Learning Technologies Centre

1

• Learning Objects/Repositories
• The premise, the promise and some problems
• Peter Tittenberger/Carell Jackimiek
• January 2006

2
Learning Objects

• "Learning Objects" can be a vague term what are
  some of the ways in which they have been defined?
  
• A quick Google search reveals thousands!

3
one definition

• "Any digital resource that can be reused to
  support learning."
• David Wiley, "The Instructional Use of Learning
  Objects
• http//reusability.org/read/

4
another definition

• "...any entity, digital or non-digital, that may
  be used for learning, education, or training.
• From IEEE P1484.12.1/D6.4, Draft Standard for
  Learning Object Metadata.
• http//ltsc.ieee.org/doc/wg12/LOM_WD6_4.pdf

5
another definition

• "any digital resource that can be reused to
  mediate learning"
• EDUCAUSE NLII Learning Objects Working Group
• http//people.cohums.ohiostate.edu/dagefoerde2/NLI
  I_LO/definitions.htm

6
another definition

• "The Wisconsin Online Resource Centers
  definition for Learning Objects has the following
  components ..." Small, independent chunks of
  knowledge or interactions stored in a database
  can be presented as units of instruction or
  information.
• Based on a clear instructional strategy
  intended to cause learning through internal
  processing and/or action.
• Self-contained each learning object can be
  taken independently.
• Interactive each learning object requires that
  students view, listen, respond or interact with
  the content in some way.
• Reusable a single learning object may be used
  in multiple contexts for multiple purposes.
• Able to be aggregated learning objects can be
  grouped into larger collections of content,
  including traditional course structures.
• Tagged with metadata every learning object has
  descriptive information allowing it to be easily
  found by a search.

7
another definition

• a learning object should consist of three primary
  elements a learning objective, content relevant
  to this objective, and a method of knowledge
  check to enable the learner to assess their own
  understanding and grasp of the learning
  objective. It should be a self-contained learning
  resource. It is also recommended
• that if the content is packaged, it is packaged
  and published in accordance with these guidelines
• that it includes run-time communication with the
  learning platform.
• http//www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/industry/co
  ntent_packaging.pdf

8
A distinction between objects/assets

• Assets
• image
• text
• document
• video
• audio
• animation

• Objects are assets with
• learning outcome(s)
• metadata
• interactivity?
• assessment?

9
Summary of definitions

• mandatory
• is digital
• has learning outcome(s)
• has content related to learning outcome(s)
• is reusable
• is self contained
• optional
• is interactive
• has self-assessment built in
• is tagged with metadata
• is stored in a repository
• can easily be combined with other los

10
The premise

• ..the world does not need thousands of similar
  descriptions of sine wave functions available
  online. Rather, what the world needs is one
  great or maybe a dozen, at most descriptions
  of sine wave functions available online.
• The reasons are manifest. If educational content,
  such as a description of sine wave functions, is
  available online, then it is available worldwide.
  So even if only one such piece of educational
  content were created, it could be accessed by
  each of the thousands of educational institutions
  teaching the same material.

11

• Moreover, educational content is expensive to
  produce. Even a plain web page, authored by a
  mathematics professor, can cost hundreds of
  dollars. Include graphics and a little animation
  and the price is double. Add an interactive
  exercise and the price is quadrupled.
• Suppose that one description of the sine wave
  function is produced. A high quality and fully
  interactive piece of learning material could be
  produced for, say, a thousand dollars. If a
  thousand institutions share this one item, the
  cost is a dollar per institution. But if each of
  a thousand institutions produces a similar item,
  then each institution must pay a thousand
  dollars, or the institutions, collectively, must
  pay a million dollars. For one lesson. In one
  course.

12

• The economics are relentless. It makes no
  financial sense to spend millions of dollars
  producing multiple versions of similar learning
  objects when single versions of the same objects
  could be shared at a much lower cost per
  institution. There will be sharing, because no
  institution producing its own materials on its
  own could compete with institutions sharing
  learning materials."
• Stephen Downes http//www.downes.ca/files/column00
  0523_1.htm

13
A pause for irony

• Sounds a lot like the rationale for textbooks!
• We dont need every instructor in every
  university writing an introduction to statistics
  textbook. We just need one good one that we can
  all use.

