RIP-ping on Learning Objects

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, because no one can agree about what a learning object is (although I enjoyed reading that a urinal apparently qualifies). And perhaps that very statement is all that needs to be made. 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. My primary interest always has been, and I suspect always will be, in increasing access to educational opportunity to people who have been denied that right for any of a variety of reasons. I loved the learning objects idea because the “write once, use anywhere” idea had a lot of economic appeal - once an object had been created for whatever reason, we could copy it (for free) and send it (for very close to free) almost anywhere around the world to be employed in the exercise of an individual’s right to education. ...

January 9, 2006 · David Wiley

Pedagogy-Agnostic Standards and a Much Needed Rant

It’s been too long since I’ve blown off some ID-related steam. The claim of pedagogy-neutrality in standards an interesting issue. As I have said many times, I believe that the term “pedagogy-neutral” is not adequately descriptive, and instead the term “pedagogy-agnostic” should always be used. I purposely choose “agnostic” because of its religious implications: a pedagogy-agnostic standard “doesn’t know if there’s a pedagogy or not.” In other words, it is impossible to design a language which allows the expression of *any* pedagogy without simultaneously allowing the expression of *no* pedagogy. ...

March 18, 2005 · David Wiley