicely through a topic, and contains information you can trust. [Jim]
>> Having read the paper under discussion currently I have a couple of
>> questions to pose, which may seem banal: however, always
>> practical-minded I wonder how we will use learning objects that use
>> differing styles of presentation, expression and so on. If one were to
>> string a couple together would the result be a coherent course? Would
>> such objects be adaptable by users to the desired context?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Schuyler (510) 768.2424
VP & Chief Learning Architect KnowledgePlanet.com, Inc.
http://www.KnowledgePlanet.com Emeryville CA USA
--------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
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 - 03:03:25 MET