transformative power of the learning object debate

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 26 November 2014, At: 18:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Open Learning: The Journal of Open,Distance and e-LearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/copl20

Transformative power of the learningobject debateKathy Bennett a & Patricia McGee ba University of Tennessee , USAb University of Texas , USAPublished online: 23 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Kathy Bennett & Patricia McGee (2005) Transformative power of the learningobject debate, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 20:1, 15-30

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268051042000322078

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/copl20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268051042000322078

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Open LearningVol. 20, No. 1, February 2005, pp. 15–30

ISSN 0268–0513 (print)/ISSN 1469–9958 (online)/05/010015–16© 2005 The Open UniversityDOI: 10.1080/0268051042000322078

Transformative power of thelearning object debateKathy Bennetta* and Patricia McGeebaUniversity of Tennessee, USA; bUniversity of Texas, USATaylor and Francis LtdCOPL200103.sgm10.1080/0268051042000322078Open Learning0268-0513 (print)/1469-9958 (online)Original Article2005The Open University201000000February 2005KathyBennettWeb Instructional Technologist, Innovative Technology CenterThe University of TennesseeKnoxvilleTN [email protected]

This article examines the significance of how learning objects have come to be conceptualized andutilized, particularly in higher education. While many articles critique the term and its origins, anexamination of the role metaphor plays in our conceptualization of ‘data’, ‘information’ and‘learning objects’ helps us move beyond a fixation on the term to its promise and challenges.Although much has been written about how learning objects should be developed, accessed andstored, much less has been written about how they should be designed and used. This quest forunderstanding of the role learning objects will play in the future of learning leads to new strategieswhich encompass such issues as a reusability, knowledge management, efficient infrastructuredesign and innovative course design.

Keywords: Distributed learning; Enterprise content management system; Learning/course management system; Learning object

Introduction

Learning objects (LO) have come to be the focus of many organizations across theglobe as a strategy for reusing and repurposing instructional content. In general, LOsare designed to function as asynchronous learning resources delivered throughdistributed learning environments such as Learning/Course Management Systems(L/CMS). However, in spite of the proliferation of books (see Wiley, 2000;Littlejohn, 2003; McGreal, 2004), events (e.g., New Media Consortium,MERLOT), hosted blogs (e.g., Reusability) and websites (e.g., Learning aboutLearning Objects), there exists a debate and a wide-ranging discourse about the truenature of learning objects. This lack of agreement about what they are indicates theirappeal and endurance, as well as their complexity. The dialogue surrounding LOs isessential to the evolution of understanding of how they can be integrated into an

*Corresponding author. Innovative Technology Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN37996, USA. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

16 K. Bennet and P. McGee

organization’s overall instructional infrastructure. LOs play a key role in highereducation’s progress toward Enterprise Content Management Systems (ECMS)1

that will impact all aspects of the learning mission and learning designs of a univer-sity. Such discourse is necessary, dynamic and performs the role of catalyst forpowering the debate forward. In addition, there is an increasing need for both tradi-tional residential institutions and distance education institutions to share lessonslearned from their experiences with evolving technologies such as LOs.

The dilemmas, both technical and pedagogical, which arise from looking atlearning objects as a key stage to a new learning model, have been delineated bythoughtful and articulate educators with a strong grasp of the technical foundationand a commitment to using learning objects for instructional purposes. In our view,two articles in particular illuminate the controversial nature of learning objects andpoint toward the next stage of the debate.

The past and current rhetoric about learning objects is ripe with detractors andadvocates. Friesen’s (2003) Three objections to learning objects and Parrish’s (2004) Thetrouble with learning objects are far too ready to criticize the concept for all kinds ofarcane reasons, particular to their professional context. However, as Parrish states, theLO concept has an extraordinary resilience in the field, both corporate and highereducation. Much of this resilience resides in the powerful ideas that are movingforward as thinkers from diverse fields tackle the related issues of course design,faculty development models, contribution-oriented pedagogy and intellectualproperty rights.

The struggle to define learning objects has occurred through metaphor, which playsa powerful role in helping, readers/thinkers translate ideas from one domain toanother. Lauer (2001) notes that ‘Metaphors are commonly used to describe abstractconcepts that are less amenable to crisp definition’ (p. 42) and many have attemptedto create a satisfactory metaphor for learning objects. Certainly, the ongoing argumentover what, precisely, constitutes a working definition of learning objects qualifies as‘less amenable to crisp definition’. We will examine the role of metaphor as a vehiclefor revealing inherent assumptions in our terms and facilitating the forward movementof the dialogue, which has the potential to inform and support educational practice inall venues, particularly distance education.

