Learning object 1

Learning object
Definition
Learning object is a controversial concept. The learning object remains an ill-defined concept, despite numerous
and extensive discussion in the literature. (Churchill, 2007:479). At a very general level, a learning object could be
defined as a pedagogical resource (including tools).
In the main-stream "old school" e-learning literature, there is some kind of agreement, i.e. one can find definitions
like:
Small (relative to the size of an entire course) instructional components that can be reused a number of times in
different learning contexts.
"digital entities deliverable over the internet" (Wiley, 2000, p.3)
Learning objects are supposed to be reusable learning objects (RLO)
See also: the learning object repository article and the list of learning objects repositories
There are other definitions in other subfields of educational technology. E.g. Oren Zuckerman (2006, in preparation)
defines a constructionist learning object as specifically designed to promote learning through hands-on interaction.
These are popular materials in early childhood education, at school and at home. See the constructionist learning
object article. More recent approaches to technology-enhanced learning like learning design, CSCL script rather
focus on the concept of reusable pedagogical scenarios. Finally, generative learning objects may represent some kind
of compromise between the content-centered "learning object approach" and more activity/scenario/cognitive
tool-oriented approaches.
We suggest the following very global definition: A learning object is a resource. This definition is not very
operational, but at least compatible with learning design models that usually distinguish between resources (of
various sorts), services (tools) and learning activities (scenarios) as the building blocks for educational designs.
Tools may of course include learning objects. E.g. a wiki is a tool, but its entries may play the role of learning
objects. Also, student productions may become learning learning objects and that idea goes beyond student
projections of contents. E.g. in some CSCL models, communication becomes substance and therefore an object one
can learn from. In conclusion, as a social scientist, I'd say that learning object should be defined by their function
with respect to a given set of similar instructional design models. A global definition doesn't make sense. - Daniel K.
Schneider 09:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC).

What is a learning object ?

It appears unlikely that any of existing definitions can serve to align communities with diverse perspectives (e.g.
traditionalist and constructivist educators, or instructional product designers and school teachers as learning
designers) around any common understanding leading to advancement in education and learning outcomes through
technology integration. (Churchill, 2007:480).
Instead of a single detailed definition, Churchill (2007:484) defines a learning object as a learning object is a
representation designed to afford uses in different educational contexts. He then proposes a typology of several
kinds of learning objects which then could be defined in more precise terms:
Presentation object
Direct instruction and presentation resources designed with the intention to transmit specific subject matter.
E.g. simple e-learning presentations as defined in the IMS Content Packaging framework
Practice object
Learning object 2

Drill and practice with feedback, educational game or representation that allows practice and learning of
certain procedures
Simulation object
Representation of some real-life system or process
Conceptual model
Representation of a key concept or related concepts of subject matter
Information object
Display of information organized and represented with modalities
Contextual representation
Data displayed as it emerges from represented authentic scenario

Content-based e-learning objects

Size
The purpose of learning objects and their reality seem to be at odds with one another. On the one hand, the smaller
designers create their learning objects, the more reusable those objects will be. On the other hand, the smaller
learning objects are, the more likely it is that only humans will be able to assemble them into meaningful instruction.
From the traditional instruction point of view, the higher-level reusability of small objects does not scale well to
large numbers of students (i.e., it requires teachers or instructional designers to intervene), meaning that the
supposed economic advantage of reusable learning objects has evaporated. (D. Wiley [1] also at edtechpost [2])
[3]
Another version of this reusability paradox can be found on the connexions web site, retrieved 17:42, 16 August
2007 (MEST)
Because humans make meaning by connecting new information to that which they already know, the meaningfulness
of educational content is a function of its context. As the module's context is further elaborated and made more
explicit, a learner working with the module has an easier time understanding how this information relates to what
they already know. The more context a learning object has, the more (and the more easily) a learner can learn from
it.
To an instructional designer, learning object "reuse" means placing a learning object in a context other than that for
which it was designed. The fit of learning objects into these new contexts depends on the extent to which the
learning object's internals contain explicit statements of context. For example, statements within a learning object
like "as you will recall from the last module..." make it very difficult to reuse the learning object in a context other
than that for which it was designed. To make learning objects maximally reusable, learning objects should contain as
little context as possible.
[4]
According to Hodgins (2000) as described in MODWiki , the hierarchy of modular content can be divided into 5
levels:
Raw Content
The most fine-granular level consists of raw media elements including media types like text, audio, illustration,
animation and others.
Reusable Information Object
From raw media elements, information objects are formed. They describe a certain procedure, process or
structure, define a concept, present a fact, or provide an overview on some subject.
Reusable Learning Object
Learning object 3

The third aggregation layer combines information objects circumscribed by a learning objective. The objects at
this level are called learning objects.
Lesson
The fourth layer groups learning objects around a more encompassing outcome or terminal objective to create
aggregates like lessons, chapters, learning units etc.
Course
The top layer includes collections of lower level aggregate assemblies to form thematic courses, books, stories or
whole movies.

Hodkins-Autodesk Content Strategy Building

Block Model View

In the A Short Course on Structured Course Development, Learning Objects, and E-Learning Standards [5] we can
find the following diagram [6] that illustrates the relationship between context and reusability (adapted from Hodgins,
2002 ??).

