This resource summarises a discussion which was led by Tim Hand, Sam Meredith and Peter Higgs and held 18 - 29 November 2002

Taken from the introduction to the event:

Learning Objects (LOs), are the latest ‘fashionware’ statement in ICT. Wayne Wiesler of Cisco systems effuses that; “ Reusable content in the form of objects stored in a database has become the Holy Grail in the e-learning and knowledge management communities. ” LOs have been listed as one of the top five technology areas to watch (Oblinger 2001) and the technology of choice by Gibbons, Nelson & Richards (2002). Searching Google will throw up over 1.5 million references to the topic alone.

This is the hype around LOs BUT what is the reality?

This forum does not aim to debate this but rather concede that we need to be better informed in order to enter into a discussion/debate which we are only just beginning to have & will still take years to play out.

So at the moment what are the important issues around LOs?

Hopefully the discussion over the next two weeks will highlight and enlighten some of us to questions such as:

• What is a LO? Can we derive a common set of characteristics for LOs?
  
• What are the benefits of LOs?
  
• What are the implications for LO implementations?
  
• What do we need to do now to prepare for LOs?

At the risk of frightening people away from further discussion, we offer the following summary/comments as a cross section on the nature of LOs.

• The IEEE standards body define: A LO is any entity, digital-non digital that can be used reused or referenced during technology supported learning.
  
• A fundamental tenet is that LO can stand on its own and may be reused. In practice this means LOs are mostly objects smaller than courses which can be reused in different courses.
  
• LO are entities that can be referred to with Metadata.
  
• LOs are entities which must progress learning

Included are some links to a number of different and diverse LOs.

Frog dissection  (not for the soft hearted)

Paddle Wheel  (with live audio - requires Shockwave)

Do you have any to contribute?

Garry Putlin’s summary of one of the LO forums in this years Networking 2002 conference .points out some further issues: I note that some people say it must address learning objectives or have educational integrity. But what does this really mean? Should such things as pedagogy, educational soundness, context be considered as well? Can a LO be made up of other learning objects (ie a compilation?)

Some of the Major issues regarding LOs can be summarised as:

• What is the ideal size of a LO? (granularity)
  
• What are the component parts of a LO? Should assessment for example be included as a part of them?
  
• Are there different types of LOs?
  
• Should LOs be devoid of any instructional orientation?
  
• Reusability
  
• Shareability
  
• How universal can they be (to what extent do we have to contextualise them?)
  
• In what circumstances are LOs most useful?

But for the purposes of getting a discussion going lets focus on:

• What is the nature of a LO?
  
• What is not a LO?

 

Summary of comments, suggestions and questions from the forum

Learning Objects- why the fuss?
There is some research happening in Australia regarding LOs and interoperable repositories but most of this is at the University and K-12 levels. VET needs to become involved and active so that our students’ needs are met.

The Open Learning Agency (OLA) in Canada were building and recovering objects, by using existing hard print objects, over a two year period. In this time they have assembled these in a repository that interoperates with WebCT, their LMS. As a result they now have evidence that they can more than halve the development and production time of a new online course. This represents a saving of up to 12 months. That is, previous to their LO repository project it was taking them up to two years to develop and produce a course, they can now achieve it in 8 months. Their teachers are ecstatic.

When it comes to LOs think about:

• Community building
  
• Content Repository including Digital Rights Management
  
• Metadata
  
• Software
  
• Hardware
  
• Business and management models
  
• Evaluative research
  
• Project Management & Communications including coordination, cooperation and collaboration (Knowledge Management)
  
• Policy development.

I think some problems with LOs come from the ‘bottom-up’ approach that seems so widespread - too much focus on the detail such as ‘what is a learning object’. A top down approach would have asked ‘who will be using these objects and what kind of sharing mechanism will that involve?’

Imagine I am developing a communication course and find, quite by accident, that another Institute has produced a stimulating piece of video showing say, key features of body language. I would want to be able to use this piece of video in a new context eg communication in business. Wouldn’t it be good to have a system that means you don’t have to discover things by accident? What do I need to be able to discover and use this piece of video? The video would need to be quite ‘generic,’ it would need to be metadata tagged appropriately so that it can be searched electronically. I would need my learning content management system to link to any information about the licence fees for its use. I should be able to re-contextualise it for use in my own learning program.

