Learning Objects

Definitions

There are many different definitions of learning objects.  The most quoted reference is to Wiley (2002) who describes them as “instructional components that can be reused a number of times in different learning contexts” and adds that they are “digital entities deliverable over the Internet”.  Wiley and others (Hodgins, 2002) saw them as deriving from the objects used in object-oriented software development.  This association is reinforced by a number of authors.  Boyle (2003) has emphasised the importance of high cohesion and low coupling while others have pointed out the need for a well defined learning objective (Weller, 2003, BECTA, 2005) and for the object to be self-contained (Becta, 2005).  These are key features of object-orientation. 

It is true that others take a wider view, for example, seeing the learning object is “any entity, digital or non-digital, that may be used for learning, education or training” (IEEE, 2002), and there is some debate about the size of a learning object.  Nevertheless, it is quite possible to accommodate all of these variants in a single model.  This would define the learning object simply as an abstracted, encapsulated unit of learning.  The abstraction refers to the identification of a well defined topic expressed as a learning objective and the encapsulation refers to the fact that an object is self-contained and, therefore, reusable in different learning contexts. 

The addition of digital and online properties may be regarded as optional but they are aspects that have been the focus of attention for a number of years.  This is not surprising in view of the emergence of the Internet as a vehicle for distribution and reuse but it would be wise to retain the possibility of including non-digital objects so that we can at least compare the new objects with the traditional varieties.

In fact, we can get an insight into the learning object concept by looking at the traditional teaching/learning methods from the object-oriented viewpoint.  This would identify units of learning of various sizes, with well defined learning objectives and relative encapsulation from the immediate course context.  They include courses, lectures, tutorials, discussions, conferences, units, workshops, demonstrations, examples, exercises.  And some of them already have online equivalents in the form of e-tutorials and e-conferences, for example.

Reusable Learning Objects

The main problem with reusability is the usual one of software compatibility.  Different formats mean that material designed for one system may not function in another.  Learning materials developed for one repository or one college computing system may not be transferable to and interoperable with another.

As a result, much of the current emphasis has been on the technical aspects that make learning objects reusable.  This has been achieved by defining standards and specifications such as the Shareable Content Object Reference Model (ADL-SCORM, 2004).  These, Reusable Learning Objects (RLO) are therefore interoperable across a range of deployment systems, such as Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) and Learning Management Systems (LMS).  There are now many objects globally available in Internet repositories (e.g. CAREO, 2007, MERLOT, 2007, MIT, 2007, Intute, 2007, and Connexions, 2007) and they are easily found by means of online searching.

So, learning objects have become a recognised format for e-learning.  The technical standards are well established and the IMS (Instructional Management Systems) Learning Design approach (IMS, 2003) has been developed to include generic learning activities that address pedagogical issues.

Pros and Cons of Learning Objects

A major reason for the popularity of learning objects is financial.  The cost of developing new materials and especially multimedia and interactive resources can be substantial (Boyle, 2003).  Clearly it is more economic to reuse someone else’s objects than to write your own, especially if the technology is difficult.  It is also the inexpensive option for the lone and lifelong learner who can find and access all sorts of resources online.

However another dimension that is of growing importance is the use of institutional course repositories.  Here the objects may be embedded in the course or blended into it or they may be used as optional and additional study materials.  In any case, they offer massive advantages in being easily authored, updated and replaced without having to give much consideration to the context in which they are to be used.  They can be developed by the institution or by the tutors for their own personal use and deployed on the college VLE or LMS or even on personal websites.

Technical specifications are important to those who would publish their objects in repositories, including the major publishers of learning materials, but they are less important to the lone tutor who simply wants to deploy a lecture or tutorial online.  Here the important issues are contextual and pedagogical and these are considerably less well developed than the technology.  In fact, there is some dissatisfaction with the educational reusability and, in particular, with contextual factors (Jones, 2004, Gunn, 2005, Friesen, 2004, Hedberg, 2006).

Learning Objects in Context

A learning object is an abstracted and encapsulated representation of a domain topic.  It may be a very simple piece of subject content such as a pedagogy-free object or a content object (    ) such as a single image or it may be much more complex with an even more abstracted objective, such as a complete course unit.  As long as it meets the requirements of a clearly defined learning objective and loose coupling with other parts of the course it can realise all the advantages of reusable, replaceable learning objects.  The problem is that this ideal situation is impossible in practice.  It can never be completely independent of the context in which it is studied.    

