Comments on: RIP-ping on Learning Objects http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230 pragmatism over zeal Fri, 18 May 2012 23:17:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Keitai / Mobile Learning Reading List http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230/comment-page-1#comment-6558 Keitai / Mobile Learning Reading List Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:58:31 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230#comment-6558 [...] Good luck to them. These projects are always very well meaning but tend to suffer from massive over-engineering of the learning object structure with little thought to the actual content creation or reuse by educators. [Some nice context on the learning object debate here from David Wiley] [...] [...] Good luck to them. These projects are always very well meaning but tend to suffer from massive over-engineering of the learning object structure with little thought to the actual content creation or reuse by educators. [Some nice context on the learning object debate here from David Wiley] [...]

]]> By: Hans Põldoja http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230/comment-page-1#comment-2743 Hans Põldoja Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:34:27 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230#comment-2743 [...] This post is inspired by David Wiley’s RIP-ping on Learning Objects and the discussion we had in LeMill team yesterday. [...] [...] This post is inspired by David Wiley’s RIP-ping on Learning Objects and the discussion we had in LeMill team yesterday. [...]

]]> By: Anto’stuff » La morte dei Learning Object? http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230/comment-page-1#comment-2103 Anto’stuff » La morte dei Learning Object? Thu, 18 May 2006 16:14:58 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230#comment-2103 [...] Qualcuno avanza dubbi sull’utilità degli standard per l’e-learning ed in particolare dell’ormai articolatissimo apparato tecnologico connesso ai Learning Object. Già a gennaio David Wiley (uno dei “padri” dei LO!) proponeva una riflessione su questo tema. Adesso arriva Albert Ip a dichiararne la morte!! Al di là dei toni drammatici, quello che dice Ip sul significato delle -bilities (reusability, interoperability ecc.) mi trova perfettamente d’accordo. Attenzione però a non creare altri feticci: ora non si parla altro che di blog e di social software, e…questi quando “moriranno”? [...] [...] Qualcuno avanza dubbi sull’utilità degli standard per l’e-learning ed in particolare dell’ormai articolatissimo apparato tecnologico connesso ai Learning Object. Già a gennaio David Wiley (uno dei “padri” dei LO!) proponeva una riflessione su questo tema. Adesso arriva Albert Ip a dichiararne la morte!! Al di là dei toni drammatici, quello che dice Ip sul significato delle -bilities (reusability, interoperability ecc.) mi trova perfettamente d’accordo. Attenzione però a non creare altri feticci: ora non si parla altro che di blog e di social software, e…questi quando “moriranno”? [...]

]]> By: On the inanimate nature of learning objects at iterating toward openness http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230/comment-page-1#comment-1322 On the inanimate nature of learning objects at iterating toward openness Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:22:23 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230#comment-1322 [...] Such is the case with my RIP-ping on Learning Objects post. I must have read ten blog posts or emails now thanking me for putting the nail in the learning objects coffin. Are people even reading what I’m writing? Let me quote myself: There have been lots of articles around the blogosphere of late ringing the death bell for learning objects. It’s hard to tell if they’re right or not…. I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about these declarations since they started appearing, and I’ve come to the somewhat troubling conclusion that I don’t think I care if learning objects are dead or not…. So whether learning objects are dead or not, I couldn’t say. And to some extent, who cares? [...] [...] Such is the case with my RIP-ping on Learning Objects post. I must have read ten blog posts or emails now thanking me for putting the nail in the learning objects coffin. Are people even reading what I’m writing? Let me quote myself: There have been lots of articles around the blogosphere of late ringing the death bell for learning objects. It’s hard to tell if they’re right or not…. I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about these declarations since they started appearing, and I’ve come to the somewhat troubling conclusion that I don’t think I care if learning objects are dead or not…. So whether learning objects are dead or not, I couldn’t say. And to some extent, who cares? [...]

]]> By: RIP-ping on what Instructional Games are http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230/comment-page-1#comment-1281 RIP-ping on what Instructional Games are Sat, 28 Jan 2006 18:10:02 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230#comment-1281 <strong>RIP-ping on what Instructional Games are...</strong> Wiley's blog on the reporting the death of learning objects (or rather, if we should even be concerned with a death or not) got me thinking about what we in games research should really be concerned with. And in the same way he talks about the focus .... RIP-ping on what Instructional Games are…

Wiley’s blog on the reporting the death of learning objects (or rather, if we should even be concerned with a death or not) got me thinking about what we in games research should really be concerned with. And in the same way he talks about the focus ….