I won't even start thinking about the copyright/ownership issues LO repositories would present!

The FLAG Expert Advisory Group has commissioned 4 papers on intellectual property - http://flexiblelearning.net.au/experts/projectstatus.htm.

The repository concept is simple and blindingly obvious, but the unpinning issues (political, pedagogical, technical) that need to be resolved to make it work are huge!

Wish list for LO repositories:

• so 'obviously' useful the teachers/students can't stay away from them
  
• intuitive interfaces
  
• staff development in how to store, discover and recontextualise learning objects
  
• intellectual property issues are dealt with at a very early stage so that a climate of sharing is not hampered.

To do these things we will need to consult carefully with 'customers' and stakeholders so that they get what they want.

We have decided that our learning objects will contain:

• self assessment activities as well as the necessary assets and information to undertake the activities
  
• a checklist at the beginning which indicates any prior knowledge and skills required and at the end a ‘where to from here’ checklist.

Any formal summative assessment tasks will be left outside the learning object and placed in the context area. In this way we hope to maximise the reusability of our learning objects.

Each LO could include information about how to contextualise it as well as links to related assessment material.

Teachers have been designing and developing quality learning objects for centuries and these should not be thrown out with the LO bath water!! What we have not done so well is to tag them in a meaningful way and provide systems that will enable sharing of LOs for the betterment of students and teachers alike. Tags will describe the LO, its current context, current assessment objects and its digital rights and associated conditions of use.

Any LO program/resource/system must be supported by PD for those that will be using it.

I find these discussions most interesting but at an almost ethereal level of irrelevance at times. The questions of transferability, customisability of LO seems to be totally devoid of the necessity to give our teaching staff huge injections of PD before they will ever see LO as something they can own and use!

Should LOs developed for VET match the Training Packages?

We need to share and exchange resources across institute and state boundaries.

Interoperability (technical, pedagogical and political) is going to be a major issue. Australian states have a long history of bloody mindedness when it comes to standardisation. Look at the train lines! Will this be another example?

Rather than search for a single LO model, perhaps we need an agreed series of LO sizes and levels of granularity? This would allow the pedagogy to define the repository rather than the other way around.

The majority of resources currently being developed are based on units of competency. But perhaps the size LOs in VET should actually be based on performance criteria? I suspect this is also the most commonly interchanged chunk between competencies? Mixing mortar is the same Performance Criteria regardless of which unit it sits in.

Stephen Downes, head research officer, described the strategy taken by EduSource ($9.4mil Canadian attempt to create interoperable repositories of LOs):

• Objects will be tagged and free of royalties and Standards compliance is to be open and therefore Standard tolerant > Similar Semantic. eduSource will be using Cancore in a standard tolerant model.
  
• EduSource will be based on OpenSource infrastructure layers but be prepared for increased/improved functionality of opensource to still cost dearly.
  
• It will operate on a distributed architecture across Canada and will not tolerate silos. The project also will serve K-12, Colleges (same/similar to TAFE) and Universities.
  
• It will operate as an Open Market i.e. free for anyone to contribute or retrieve LOs.

Holland has developed an Educational Modelling Language (EML) which can be viewed at http://eml.ou.nl/eml-ou-nl.htm. This will cater for the Aus VET requirements with some modifications.

The learning object concept needs local interpretation
The issue of context is more important in VET than in schools (and a lot of higher ed). The same content often needs to be treated in a totally different way when teaching in different sectors. Some resources can be generic (these will easily fit into a knowledge domain based repository) others will need to be industry specific.

Perhaps we need to be thinking about a VET Instructional Design LO recommendation that uses XML and CSS to allow different users to change layouts and skins.

Learning Objects Shared equals Knowledge Managed Squared?
This is what we are seeking to do in our E-Library and Teacher's Resource Centre at GO TAFE. (See Ian Kitto's article in the Articles of Go Learn.) /learnscope/golearn.asp?Category=11&DocumentId=2383 and for an example of how these objects may be shared go to: http://www.gotafe.vic.edu.au/elibrary/CatDisplay.cfm?type=Teachers%20Resources&cat=CRAIGM

There is a wealth of reusable objects 'out there' at the moment. What I'd really like is one tool that would enable me to manage them all.

