The VET Learning Objects Project Green Paper  is the first of two reports produced by the VET Learning Objects Repository Project. The paper considers some of the pedagogical and instructional design issues related to learning objects, with a particular focus on the need for context within the VET sector and the role of the teacher in learning.

Members of the Australian Flexible Learning Community were invited to contribute their views and questions between 1 July - 31 August 2003. Ian Kenny from the VET Learning Repository Project moderated the event. This article summarises the discussion.

Defining and categorising Learning Objects

The IEEE’s Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) defines learning objects as:

‘…any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology-supported learning.’

Is there really a need for a definition of learning objects within the VET sector? Comments included:

• I do not think there is much point in attempting a definition. The IEEE one is very broad and that is what is needed.
• Yes, I think defining is pretty important. It's frustrating to keep following links that lead you astray because of misunderstandings in definitions.
• I believe there is some merit in defining or at least giving some visual context. In a former employment I was part of a project that set out to build a repository of 'learning objects' and we found it useful to look at the work done by William Horton http://www.horton.com/ on Knowledge Objects. This document has some very useful diagrams. We adapted some of those diagrams to help us define our own 'learning objects'.
• Definitions of learning objects may not allow teachers to fully address the various needs of individual learners if learning objects are their main resource in the brave new world. Essentially we may become slaves to systems - you know the gear, Orwellian worlds invading education.....the Green Paper draws out perspectives that I believe don’t fully address learner needs - the Green Paper is predicated on the needs of technical people and to a lesser extent the teachers who may one day understand and engage with online delivery.
• From a teacher/trainer point of view, a learning object repository will have value if we can find the resources we need to enhance the learning experience for our learners. Hence, the ability to easily locate learning resources at a topic or subject/competency level is the most important thing.

Should we be defining the ‘characteristics’ of learning objects or should we try and come up with a series of categories for learning objects? Comments included:

• There may actually be several different categories of objects, one of which is a 'Context Object'. Certainly within the VET sector this needs to be considered.
• Is there room for a variety of both complete and incomplete components to play a role in the future sharing of resources within the VET sector? The answer is a loud yes. The tricky bit may be having the systems that can cope with the differing objects (assets) and the metadata that can effectively describe the objects and assets. If we do not cater for both some very valuable assets may be lost when in fact they can enrich the learning fabric of the object.
• I think that this may come down to a matter of granularity. A repository needs to be able to accommodate a range of object sizes.
• The Object Lifecycle diagram presented in the green paper attempts to depict how an object may be used in conjunction with other objects to form a new larger object.
• What we are getting in the Green Paper is a move towards definitions, categories and systems ruling our resource development - from my point of view this is dangerous

Some characteristics of learning objects that need consideration:

• independence
• sharable/re-usable
• interoperable
• instructional value
• discoverable
• granularity
• context

The Learning Federation has developed a number of standards for learning objects such as:

• Educational Soundness (independence, instructional value)
• Technical Specification for Content Development (reusability, interoperability)
• Metadata Mandatory Elements (searchability)

I would be interested in people’s comments about Norm Friesen’s paper - Three Objections to Learning Objects -  http://www.learningspaces.org/n/papers/objections.html

