The Instructional Use Of Learning Objects
The Instructional Useof Learning ObjectsDavid A. Wiley, EditorAgency for Instructional TechnologyAssociation forEducational Communications & Technology
The Instructional Use ofLearning ObjectsDavid A. Wiley, EditorAgency for Instructional TechnologyAssociation forEducational Communications & Technology
29.95USPublished byAgency for Instructional TechnologyandAssociation for Educational Communications & TechnologyBox ABloomington, Indiana 47402-0120 2002 by individual chapter authorsPrinted version 2002 by AIT/AECTAll rights reserved.This material may be distributed only subject to the terms andconditions set forth in the Open Publication License. (Information available upon request from the author or publisher.)No part of the printed version protected by this copyrightnotice may be reproduced or utilized for commercial purposesin any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage andretrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner.AIT Customer Service: 1-800-457-4509Internet: www.ait.netFirst EditionISBN: 0-7842-0892-1Library of Congress Control Number: 2001091342David A. Wiley, EditorDeneise Self Hueston, Copy Editor; Text & Cover DesignerMichael F. Sullivan, Executive Director, AIT, PublisherPhil Harris, Executive Director, AECT, Co-PublisherPrinted by Tichenor Printing, Bloomington, Indiana
ContentsAcknowledgments1.0 Learning Objects Explained1.1Connecting Learning Objects to Instructional Design Theory:A Definition, a Metaphor, and a Taxonomyby David A. Wiley1.2The Nature and Origin of Instructional Objectsby Andrew S. Gibbons, Jon Nelson, & Robert Richards2.0 Learning Objects and Constructivist Thought2.1Learning Object Systems as Constructivist LearningEnvironments: Related Assumptions, Theories,and Applicationsby Brenda Bannan-Ritland, Nada Dabbagh, & Kate Murphy2.2Designing Resource-Based Learning andPerformance Support Systemsby Michael J. Hannafin, Janette R. Hill, & James E. McCarthy2.3Learning Objects to Support Inquiry-Based, Online Learningby Chandra Hawley Orrill3.0 Learning Objects and People3.1Designing Learning Objects to Personalize Learningby Margaret Martinez3.2Evaluation of Learning Objects andInstruction Using Learning Objectsby David D. Williams4.0 Learning Objects: Implementation War Stories4.1Battle Stories from the Field:Wisconsin OnLine Resource Center Learning Objects Projectby Kay Chitwood, Carol May, David Bunnow, & Terri Langan4.2A University-Wide System for Creating, Capturing, andDelivering Learning Objectsby Joseph B. South & David W. Monson5.0 Learning Objects and the Future5.1Collaboratively Filtering Learning Objectsby Mimi M. Recker, Andrew Walker, & David A. Wiley5.2Knowledge Objects and Mental-Modelsby M. David Merrill5.3The Future of Learning Objectsby H. Wayne 1281
AcknowledgmentsFor their undying support during this andother labors of love, my affection and heartfelt thanksgo to my immediate family:Elaine, David Enoch, and Megumi.My gratitude also goes to my academic family fortheir enculturation and inspiration:my “mom” Laurie Nelson,“grandfather” Charlie Reigeluth,and “great-grandpaw” David Merrill.—David A. Wileyvii
1.0 Learning Objects Explained
Connecting Learning Objects toInstructional Design Theory:A Definition, a Metaphor, and a TaxonomyDavid A. Wiley(Utah State University)The purpose of this chapter is to introduce an instructional technologyconcept known commonly as the “learning object.” First a review of theliterature is presented as groundwork for a working definition of theterm. A brief discussion of instructional design theory is followed by an attemptto connect the learning objects approach to existing instructional design theory, then the general lack of such connective efforts is contrasted with the financial and technical activity generated by the learning objects notion. The LegoTMmetaphor frequently used to describe learning objects is critically examined anda successor metaphor is nominated. A taxonomy of learning object types is presented as a foundation for continued research on learning objects and relatedinstructional design theories. Finally, the connection of instructional designtheory to taxonomy is demonstrated, and the benefits of this approach arebriefly espoused. This introduction should provide the reader with a context forinterpreting the remaining chapters of this book.What Is a Learning Object?Technology is an agent of change, and major technological innovationscan result in entire paradigm shifts. The computer network known as theInternet is one such innovation. After effecting sweeping changes in the waypeople communicate and do business, the Internet is poised to bring about aparadigm shift in the way people learn. Consequently, a major change may alsobe coming in the way educational materials are designed, developed, and delivered to those who wish to learn. The instructional technology called “learningobjects” (LTSC, 2000a) currently leads other candidates as the technology ofchoice for the next generation of instructional design, development, and delivery (Hodgins, 2000; Urdan & Weggen, 2000; Gibbons, Nelson, & Richards,2002). This is because of its potential for reusability, generativity, adaptability,and scalability.
