Churchill, D

HKU Scholars Hub

Title Expanding the idea of the learning objectAuthor(s) Churchill, DCitation Learning Technology, 2010, v. 12 n. 1, p. 65-67Issued Date 2010URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/129401Rights Learning Technology. Copyright © IEEE, Computer Society,Learning Technology Task Force.66Expanding the Idea of the Learning Object  Introduction Initially the idea behind the computer-based learning objects was that the content of a course could be broken down into small, reusable instructional components and each addressed a specific learning objective. These components could be tagged with metadata descriptors and deposited in digital libraries for subsequent reuse into larger structures such as lessons and courses (see Cisco Systems, 2001; IMS Global Learning Consortium, 2002; Jonassen & Churchill, 2004; L’Allier, 1998; and Wiley, 2000). More recently learning objects begun to emerge within a variety of contemporary pedagogical frameworks that promote constructivist learning, e.g., problem solving, engaged learning, problem-based learning, rich environments for active learning, technology-based learning environments, interactive learning environments, collaborative knowledge building, situated learning (Churchill, 2007). Common to these frameworks, students must engage and interact with a task where knowledge is created and applied, and the learning object is seen as a tool and a cognitive supplement that facilitates completion of this task. To overcome potentially conflicting conceptualization of the learning object, there is a need for a broader definition that serves perspective of diverse communities interested in this idea (e.g., computer scientists, education professionals, and corporate instructional designers). Broader Definition of the Learning Object The author describes the learning object in broad terms as a multimedia representation designed to afford uses in different educational contexts. In this context, the learning object utilizes representational capabilities of contemporary technology to deliver educationally useful displays of data, information, concepts, and ideas. Supplementing this definition is a classification of learning objects into the following types: presentation, practice, simulation, conceptual models, information and contextual representation objects (see Table 1).Learning objects might reside in digital repositories, ready to be retrieved and utilized by those involved in generating educational activities (e.g. teachers and students). They can be tagged with suitable metadata descriptors that indicate types of learning objects, and accordingly suggest suitable reuse. Some of the learning objects from the classification can be combined with other objects into direct instruction products supporting traditional pedagogies (e.g., computer-based tutorials). Other learning objects are more appropriate in the context of student-centered pedagogical approaches as resources to be deployed in learning tasks designed by teachers. Through all these forms, representation and interaction are key attributes. Task-driven Reuse of the Learning Object Traditional instructivist framework assumes that learning occurs through contact with learning material, processing/internalization of principally presented content and demonstration of behavior that shows achievement of learning objectives. It is believed that multimedia messages, when effectively designed, arranged and presented, can enable learners to memorize material, while interactivity allows repetitive drill and practice until the desired performance is achieved. It is possible for reuse of the learning objects to be machine-driven based on data such as learners’ pre- or post-test results. For example, Cisco’s Reusable 67learning Objects (RLO) strategy describes such machine-driven reuse (see Cisco Systems, 2001).Table 1: Basic types of learning objects (from Churchill, 2007) In contrast, the constructivist framework assumes that learning occurs within a task that results in experiences leading to knowledge construction (e.g., conceptual changes, development of coherent knowledge representations, internalization of social constructed and negotiated meanings, accommodation and assimilation of new concepts in existing knowledge). A suitably designed task is an ill-structured, dynamic and authentic engagement that requires students, for example, to solve problems, conduct inquiries, work with information and data, collaborate, deliver products and presentations and in other ways apply emerging understanding through strategic decisions, as well as engaging in meta-thinking and reflection (Churchill, 2006). Hedberg and Churchill (2008) describes four types of general tasks: (1) the learner might be practicing the use of rules or standard processes to achieve a solution; (2) the learner might explore a incident or scenario and argue for a particular course of action; (3) the task might include a new design so that the focus is built upon the strategythrough which it is achieved; and (4) the situation might require the analysis of different perspectives and hence the challenge is seen in terms of a particular role that the student might take. The role of a teacher is to design learning tasks that will require students to work 68with material and produce artifacts that demonstrate their learning achievements. Once a learning task is planned, suitable learning objects to enable students’ learning are supplied. References1. Churchill, D. (2006). Student-centered learning design: Key components, technology roles and frameworks for integration. Synergy, 4(1), 18-28. 2. Churchill, D. (2007). Towards a useful classification of learning objects. EducationTechnology Research and Development, 55(5), 479-497 3. Churchill, D., & Hedberg, J. (2008). Learning Objects, Learning Tasks and Handhelds. In Editor: L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning Objects: Issues, Applications and Technologies, (pp. 451-469). Hershey, PA.: Information Science Reference.4. Cisco Systems (2001) Reusable learning object strategy: designing information and learning objects through concept, fact, procedure, process, and principle template. San Jose, CA: Cisco Systems, Inc. 5. IMS Global Learning Consortium (2002). Learning Resource Meta-data Specification. Retrieved February 15, 2005 from http://www.imsglobal.org/metadata/ . 6. Jonassen, D., & Churchill, D. (2004). Is There a Learning Orientation in Learning Objects? International Journal on E-Learning, 3(2), 32-41.7. L’Allier, J. J. (1998). NETg's precision skilling: the linking of occupational skills descriptors to training interventions. Retrieved September 15, 2000, from http://www.netg.com/research/pskillpaper.htm . 8. Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Retrieved July 24, 2004, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.docDaniel Churchill The University of Hong Kong  dchurch@hku.hk 

Expanding the idea of the learning object

http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/129401/1/Content.pdf

Expanding the idea of the learning object

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

HKU Scholars Hub