First of all, it depends on entry requirements having been met by earlier objects and, in turn, should provide a learning outcome that satisfies the requirements of objects that turn up later in the programme.  This is usually described as sequencing.  What it cannot do is use any of the internal content of other objects or course components.  This means, for example, that if we use objects we lose the facility to develop successively more sophisticated applications within sequential objects.  This is a strategy used in most courses and books to lead the learner to a fully authentic application at the end of their study.  It is a characteristic and potential weakness of object-orientation as it applies to educational systems.

Sequencing can be illustrated for a course on mathematics.  Specifically it is about solving linear equations.  In this course the entry condition does not include previous coverage of graphical methods so any object that relied on these approaches would be unsuitable.

The second point is that the way in which an object is implemented must match the course context.

 

The implementation criteria can be illustrated for the same mathematics course.  It must have a user interface that satisfies HCI principles and is intuitive to use, it must use the course convention that equations are solved by processing each side similarly, it motivates by employing an interesting metaphor, it uses a learning activity in the form of independent problem solving, its purpose is augment existing material so no teaching information has to be provided and finally a good production quality is achieved by using Flash rather than basic HTML.

Conclusion

There are three separate aspects of learning objects, namely the context, the pedagogy and the technology.  In order to produce effective objects an author must have expertise in all of these dimensions.  This paper has covered the main points relating to context.  The other two are dealt with in separate papers.

In summary, to produce contextually effective learning objects an author has to consider sequencing and implementation.  Each object must be designed to achieve a specific learning objective as its exit condition, and it must have an entry condition that is satisfied by objects that occur earlier in the sequence.  The implementation must satisfy the six criteria relating to user interface, subject conventions, motivation, learning activity, purpose and production quality.

 

References

ADL, SCORM 2004  Available at http://www.adlnet.gov/scorm/index.cfm

BECTA (2005) Packaging and publishing learning objects, BECTA.  Available at http://www.vantaggio-learn.com/P&P.pdf

Boyle, T. (2003) "Design principles for authoring dynamic, reusable learning objects". Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19 (1), 46-58.

Boyle, T. and Cook, J (2003) Learning Objects Pedagogy and Reuse, In Seale, Jane K. (Ed.), Learning Technology in Transition: From Individual Enthusiasm to Institutional Implementation, pp. 31–45.

CAREO, “Campus Alberta Repository of Educational Objects”, Available at  http://careo.netera.ca

Connexions, “The Connexions Project at Rice University”, Available at http://cnx.rice.edu

Friesen, N, (2004) “Three Objections to Learning Objects and E-learning Standards”.  In McGreal, ed. Online Education Using Learning Objects, Routledge.

Gunn, Cathy, Woodgate, Sheila, O’Grady, Winnie, (2005) Repurposing learning objects: a sustainable alternative? ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology Vol13, No 3, pp189-200.

Hedberg, John G. (2006) E-learning futures? Speculations for a time yet to come. Studies. Continuing Education, Vol. 28, No 2, pp 171-183.

Hodgins,

IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (2002) Learning Object Metadata, Final Draft Standard, IEEE 1484.12.1-2002.

IMS (2003). IMS Learning Design Best Practice and Implementation Guide. IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.

Intute, JISC. Accessed via http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/services/services_mimas/services_intute.aspx   (9 Jan 07)

Jones, Ray. (2004) Designing Adaptable Learning Resources with Learning Object Patterns.  Journal of Digital Information, Vol 6, Issue1, Article No 305.

MERLOT, “A free repository for higher education”, Available at http://www.merlot.org/Home.po

MIT OpenCourseWare, developed “to provide free, searchable, access to MIT’s course materials for educators, students, and learners around the world.” Available at http://ocw.mit.edu

Weller, M., Pegler, C. and Mason, R. (2003) Putting the pieces together: what working with learning objects means for the educator. Available at http://www.elearninternational.co.uk/ref_papers_pres.asp

Wiley, D. A. (2002) Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory, in D. A. Wiley (Ed.) The instructional use of learning objects (Agency for Instructional Technology).  Available at http://reusability.org/read/