]]> By: e-learning, etc » Concerning the death of learning objects… http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230/comment-page-1#comment-1241 e-learning, etc » Concerning the death of learning objects… Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:19:04 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230#comment-1241 [...] Maybe we can all finally accept that the concept of learning objects did not work the way we had hoped they would, now that David Wiley has come forward and admitted that “…I don’t think I care if learning objects are dead or not“. (Please read David’s article, as he has much more to say!). Now that we have properly? burried learning objects, perhaps it is time to really begin to get our creative, technical, and learning oriented design energy together and begin creating what we had hoped learning objects would be! [...] [...] Maybe we can all finally accept that the concept of learning objects did not work the way we had hoped they would, now that David Wiley has come forward and admitted that “…I don’t think I care if learning objects are dead or not“. (Please read David’s article, as he has much more to say!). Now that we have properly? burried learning objects, perhaps it is time to really begin to get our creative, technical, and learning oriented design energy together and begin creating what we had hoped learning objects would be! [...]

]]> By: David Wiley y la muerte de los objetos de aprendizaje at iterating toward openness http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230/comment-page-1#comment-1236 David Wiley y la muerte de los objetos de aprendizaje at iterating toward openness Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:47:01 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230#comment-1236 [...] I was pleasantly surprised to find that my RIP-ping on learning objects article has been summarzed at some length in Spanish. This is what open licensing is all about… [...] [...] I was pleasantly surprised to find that my RIP-ping on learning objects article has been summarzed at some length in Spanish. This is what open licensing is all about… [...]

]]> By: Rory McGreal http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230/comment-page-1#comment-1221 Rory McGreal Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:56:22 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230#comment-1221 David, You write: "I’ve been saying that 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," RORY: I would like to challenge this assertion as it is demonstrably untrue. Modular course design has been with us for some time. I would agree that YES context is important and that the LEGO analogy may not work when the context shifts significantly. But, if the LEGO analogy works in the same or a similar context even one time, then your statement above is False. I believe that the LEGO analogy is weak (and perhaps should be abandoned) as it does not cover the complexity of the LO phenomenon, but it can work in SOME cases, perhaps in many more than the anti-LO crowd believe. How about a LESSON in the use of the LEVER in first Year Physics? How about reusing it in other first year Physics courses? Is this not the same or similar learning context? Is this not being done now? If this doesn't meet your definition of simple reuse - how about reusing the LO in different classes taking the same course at the same university. Is this not reuse? And what if, God forbid, another university used that lesson in their Physics course without altering it? Wayne Hodgins suggested the more appropriate word "repurpose" for using an LO in a different context. Using a Physics LO in a chemistry course may be more problematic. But to me even if an LO cannot be repurposed easily, it can still be valuable. Reuse is important. David says: "So whether learning objects are dead or not, I couldn’t 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), I certainly don’t care." RORY: I would think that rendering the LOs (or ed materials) in a searchable format is also important, possibly in repositories where the quality has been evaluated. Would this not be useful to at least some people? How about if the LOs are interoperable in more than just the Web and the apps you list above? How about if because of those undesirable technical standards, the LOs can be made easily interoperable in ANY application without the need for any kind of technical expertise? Would that not be a good thing for SOME people? How about if some of this content is made available according to learning design principles in a lesson format? Wouldn't this be of value to SOME learners? Maybe, some learners are not self motivated and PREFER a structured format. I come across these types of learners from time to time. Maybe some learners would prefer to "construct" their learning using professionally developed lessons rather than the open anything of the web. Maybe SOME teachers would prefer to use these instructionally designed and standards-based lessons rather than spending hours "constructing" , "contextualising" and "localising". My point is that there are many ways of visioning and supporting learning that you may or may not agree with - but that does not mean as you state that "it will not work" in at least some cases. There are too many educators who believe that learning must conform to their view of how it is conducted or it does not count. I suggest that there is a place in a learning system for formal lessons designed for learning using a variety of methodologies and techniques (including lectures, interactive video, readings, rote memory tasks, etc.) encapsulated in an interoperable format - a learning object. I DO CARE. All the best David and thanks for pushing my buttons! David,
You write:
“I’ve been saying that 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,”
RORY:
I would like to challenge this assertion as it is demonstrably untrue. Modular course design has been with us for some time. I would agree that YES context is important and that the LEGO analogy may not work when the context shifts significantly. But, if the LEGO analogy works in the same or a similar context even one time, then your statement above is False. I believe that the LEGO analogy is weak (and perhaps should be abandoned) as it does not cover the complexity of the LO phenomenon, but it can work in SOME cases, perhaps in many more than the anti-LO crowd believe. How about a LESSON in the use of the LEVER in first Year Physics? How about reusing it in other first year Physics courses? Is this not the same or similar learning context? Is this not being done now? If this doesn’t meet your definition of simple reuse – how about reusing the LO in different classes taking the same course at the same university. Is this not reuse? And what if, God forbid, another university used that lesson in their Physics course without altering it?
Wayne Hodgins suggested the more appropriate word “repurpose” for using an LO in a different context. Using a Physics LO in a chemistry course may be more problematic. But to me even if an LO cannot be repurposed easily, it can still be valuable. Reuse is important.

