Subject: Re: More about Learning Objects and Software Components
From: Clark Quinn (cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com)
Date: Sun 20 Feb 2000 - 23:31:55 MET
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:31:55 -0800 From: Clark Quinn <cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com> Subject: Re: More about Learning Objects and Software Components
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I am all for modularity, scalability, and object-oriented programming. But
>Learning Objects and Software Components are more than just objects - they
>are promoted as units of commerce and independent development. They are
>typically created independently of the team that composes them. When, say,
>Microsoft builds large applications they build and use lots of internal
>components (based on COM or whatever) but the whole thing has an
>architecture or overall design and component builders build their components
>to fit that architecture. The analogous issue with Learning Objects is
>whether the creators of the components are working from a detailed spec that
>is part of a grand plan or are building generic pieces hoping someone will
>buy them and compile them together with other learning objects.
A good point. However, authors write libraries of routines without
knowing how/who they'll be used, they just ensure good interfaces.
I'm mindful that we may be pushing the software analogy too hard.
That is, we need to think of whether Learning Objects are a good
idea, and if so, what principles should govern their use. Metaphors
may lead us astray.
So, in principle, can and should instructional materials be written
at a finer level of granularity than a complete instructional
sequence?
Arguments con include:
you lose coherency
you have to relearn designing
there may be no benefit to smaller objects
you need a system to string together the objects
Arguments pro include:
You can add objects in as you find them (hard to argue that there
isn't always a need for more practice opportunities)
you may be able to do individualization
you can update only those portions that are out of date
you may be able to reuse
the structure of designing for standalone might enforce better objects
-- Clark
-- Clark Quinn KnowledgePlanet.com (510) 768-2408 cquinn@knowledgeplanet.com--------------------------------------------------------- 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 : Mon 21 Feb 2000 - 01:18:27 MET