41.1: WileyLearning objects are elements of a new type of computer-based instruction grounded in the object-oriented paradigm of computer science. Objectorientation highly values the creation of components (called “objects”) that canbe reused in multiple contexts (Dahl & Nygaard, 1966). The fundamental ideabehind learning objects is that instructional designers can build small (relativeto the size of an entire course) instructional components that can be reused anumber of times in different learning contexts. Additionally, learning objectsare generally understood to be digital entities deliverable over the Internet. Thismeans that any number of people can access and use learning objects simultaneously. (Traditional instructional media, such as an overhead or a video tape,only exist in one place at a time.) Moreover, individuals who incorporate learning objects can collaborate on and benefit immediately from new versions.These are significant differences between learning objects and previously existing instructional media.Supporting the notion of small, reusable chunks of instructionalmedia, Reigeluth and Nelson (1997) suggest that when teachers first gain accessto instructional materials, they often break these materials down into constituent parts. Teachers then reassemble these parts in ways that support eachindividual’s instructional goals. This suggests one reason why reusable instructional components (learning objects) may provide instructional benefits: ifinstructors received instructional resources as individual components, the initial step of decomposition could be bypassed, potentially increasing the speedand efficiency of instructional development.To facilitate the widespread adoption of the learning objects approach,the Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) of the Institute ofElectrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) was formed in 1996 to develop andpromote instructional technology standards (LTSC, 2000a). Without suchstandards, universities, corporations, and other organizations around the worldwould have no way of assuring the interoperability of their instructional technologies, specifically their learning objects. A similar project called the Allianceof Remote Instructional Authoring and Distribution Networks for Europe(ARIADNE) had already started with the financial support of the EuropeanUnion Commission (ARIADNE, 2000). At the same time, another venturecalled the Instructional Management Systems (IMS) Project was just beginningin the United States, with funding from Educom (IMS, 2000a). Each of theseand other organizations (e.g., ADL, 2000) began developing technical standards to support the broad deployment of learning objects. Many of these localstandards efforts have representatives on the LTSC.The Learning Technology Standards Committee chose the term“learning objects” (possibly from Wayne Hodgins’ 1994 use of the term in thetitle of the CedMA working group called “Learning Architectures, API’s, and
The Instructional Use of Learning Objects5Learning Objects”) to describe these small instructional components; the LTSCalso established a working group and provided a working definition:Learning Objects are defined here as any entity, digital or non-digital, whichcan be used, re-used or referenced during technology-supported learning.Examples of technology-supported learning include computer-based trainingsystems, interactive learning environments, intelligent computer-aidedinstruction systems, distance learning systems, and collaborative learningenvironments. Examples of Learning Objects include multimedia content,instructional content, learning objectives, instructional software and softwaretools, and persons, organizations, or events referenced during technology supported learning. (LOM, 2000)This definition is extremely broad and upon examination fails toexclude any person, place, thing, or idea that has existed at anytime in the history of the universe, since any of these could be “referenced during technologysupported learning.” Accordingly, different groups outside the LearningTechnology Standards Committee have created different terms that generallynarrow the scope of the canonical definition down to something more specific.Other groups have refined the definition but continue to use the term “learning object.” Confusingly, these additional terms and differently-defined “learning objects” are all Learning Technology