The LCMS will ‘serve up’ the learning objects to your desktop after you have searched/requested those that you require. And it could be adaptive i.e. adapt to your particular profile of requests and ‘learning style’.

‘LMSs and LCMSs Demystified’ http://www.brandonhall.com/public/resources/lms_lcms/lms_lcms.htm

Musing about metadata
Metadata is often referred to as the cornerstone of learning objects. In fact it could be argued that a learning object is simply a piece of instructional content wrapped in metadata. However it is also another area of considerable disagreement.

Some of the major issues of debate are:

• Metadata is used to describe and locate LOs, but to what degree do we need to describe these objects? For instance should the eighty plus elements of the IMS Metadata be used to describe an object? Should metadata be used to describe simpler objects or down to the asset level?
  
• Beyond discovery and management, what other purposes should Metadata be used? Should it be used to describe such things as rights or sequencing of material?
  
• What Metadata standards should we be using? Currently the main standards are Dublin Core, IMS and IEEE. There are numerous others such as CanCore, and EdNa, etc. For VET which is the most appropriate? Do we in fact need to reference only one? And we need a specific thesaurus for VET.
  
• How and who might ascribe the metadata? Should we rely on specialists or develop WYSIWYG tools for any user? And at what point in the development or procurement chain should this happen?

The metadata must include some value judgement of the resource. Merlot, a US based electronic resource library, uses a discipline expert rating, but frequency of download may also be an effective measure.

A LO is only as useful as the system that supports it. The LOs themselves are but a single piece of the puzzle and are nothing without useful metadata and effective LMS/LCMS to support them.

Useful references on metadata:
http://www.getty.edu/research/institute/standards/intrometadata/index.html
http://www.imsglobal.org/metadata/index.cfm
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april02/weibel/04weibel.html

Suggested papers –
Wiley, II, 'Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy' - goes deep into definitions and the esoteric.
Wirski, r,. Oliver, R., Hingston, P., Omari, A., & Brownfield, G., 'Considerations for a Digital Repository' a practical exploration of strategies for reusing the VET Toolboxes.

I’d like to be able to search on:

• Most frequently accessed/used for VET
  
• Ability to determine original development purpose and sector
  
• most frequently used item for a subject. 'Hospitality' etc
  
• I would want a 'human review' section like Yahoo
  
• I would want to be able to used Boolean operators
  
• and I would like the Metadata to consider sectors, ie. subject area, and perhaps a human review of the items potential transferability across sectors
  
• and capacity for reusability.

We need to keep the Mdata records as lean as possible.

There are opportunities for all VET providers to commercialise the learning objects they develop and accept fees for each and every use. Objects can be metatagged to indicate the licensing requirements and learning object exchanges can trade in them.

Vet sector characteristics of learning objects:

Learning object size
-  Benchmark size to be a performance criterion from a Training Package

Instructional approach for learning objects
-  Activity based
-  Workplace orientated
-  Contain formative self-assessment
-  Don’t contain summative assessment
-  Aim for ‘generic’ context neutral and independent of ‘look and feel’

Metadata tagging
-  Show possible sequencing of LOs
-  Show most frequently used for VET
-  Show most frequently used for a discipline area
-  Provide appraisal of learning object quality
-  Develop thesaurus for VET sector
-  Describe instructional approach
-  Develop taxonomy of different types of los eg assessment, performance, content

Digital rights management
-  Develop open market
-  Use attributed DRM rather than enforced DRM

Professional development
-  Design, production and management of LOs
-  Recontexualisation of los
-  Use of Learning Content Management System & repository ie storage and discovery of los
-  Team work, especially interstate teams to promote collaboration

Standards (SCORM, IEEE LOM etc)
-  No agreement yet on standards but recognition that they are vital
-  Diversity and creativity within conformity

Ahhh... memories of BETA/VHS, Mac/PC! I don't mind WHAT standard is being referenced but I care very much THAT it is. Adoption of ISO can't come quickly enough!

