Learning Objects or Learning Frameworks:

1
Learning Objects or Learning Frameworks
Reusing the Design of a Multimedia Anthropology
Resource

• Steve Bond, London School of Economics
• Pia Marks, University of Waterloo

2
Overview

• Reuse
• the promise vs. the reality
• Repurposing vs. reuse
• a better approach?
• Whats Going On?
• The LSE/UW experience

3
Reuse the promise

• The essential benefit of learning objects is
  their capacity for reuse, leading to reduction in
  production costs (Oliver McLoughlin, 2003,
  p.95)

• development costs
• instructor time

4
Reuse the reality

• For some time now there has been a growing
  awareness that even the most accessible resources
  have failed to be widely adopted by the
  educational community and as a result have also
  failed to fulfill their considerable educational
  potential (Campbell, 2003, p.35)

Uptake of these resources is happening at a
slower than desirable pace, despite the
unquestionable quality of design and production,
high levels of investment in professional
development and the rationally anticipated
outcome of this investment (Gunn, Woodgate
OGrady, 2005, p.189).
5
Why the gap between promise and reality?

• Problems with reuse identified in the
  literature
• Inflexibility of resources

• Technical problems

• Time

• Cultural factors

• Educational factors

6
Repurposing vs. Reuse

• Gunn, Woodgate OGrady (2005) propose a
  participative repurposing design model
• defined as a process where the original
  structure of a learning object is populated with
  content from a different source and/or subject
  area and used to develop new learning activities
  (p.191).
• involves working collaboratively with the
  structure of an existing object, populating it
  with familiar content and embedding it within
  self-defined learning activities (p.195).

7
Whats Going On?

• Video-interpretation tool developed at LSE
• First-year undergrad. ethnography module
• Gorilla Thrilla the Mbendjele hunters tale
• Level 1 3 months' fieldwork / 150 words
• Level 2 9 months' fieldwork / 300 words
• Level 3 18 months' fieldwork / 600 words
• Exercise completed over 2 weeks
• Students also read full ethnography

8
Repurposability of WGO

• WGO fully customisable
• Can be used in new teaching contexts

Tool
9
The UW version

• How was it modified?
• New video
• Different focus (from linguistic to visual
  interpretation)
• Info links contained summarized content vs.
  journal articles
• What stayed the same?
• The structure of the activity
• Level 1 (150-300 words)
• Level 2 (300 words)
• Level 3 (400 words)

10
UW outcomes

• Student evaluation
• Majority of students claimed that the exercise
  helped them learn about ethnography/how to
  analyze ethnographic data and engage with the
  subject matter
• Lessons learned
• Successful customization, with the following
  caveats
• Students require encouragement to take
  intellectual risks by making their own
  interpretations rather than relying on supplied
  textual data
• Use of full research articles vs. summaries
  should help
• Students need help in analyzing and interpreting
  visual data more instructor scaffolding required

11
Advantages of a repurposing approach

• addresses the inflexibility issues
• content and context are separated
• addresses the educational issues
• results in a sense of ownership, acceptance and
  ability to realize the potential of technology in
  different contexts (Gunn, Woodgate OGrady,
  2005, p.190.)
• addresses the reuse issue
• Gives the instructor confidence to use the
  learning object in a variety of situations

12
Unresolved issues

• Cultural factors
• Incentives to invest in teaching still dont
  exist rewards/recognition for teaching remain a
  barrier to reuse and repurposing
• A credible reward system needs to be established
  by senior academic administrators
• Time factor
• Repurposing requires a time commitment from the
  instructor which, if not supported by
  institutional culture, will remain problematical
• WGO A new authoring suite is available for
  customizing the toolhttp//clt011.lse.ac.uk8383/
  steve/wgo/authoring/

13
References

• Campbell, L. (2003). Engaging with the learning
  object economy. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing
  Online Resources A Sustainable Approach to
  e-learning (p. 35-45). London Kogan Page
  Limited.
• Gunn, C., Woodgate, S. OGrady, W. (2005,
  October). Repurposing learning objects a
  sustainable alternative? ALT-J, 13(3), 189-200.
• Koppi, T., Bogle, L. Lavitt, N. (2004).
  Institutional use of learning objects Lessons
  learned and future directions. J Educational
  Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4),449-463.
• Littlejohn, A. (2003). Issues in reusing online
  resources. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing Online
  Resources A Sustainable Approach to e-learning
  (pp.1-6) London Kogan Page Limited.

14
References

• McNaught, C. (2003). Identifying the complexity
  of factors in the sharing and reuse of resources.
  In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing Online Resources
  A Sustainable Approach to e-learning (pp.
  199-211). London Kogan Page Limited.
• Metros, S.E. (2005, July/August). Learning
  Objects A Rose by Any Other Name. EDUCAUSE
  Review, 12-13.
• Oliver, R. McLoughlin, C. (2003). Pedagogical
  designs for scalable and sustainable online
  learning. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing Online
  Resources A Sustainable Approach to e-learning
  (pp.94-105). London Kogan Page Limited.
• Zemsky, R. Massy W.F. (2004). Thwarted
  Innovation What Happened to E-Learning and Why.
  Final Report for The Weatherstation Project,
  University of Pennsylvania The Learning
  Alliance. Retrieved on July 10 2006, from
  http//www.irhe.upenn.edu/WeatherStation.html

15
Contact details

• Steve Bond s.bond1_at_lse.ac.uk
• Pia Marks pia_at_LT3.uwaterloo.ca
• LSE DART project
• http//www.lse.ac.uk/collections/anthropology/dart
  .htm
• University of Waterloo LT3 Centre
• http//lt3.uwaterloo.ca/