David says:
“So whether learning objects are dead or not, I couldn’t 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), I certainly don’t care.”
RORY:
I would think that rendering the LOs (or ed materials) in a searchable format is also important, possibly in repositories where the quality has been evaluated. Would this not be useful to at least some people? How about if the LOs are interoperable in more than just the Web and the apps you list above? How about if because of those undesirable technical standards, the LOs can be made easily interoperable in ANY application without the need for any kind of technical expertise? Would that not be a good thing for SOME people? How about if some of this content is made available according to learning design principles in a lesson format? Wouldn’t this be of value to SOME learners? Maybe, some learners are not self motivated and PREFER a structured format. I come across these types of learners from time to time. Maybe some learners would prefer to “construct” their learning using professionally developed lessons rather than the open anything of the web. Maybe SOME teachers would prefer to use these instructionally designed and standards-based lessons rather than spending hours “constructing” , “contextualising” and “localising”.
My point is that there are many ways of visioning and supporting learning that you may or may not agree with – but that does not mean as you state that “it will not work” in at least some cases. There are too many educators who believe that learning must conform to their view of how it is conducted or it does not count. I suggest that there is a place in a learning system for formal lessons designed for learning using a variety of methodologies and techniques (including lectures, interactive video, readings, rote memory tasks, etc.) encapsulated in an interoperable format – a learning object. I DO CARE.
All the best David and thanks for pushing my buttons!

]]> By: Wayne Batchelder http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230/comment-page-1#comment-1217 Wayne Batchelder Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:21:55 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230#comment-1217 Thanks to David, perhaps we can finally bury the learning objects concepts that have failed us, and begin with fresh ideas, unburdened by the rules of standards, and discover among us the real uses of the idea of learning objects that so many of us have been working to do in our classes, and various learning environments. Perhaps also, we can refocus on the learner instead of reusability, and take advantage of the concepts we have been developing. Learning objects are dead in their complex and frustrating form, now we can re-focus our efforts on "small objects loosly joined" in a more creative direction that will as David suggests, give something of value to the learners who will use the new forms to better their lives. Thanks to David, perhaps we can finally bury the learning objects concepts that have failed us, and begin with fresh ideas, unburdened by the rules of standards, and discover among us the real uses of the idea of learning objects that so many of us have been working to do in our classes, and various learning environments. Perhaps also, we can refocus on the learner instead of reusability, and take advantage of the concepts we have been developing. Learning objects are dead in their complex and frustrating form, now we can re-focus our efforts on “small objects loosly joined” in a more creative direction that will as David suggests, give something of value to the learners who will use the new forms to better their lives.

]]> By: Insight » Blog Archive » David Wiley on the death of Learning Objects http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230/comment-page-1#comment-1216 Insight » Blog Archive » David Wiley on the death of Learning Objects Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:42:19 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230#comment-1216 [...] David Wiley has posted a thoughtful essay on the death of Learning Objects that makes a good introduction to criticism of the paradigm. I’ve long been intrigued by practical issues surounding the re-use of learning resources, and Wiley’s discussion added more dimensions to my model of constraints and cautions. [...] [...] David Wiley has posted a thoughtful essay on the death of Learning Objects that makes a good introduction to criticism of the paradigm. I’ve long been intrigued by practical issues surounding the re-use of learning resources, and Wiley’s discussion added more dimensions to my model of constraints and cautions. [...]

]]>