Online Education Using Learning Objects

Rory McGreal

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780415416603
• eBook ISBN: 9781134116799
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

'E-learning is integral to on-site education institutions worldwide, and the rapid explosion of interest in the subject means that this timely, cutting-edge book will be an instant and indispensable resource. Among educators, the development of reusable learning objects made accessible via the internet is ever more important to teaching and learning.

This book provides a comprehensive look at a state-of-the-art online education, and presents advice on the creation, adaptation and implementation of learning objects and metadata. Including articles written by some of the leading innovators in the field, this book takes the reader through:

• designing effective learning objects;

• 
  
  

• creating learning objects;

• 
  
  

• transforming existing content into reusable learning objects;

• 
  
  

• building a metadata management system.

• 
  
  

This book will be essential reference material for learning technologists, course developers at learning institutions, postgraduate students, teachers and learners in the field of e-learning.'

Part 1

Learning Objects and Metadata

As pointed out in the Introduction, there are many views of LOs. In this part, the view that LOs are necessary course components is contrasted with others that are suspicious of the engineering and military origins of the LO concept. Pedagogical methodology is introduced using the educational modelling language approach, and followed by the model of taxonomies and the concept of granularity.

Stephen Downes of the National Research Council of Canada begins with a basic explanation of learning objects as digital materials that are used to create online courses accessible over the Internet through different types of repositories. He presents a solid case for the need for LOs, while explaining the costs of online learning. He argues that LOs can drastically reduce the costs of content development by facilitating sharing among students, institutions and instructors. He suggests that smaller units than courses will be shared, arguing that courses are too large and do not deliver the flexibility of smaller modules, which are more interoperable. Learning Object Repositories, Downes argues, will become networked using common standards enabling discoverability.

In Chapter 2 Sosteric and Hesemeier of Athabasca University argue that while learning objects may be revolutionary in the long term, in the short term, definition problems and conceptual confusion undermine our ability to understand and critically evaluate them. This chapter attempts to reduce the definition of learning objects to the bare essentials. In particular, they question the reliance of educators on Object-Oriented Programming (OOP), arguing that its applicability to learning objects is minor and possibly even counterproductive. They claim that much-needed time and energy are involved in trying to fit LOs into the OOP framework. They claim that even limiting OOP theory to just the reusability feature of LOs is not enough, pointing to development psychology, sociology and non-OOP areas of computation for direction in refining our understanding of LOs.

LOs, the authors assume, come equipped with features that make them not only pedagogically advantageous, but also economically and politically useful. And LO users, whether they be instructors or learners, have high expectations regarding their appropriateness and value. However, they lament the inability of present-day users to evaluate the claims.

They call for proper evaluative mechanisms to be put in place. This involves the development of theories of LOs in order to find the means to criticize and evaluate them. They suggest importing theories from other fields such as instructional design, or theories modified and distilled from eclectic sources. Their call for proper evaluation techniques is answered in one way by Nesbit and Belfer in Chapter 11 and in another approach by Kestner in Chapter 21.

As Sosteric and Hesemeier suggest, educators must relentlessly test the theories and standards using the LOs themselves. Theories must be based on lessons learnt in the actual implementation details and research conducted on the instructional effectiveness of LOs. Then, the LO research can contribute new knowledge to pedagogical theory and practice.

In Chapter 3, Koper and van Es of the Open University of the Netherlands (OUN) address the topic of pedagogical design of learning experiences. Their analysis of pedagogical models provides a meta-model from which course developers can build a notation for units of study using an educational modelling language (EML). They refer to the pedagogical meta-model behind EML/IMS LD, analysing the limitations and weaknesses in popular conceptions of LOs.

They go on to describe a containing framework for typed LOs in order to ensure a valid structure. But, they argue, such a framework is not sufficient because it lacks any pedagogical design. These theories form the basis for the design of the meta-model behind EML/IMS LD. On the other hand, the designs themselves are not enough to guarantee high-quality designs. They tend to be defined at too abstract a level, not providing enough details for the real structuring work that must be done when developing real units of learning.

EML/IMS LD makes the use of pedagogical models explicit. This is one of the factors needed to enhance the quality of a pedagogical design. So the combination of good design and good structuring of the design in a notation brings out the quality of learning. EML/IMS LD provides a framework too for communication. It can make the building of learning management systems easier and their use more effective.

Athabasca University’s Norm Friesen, in Chapter 4, outlines three problems associated with the implementation of LOs, all of which are related to the dependence on technical and specialized concepts within the learning context. In particular, he focuses on the reliance on these concepts in the context of public education. The benefits of LOs such as ‘systems interoperability’, ‘resource reusability’ and ‘application profiles’ can appear strange when seen in many educational contexts.

Friesen’s first objection is with the term ‘learning object’ itself, arguing that using these two words together is ‘incongruous and incommensurable’, one being pedagogical and the other technological. His second objection is based on the abstruseness of the term, noting that new concepts must be presented in terms that are meaningful to practitioners. His third objection is to the claim put forward by proponents of SCORM and other LO profiles for ‘pedagogical neutrality’, when the model may not be suitable for some learning environments and could even in some cases present a barrier. He warns us of the ‘imprint of the ideology and culture of the American military-industrial complex’, which he considers ‘antithetical’ to education.