How and why learning objects have entered higher education can be traced to theirentry into content systems. The first learning object initiative to achieve recognitionwas Cisco’s (2000) ‘reusable learning object’ project. The global dispersion of Cisco’sstaff meant that streamlining distance learning content creation and practice wasessential to economic success. Vendors began to respond to the need to accommo-date a learning object model by developing products business would buy, in this case,Learning Management Systems (LMS) and Learning Content Management Systems(LCMS). Despite the very different motivations of business, their learning objectinitiatives have defined much of the landscape and allowed forward movement in thequest for a unified system of information capture and delivery.

Institutions, on the other hand, have committed to the course managementsystem (CMS), either homegrown or commercial. This product is, by definition,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Transformative power of the learning object debate 17

content-centric and instructor-controlled. This structure fits well within the tradi-tional paradigm of education, defined in units of ‘semester’, ‘course’, ‘credit’, and‘textbook’. A next-generation CMS should become a more progressive system thatwill facilitate new learning environments. As ‘digital natives’ arrive on campus andthe ranks of non-traditional students seeking advancement swell, we hear a new callfor pedagogy to be learner-centric and based on best practices emerging from thecognitive sciences. The arguments of Friesen and Parrish enhance the debate aboutstrategic ways to move from the constraints of the practical ‘course managementsystems’ to a more powerful foundation, built upon the learning object model,which will facilitate both more creative and effective learning and allow greaterefficiencies in managing the twenty-first century academy. McGee and Diaz (2004)focus on the need to examine current intellectual property right (IPR) policies inlight of the pervasive role technology now plays in education. In the end, the learn-ing object debate is rich with seeds of change, acting as a powerful transformer ofthe instructional mission of a university.

The learning object dilemma

Fiscal constraints press upon organizations—government, corporations and highereducation institutions of all varieties. As these entities seek to satisfy the growingdemand for effective, multicultural, and cost-effective engaged learning, the promiseof the learning object model requires careful scrutiny. Two articles in particularreview educational progress in employing LOs thus far and offer critiques upon whichimprovements can be built.

Friesen’s Three objections to learning objects

Friesen2 dissects the two terms involved in the phrase ‘learning object’. This is aneffective strategy because it clearly delineates the contradictory worlds that are tryingto merge as the concepts behind LOs move more deeply into the thinking and infra-structure of our universities. He notes that the term ‘object’ emerges from a ‘specifictechnological paradigm’ (p. 1). In turn this term’s connotations support a behaviorist,objectivist conception of information as an external object, external to the learner.While the argument is powerful, it is also negative in a way that seems to block analternative view of the role of LO in higher education (HE). The concepts of ‘learningobjects’ and ‘object-oriented’ Reusable Learning Object Models (RLOM) serve ascatalysts for precisely the kind of deeper, critical thinking that higher education needsto be involved in. The dialogue is dynamic and evolving toward articulating a differ-ent paradigm, one that will absorb and transform the ideas from the corporate world,the military realm and the discipline of cognitive science.

Friesen’s second objection is also right on target in noting the vast sums of moneythat are being expended on pilot projects and even national initiatives such as theAustralian Learning Foundation. He questions whether we are getting our money’sworth from diverse and uncoordinated, but costly projects. Friesen eventually brings

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


up SCORM3 compliance, a concept that would be foreign to a university professorcrafting a blended learning course on the history of world civilization. The hierarchyof the traditional university is also not such that the SCORM debate would seem tooffer great benefits. However, the very fact that the major CMS players are toutingthat they are ‘interoperable’ and ‘SCORM-compliant’ requires that universityadministrators look carefully and critically at their infrastructure and their planningstrategies. We move into the future at a very rapid pace.

In his third objection, Friesen does a wonderful job of articulating the militaryworldview and the stark contrast to the ancient university tradition with its foundationin Socratic dialogue, Aristotelian methodology and the great medieval institutions. Hequotes Noble (1991) as pointing out the three principal characteristics of the militaryworldview:

● Technological innovation.● Command and control.● Systems thinking.

This view differs from that of HE in that although universities are often in the fore-front of the intersection of technical and pedagogical innovation, but they are lesslikely to be directed by command and control. For example, the University ofTennessee has one of the largest wireless implementations in the country, based onnumber of access points. Developing innovative ways to transform the classroomusing this ubiquitous network is a slower process, but it is happening, through aseries of wireless projects that target a particular department or college and deliber-ately gather data to refine the process of transforming teaching and learning. Heretechnical innovation is at work through systems thinking, but without indictmentsand mandates.

