What is a learning Object?

After affecting sweeping changes in the way people communicate and do business, the Internet is poised to
bring about a paradigm shift in the way people learn (Wiley, 2000)

This change is coming in the way educational materials are designed, developed, and delivered to those
who wish to learn. (LTSC, 2000)

The fundamental idea behind learning objects: instructional designers can build small (relative to the size of
an entire course) instructional components that can be reused a number of times in different learning
contexts. (Wiley, 2000)

Learning objects represent in the next generation of instructional design, development, and delivery.

How are Learning Objects defined?

Learning Objects are defined by the IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) as any
entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology supported
learning.

David Wiley argues that definition is too broad, because it "fails to exclude any person, place, thing, or
idea that has existed at anytime in the history of the universe".

He suggests a more refined definition as "any digital resource that can be reused to support learning"
(Wiley, 2000).

Other definitions focus on the components of the learning object: a learning objective, a unit of instruction
that teaches the objective, and a unit of assessment that measures the objective (L'Allier, 1998).

The Wisconsin Online Resource Center uses a time element in its definition and defines a learning object as
smaller units of learning, typically ranging from 2 minutes to 15 minutes (WORC).

Why use learning objects? (Longmire, 2000)

Flexibility: If material is designed to be used in multiple contexts, it can be reused much more easily than
material that has to be rewritten for each new context. It's much harder to uncouple an object from the
context of its parent course and then recontextualize it than it is to contextualize as part of design and
development.

Ease of updates, searches, and content management: Metadata tags facilitate rapid updating,
searching, and management of content by filtering and selecting only the relevant content for a given
purpose.

Customization: When individual or organizational needs require customization of content, the learning
object approach facilitates a just-in-time approach to customization. Modular learning objects maximize
the potential of software that personalizes content by permitting the delivery and recombination of material
at the level of granularity desired.

Interoperability: The object approach allows organizations to set specifications regarding the design,
development, and presentation of learning objects based on organizational needs, while retaining
interoperability with other learning systems and contexts.

Facilitation of competency-based learning: Competency-based approaches to learning focus on the
intersection of skills, knowledge, and attitudes within the rubric of core competency models rather than the
course model. While this approach has gained a great deal of interest among employers and educators, a
perennial challenge in implementing competency-based learning is the lack of appropriate content that is
sufficiently modular to be truly adaptive. The tagging of granular learning objects allow for an adaptive
competency-based approach by matching object metadata with individual competency gaps.

Increased value of content: From a business standpoint, the value of content is increased every time it is
reused. This is reflected not only in the costs saved by avoiding new design and development time, but also
in the possibility of selling content objects or providing them to partners in more than one context.

How does the concept of Learning Objects work?

The metaphor of LEGO has been used to explain the learning objects concept to the uninitiated. As Wiley
(2000) states, this analogy continue to serve its intended purpose of giving those new to the idea an easy
way of understanding what we are trying to do: create small pieces of instruction (LEGOs) that can be
assembled (stacked together) into some larger instructional structure (castle) and reused in other
instructional structures (e.g., a spaceship).

What's wrong with the LEGO Metaphor?

Wiley (2000) suggests that the problem with the LEGO metaphor is the potential degree to which it could
control and limit the way people think about learning objects. He asks us to consider the following
properties of a LEGO block:

Any LEGO block is combinable with any other LEGO block.
LEGO blocks can be assembled in any manner you choose.
LEGO blocks are so fun and simple that even children can put them together.

Is there a better metaphor?

Wiley (2000) suggests that an atom would serve as a better metaphor for learning objects: "An atom is a
small 'thing' that can be combined and recombined with other atoms to form larger 'things.' This seems to
capture the major meaning conveyed by the LEGO metaphor. However, the atom metaphor departs from
the LEGO metaphor in some extremely significant ways:

Not every atom is combinable with every other atom.
Atoms can only be assembled in certain structures prescribed by their own internal structure.
Some training is required in order to assemble atoms.

Using the metaphor of the atom, Wiley (200) emphasizes the importance of learning design in the creation
of learning objects: "Atomic bonding is a fairly precise science, and although the theories that explain it are
well understood. It should be obvious at this point that a person without understanding of instructional
design has no more hope of successfully combining learning objects into instruction than a person without
an understanding of chemistry has of successfully forming a crystal."

What are the attributes of Reusable Learning Object content?