Responses

• I agree with a lot of Friesen's comments. By defining a learning object you may well limit its discoverability/usability outside of the system for which it was created. For example, NetG’s objects follow very strict definitions and as such are very useable inside their system. However, I know that it has not been easy for us to use them with our products. This has been for various reasons, such as the level of granularity. That's not to say by expanding the level of granularity they become better objects. I feel this would instead then restrict other users and place other limitations on the objects.
• I have read Norm Friesen’s paper and agree with his provocation. He and Stephen Downes are trying to draw out through healthy discussion three arguments regarding Learning Objects. This will lead to informed outcomes - there are unanswered questions about learning objects deserving sound research.
• If there is not learning included then the object should be considered an asset only. I think what Norm is doing is trying to direct attention and research to the new style of pedagogical inclusive learning object whilst perhaps directing attention away from the original thrust of learning objects which were technology focused and derived from a military training background.
• WestOne carried out a pilot project to trial an object approach using the SCORM model. Our findings verify Friesen’s concerns about the engineering/military influence behind the SCORM content model. We had difficulty separating contextual and non-contextual information without impacting on the final quality and the resulting material did not flow well (inconsistencies such as some words being glossarised in one object and not in another). We also found a need for a logical approach to naming – such as diagram, case studies and module as opposed to the technical terms Asset, SCO and Aggregate. Our findings can be found at http://www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/herdsa/main/papers/nonref/pdf/AlisonAnderson.pdf.
• Norm Friesen’s points about the terminology of learning objects alienating 'chalk face' practitioners were very relevant. Presenting learning objects in terms that are meaningful and that teachers/lecturers are familiar with is absolutely essential I think. Perhaps we should look at a more 'user friendly' term than 'learning object'. How about 'electronic resource' or 'e teaching aid'?
• The definition of an object is really driven by the purpose that object will be used for rather than some arbitrary educational/technological yardstick. If the purpose is singular and clearly defined then a corresponding clear definition of the object can be agreed on. If the purpose is not singular and there are a range of purposes then it is important that the objects contained in such a repository also vary in type/style/granularity etc. The latter is the approach I imagine would most benefit the VET sector (unless someone was to dictate a standardised delivery approach/system that would suit sector wide 'single-purpose' style objects - not likely I'd imagine).
• There needs to be conformity with cataloguing objects, but that’s about it. The standards may shape the objects, but should not actually change the objects themselves. These standards (hopefully open standards) will guide the technology used to implement the repositories. I'm not saying I know what these standards should be, but I feel some of the things they should do are:
  -  support a variety of different object "models" or styles
  -  allow for customisation to allow organisational specific metadata to be added
  -  provide a thesaurus to help standardise categorisation and nomenclature (though that's not to say this should be enforced)
  -  set a minimum requirement for metadata for the sector
  -  should be able to be freely implemented on a range of platforms (not a proprietary system)
• If we want people to understand, engage and apply relevance to something we should explain whatever concept it is in familiar and meaningful terms. This has a direct message for learning objects and context hasn't it! :-) As Friesen and others point out, learning objects need to be pedagogically relevant rather than neutral. However, sometimes I think we take credence away from the teacher themselves. If a particular learning object does not quite suit your teaching needs, or the context is a little different than what you are wanting to get across, then most good teachers will tell their students that the resource that they are looking at (whether face to face, online or in a computer lab) does not quite fit the bill in this situation but still applies in their subject specific context.  If the resource the teacher has found in a repository is too far off the mark then they just won't use it and will search for something better.
• People talking about learning objects are not talking about them being the only content we (teachers/educators) will use to engage learners.
• It is important to separate knowledge/learning which is essentially unproblematic (wiring a house, OHM’s law, welding as pipe) with problematic knowledge (ensuring duty of care in an aged care facility, making appropriate decisions in child care etc). For the former, I see that the learning object discussion is relatively straight forward for teachers. However for the latter, I believe the issues can be enormous. Much learning in the human/community services sector is done in the context of on-the-job continuous assessment/training in just-in-time environments. Even the more formal learning environments, to be successful, also require highly contextualised approaches. I guess the main point I am trying to raise is that there seems to be a presumption of immanence in learning objects in that they somehow contain their own instructability.

On training and attitudes...

