What are reuseable learning objects and how do they relate to learning theory?
Question: What are reuseable learning objects and how do they relate to learning theory?
“Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory a definition, a metaphor, and taxonomy”
By David A Wiley, II
During WWII there was a need to train large groups of people in a short amount of time .This need led to development of new learning theories and expanded the field of instructional designing. Now the internet is influencing learning theories and e- learning is one of the by-products. There has been much discussion on how the internet can be used for instruction but little of it relates to learning theories. Companies like Macromedia have written several white papers on e-learning and have design programs like Captivate to facilitate on line learning. On line courses can add video, sound, animation and feedback. –but what are “learning objects”? According to Macromedia’s definition “a reuse-able, media-independent chunk of information used as a modular building block for e-learning content”- another definition I found is “any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology supported learning”
http://edrlo.com/biodd444-2.html. (This site is a short quiz with feedback).
In this article Wiley defines a learning object as “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning.” This definition includes information that is delivered on the internet on demand. For example, reuseable digital resources such as image, video, audio or animation; large reuseable learning objects like web site include text, images, media or a complete instructional unit.
Learning objects are like atoms they are not the smallest unit but they are combined to make larger units. A reuseable learning object just like atom could be combined with some elements, while it would not combine with others. An instructional designer could combine learning objects and learning theory to created instructional models for the e-learning.
In the article Wiley offers a definition of learning objects and a taxonomy. I have only sited the five learning objects.
Design Guideline for five learning object types:
· Fundamental - For example, a JPEG of a hand playing a chord on a piano keyboard.
· Combined-closed - For example, a video of a hand playing a chord on a piano keyboard with accompanying audio.
· Combined-open - For example, a web page dynamically combining the previously mentioned JPEG and QuickTime file together with textual material “on the fly.”
· Generative-presentation - For example, a JAVA applet capable of graphically generating a set of staff, clef, and notes, and then positioning them appropriately to present a chord identification problem to a student.
· Generative-instructional - For example, an EXECUTE instructional transaction shell (Merrill, 1999), which both instructs and provides practice for any type of procedure, for example, the process of chord root, quality, and inversion identification.
Although it is generally understood that the more the learner is engaged the more they will remember: see (http://edrlo.com/memory.html ) (Memory interaction). Learning objects are new to learning theory and there has not been enough research to see how learning objects facilitate learning or enough instructional designers and teachers interested in the instructional use of learning object ( see-sf chronicle 10/17/04 “Lucas start new educational crusade”).
What I like best is Wiley’s theory is a neutral taxonomy for learning objects. His idea is that you could use his taxonomy with different learning theories. Therefore an instructional designer, designing e-learning courses could use this taxonomy as part of the design. In the future ,learning objects will be more portable and more sophisticated. Therefore I am considering researching learning objects are part of my culminating project.
posted by catherine @ 1:30 PM
5 Comments:
My first thought while reading your summary was of the Atomic Learning tutorial website. They have hundreds of 'reuseable learning objects'. I agree these 'objects' are one way the internet is influencing learning theory. In the case of Atomic Learning they need to be coupled with hands an experiential event, ie using the software you are trying to learn at the same time.
I see these reusable learning objects as an excellent example of well-structured instant feedback, and useful for chaining. You can instantly go back to see if you are progressing as you want to. This clearly brings in Gagne and Skinner to provide a learner with instant feedback and rehearsal strategies. This is very interesting and enlightening stuff.
Lee
I have always wondered about the phrase 'learning object' and really appreciate your investigating this topic. I am very interested in interactive interface development and look forward to reading your final project!
I'm intrigued by Wiley's definition of "digital" to refer to a reusable learning object. Why couldn't a reusable learning object be a visual aid, such as photographs or video, or even wooden blocks (used in math)? Macromedia's definition uses the terms "media-independent" and yet another definition refers to it as "any entity, digital or non-digital." It appears there is still much thought going into the definition of reusable learning objects....
We're actually trying to integrate reusable learning objects into one of our products, where modules built as Java applets are accessed from either a dialog box, a wizard, or one of the other UI elements. The applets are mini-tutorials that step you through using that particular UI element. Ideally, we'd like to link together these objects, so that a user can go to our web site and walk through the tutorial from end-to-end, or access each module independently of the associated UI element. Each object could then be used or linked by other products that integrate with this one.
This is all very cool, but it's a coding nightmare. The advantage we have for this particular product is that it's written completely in Java, so linking the applets to the code is not very difficult. Most existing products are built on a combination of C, C++, and Java platforms.
That was a ramble, sorry. May I be so bold as to advertise that my post is displayed below Dr. Foreman's assignment post? I think everyone's missing it because it's buried...
Post a Comment
<< Home