Standards Committee “learningobjects” in the strictest sense.The proliferation of definitions for the term “learning object” makescommunication confusing and difficult. For example, computer-based training(CBT) vendor NETg, Inc., uses the term “NETg learning object” but appliesa three-part definition: a learning objective, a unit of instruction that teachesthe objective, and a unit of assessment that measures the objective (L’Allier,1998). Another CBT vendor, Asymetrix, defines learning objects in terms ofprogramming characteristics. “ToolBook II learning objects—pre-scripted elements that simplify programming . . . provide instantaneous programmingpower” (Asymetrix, 2000). The NSF-funded Educational Objects Economytakes a technical approach, only accepting Java Applets as learning objects(EOE, 2000). It would seem that there are almost as many definitions of theterm as there are people employing it.In addition to the various definitions of the term “learning object,”other terms that imply the general intention to take an object-orientedapproach to computer-assisted instruction confuse the issue further. DavidMerrill uses the term “knowledge objects” (Merrill, Li, & Jones, 1991). Merrillis also writing a book on the topic of object-oriented approaches to instructionto be called “Components of Instruction” (personal communication, March 21,2000), which is sure to introduce yet another term, “instructional component,”
61.1: Wileyinto the instructional design vernacular. The previously mentioned ARIADNEproject uses the term “pedagogical documents” (ARIADNE, 2000). The NSFfunded Educational Software Components of Tomorrow (ESCOT) project usesthe term “educational software components” (ESCOT, 2000), while theMultimedia Educational Resource for Learning and On-Line Teaching project(MERLOT) uses the terminology “online learning materials” (MERLOT,2000). Finally, the Apple Learning Interchange simply terms them “resources”(ALI, 2000). Depressingly, while each of these is something different, they allconform to the Learning Technology Standards Committee’s learning objectdefinition. An in-depth review of the precise meanings of each of these termswould not add to the main point of this discussion. The field is still strugglingto come to grips with the question, “What is a learning object?”The Learning Technology Standards Committee definition seems toobroad to be useful, since most instructional technologists would not considerthe historical event “the war of 1812” or the historical figure “Joan of Arc” tobe learning objects. At the same time, the creation of yet another term may onlyadd to the confusion. So, what is a learning object? While the creation of a satisfactory definition of the term “learning object” will probably consume thebetter part of the author’s career, a working definition must be presented beforethe discussion can proceed. Therefore, this chapter defines a learning object as“any digital resource that can be reused to support learning.” This definitionincludes anything that can be delivered across the network on demand, be itlarge or small. Examples of smaller reusable digital resources include digitalimages or photos, live data feeds (like stock tickers), live or prerecorded videoor audio snippets, small bits of text, animations, and smaller Web-deliveredapplications (like a Java calculator). Examples of larger reusable digital resourcesinclude entire Web pages that combine text, images, and other media or applications to deliver complete experiences (a complete instructional event). Thisdefinition of learning object, “any digital resource that can be reused to supportlearning,” is proposed for two reasons.First, this definition is sufficiently narrow to define a reasonably homogeneous set of things: reusable digital resources. At the same time, the definition is broad enough to include the estimated 15 terabytes of information available on the publicly accessible Internet (Internet Newsroom, 1999).Second, this chapter’s proposed definition is based on the LTSC definition (and defines a proper subset of learning objects as defined by the LTSC),making issues of compatibility of learning objects as defined within this chapter,and learning objects as defined by the LTSC, explicit. The proposed definitioncaptures what the author feels to be the critical attributes of a learning object(“reusable,” “digital,” “resource,” and “learning”), as does the LTSC definition.