14
more rationale

• Other justifications for standardizing the
  production and distribution of learning content
• Interoperability (avoiding vendor "lock-in",
  obsolete media)
• Promote higher quality resource development
• Touted as framework for promoting community of
  practice

15
The premise

• Wayne Hodgins (http//www.learnativity.com/standar
  ds.html) is credited with inventing the term, and
  proposed a prevalent metaphor
• "All LEGO blocks adhere to one absolute standard
  for pin size. Every LEGO piece, no matter what
  shape, color, size, age, or purpose can always be
  snapped together with any others piece because of
  their uniformly shaped pins. This allows children
  of all ages to create, deconstruct, and
  reconstruct LEGO structures easily and into most
  any form they can imagine.
• "If we map this to the world of learning content,
  we start to see the opportunities that would
  result if we were able to have the same standards
  and capabilities to reuse and assemble or
  disassemble content drawn from any source at any
  time."

16

• According to http//www.lego.com/, six of the
  standard 2x4 LEGO blocks can be combined in
  102,981,500 ways.

17
The atom metaphor

• An atom is a small "thing" that can be combined
  with other atoms to form larger "things." This
  seems to capture the major meaning conveyed by
  the LEGO metaphor.
• However, the atom metaphor departs from the LEGO
  metaphor in some extremely significant ways
• Not every atom is combinable with every other
  atom
• Atoms can only be assembled in certain ways
  prescribed by their structure
• Some training and understanding are required in
  order to assemble atoms

18
The promise

• write once, use anywhere

19
a problem

• Can any learning object be context free? Is
  ummodified reuse possible across different
  disciplines, different students levels, . . .
• Does every instance need some modification?
• To be reusable, should an lo source code be
  modifiable?

20
The context problem

• the idea of LEGO-like assembly of resources
  simply will not work from a learning perspective.
  The role of context is simply too great in
  learning, and the expectation that any
  educational resource could be reused without some
  contextual tweaking was either naive or stupid. I
  will here attribute learning objects inability
  to live up to the incredible hype and investment
  they received to the fact that the premise of the
  possibility of simple reuse was simply wrong.
• David Wiley
• http//opencontent.org/blog/archives/230

21
More Wiley

• Wiley argues that los are taking heat because of
  reusability which is a technical problem not a
  pedogogical one
• reusing educational resources is a
  contextualization or localization exercise not a
  technical one
• whether learning objects are dead or not, I
  couldnt say. And to some extent, who cares? As
  long as people are willing to (1) openly share
  (2) educational materials that will (3) render
  properly in most web browsers, and they also (4)
  provide access to the unobfuscated source for the
  materials (especially for Flash files, Java
  applets, Photoshop images with many layers, and
  the like).

22
another problem

• How big should a learning object be
  (scope/granularity)
• A curriculum
• A course
• A course module
• One unit of instruction
• Etc
• Combination/sequence (lego or atoms)
• how does one build a learning path by sequencing
  and combining los
• As los get smaller and more reusable the
  metadata overhead increases

23
Some examples

• Local
• http//www.umanitoba.ca/uts/ltc/learningobjects/in
  dex.php
• Using Bison to find journals
• National
• The Stroop Effect
• Portfolio Expected Return, Risk and
  Diversification
• Chromosome Abnormalities
• International
• Merlot - http//www.merlot.org/Home.po
• Ariadne - http//www.ariadne-eu.org/
• Edna - http//www.edna.edu.au/

24
Repositories/referatories

• Learning object repositories are collections that
  allow digital learning objects to be found,
  accessed, and used by teachers and learners.
• Referatories hold only the metadata not the
  objects themselves
• Repositories hold only the metadata and the
  objects themselves
• Harvesting- collecting metadata from discreet
  repositories and referatories
• Federated search- one interface to search
  multiple repositories and referatories

