Subject: First Summary: Learning Objects and Instruction Components Formal Discussion
From: Cynthia Mazow (cmazow@knowledgeu.com)
Date: Mon 21 Feb 2000 - 02:30:20 MET
From: "Cynthia Mazow" <cmazow@knowledgeu.com> Subject: First Summary: Learning Objects and Instruction Components Formal Discussion Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:30:20 -0800
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear IFETS,
The formal discussion on Learning Objects and Instructional Components began
a bit early on February 11. The main themes emerging through 16th February
are as follows. (I will provide the first summary until Samantha Hobbs is
back online and able to provide the remainder of the summaries.)
* Can strings of learning objects yield a coherent learning experience?
Leading off the discussion, Wendy Lowe (11th Feb.) first raised this issue
referring to the coherence of various aspects of a learning experience: "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?" Clark Quinn responds (11th Feb.) that the use
of learning objects may be a tradeoff between "educating the user about the
system in return for a more personalized learning experience." If the
learner is aware of how the system is performing and if the user is actively
involved in stringing together the learning objects creating the individual
experience, then coherence is less of a problem because the learner has
"expectations about what's coming." Clark also notes that a system may be
able to generate some bridging material between objects to create more
coherence. This being said, Clark notes that the issue of coherence will be
resolved empirically. Yigal Plot (12th Feb.) suggests that it is the
responsibility of the author reusing objects to "ensure course coherence."
Kurt Rowley again raises concerns about instructional coherence in
commercial-grade computer-based courses, but "for casual learning the
abruptness of differing treatments that one would expect with interoperable
learning objects might be acceptable." Ania Lian asks the larger questions,
"What makes a course coherent? Where does coherence come from? And, most of
all, the relationship between the database proposed and the teaching
environment so far does not seem to be explicit." Frank Lowney proposes
(13th Feb.) that on the issue of coherence we consider "faculty who have
composed texts for their classes by assembling articles and other
readings...as precursors." Errol Thompson returns to the issue of the
teaching environment with respect to coherence: "the learning objects are
not what drives the course but rather what gives learning in small area.
Course consistency in our context came through the teaching and assessment
projects (the problem based learning environment)." Again, suggesting that
the responsibility, in some ways, falls on the author of the course to
ensure the coherence; but he also suggests that the underlying instructional
principles and the learning also provide the coherence.
Related to the issue of coherence are the issues of the granularity size of
an object and object reuse and adaptability.
* What is the appropriate size of objects for authoring, reuse, and learning
effectiveness?
Many people seem to start with some assumptions about the size of a learning
object--course, chapter, lesson, raw media, expected time it takes to
complete the object. Everyone seems to have a different assumption, and
this discussion is revealing these different assumptions and is exposing
different view points. Ken Kahn (13th Feb.) wonders if the successful
integration of software components and the demand for this integration would
translate to greater success of tightly integrated learning objects instead
of a loose collection of objects. Some respond to Ken's comment, suggesting
that perhaps he is not ci
Related to object reuse is the question of adaptability of objects?
Wendy Lowe asks (11th Feb.) "Would such objects be adaptable by users to the
desired context?" Several people respond to this question citing copyright
issues and technical issues. Can someone who wishes to reuse an object
legally change the content of an object? If it is possible legally, is the
object created in way that technically modifying the content is possible.
Clark (11th Feb.)raises the possibility of a learner annotating an object on
"a path to creating a personalized knowledge system." Ken Kahn (13th Feb.)
raises the point of authoring difficulties, "it must be very difficult to
construct a single learning object that would be appropriate for such
different contexts." I believe Clark responds to this comment by referring
to the material that is provided before and after his example as providing
the instructional context that would make the example more suited to
different courses.
Lester Gilbert (14th Feb.), as an instructional designer, discusses the need
to tweak various aspects of an object to fit the learning objective,
pedagogical method, and learner prerequisites in order for an object to be
reused from one lesson to another. Several responses to this comment
suggested that perhaps Lester was thinking about a larger granularity size
object than the others were. Frank Lowney asserts (14th Feb.), "Reusability
will only come from deliberate action in that direction....Indeed, even the
objects themselves might be subject to "tweaking" if the object author
provides the means to do so." Alfred Ip (15th Feb.) discusses reusability
of objects with respect to their granularity size. Alfred has also been
keeping a running list of the independent components of learning objects
needed to be considered in reuse; so far, the list includes content,
function, learning objectives, look and feel.
*How can learning objects support collaborative learning?
Anita Pincas raised this issue of collaboration (12th Feb.) stating that her
method of teaching relies on learner collaboration. Yet, she feels that "Dr.
Quinn's approach would seem to...assume an isolated, individual learner."
Clark admits (14th Feb.) that he is biased that way because of the need for
a "critical mass of students all starting and progressing in lock-step."
However, Clark also goes on to explain that the notion of learning objects
does not preclude learner collaboration. A learning object may be a chat
session, a bulletin board, or some other collaborative activity. Barney
Dalgarno (16th Feb.) disagrees with Clark's statement that a learning object
can be a collaborative object on the grounds that he believes "most people
prefer to use generic communication tools...rather than having communication
tools provided as part of a resource. Clark responds by stating that an
object may set up the collaborative activity and provide the user access to
the communication tool of choice and not provide a communication tool
specific to the activity only.
Cindy Mazow
KnowledgePlanet.com
510.768.2435
cmazow@knowledgeplanet.com
http://www.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 - 02:41:20 MET