Seeing Through New Eyes

As I continue reading about learning objects I am surprised how similar they are to a piece of artwork. Let me explain. Internal and external context of a learning object can add or take away quite a bit from it. The meaning and relevance of the object basically differs widely depending on many factors. When a painter creates a beautiful landscape painting of mountains like the Tetons, this person may or may not add little hints into the piece through colors, brush strokes, shapes, shadows, etc. of how they are feeling and thinking (internal context, remembering the degree of suggestion added to the painting). Some of this is conscious and some of it is not. So this painting now has relevance and a lot of meaning to the artist. In comes someone who has never seen a mountain range so large and magnificent. They are awe struck by the painting. And in some ways cannot imagine such a place (external context). In come someone who has actually visited this mountain range. Their perception of...

Ok, so now that I am back to work from maternity leave I am finding it much easier to concentrate on reading for Wiley's class. From what I have read I am finding the learning object debate comparable to the debate about Instructional Design. Looks like there are still a lot of questions to be answered. Although there are questions moving forward with instructional learning objects can successfully take place. So in the debate on a learning objects definition I believe that in this day and age learning objects should be considered digital. Other things like people and places are just that, people and places. They can be incorporated with an existing L.O., but why rename everything? As far as should content be explicitely instructional to be called a L.O., I don't have an answer but another question: If it can't be used for instructional purposes (even if you have to add context around it) why would it be considered a L.O.? And reusability, that's the million dollar ques...