• It seems to me that the major obstacle to the use of learning object repositories is teacher/trainer attitudes and skills.
• An attitude shift is required. Whilst, teachers and trainers are very comfortable with using a page or diagram from a book, they do not have the same level of comfort in the online environment. This will need to change if repositories are to have any chance at all.
• It has taken me a long time to come to grips with the concepts of Learning Objects and Learning Object Repositories. My thinking, and that of my colleagues, is still in the era of "libraries" rather than repositories. Perhaps discussion on the similarities/dissimilarities of the two would make it easier for people to move forward in this area.
• We need to develop the skills to access the range of repositories that are available and the ability to customise objects for personal use. There is a whole range of computing skills that teachers are expected to have and teachers only have a limited amount of time to develop them.
• In my role as Toolbox championmuch of my work is the subliminal promotion to teachers of engaging in online delivery. There is still an extremely high level of ignorance about the possibilities of online delivery.
• I think the concept of Learning Objects is brilliant, but like anything else that's radically innovative, it will take a lot of selling to slightly conservative and extremely busy educators.
• Maybe we need to actually make up some examples and demonstrate them?
  I am actually working on this idea at the moment, creating interactive Learning Object Flash assets for all levels on a wide range of topics. These will eventually fit into generally accepted criteria for learning objects (SCORM compliance etc) including some interactive assessment components.
• In order to make lecturers feel comfortable with a repository I think we need to do a couple of things:
  1. Make the repository easy to use
  2. Make the resources worthwhile using.
• If lecturers realise that there is a lot of value in using the repository in that it can save them time and it contains quality resources then they would be more likely to use it, and perhaps more willing to undertake the necessary training to get better at using it.
• I recently discussed training issues with a college lecturer:
  -  what repositories are available and how to access them
  -  how to incorporate digital resources into your training materials
  -  strategies for integrating resources into a coherent flow
  -  basic HTML skills for editing
  -  digital rights requirements
  -  how to plan ahead of time (finding and adapting resources will require organisation and copyright clearance - and contractual agreements may need to take place).
  The lecturer said training was required at a much more basic level such as:
  -  the concept of reuse – many are not willing to share their resources!
  -  building confidence in working with digital resources – many are still wary of using computers for anything other than basic email.
• It is true that many people, particularly in a new online environment, may be wary of sharing resources. However, I feel that a key aspect of building online communities is the generation of a "culture of goodwill" that makes participants willing (if not enthusiastic) to share knowledge and resources.
• An attitude shift may be required at an organisational level with some people in management being anti flexible learning or anti-anything of a technical nature. I guess we will see pockets of enthusiasm but for the vast majority there is still a big gap between current practices that they are comfortable with and the concept of pulling digital resources out of a repository for use in their training.
• It is probably important to separate the requirements for using a repository and contributing to a repository.
• The concept of reuse needs to be included under contributing to a repository. It also raises interesting questions about trust and what people believe will happen to resources they contribute.
• Many of us will have spent the last ten or more years being reminded constantly of the perils of plagiarism, copyright, and the like... only to now be told that "it's good to re-use". Perhaps this and the desire to provide the very best training, makes us all subconsciously want the ability to customise and rewrite content for our courses, without dependency on Learning Object reuse.

RSS for repositories?

• One way of accessing learning objects is to go to digital repositories and search for them; another way is to define what objects interest you, and let technology (an Aggregator) do the work, delivering them to your desktop. However, this assumes that developers use RSS. RSS is becoming fairly common in the “blogosphere”, but has yet to be taken up as a critical component of elearning design.
• I agree. I don't care which technology is used (RSS or not) but I would certainly use a facility where I could nominate the topics I am teaching and get regular updates via Email on learning objects that have been added to the repository in those areas.

How to get quality Learning Objects produced across the entire VET sector...

• Unlike WA here in Victoria we have no central multimedia developing unit - each TAFE has its own self funded (often enterprise) developmental unit. In many cases these units are the first to shed staff in times of constricting budgets.
• Here in Victoria the learning object debate throws up the need to consolidate our instructional design and multimedia resources into a common place which can service the entire system.
• The situation in QLD is similar to that in Victoria, if not worse. We don’t even have any consistency in LMSs.
• A concerted, collaborative approach to learning objects would seem the obvious answer to issues of standards, repositories, cost etc. But many Directors still see the production of Institute specific product as a market edge.
• Agree - it is amazing how Directors spout corporatist claptrap about market edge - when the resources that are developed should be freely available to all

Key Resources:

The VET Learning Objects Project Green Paper http://flexiblelearning.net.au/projects/resources/VLOR_green_paper.pdf

VET Learning Objects Repository Project http://flexiblelearning.net.au/projects/learningobject.htm

Contributors
Alison Anderson, David Appleby, Frank Bate, David Butler, Laurie Fitzsimons, Rose Grozdanic, Peter Higgs, Sylvia Kendall, Ian Kenny, Mark Laidler, Peter LeCornu, Leonard Low, Carole McCulloch, Zane McDonald, Josephine Murray, Peter Robertson, Maureen Sullivan