25
Metadata (cataloguing)

• The Metadata that forms part of the learning
  object within a repository is used to
• store keywords and descriptive words that are
  relevant for people using text search
• store information about the developer/publisher
• store information on the products IP status, and
  any restrictions on use
• map learning content to discipline, curriculum
  topics, and/or pedagogical approach

26
Metadata, packaging and interoperability standards

• IMS Global Learning Consortium (IMS)
• IMS is a global consortium of members with an
  interest in providing access to online learning
  resources. It is involved in the development and
  promotion of "open specifications for
  facilitating online distributed learning
  activities such as locating and using educational
  content, tracking learner progress, reporting
  learner performance, and exchanging student
  records between administrative systems"1. IMS
  produces a suite of specifications, including a
  metadata specification and a content packaging
  specification. IMS uses IEEE LTSC LOM as its
  base. IMS metadata elements can be mapped to the
  more general Dublin Core elements, as well as to
  education-specific element sets. A recent
  agreement among IMS, Dublin Core, and the IEEE
  promises "significant harmonization and
  collaboration...in the areas of educational
  metadata interoperability and implementation"2.
• IEEE LTSC-LOM
• The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics
  Engineers) Learning Technology Standards
  Committee (LTSC) has created a draft standard for
  Learning Object Metadata (LOM). "The LOM outlines
  the minimal set of attributes needed to allow
  Learning Objects (either digital or non-digital)
  to be managed, located, and evaluated"4. The LOM
  standard has been mapped to Dublin Core the
  mapping is available in an appendix of the
  standard. The IEEE LTSC-LOM and the Dublin Core
  Metadata Initiative (DCMI) have announced their
  joint commitment to develop interoperable
  metadata.

27
More standards

• Dublin Core
• an open forum engaged in the development of
  interoperable online metadata standards that
  support a broad range of purposes and business
  models. A working group of the Dublin Core
  Metadata Initiative is involved in the
  development of education-specific elements,
  element qualifiers, and value qualifiers
  (controlled vocabularies) to be used with the
  Dublin Core to describe educational materials for
  the purpose of enhancing resource discovery.
• SCORM
• SCORM is a collection of standards and
  specifications adapted from multiple sources to
  provide a comprehensive suite of e-learning
  capabilities that enable interoperability,
  accessibility and reusability of Web-based
  learning content.
• Cancore
• CanCore was developed by a group of national and
  provincial educators and technology developers
  with funding and support from Industry
  Canada/CANARIE and other groups. CanCore is a
  standard for educational metadata that is "based
  on and fully compatible with the IMS Learning
  Resource Metadata Information Model. CanCore has
  defined a sub-set of data elements from this IMS
  model for the purposes of the efficient and
  uniform description of digital educational
  resources in Canada and elsewhere. It is intended
  to facilitate the interchange of records
  describing educational resources and the
  discovery of these resources both in Canada and
  beyond its borders"3.

28
A critical view

• Learning object repositories are a thing of the
  past. The material should reside in the location
  it was originally created for. Once tagged in
  that location it can be found (googled) as easily
  there as it could be found in a repository. The
  money being spent collecting all the objects into
  a repository should be spent on developing an
  automated tagging system then the complete web
  becomes the repository, removing the need for
  duplication of objects. Possibly a narrow tinted
  view through the cyber glasses.
• Commented by Darren Cannell on February 23, 2005
  1205 AM
• http//jade.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/alan/archives/2
  005/02/22/objects.php

29
A note on peer review

• Many repositories have established a peer review
  process
• Merlot
• follows the model of peer review of scholarship
• Cloe
• follows the model of peer review of scholarship
• adds technical and instructional design review
• MSpace
• Optional at discretion of submitter

30
Whats happening at U of M

• LO production
• By individual faculty and staff members
• By Learning Technologies Centre
• Repositories
• MSpace
• Mandolin (U of M member)
• Cloe (U of M member)
• Merlot
• Globe

31

• Slides of the presentations (ppt file) at
• http//www.umanitoba.ca/learning_technologies/reso
  urces/brownbag/lo