Faculty and instructional designers encounter problems when they try to adapt
learning objects for delivery in their general education college-level distance
courses that are intended for a military audience. One result is disappointment
and frustration in those who believed in the promise of learning objects to
save time, provide robust solutions with depth, high quality, and perfect interchangeability.
Untangling hype from real usability
It would be almost impossible to overstate the amount of hype that has gone
into the subject of learning objects.
The confusion is interesting because very few people agree on what a learning
object is, and even fewer consistently use the same language to describe them.
When searching for “learning objects,” one is likely to encounter
a vast array of terms and ways to describe them. Terms include knowledge objects,
educational objects, knowledge chunks, digital objects, digital educational
computer programs, Flash-exercises - on and on.
Once one has untangled the nomenclature problem, one can go to the various
repositories. Repositories can look like directories, with large databases that
link out to the actual location of the object. Other repositories have a search
function that allows one to go out and retrieve objects from archives they maintain
on their own servers.
Problem 1—Not really interchangeable
Because the objects are not of consistent size, nor are they written in consistent
languages, they are not really interchangeable in the way that you’d think they’d
be. Some are interactive, and others simply consist of text. They can be in
html, flash, java, java-script. Others can be in audio, media, synched Powerpoint,
movies, requiring players or internal “jukebox” players.
If you are developing a course for online delivery, sometimes the easiest way
to incorporate the object is to link to it. However, there are many problems
associated with that strategy - links go down, students may not have the right
drivers, plug-ins, etc. Worse, the object itself might “almost” fit
one’s need, but may not.
Many objects are culturally-inflected, which is to say that they may not be
appropriate at all for diverse learners in remote settings, which definitely
characterizes military learners.
Problem 2—Can’t find them (lack of consistent classification schemes)
Many initiatives have focused on the need to develop a classification scheme,
and to catalogue the objects so that individuals can retrieve them, and organizations
can archive them.
At the time of this writing, that problem has not been solved. It is not at
all easy to find the objects you might wish to use - and, that’s simply according
to topic or subject matter! The other issues - learning level (K-12? graduate?)
are not resolved in a consistent way. Nor are the points of authorship, copyright,
language of the object, etc.
Problem 3–-Quality is highly variable, despite the attempts of some
to institute peer review, or quality criteria.
MERLOT has put together an extensive peer-review approach. Commercial developers
have developed systems of quality assurance. However, these are not consistently
applied in the production, classification, and/or guide to use of the objects.
Quality and usability issues can often be resolved if designers, technologists,
faculty, and subject matter experts are trained in modifying learning objects.
This is an excellent solution, but a source of deep frustration, due to the
fact that the process is time-consuming and there is no guarantee of successful
incorporation of the object into the course or learning application.
What is a learning object anyway?
Everyone pretty much agrees that a learning object is a digital object. The
term originated from the notion of “object-oriented” computing and
programming, which suggests that ideal way to build a computer program or anything
digital is to assemble it from standardized, small, interchangeable chunks of
code.
The analogy that is often used to describe this is that of LEGO™ building
blocks. The building blocks have a standard shape and configuration, but they
can be used and put together in many ways, to create unique entities, limited
only by the imagination (and good planning).
The beauty of storing the little LEGO™-type objects on a server that people
can access from the Internet is that instructional designers and instructors
can access the objects simultaneously and incorporate them into their programs.
However, there is a lot of confusion in how one understands the concept.
Version 1—A learning object is any digital “chunk” that
can be considered a separate thing or object, which can be used in instructional
applications. This is a very broad description.
Version 2—A learning object is a small, downloadable chunk that is
more or less a “stand-alone” little object that can be inserted into
a course, or linked to. In this version, the ideal learning object is small,
easily interchangeable, as “neutral” as possible, and has good “granularity”
(granularity refers to the size of the small, interchangeable building block).
Where are the learning objects?
Large repositories of learning objects are now available from MERLOT, CAREO,
and Wisconline, among others. What does this really mean? How many instructors,
instructional designers, or instructional technologists are using them? Why
are so few usable for college-level general education courses that are designed
for delivery to military students?
