Learning design and learning objects

1
Learning design and learning objects
Tom Boyle Learning Technology Research Institute
(LTRI) London Metropolitan University
Leuven Jan 10 2008
2
The use of learning objects promises to increase
the effectiveness of learning
Duval et al 2004
3
How can this be achieved?

• Perspective 1 standards, interoperability and
  reuse
• knowledge engineering based approach
• Perspective 2 through improving the design of
  reusable learning objects
• design/pedagogy based approach
• The wider picture a global view of the
  (inter)relationship between learning objects and
  learning design

4
Themes of talk

• Standardization approach (briefly)
• focusing on content as the reusable learning
  resource
• A learning design perspective
• focusing on design as the reusable learning
  resource
• Generative Learning Objects (GLOs)
• Towards a synthesis relating content-oriented and
  design- oriented approaches
• Productive questions

5
Standardization and reuse?

• Standards, interoperability and reuse
• IMS-CP
• IEEE LOM
• SCORM
• .. by making content more readily available, by
  reducing the cost and effort of producing quality
  content, and by allowing content to be more
  easily shared

6
Vision and outputs

• Vision of the learning object economy
• Pedagogical neutrality
• Divide the problem space so the design quality is
  deliberately excluded
• Repositories of learning objects based on
  standards to support search, retrieval and reuse
• Tool support for packaging learning objects etc

7
Critique a case study JORUM

• JORUM UK National Repository
• not well used
• very variable quality
• no community of practice (CD-LOR project)
• IPR barriers
• It fails to achieve the vision

8
Perspective 2 pedagogy/design focus

• The use of learning objects promises to increase
  the effectiveness of learning
• Began with a real and significant problem
• Need to design high quality resources
• That could be reused and exchanged
• Viewed learning objects as micro-contexts for
  learning in which the most important factor was
  the quality of the pedagogical design
• Learning objects for programming (2002 --)

9
This chapter argues that high quality design and
development of learning objects is crucial before
we get to issues of metadata and software
packaging. The primary message of the chapter is
good pedagogical design is at the heart of
effective learning objects. The Design of
Learning Objects for Pedagogical Impact Boyle
(2008) (In Handbook of Learning Objects and
Learning Design)
10
Design of the EASA learning objects
Winner of European Academic Software Award 2004
11
Two major dimensions

• Pedagogical effectiveness
• achieve a clear learning goal or objective
• Structural design for reuse
• cohesion
• decoupling
• (Boyle 2003)

12
Design for reuse

• Cohesion
• each unit should do one thing and one thing only
• minimum pedagogically meaningful unit
• Decoupling
• the unit should have minimal bindings to other
  units
• there should be no necessary navigational
  bindings to other units (embedded hyperlinks)
• learning object content should not refer to the
  content in another source so as to cause
  necessary dependencies

13
Engage students with familiar every day examples
14
Active student learning
15
Interact with samples of code
16
Scaffold student learning
17
Module results
Pass rates increased for all modules
Pass rates
CourseLondonMet HNDLondonMet BScBolton BSc
LondonMet MSc
Percentage point increase 2002-3 2003-4
19 27 15 21 23 12 12
19
Note based on number of students completing
modules compared with 2001-2
These increases exceeded our expectations
18
CETL for Reusable Learning Objects

• Started in April 2005 with 3.3 million funding
  from HEFCE for the period 2005-2010
• Partners London Metropolitan University,
  University of Cambridge, University of Nottingham
• Develop reusable learning objects (RLOs)
• with a strong pedagogical focus
• Use and evaluate these RLOs with substantial
  student cohorts
• Extensive staff development and dissemination
  programme
• Advance the conceptual basis for RLOs

19
(No Transcript)
20
Critique of the EASA learning objects

• Successful educationally
• but
• Limitations in productivity
• Weak support for repurposing and local adaptation
• Successful designs are implicit and not easily
  available for reuse

21
Generative learning objects (GLOs)

• The basis for reuse is the pedagogical pattern
  rather than content of the learning object
• A richer basis for reuse and repurposing
• This gives a tremendous increase in productivity
• Allows local tutors to repurpose learning objects
  to meet their local needs and preferences