The Instructional Use of Learning Objects7With that compatibility stated, this chapter’s proposed definition differs fromthe LTSC definition in two important ways.First, this definition explicitly rejects non-digital resources (by dropping the word and dropping the idea of a learning object being simply “reference”-able). This chapter’s definition also rejects non-reusable resources (bydropping the phrase “used or” which seems to imply the acceptance of singleuse). The definition of learning object presented in this chapter does notinclude actual people, historical events, books (in the traditional sense of theterm), or other discrete, physical objects. The definition also drops the phrase“technology supported” which is now implicit, because all learning objects aredigital.Second, the phrase “to support” has here been substituted in place of“during” (found in the LTSC definition). Use of an object during learning doesn’tconnect its use to learning. The LTSC definition implies that nothing more thancontiguity of an object’s use and the occurrence of learning is sufficient, meaning that a banner advertisement atop an online course Web page would be alegitimate learning object. The definition adopted for this chapter emphasizesthe purposeful use (by either an instructional designer, an instructor, or a student) of these objects to support learning.Armed with a working definition of learning objects, discussion aboutthe instructional use of learning objects can proceed.Instructional Design Theory and Learning ObjectsInstructional design theories have been overviewed frequently in theliterature (Dijkstra, Seel, Schott, & Tennyson, 1997; Reigeluth 1983, 1999b;Tennyson, Schott, Seel, & Dijkstra, 1997). Reigeluth (1999a) defines instructional design theory as follows:[I]nstructional design theories are design oriented, they describe methods ofinstruction and the situations in which those methods should be used, themethods can be broken into simpler component methods, and the methodsare probabilistic. (p. 7)Reigeluth’s current definition of design theory as prescriptive theoryfollows earlier definitions of design theory (Simon, 1969; Snelbecker, 1974;Reigeluth, 1983). Because the very definition of “theory” in some fields is“descriptive,” design theories are commonly confused with other types of theories that they are not, including learning theory and curriculum theory(Reigeluth, 1999a).Instructional design theory, or instructional strategies and criteria fortheir application, must play a large role in the application of learning objects ifthey are to succeed in facilitating learning. This statement echoes Reigeluth and
81.1: WileyFrick’s (1999) call: “more [instructional design] theories are sorely needed to provide guidance for . . . the use of new information technology tools” (p. 633). Thefollowing discussion takes a step in this direction, by recasting two of the largestlearning objects issues—combination and granularity—in instructional designterms.CombinationGroups like the Learning Technology Standards Committee exist topromote international discussion around the technology standards necessary tosupport learning object based instruction. While many people are talking aboutthe financial opportunities that may come into existence because of learningobject development, there is astonishingly little conversation around theinstructional design implications of learning objects.Indicative of this lack of thought about instructional design is item7(d) of the Learning Objects Metadata (LOM) Working Group’s ProjectAuthorization Request (PAR) form (LTSC, 2000b). The Learning ObjectsMetadata Working Group is a Learning Technology Standards Committeeworking group. The PAR is the mechanism by which IEEE projects are officially requested and approved, and must contain statements detailing the project’s scope and purpose. Section 7 of the PAR deals with the purpose of theproposed project, and item (d) in the Learning Objects Metadata WorkingGroup’s PAR (LOM, 2000) reads as follows:To enable computer agents to automatically and dynamically compose personalized lessons for an individual learner.As the Learning Object Metadata standard neared finalization in early 2000,some questions were raised regarding the current standard’s ability to achievethis purpose. Apparently no one had considered the role of instructional designin composing and personalizing lessons. If the reader will pardon a short digression, at this point a brief discussion of metadata, the focus of the LearningObject Metadata Working Group’s efforts, is necessary.Metadata, literally “data about data,” is descriptive information abouta resource. For example, the card catalog in a public library is a collection ofmetadata. In the case of the card catalog, the metadata is the information storedon the cards about the author, title, and publication date of the book orresource in question. The labels on cans of soup are another example of metadata: they contain a list of ingredients, the name of the soup, the productionfacility where the soup was canned, and other information. In both the case ofthe library book and the can of soup, metadata allows you to locate an item veryquickly, without investigating all the individual items through which you are
The Instructional Use of Learning Objects9searching. Imagine trying to locate Paradise Lost by sifting through every bookin the library, or looking for chicken soup by opening every can of soup in thestore and inspecting contents! The Learning Objects Metadata Working Groupis trying to create metadata for learning objects (such as title, author, version,format) so that people and computers will be able to find objects by
Instructional Design Theory: A Definition, a Metaphor, and a Taxonomy David A.Wiley (Utah State University) T he purpose of this chapter is to introduce an instructional technology tareviewofthe literature i
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. 3 Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
