Reusable Learning Objects For Personalized Learning Implications for design and development

1. Reusable Learning Objects For Personalized LearningImplications for design and development Ellen D. Wagner, Ph.D. ICDE - 2 April 2001 Dusseldorf, Germany

2. Topics addressed in this presentation: • A discussion of Reusable Learning Objects (RLOs) • Using pattern templates (metafiles) for assembling RLO-based learning resources • Tips for structuring/developing RLOs

3. Origins of RLOs • Grounded in the object-oriented paradigm from • computer science (Dahl & Nygaard, 1966). • Also related to instructional theories associated with • breaking down content to constituent parts, then • reassembling content to meet learning goals • (e.g. David Merrill, Charles Reigeluth, others).

4. Definitions, Descriptions, Metaphors Wayne Hodgins (1994): Learning Architecture, APIs Learning Objects. (See www.learnativity.com). Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE, 2000): any entity, digital or non-digital which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology supported learning (see www.ieee.org). Wiley (2000): Any digital resource that can be reused to support learning (see http://reusability.org/read/).

5. More Descriptions and Metaphors Netg (a commercial WBT vendor): learning objects include a learning objective, a unit of instruction that teaches the objective, a unit of assessment that measures the objective. Asymetrics describes learning objects as pre-scripted elements that simplify programming. Educational Objects Economy (a National Science Foundation funded project) equates learning objects with Java applets.

6. Even More Descriptions and Metaphors • Cisco Systems: A RLO consists of 7 plus or minus 2 • reusable information objects, or RIOs • (see www.cisco.com/whitepapers) • Building block metaphors: (e.g. “Lego blocks”) • Content objects, knowledge objects, content • chunks are all terms used to describe learning objects. • …and on and and on.

7. Reusable Learning Objects • The smallest element of stand-alone information (including but not limited to online instruction or a performance support tool) required for an individual to achieve an enabling performance objective or outcome. • Stored and accessed using meta-data attributes/tags. • Are made meaningful using metafiles that contextualize meaning and facilitate content object assembly. (Wagner, 2000)

8. Pattern Templates Metafiles that contextualize performance standards, job description, a competency model… “Access Ways” Techniques to define individualized learning requirements (e.g. Assessments, Topic/Subject Indexes, Performance Triage, User Responses Reusable Learning Objects Content Objects Assessment Objects Methods Objects

9. Why RLOs? • knowledge management, Internet connectivity, database management • The economics of personal attention • “Knowledge commerce”: The commoditization • of online content production and distribution.

10. The Economics of Personal Attention • Organizational size and complexity have accelerated the need to consciously manage knowledge assets across time and space. • Relatively little has been done to increase an individual’s personal capacity to absorb information and create new knowledge. • The central challenge is to better manage the flow of information through and around the “bottlenecks” of personal attention and learning capacity.

11. Heuristics for Attention Management Know what you don’t need to know “Just in time, just enough” delivery of knowledge resources on terms defined by the user. Use of trusted intermediaries to assign meaning, create associations, filter for importance. Employ precise distribution systems provides knowledge/content objects and context(s) for interpretation (Sieloff, 1999)

12. Ideal Attributes of RLO Content • Modular, free-standing, transportable among • applications and environments. • Non-sequential. • Able to satisfy a single learning objective. • Accessible to broad audiences • (so it can be adapted beyond the original target audience). (Longmire, 2000)

13. More of Longmire’s Attributes • Coherent and unitary within a predetermined schema • such that a limited number of metatags can capture the • main idea or essence of the content • Not embedded within a “look” so it can be repurposed in • different visual designs without losing essential value or • meaning of test, data, images

14. Creating an RLO Specification • Designers/developers need to balance two • perspectives: • Conceptualizing content as a part of a larger whole (such as a course, or a curriculum), and • As stand-alone information at the desired • level of granularity.

15. RLO Specifications: • Must articulate development concerns, and define • functional requirements, such as the desired • deployment platform, network requirements, • document templates and style sheets, mark-up • definitions, Editorial standards, modularity requirements, • level of desired content granularity. • All such variables must be determined in advance so that • people don’t waste time developing content that can’t be • reused.

16. Examples of specifications: • Consistent use of language and terminology within • a given topic area • Presentation of information in easy to access, easy to • understand formats (e.g. tables and graphs vs lots of text, • Applets that illustrate text-based information.) • (Consistent) presentation of information for screen-based • display and distribution.

17. Specifications, continued • Non-sequentiality of information across objects • Uniformity of editorial tone across objects • Use of keywords in searchable elements • Use of language and content appropriate for a broad audience

18. Thanks for your attention.