22
GLOs separate ? design pattern from
Instantiation (specific learning object)
Challenges
How to elucidate and articulate these
patterns? and How to make the result usable by
tutors?
23
Elucidating design patterns
Linguistics

• Grounded analysis
• Elucidating deep structure
• influence of linguistics
• generative structure
• Representing the pattern
• Pedagogical patterns literature
• Capturing meaning
• Implementation
• Object oriented design/programming

Pedagogical patterns
Object Oriented thinking
24
Deep structure of GLO

• 1. Hierarchical decision structure not (just)
  linear sequence
• 2. Each node has a pedagogical function
• Which is refined/expanded through options
  available at that choice point
• Pedagogical commentary makes explicit the
  pedagogical function and choices available

It maps the decisions underlying a certain class
of learning objects
25
Surface structure

• Each GLO pattern binds to a default surface
  structure, which consists of a -
• Sequence
• of
• Pages (screen layouts)
• consisting of and co-ordinating
• Components
• into which are loaded
• Assets/content

26
Generative learning object (GLO) definition

• An articulated and executable learning design
  that produces a class of learning objects.
• The representation in a GLO is articulated in two
  distinct ways
• The first form relates to human understanding. A
  GLO articulates and renders explicit (the often
  implicit) decisions involved in design for
  learning. It does this by using a form of
  representation borrowed and adapted from
  generative linguistics.
• The second form of articulation is rendering
  explicit these decisions in a way that can be
  executed by computer software to produce learning
  objects based on the design.

27
Making GLOs available to users

• In practice, the pedagogical designs are
  represented as plug-in patterns to the GLO
  Authoring tool.
• The tool can be used to create specific learning
  objects based on the chosen pattern.
• Each of these learning objects developed in this
  way can be re-purposed by local tutors (or
  learners), using the same tool, to adapt the
  resources to their local needs and preferences.
• All the learning objects so created, or adapted,
  run as stand-alone Web based learning objects.

28
GLO Authoring Tool
29
(No Transcript)
30
How does it all fit together a preliminary view

• Traditional content oriented approaches to
  learning objects
• GLO design oriented approach
• Wider approaches to learning design e.g. IMS LD
• Towards an initial problem representation space
  for visualizing the relationship between
  different approaches to learning objects and
  learning designs

31
Mapping the learning object space
The Learning Object Cube - LOC
32
Exploring the LOC space
Def a learning object as any entity that may
be used in learning
. IEEE LOM
33
Learning objects as basic units
the smallest independent structural experience
- the minimum meaningful pedagogical unit
34
Complex or higher order learning objects
Content aggregation models
such as ALOCOM five levels of aggregation
35
Reusable pedagogical patterns
A micro-context for learning
Extract the reusable learning design the
pedagogical pattern and make it reusable
36
Generative learning objects (GLOs)

• The basis for reuse is the pedagogical pattern
  rather than content of the learning object
• A rich basis for reuse and repurposing
• This gives a tremendous increase in productivity
• Allows local tutors to repurpose learning objects
  to meet their local needs and preferences

37
Hierarchical intention structure
Deep Meaning
Form
Realization
38
Layered learning design?

• The Design of Learning Objects for Pedagogical
  Impact
• Boyle (2008)
• Course
• Session
• Activity
• Learning object
• Each layer provides services to the layer above
• e.g. GLOs provide resources for lesson level
  learning designs

JISC D4L (2007)
39
Relationship on IMS LD to learning objects

• There is a shortcircuiting of the design space
• Generative learning object layer
• Develop layering model of design space
• Explore correspondences between design layers and
  content aggregation levels

IMS Learning Designs
Learning objects
40
Layering correspondence?
Courses Sessions
Learning object Component
41
Some productive questions

• How do we extract and make available reusable
  learning designs at all levels?
• Develop a richer integrated view of the
  relationship between learning designs and
  learning objects
• Learning objects as instances of learning designs
• Explore the relationship between content
  aggregation models and layered learning design?
• Finally, provide a comprehensive, articulated
  view of the problem space that relates learning
  design and learning object work