This is not to say that there are not huge repositories of highly specialized
computer training programs that utilized learning objects. However, these tend
to be very specialized, and are not generally accessible or appropriate for
instructors and programs across the curriculum, which was part of the initial
promise and hype of the learning object repository movement.
Examples of learning objects for use in specialized training include the aviation
industry and its AICC (Aviation Industry Computer-based Training Committee),
that helps set standards. Other industry and military issues are dealt with
by such initiatives as the NMC Learning Object Initiative http://www.nmc.org/projects/lo/gtso.shtml.
NMC, the New Media Consortium, is an international 501(c)3 not-for-profit consortium
of approximately 200 colleges, universities, museums, corporations, and other
learning-and education based organizations that use new media and new technologies.
How do I find learning objects I can use and/or share?
As mentioned earlier, quite a few learning object repositories, or “LORs,”
have cropped up in the last few years. These are good, but problematic. In addition
to the issues described above, the following bullet list of challenges presents
the issues.
1—Hard to figure out how to use them.
2—Hard to find the “object” you need.
3—If they are a link to an object on someone’s website, the link could be
dead. If you’re using it in CD-ROM or for PDA-delivery, they can be useless.
4—Not centrally housed. The repositories do not refer to each other and do
not cross-catalogue. There is redundancy, inconsistency, and they are often
out of date.
5—No standardization.
What does it take to turn a learning object into somethingI can use right
now?
1—Depends on the course delivery.
a—Online.
b—CD-ROM
c—PDA - interactive (BlackBerry, Palm Pilot) or noninteractive (handheld
computer, such as Dell Axim)
2—Depends on the flexibility of the instructional designer, the use you
intend, and how central the object is to achieving your learning objectives.
Some learning objects are really very useful and easy to use. These include
interactive grammar reviews for written language acquisition, writing skills
development.
Others are very important for achieving learner self-efficacy and self-regulation,
as well as improving motivation - for example, interactive maps (of geographical
features, the body, animals, etc.) can be engaging, informative, and easy to
use. Other examples include interactive dictionaries, and virtual museums that
connect the images, background, descriptions, and sources for research.
Why do instructional design and planning matter?
Before using a learning object, learning objectives, desired learner outcomes
(performative and measurable), range of content and learner level, and instructional
strategies must be in place.
In addition, all the technological issues must be worked out. What platform
will be used? Will a learning management system be used? Will this be a live
web-based course? What kinds of access will the students have? Will it be offered
in CD-ROM format? Will you use PDAs or hand-held computers? These have to be
considered because it is very difficult to retrofit an object once it is incorporated
into a learning module.
Finally, learning objects can (if utilized properly) be wonderful ways to enhance
learner self-efficacy and self-concept, as well as to improve learner self-regulation
in the quest for effective, flexible, and adaptable learning strategies.
Useful References
Alivetek learning objects for natural and social sciences. http://www.alivetek.com/learningobjects/#
American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), and SmartForce. (2002)
A field guide to learning objects. ASTD online booklet. http://www.learningcircuits.org
Braxton, B. (2003). “Learning objects.” Response posted.
http://lists.rite.ed.qut.edu.au/pipermail/oz-teachers/2003-November/000265.html
Campus of Alberta Repository of Educational Objects.
Clyde, Laurel A. (2004) “Digital Learning Objects” TeacherLibrarian.com
April 2004. http://www.teacherlibrarian.com/tltoolkit/info_tech/info_tech_31_4.html
Downes, S. (2002). “Design and reusability of learning objects in an academic
context: A new economy of education?” Conference paper. http://www.downs.ca/files/milan.doc
Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching (MERLOT).
Wiley, D. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory:
A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. http://www.reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc
Wisconsin Online Resource Center. http://www.wisconline.org/index.htm
Yacovelli, S. (2004). “Understanding learning objects: The basic “chunks”"
College and University Media Review. Winter 2003-2004: pp. 17-26.
Loading ...
0 Responses to “The Problem with Learning Objects in Courses for the Military”