There are two requisite components of a learning object: the object content and its metadata tag
(Longmire, 2000).

What is metadata?

Metadata, literally "data about data," is descriptive information about a resource. For example, the card
catalog in a public library is a collection of metadata. In the case of the card catalog, the metadata are the
information stored on the cards about the Author, Title, and Publication Date of the book or resource
(recording, etc.) 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 Production Facility where the soup was canned, etc. In both
the case of the library book and the can of soup, metadata allow you to locate an item very quickly without
investigating all the individual items through which you are searching. (Wiley, 2000)

Are there metadata standards?

There are many initiatives that provide guidelines and standards for describing learning objects through
metadata, including the Dublin Core, CanCore, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE).

A third element: Instructional Design Theory

Wiley (2000) maintains that "instructional design theory, or instructional strategies and criteria for the
application, must play a large role in the application of learning objects if they are to succeed in facilitating
learning. Instructionally grounded sequencing decisions are at the heart of the instructionally successful use
of learning objects."

The importance of design and in particular instructional design

Downes (2003) reinforces the importance of design: "instructional theorists have been talking about the
instructional 'contexts' of learning objects. One might think of an instructional context as the manner or way
in which a learning resource will be used to foster learning. An instructional context thus defines the relation
between resources with each other, such as the manner in which they are sequenced or presented to the
learner. Alternatively, an instructional context may define the role that a given resource plays in a learning
scenario: it may be an illustration, an example, an explanation or an exegesis, for example.

In the design of learning objects, and in e-learning generally, the definition and location of the instructional
context becomes a central question. For an object to be used in learning, it must be used in some specific
way, and arguably, it is not a learning object (as opposed to a mere content object) unless the definition of
the object in some way also describes the manner in which it is to be used. As various commentators have
argued, a mere picture is not a learning object because there is no instruction inherent in the picture."

The natural fit between learning design and learning objects

"Instructional design theory is, in a nutshell, the study of instructional context. It considers different ways of
presenting different types of materials, and different uses to which these materials may be put, in order to
foster learning. Although instructional design is typically practiced in concrete form, as in the actual design
of an online course or program, the theory approaches this topic in the abstract, suggesting methodologies
that may be used in a wide variety of circumstances. It is understandable, then, that one would see a
natural fit between learning objects, which are supposed to be reusable, and instructional design principles,
which are also supposed to be reusable.

Instructional design theory elaborates on the types of materials appropriate for each activity. It shows how
the activities flow from one into the next, and how an internal consistency is maintained from the initial
assessment of learning needs through to the metrics employed in the final testing process. But most
importantly, a more mature approach to instructional design will inform the designer of means and methods
to anticipate, and design for, variable circumstances." (Downes, 2003)

Combining Objects and Design

Downes uses the following diagram (Anderson, 2002) to represent the model to show how objects and strategy (design) might be joined to yield learning:

Would the assembly of learning objects create an appropriate learning environment?

Some people have expressed skepticism about the use of learning objects: instead of having a course that
flows and engages student interest, learning will be "a set of sterile stand-alone modular objects".

Learning Environments from an the perspective of atoms

Stephen Downs (2002) argues against this rationale: "If this were so, we could not have continuous
surfaces, such as, say, desks, composed out of molecules. Or our language, composed as it is out of
atomic words, could never achieve the elegance and rhythm of a Shakespeare sonnet.

That unless there is some manifestation in each molecule of a surface, that a collection of molecules could
never create a surface. But the whole is the emergent property of the set of the parts. Though no brick
could ever aspire to be six feet tall, the collection of them, in some sort of non-random order, can build a
wall."

References

Downes, Stephen (2002) The Lattecentric Ecosystem:
http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/website/view.cgi?dbs=Article&key=1037890664&format=full

Downes, Stephen (2002) Design, Standards and Reusability:
http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/website/view.cgi?dbs=Article&key=1059622263&format=full

L'Allier, J. J. (1998). NETg's precision skilling: The linking of occupational skills descriptors to training
interventions: http://www.netg.com/research/pskillpaper.htm

Longmire, Warren (2000) A Primer on learning objects
http://www.learningcircuits.org/mar2000/primer.html

Wiley, David: (2000) Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor,
and a taxonomy: http://www.reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

Wisconsin Online Research Center (WORC), (retrieved 2003) What are learning objects:
http://www.wisc-online.com/Info/FIPSE%20-%20What%20is%20a%20Learning%20Object.htm