Friesen believes that the exploration of pedagogical positions and the examinationof the role metadata (metadata is a system of describing various characteristics of alearning object) can play in adding this dimension to the learning object model arebeing undertaken at the present moment by innovative thinkers in both higher educa-tion and the corporate world. In this way, reflection and deliberation about thedesigns, contexts and applications of learning objects will further their effective inte-gration into enterprise level systems for learning.

Parrish’s The trouble with learning objects

Parrish (2004) covers issues similar to those of Friesen, but extends the conversationbeyond the nature of learning objects to their design and distribution with his conceptof Object-Oriented Instructional Design (OOID). He frames the promise of learningobjects with familiar criteria: in government, business and education, we can reduceredundant effort, increase quality of learning materials, reduce/share the costs ofcreating quality materials and encourage reuse of expensive, effective products. Henotes that this promise ‘creates contagious enthusiasm’ (p. 50). Indeed it does, forreasons that go way beyond simply cataloguing why LO systems ‘won’t’ work.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Parrish believes that on the contrary, the ideas surrounding learning objects cancontribute to a new faculty development model by emphasizing the innovative andcreative aspects of the dialogue. By presenting to faculty the concept of learningobjects, by encouraging them to re-examine their course content, to break it downinto cellular components, you ask them to undergo a reflective process that comesbumping right up against old paradigms, what Bates (2000) calls ‘the Lone Ranger’(p. 5) model of course development in higher education. In this model, faculty arecreating courses in isolation of university supports and with no consideration of reuseor repurposing. Clearly, the benefit of any discussion that encourages or forces areframing of unexamined practices is evident: any discussion of learning objects withfaculty will produce valuable reassessment of content delivery, learning environmentsand instructional strategies.

Parrish also envisions a benefit at the enterprise level. The development of digitalrepositories has the potential to bring to the surface all those issues of turf, territoryand ownership that plague higher education and leave it swamped with inefficiencies.The registrar’s information isn’t available inside the Course Management System.Grade information isn’t readily accessible to departmental advisors. Critical humanresource (HR) information takes a long, inefficient time to move through the systemand become usefully available. If talking about learning objects, a university’s intel-lectual capital and its expensive databases can bring some fresh air into universityoperations, then the value is considerable. Get that dialogue moving; look for thewalls that need swinging doors.

The fundamental promise has always been that computer-based learning, foundedon a quality collection of searchable digital resources will make instruction:

● Adaptive.● Generative.● Scalable.

These are all are admirable qualities, desired by government, business and education.Yet, all are very difficult to achieve in practice. A recent interview with a universityprogrammer illustrates this challenge. The discussion centered on creating program-ming script in modules, following certain standard conventions so that reusabilitywould be enhanced. The programmer was weary of reinventing the wheel becausenon-standard programming conventions had been used by a graduate student whohad now moved on and failed to document the code. So basically, software engineersas well know that object-oriented programming (OOP) will make program develop-ment adaptive, generative and scalable, but they still often do not code that way inpractice, and for very similar reasons: failure to adhere to standards and time pressure.

Parrish notes that the learning object concept has proven remarkably resilientbecause it is so fundamental to typical ways of thinking about instruction. Hepropounds his theory of ‘object-oriented instructional design’ and proposes ways inwhich metadata can tag a learning object according to the learning conditions it willsupport and according to which component of which method of ID the learningobject supports.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


He does honor the small victories that can be garnered through the learning objectdialogue. If a local digital repository is used by faculty to try out new strategies and toenhance existing instruction, then a substantial benefit has been achieved, but not interms of money saved. Another benefit frequently overlooked is that digital reposito-ries may provide access to multiple components of instruction on the same topic,offering students and scholars different interpretations and different experiences.Faculty development efforts directed toward honing students’ critical thinking abili-ties can benefit from having this use of a LO repository articulated.

A more serious problem identified by Parrish is that the nature of OOIDapproaches inclines designers to limit their conceptions of learning. A conceptualframework that isn’t flexible limits range of thinking. Terms themselves can color(and constrain) how we think about a topic.

Parrish touches on another benefit: learning objects as ‘vectors for innovation’(p. 63). You won’t get a critical mass of faculty using them with this approach but youmight revitalize the effectiveness and the value, the return on investment (ROI), of acollection of high quality digital resources. This rich perspective has also beenproposed by Acker et al. (2003), who question if the academy is ready for learningobjects, in spite of the perceived and real potential for efficiency and cost saving.