What is a learning object?
The one universal criteria is shareability (as distinct from reusability).

"A LO is an aggregation of one or more digital assets, incorporating metadata, which represent an educationally meaningful stand-alone unit." - James Dalziel

Something is a LO if those you want to share it with find it educationally meaningful and shareable.

If you think you’ve created an LO and want to share it then you would arrive enthusiastically at work in the morning, input your lesson plan as an object via your institution’s Learning Content Management System. The workflow in your LCMS would send off your object to the nominated peer reviewers who would judge whether it was of sufficient usefulness and quality to store.

‘What can we do now to prepare for LO type implementations?’
http://learnscope.flexiblelearning.net.au/uploads/news/{77B1C8E7-D181-4714-A379-AEE03A6A290C}-Steps_LO_implementations.doc

Acronyms
For a concept that is all about the creation of simple chunks of learning, we seem to have generated some astonishingly clunky language!

If the acronyms are a mystery (and lets face it why wouldn't they be?) you may like to take a look at a site I have produced as a Professional Development resource for TAFE Queensland as part of a research project into RLOs. The section on metadata and standards gives a succinct summary - URL http://tnqit.tafe.net/rlo

SCORM = Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) defines a Web-based learning "Content Aggregation Model" and "Run-Time Environment" for learning objects
CISCO = The world wide leader in net work solutions (some might argue that)
EML = Educational Modelling Language (EML) which can be viewed at http://eml.ou.nl/eml-ou-nl.htm  In other words it is a standard for tagging learning objects to enable searching for and retrieval of the object
OLM = Not sure of this one but the following is the result of a GOOGLE search; OLM provides Internet web hosting, ecommerce and dedicated server solutions to meet
all your personal, business and reselling needs.
RDF = Resource Description Framework (RDF) integrates a variety of applications from library catalogs and world-wide directories to syndication and aggregation of news, software, and content to personal collections of music, photos, and events using XML as an interchange syntax.

We are particularly interested in any comments you want to make about how members of the wider VET sector might participate in and contribute to development of learning object systems and processes. Without cooperation and collaboration we won't get far.
For more information you can look at
RDF http://www.w3.org/RDF/
QML http://questml.com
SCORM http://www.adlnet.org/

Question: Can LOs be as small and specific as a graph, a picture, a cartoon or a piece of prose? Ir are they always a units from a training package?
 
Answers:
Learning Objects can be basically anything that will assist with learning and assessment of learning. So it could be a graph, a video clip of an activity, an assessment item, a competency, a written learning resource and so it goes on.

Learning objects, I suspect, can be small or large, but what I like about them is that they are elements that can be used at the teacher's discretion rather than whole teaching elements such as complete courses or books which tend to confine the teacher and preclude the opportunity for refinement for local needs.

I think, an object can be anything that fits the original need, and as long as the item is designed with reusability in mind, its reuse is limited only by the imagination of the teacher desiring to use it.

Question:  At the end of the day, is this LO business really cheaper? I am very cynical about all the fuss over LOs. Perhaps I just haven't been enlightened yet?

Answers:

Theories behind learning objects are not based on saving dollars alone. However, have you ever said to yourself "where is that lesson I developed in 2001 for tomorrow night’s class? Oh well, I’ll just have to prepare it again!"

Learning Objects and their repositories are about managing learning materials so that they can be searched for and retrieved for use and re-use even though they may require some updating or modification. To do this we need to apply certain standards and systems that will enable search and retrieval of the objects, but more importantly assist cooperation and collaboration of teachers so use can be made of someone else’s learning object. Part of our role is to make the standards and processes as transparent as possible to teachers so they can get on and do what they do best, i.e. teach and continue to develop their quality learning objects.

Contributors
Charmaine Zheng, James Worner, Greg Webb, Peter Robertson, Cameron Nichol, Sam Meredith, Carole Mcculloch, Louise Housden, Peter Higgs, Tim Hand, Rose Grozdanic, Gerry Green, Margaret Granger, Megan Funston, Laurie Fitzsimons, Alison Cutler, Andrew Bowman, Annmaree Bernie, Jenny Batten