In Chapter 5, Erik Duval and Wayne Hodgins investigate advanced and innovative interpretations of the basic concepts underlying the learning object (LO) paradigm. They consider a taxonomy of LOs and their components. This leads to a component architecture for structuring composite LOs based on the concept of granularity. This includes the processes of aggregation and disassembly to produce new or repurpose existing LOs. They then suggest factors that support the efficiency and effectiveness of LO repurposing, and how these can be influenced by appropriate design methodologies.

The authors point to the limited vision of many LO implementers, noting that they confine their view of LOs to traditional documents or software applications (e.g. simulations). They remind us that the current state of technology allows for a much smaller level of granularity facilitating a finer, more flexible repurposing of content. In support of this they recommend, for example, that authors design their content for reuse from the beginning by not inserting explicit references to other components.

Chapter 1

Learning objects

Resources for learning worldwide

Stephen Downes

This chapter describes the need for learning objects (LOs) and the importance of sharing, and then offers a definition of LOs drawn from the description of that need.

Learning, n.

1. The act, process, or experience of gaining knowledge or skill.

2. Knowledge or skill gained through schooling or study.

3. Psychology. Behavioural modification especially through experience or conditioning.

Object, n.

1. Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.

2. A focus of attention, feeling, thought, or action: an object of contempt.

3. The purpose, aim, or goal of a specific action or effort: the object of the game.

4. Grammar.

a. A noun, pronoun, or noun phrase that receives or is affected by the action of a verb within a sentence.

b. A noun or substantive governed by a preposition.

5. Philosophy. Something intelligible or perceptible by the mind.

6. Computer Science. A discrete item that can be selected and maneuvered, such as an onscreen graphic. In object-oriented programming, objects include data and the procedures necessary to operate on that data.

The idea of learning objects

There is no consensus on the definition of LOs, as is addressed in the editor’s Introduction to this book. Definitions abound and numerous analogies are employed to elucidate the concept. The basic idea, by virtue of its simplicity, allows wide latitude for interpretation. LOs are intended to support online learning. They are intended to be created once and used numerous times. Because they are delivered online, they are intended to be digital objects. And because they are used in learning, they are intended to have an educational component. Probably no definition of LOs will ever be sufficient; there will always be those who say the definition allows too much or too little. Part of the purpose of this chapter is to approach the subject of LOs from a different direction: rather than trying to say what they are, this chapter attempts to show the problems LOs are intended to solve and the manner in which they are used, providing a functional definition of LOs.

The case for online learning

We need accessible and affordable learning. The need for and usefulness of online learning is today no longer in question, but to understand the need for LOs, it is useful to reflect on the factors that led to the development of online learning. And, though the availability of the technology was a key factor, the primary driver behind the development was (and continues to be) a widespread need for accessible and affordable learning.

Dimensions of accessibility. In a world where many or most people have access to the Internet, online learning promises to make learning more accessible. Accessibility has numerous dimensions. Among the best known are timeliness (online learning may be used any time of the day or night), accessibility (online learning many be accessed from almost anywhere), and flexibility (online learners can proceed at their own pace).

Accessibility as choice. To a large degree, accessibility may be defined as choice. Vail (2001) wrote that students turning to online classes have one thing in common. They all want something that’s not easily available on site. Rural students can study subjects such as Latin or calculus that their schools are too small to offer. Sick students can keep up in their lessons, as can gifted or travelling students.

Accessibility as lifelong learning. Accessibility may also be defined as having the opportunity to continue learning while being employed. In an article titled ‘OU attracting more young people’, published in the Guardian, 22 January 2002, Lee Elliott Major (referring to an Open University study) noted, for example, that, generally, learners prefer not to study for three years and then start their careers, but choose to both work and study immediately after graduation. Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC, 2002) has emphasized that broad-based, accessible adult lifelong learning is crucial for economic development.

The cost of online learning

Traditional courses are typically created by a single artisan. Though instructors in traditional classrooms use common course materials such as text books and journal articles, each time a course is offered by a school, college or university, it is created from scratch. And although instructors sometimes use core curricula and often use the same course outline from one year to the next, these are adapted and localized on a case-by-case basis. The task of creating a course in the traditional classroom, therefore, resembles what may be described as a cottage craft industry: it depends on and reflects the skills and inclinations of an individual artisan.

Online courses are also typically created by an individual artisan. Modern schools, colleges and universities developing courses for online delivery have migrated this strategy into their Internet offerings. Although supported by teams of designers and web specialists, courses are essentially the product of individual teachers or professors. And, though common materials such as course packs or other online learning resources may be used, the online course is essentially created from scratch each time it is delivered. Like traditional teaching, online teaching today is labour intensive and, therefore, expensive. Bates (2000) estimates a typical 45-hour course cost at US $24,400. Kurtis (2001) puts the cost at closer to US $60,000. Kruse (2002) suggests an even higher cost of $350,000.

Online courses are therefore at least as expensive to develop as traditional courses. Most online course developers use the design model Bates (2000) describes. It involves a course being developed from scratch, using nothing more than a traditional university course or a good textbook as a guide. The course author typically authors all the content, including examples and demonstrations, quizzes and tests. Because of the cost of development, there is little use of course-specific software or multimedia. The co...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Contributors
• Series Editor’s Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Acronyms and abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part 1 Learning Objects and Metadata
• Part 2 Constructing and Creating Learning Objects
• Part 3 Contextualization and Standardization of Learning Objects
• Part 4 Learning Object Profiles, Applications and Models
• Part 5 From the Semantic Web to EML and Instructional Engineering
• Appendix International metadata standards
• Index