Power of metaphor: ‘question and answer’

Stepping back from this intense focus on ‘learning object’ as a troubled entity, onecan profit from an examination of the metaphors through which we conceptualize‘information’ itself. Culturally, we build/design the structures to house and deliverinformation, based on conceptualizations that may in fact be ‘assumptions’ whichlimit the potential of data and its delivery framework through emerging technologytools. The first definitions of learning objects were based on the metaphor of the Lego(Wiley, 2000). The metaphor communicated well in the beginning, but then itslimitations became clear. Wiley proposed the atom as a fundamental metaphor, butwhile more accurate, it didn’t generate dialogue quite as well as the more popularLego metaphor which captured the attention of educators across the borders ofuniversity, commercial and military systems. Parrish proposed film montage as ametaphor, and it certainly offers more scope for discussing context of learning andlearning theories. The struggle to find a metaphor that would illuminate the conceptin all its complexity has been difficult.

Lauer (2001) asks the critical question ‘How do people conceptualizeinformation?’ (p. 41). Particularly in the Information Age, we all have, consciously ornot, an information paradigm. An examination of those paradigms offers furtherenlightenment/insight as to how HE can proceed to apply insights from the LOdebate to creating enterprise content management systems that will serve one institu-tion’s specific information needs and at the same time be capable of enriching thelarger academic landscape through strategies such as federated searching.

Lauer defines a paradigm as ‘a pattern, exemplar, or model that provides a coherentmental organization for some complex set of phenomena’ (p. 41). The worlds of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


object-oriented programming, database structure and XML metatagging certainlyqualify as complex sets of phenomena. However, to explore the metaphors that havedriven the dialogue thus far is to gain insight into some of the obstacles standing inthe way of the promise of digital repositories.

Lauer examines some popular, embedded metaphors for information, beginninghis exploration with this definition of metaphor: ‘they are conceptual mappings fromone domain to another. Metaphors are commonly used to describe abstract conceptsthat are less amenable to crisp definition’ (p. 42). The number of articles that havepoured forth from academic presses arguing about the correct definition of a ‘learningobject’, indicates the difficulty of achieving ‘crisp definitions’.

The first familiar metaphor for information transmission and communication is theconduit metaphor. Ideas are objects; linguistic forms are containers (for ideas); andcommunication is sending of idea-objects through linguistic forms. Even morecommonly, information is envisioned as a resource. Once again, the key is the objec-tification of information as a commodity. This metaphor focuses on the processing ofinformation into a form amenable to transmission; in this scenario the human beingis an information processing system which uses information as a resource for decisionmaking. It’s not a great distance from this metaphor to viewing information as theproduct of a manufacturing process, a metaphor that is pervasive in early writing onknowledge management in the corporate world. Several principles follow from thismetaphor:

● Understand the consumer’s information needs.● Managed information as the product of a well-defined production process.● Managed information as a product with a life cycle.● Appoint an information project manager to manage this product.

At first glance, these principles appear to be foreign to the educational venture, butin reality, this structure, with a shift in perspective, offers promising new ways to viewthe masses of unstructured, informal data produced on a daily basis by an institutionof higher learning.

We edge toward some of the metaphors that have been used to promote learningobjects with a food metaphor from the knowledge management (KM) field. Threekey activities are necessary for creating organizational knowledge:

● Knowledge hunting (collection process).● Knowledge harvesting (filtering to discover value).● Knowledge hardening (structuring tacit knowledge into explicit usable knowledge).

Recognizing the limitations of each of these metaphors, Lauer examine some meta-phors surrounding the asking of questions, the art of inquiry. Suddenly, we haveshifted in the world of the Socratic dialogue, one familiar to those in the educationfield. ‘Inquiry is an action whereas information and knowledge are objects to be actedon’ (p. 46). Inquiry, by definition, involves two; it involves the asking and the answer-ing and the process of constructing new knowledge from this dialogue. We have shiftedalmost imperceptibly into the world of constructivist education theory and practice.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Downes (2002) takes this shift farther and uses the analogy of airlines handlingof luggage and how it might be improved by the development of a ‘smart suitcase’.From this wonderful example, he envisions reframing learning objects so that wethink of them as ‘small self-reliant computer programs’ (p. 2). This intelligentlearning object first learns/discovers the metadata that will allow it to become afunctional part of a global repository. Realistically, Downes asserts, ‘No authorshould have to type endless fields of metadata’ (p. 3). Let the self-aware learningobject detect its environment and whatever other data will make it efficient,sharable, and accessible.

Intelligent agents are frequently imagined by information-weary professionals andarticulated by systems architects (Jafari, 2002). These agents will learn from us asthey handle storage, retrieval, and collating tasks for the information we generate andtake in. They will organize information, incoming as well as that authored by us in thecourse of our knowledge work. They will perform this task in the background, 24/7,transparently, and deliver alerts based on parameters we have set and guidelines it hasabsorbed from detecting patterns in our working habits.

