Learning Objects - Post 1
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 question isn't it. Do all L.O. have to be reusable? I believe that some great L.O. can be created that may not work in the future. But there are still many more that can be reused. Reusability is a great token to keep in mind while creating instruction, but don't let it stop you from creating something great. You can always try again when you redo the instruction anyway. This falls into the size of a L.O. Here you need to decide what is most important for you at the time. It seems like there will be some areas that are better prone to reusability than others. Creating a learning object for computer software may not be as easily reusable because the software changes so quickly, so why not add context to make it easier to learn? Whereas the basic and fundamentals of geometry are not changing anytime soon (at least I don't think so). So here you could create L.O. that will be reusable. I think taking into consideration the area you are trying to instruct makes a difference.
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 question isn't it. Do all L.O. have to be reusable? I believe that some great L.O. can be created that may not work in the future. But there are still many more that can be reused. Reusability is a great token to keep in mind while creating instruction, but don't let it stop you from creating something great. You can always try again when you redo the instruction anyway. This falls into the size of a L.O. Here you need to decide what is most important for you at the time. It seems like there will be some areas that are better prone to reusability than others. Creating a learning object for computer software may not be as easily reusable because the software changes so quickly, so why not add context to make it easier to learn? Whereas the basic and fundamentals of geometry are not changing anytime soon (at least I don't think so). So here you could create L.O. that will be reusable. I think taking into consideration the area you are trying to instruct makes a difference.
Comments