Keeping the Learning in Learning Objects

1. Keeping the Learning in Learning Objects Preliminary Results for NLII 2003 Fall Focus Session, Columbus, OH NMC Online Conference 10/03 Vicki Suter, NLII Director

2. The Audience I can’t see you, and you can’t see me, so let us imagine each other. • Who are we?

3. Learning object designer? Faculty member? Faculty development specialist? Librarian? Administrator? Student? Software developer? Instructional technology staff member? Learning designer? Other information technology staff member? Repository manager? Educational researcher? Who are we?

4. NLII Community • National Learning Infrastructure Initiative (EDUCAUSE) • For more information, see http://www.educause.edu/nlii • Our approach is to bring ALL the stakeholders to the table, because we believe it will take all of us working together to get the job done.

5. Members of a community • Each of us is a member of a community of individuals that is interested in the potential of learning objects to support learning. • In the same way, the NLII is a member of a community of organizations with similar interests – for example, NMC, MERLOT, IMS, CNI, TLT Group, AAHE.

6. NLII 2003 Fall Focus Session • 10/10/03, Columbus Ohio - a focus session on “Keeping the Learning in Learning Objects” – see http://www.educause.edu/nlii/meetings/nlii034 • 60 participants, with the same characteristics as this audience, tackled 3 areas:

7. The questions • If deeper learning is the focus: • What are the teaching and learning issues related to learning objects? • What are the potential approaches for evaluating learning objects? • What are the other issues, including those related to policy, technology and management and what are the implications for next steps for this community?

8. How can we talk about these issues? • With such a diverse group, we have many different • theoretical backgrounds – we think about things differently • meanings for terms – we don’t share a common language • methodologies for approaching problems – we have different priorities

9. The NLII & Conceptual Frameworks • Conceptual framework to overcome these differences – for the purposes of our work toward shared goals, we create and agree to use: • Common vocabulary (glossary) • Shared “map” of the domain or space – a way to portray the important elements and their relationships to each other • Observation tools for reflective activities that bring us to common understandings

10. NLII Learning Objects Work Group • Chaired by Susan Metros (OSU) and Patricia McGee (NLII Fellow) • Built upon existing “Deeper Learning Conceptual Framework” • Built learning object conceptual framework (for focus session use) • Other work products as well

11. Deeper Learning Conceptual Framework Deeper Learning Teaching Practices Learning Activities Learner-Centered Principles for Deeper Learning Technology Uses Design Implications http://www.educause.edu/nlii/keythemes/lcp

12. Deeper Learning Engagement Contextual Active Ownership Social ENCOURAGES IS IS IS REQUIRES DEEPER LEARNING 1

13. Learning Object Conceptual Framework • Learning Object Glossary http://educ3.utsa.edu/pmcgee/nlii/glossary/ • Principles Observation Tool – tool for reflecting on deeper learning principles manifested in selected learning objects http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/dagefoerde2/NLII_LO/examples_obstool.htm • The “map of the space” - Learning Object Ontology http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/dagefoerde2/NLII_LO/ontology/ontology.htm

14. What is an ontology? • At its most basic level, an ontology can be thought of as a series of related concepts. • Philosophy: Ontology is the theory of objects and their ties. The unfolding of ontology provides criteria for distinguishing various types of objects (concrete and abstract, existent and non-existent, real and ideal, independent and dependent) and their ties (relations, dependences and predication). • Computer Science: An ontology is a description of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents.

16. Where do you live on this map? • Design/Develop/Share? • Find/Use/Evaluate? • Support? • Store/Index/Catalog? • Adopt/Govern? We asked the 60 focus session participants to show us where they “live” now, and where they thought they would be living in 3 years. Take a look at the map again.

17. http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/dagefoerde2/NLII_LO/ontology/ontology.htmhttp://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/dagefoerde2/NLII_LO/ontology/ontology.htm

18. Much of our work has been here

19. The primary “focus” of the NLII session

20. Where we looked first • Learners – identified as a current focus point for 9 participants. • Evaluation – identified as a current focus point for 9 participants. The NLII experience is that attention to the learners and to evaluation are two critical points of attention for effective, successful learning technology adoption…

21. The secondary focus

22. http://venus.atlantic.edu/kolitsky/NLIIPolicies_v2.html

23. Learning Objects Conceptual Framework A (draft) Learning Object on Learning Objects http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/dagefoerde2/NLII_LO/examples.htm

24. Some early meeting insights • “These issues being raised are the same issues as for every other learning technology adoption cycle I’ve been involved in . . .” • “Teaching and learning with technology is a social process, not a technical process; yet we spend much of our energy on the technical issues.” • “It would be valuable to establish some first principles and best practices we could re-use, instead of starting over with every new technology cycle.”

25. Short term work products (11/04) • Suggested revisions and additions to the ontological model describing the end-to-end life cycle of learning objects (from conceptualizing a piece of knowledge and transforming it into a learning object framework to managing, storing, delivering, and archiving learning objects within a repository framework). • Suggested revisions to the conceptual framework for understanding learning objects in the larger context of transforming teaching and learning with technology. (Feedback forms were at each table for noting suggested changes/questions, and a small group also tackled this during the session itself.)

26. Interim work products (by 12/03) • Meeting Proceedings see http://www.educause.edu/nlii/meetings/nlii034 • Detailed plan for next steps, based on work of focus session participants and the NLII Learning Objects work group, coordinated with the community of organizations (NMC among them)

27. Work Products – longer term (1/04) • A draft set of criteria for evaluating institutional readiness to use learning objects effectively. • A draft set of principles for the development and use and delivery of learning objects in teaching and learning environments. • A methodology for evaluating learning objects in the context of deeper learning.

28. Resources • Learning Object on Learning Objects (draft) http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/dagefoerde2/NLII_LO/examples.htm • Learning Objects Key Theme Page http://www.educause.edu/nlii/keythemes/learningObjects.asp • NLII 2003 Fall Focus Session http://www.educause.edu/nlii/meetings/nlii034 • Learning Objects Virtual Community of Practice http://www.educause.edu/vcop/learning_objects.asp

29. Contact Information • Vicki Suter vsuter@educause.edu • To join or find out more about the Learning Objects Virtual Community of Practice LearningObjects@educause.edu