Context VS Reusability according to

Hodgins/Short course on Structured Course
Development, Learning Objects, and E-Learning
Standards

Krull and Mallinson, also based on Hodgins made this slide that expresses the same principle, however this time the
learning object in the narrow sense is somewhere in the middle of the hierarchy.
Learning object 4

[7]
Modular Content Hierarchy - Hodgins seen by PPT of Krull & Mallinson

E-learning objects vs any teaching materials

Most commonly used learning objects are teaching materials that can be found in teacher-centered repositories.
There are several categories, e.g.
Simple Contents for learners (e.g. Web Pages, Word documents)
Multimedia presentations and multimedia animations
Interactive learning software (e.g. interactive multimedia)
Microworlds
However, it is debatable whether these are learning objects in a more strict sense. Clearly some of these are not just
"raw contents", but non-standardized reusable contents at any level of granularity.
Gerry Paille [5] defines the characteristics of Learning Objects in a more narrow sense as follows:
Learning objects are digital
Learning objects can be stored in a database or repository
Learning objects can be described using a metadata standard or specification
Learning objects are discoverable through searching a database
Learning objects are interoperable in that they are independent of hardware, operating system and browser type
Learning objects tend to be, but are not necessarily, small or granular in nature
Learning objects tend to be, but are not necessarily, disassociated from context
Learning objects are reusable
Learning objects can be repurposed for different educational contexts
Learning objects have an explicit educational purpose
Learning object 5

Daniel K. Schneider thinks that in the world of e-learning, learning objects mostly refer to a set of interactive web
pages, in particular standards-based IMS Content Packaging that can be imported into a LMS.
The SCORM 2004 3rd Edition Overview (p 1-6) defines "ilities," that should characterize a learning objects
"economy":
Accessibility: The ability to locate and access instructional components from one remote location and deliver
them to many other locations.
Adaptability: The ability to tailor instruction to individual and organizational needs.
Affordability: The ability to increase efficiency and productivity by reducing the time and costs involved in
delivering instruction.
Durability: The ability to withstand technology evolution and changes without costly redesign, reconfiguration or
recoding.
Interoperability: The ability to take instructional components developed in one location with one set of tools or
platform and use them in another location with a different set of tools or platform.
Reusability: The flexibility to incorporate instructional components in multiple applications and contexts.
See also:
educational modelling languages e.g. other IMS standards like the IMS Simple Sequencing or IMS Learning
Design that deal with the sequencing part of a learning object
metadata standards to describe objects or its components

Formal definition of (e-)learning objects

See the standards article for an overview and the Learning object standard article for a technical overview table
See educational modeling languages and IMS Content Packaging for the most important faces of pedagogical
e-learning standards.

Pedagogical design and learning objects

Learning objects play different roles in given instructional design models / pedagogic strategies. Ip and Morrison
(2001) argue that one should clearly distinguish three main types of educational technology uses cases and that
emphasize different kinds of resources:
Learn from a computer (CBT, e-instruction, etc.): Learning objects, i.e. learning objects in a narrow sense.
Learn with a computer (cognitive tool, writing-to-learn, etc.): Software tools
Learn via a computer (CSCL, etc.): Communication (peer learners)

Pedagogical Design Nature of the resources Need special rendering software Resources are
specifically designed
for educational use

Tutorial, Drill and Test or drill items, (may be Yes directly or indirectly. Some learning objects may Yes
Practice structured to meet interoperability have embedded content and some may not.
standards such as IMS QTI)

Case Study Method Teaching cases No - cases are normally hardcopy but online cases can Yes
include video but hard-wired to the learning scenario
(see GBL)

Goal-based learning Stories, or video clips, provided No Yes

mainly ondemand

Learning by designing The requirement for an artifact No Yes

Web-based role-play, A scenario & associated design of No, but the environment itself may be a specialist engine Scenario etc: yes,
simulation the role play, simulation resources (Ip & Linser, 1999) Resources: no
Learning object 6

Distributed problem Problem for solving during the No Yes

based learning learning

Critical incident-based Opportunities for learning - No No

computer supported incidence
learning

Rule-based simulation Embedded in the software Yes, most componentbased approaches to creating Yes
rule-based simulation will have embedded content in the
components which roughly map to learning objects in
this paper

Cognitive tool Structured content to work with N/A N/A

some tools, generic tools may not
need any content

Resource-based Resources Search tool and resource discovery mechanism, e.g. in No

Learning Environment the form of support from subject gateways

References
[1] http:/ / rclt. usu. edu/ whitepapers/ paradox. html
[2] http:/ / edtechpost. ca/ wordpress/ 2003/ 02/ 26/ The-Reusability-Paradox
[3] http:/ / cnx. org/ content/ m11898/ latest/
[4] http:/ / library. med. utah. edu/ wiki/ MODwiki/ index. php/ Learning_Objects
[5] http:/ / careo. prn. bc. ca/ losc/
[6] http:/ / careo. prn. bc. ca/ losc/ mod2t5. html
[7] http:/ / emerge2004. net/ connect/ site/ UploadWSC/ emerge2004/ file58/ emerge%20slides%20v8%20(final). ppt
Article Sources and Contributors 7

Article Sources and Contributors

Learning object Source: http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/mediawiki/index.php?oldid=30027 Contributors: Daniel K. Schneider, RobertoOrtelli, Stek, WikiSysop

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

image:hodgins-rlo-model.jpg Source: http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/mediawiki/index.php?title=File:Hodgins-rlo-model.jpg License: unknown Contributors: -
image:rlo-paradox.jpg Source: http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/mediawiki/index.php?title=File:Rlo-paradox.jpg License: unknown Contributors: -
image:modular-content-hierarchy.png Source: http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/mediawiki/index.php?title=File:Modular-content-hierarchy.png License: unknown Contributors: -

License
CC BY-NC-SA Licence
EduTech_Wiki:Copyrights
http:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-nc-sa/ 3. 0/