What are Learning Objects?
Broadly speaking, Learning Objects are small, reusable chunks of instructional media. You can think of learning objects as the "Lego blocks" of instruction upon which educational experiences can be built.
A Learning Object "Is defined as the smallest independent structural experience that contains an objective, a learning activity and an assessment." (L'Allier 1997)
1. "modular digital resources, uniquely identified and meta-tagged, that can be used to support the instruction." -- National Learning Infrastructure Initiative
2. "any digital resource that can be reused to support the instruction" -- David A. Wiley, "Connecting Learning Objects to Instructional Design Theory"
3. "The main idea of 'learning objects' is to break educational content down into small chunks that can be reused in various environments, in the spirit of object-oriented programming" -- David A. Wiley
And more broadly speaking:
4. "[A]ny entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology supported instruction" -- Learning Object Metadata Working Group of the IEEE
What can a Learning Object's learning activity include?
A Learning activity can contain text, multimedia (audio, video, computer software and tools), and references as well as any other instructional tool including programs, cases, and simulations.
Why is there an argument over Learning Objects?
The reason for the different definitions can be found in the use of learning objects.
L'Allier's definition, seen above, has education as its core function. Other such as Asymetrix are focused on technology and in this case define a learning object as pre-scripted elements that simplify programming � provide instantaneous programming power" (Asymetrix, 2000).
Authors like David Merrill have used the name "Knowledge Object" and "Components of Instruction", and ARIADNE project uses the term "pedagogical documents". (Merrill, Li, and Jones, 1991)(ARIADNE, 2000)
As if the terminology differences weren't enough, some, that mostly agree with L'Allier, argue that assessment should not be part of the learning object.
All this causes confusion, however, none of these differences take away that a Learning Object, under whatever name, is a re-usable unit of instruction. Beyond that you will have to adjust depending on the authors bent but if you are intending to build your own objects I suggest you start with L'Allier's definition.
Why should I use Learning Objects?
The answer is in two words, efficiency and effectiveness. Learning objects make good instructional sense. They grab out attention though an objective, they provide the instructional activity, and they allow for testing and reinforce is assessment was included in accordance to the definition above.
If the Learning Object is or can be used in other courses or training, the re-usability alone will be a cause to consider their use. It plainly makes sense to have content be resumable without re-work.
Other have stated it as follows:
Broadly speaking, Learning Objects are small, reusable chunks of instructional media. You can think of learning objects as the "Lego blocks" of instruction upon which educational experiences can be built.
A Learning Object "Is defined as the smallest independent structural experience that contains an objective, a learning activity and an assessment." (L'Allier 1997)
-
The following are the Learning Object's structural components:
- Objective: A statement describing the intended criterion-based result of an instructional activity.
- Learning Activity: an element of the instruction that teaches to an objective.
- Assessment: an element that determines if an objective has been met
1. "modular digital resources, uniquely identified and meta-tagged, that can be used to support the instruction." -- National Learning Infrastructure Initiative
2. "any digital resource that can be reused to support the instruction" -- David A. Wiley, "Connecting Learning Objects to Instructional Design Theory"
3. "The main idea of 'learning objects' is to break educational content down into small chunks that can be reused in various environments, in the spirit of object-oriented programming" -- David A. Wiley
And more broadly speaking:
4. "[A]ny entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology supported instruction" -- Learning Object Metadata Working Group of the IEEE
What can a Learning Object's learning activity include?
A Learning activity can contain text, multimedia (audio, video, computer software and tools), and references as well as any other instructional tool including programs, cases, and simulations.
Why is there an argument over Learning Objects?
The reason for the different definitions can be found in the use of learning objects.
L'Allier's definition, seen above, has education as its core function. Other such as Asymetrix are focused on technology and in this case define a learning object as pre-scripted elements that simplify programming � provide instantaneous programming power" (Asymetrix, 2000).
Authors like David Merrill have used the name "Knowledge Object" and "Components of Instruction", and ARIADNE project uses the term "pedagogical documents". (Merrill, Li, and Jones, 1991)(ARIADNE, 2000)
As if the terminology differences weren't enough, some, that mostly agree with L'Allier, argue that assessment should not be part of the learning object.
All this causes confusion, however, none of these differences take away that a Learning Object, under whatever name, is a re-usable unit of instruction. Beyond that you will have to adjust depending on the authors bent but if you are intending to build your own objects I suggest you start with L'Allier's definition.
Why should I use Learning Objects?
The answer is in two words, efficiency and effectiveness. Learning objects make good instructional sense. They grab out attention though an objective, they provide the instructional activity, and they allow for testing and reinforce is assessment was included in accordance to the definition above.
If the Learning Object is or can be used in other courses or training, the re-usability alone will be a cause to consider their use. It plainly makes sense to have content be resumable without re-work.
Other have stated it as follows:
No comments:
Post a Comment