Downes envisions his smart learning objects as having traits of the best intelligentagents. First, the learning object moves from the site of its authoring to global cyber-space, seeking out the nearest learning object repository. It then negotiates with thatrepository, recalling the old ‘hand shakes’ facilitated by modems in the days beforebroadband. It identifies necessary fields, offers its metadata for a scan by the reposi-tory’s ‘auto summarizer’. With a new metadata file generated in a nanosecond, thesmart learning object then waits to be called upon. In your quest for a particular bitof information, you initiate a search. ‘Serendipity! The learning object is exactly whatthe user wanted and the user is qualified to download and run the learning object.Without waiting for any further instructions, it fires a copy of itself to the user’scomputer’ (p. 4).

The traditional method of course creation in campus-based universities focusedon one instructor’s presentation of the material. We may need to develop aculture of sharing. One of the barriers to ready assumption of new course designmethods is the absence of an accepted culture of sharing among instructors aswell as among institutions. We need to bridge the silos of information thatcurrently do not exchange information with each other. This idea of deliberatelycultivating a culture of sharing is already being articulated, first by business (forwhich this is a dramatic shift, but one deemed necessary in the age of high speedglobal competition) and then by higher education as we move from the tradi-tional educational paradigm to the ‘new model’ in an evolving learning organiza-tion—see Table 1.

The relevance of this discussion of the assumptions behind the unexamined meta-phors surrounding information leads us to the conclusion that higher education needsto understand both. Learning objects (digital assets, raw data, unstructured informa-tion) can be structured into an enterprise-level database, coded and tagged usingXML, and then made available, first to the home institution and then to the academiccommunity at large through federated search engines, currently under development.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Metaphors require careful parallels to the real world if they are to inform. As illustratedhere, metaphors can reflect different views of the same phenomenon as well as providea framework for further conversation.

If the information architecture has been carefully and thoughtfully designed, thenthe attention can be shifted to the mission of the university, to create, capture,disseminate and share information, to turn it from information into knowledge andultimately into the wisdom of our civilization. Steinbrenner (2003) defines this terrainin clear terms, moving toward the explication of information architecture as itprovides the foundation for both an Enterprise Content Management System(ECMS) and an Enterprise Information Portal (EIP). We must move from aneconomic rational model of development to a social process model that embraces, ifnot allows, multiple metaphors to exist within a technological system (Picciano,2002). That is the true beauty of learning objects: they can be used by differentpeople, for different purposes, in different contexts using whatever metaphor theyplease. Such a world is beginning to emerge as we see in efforts across learningsystems.

Learning objects across borders

Learning objects can be accessed by anyone at any time, typically regardless of anindividual’s relationship to a formal learning institution or workplace. The bound-aries of education and work are then borderless: learning can occur outside of formalinstitutional settings. The implications of territory-less learning are many, particularlyfor stakeholders. The faculty member is concerned with intellectual property rights ofthe materials they have developed and the reliable delivery of content in the correctformat that relates to their professional expertise and responsibilities. The learner ismost concerned with locating resources that can help acquire knowledge in a formthat makes sense to them and builds upon their prior knowledge. Organizations areconcerned about knowledge management and efficient, cost-effective delivery, andassessment documentation as relates specifically to their institutional nature and

Table 1. Emergent model of HE teaching

Old model New model

Curriculum Learning solutionStand-along experience Bridged and lifelong learningDiscipline-based Discipline-blendedIndividual development Problem-solving in teamsInstructor-led Learner-centeredOne size fits all Individual focusSlow to change Quick to respondBoundary constrained Flexible boundariesInformation delivered Information exchanged

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


mission. When learning objects transcend these borders, they help bridge the dividebetween learning experiences which are segregated and typically operate in isolationof each other: K-12 schools, higher education and workplace training.

The challenge of any institutionalized knowledge base and system of transmission,transferal, or adoption (be it K-20 education or workplace training) is that no learnerremains within the organizational context either (a) 100% of their day-to-day life; or(b) 100% of their learning and working life. As workers who are engaged in continuallearning, we move between and among organizations that use technologies, the useof which, for the most part, is defined for us by the organizations in which we aresituated. And yet the call for systems that support lifelong learning (e.g., ePortfolios,personal portals, etc) is confounded by the separation of content and user. Learningobjects promise to help bridge this gap when ECMS cannot, particularly as thelearner moves from both brick and mortar and virtual learning environments acrosstheir learning lifespan.

In PK-12 educational technology is utilized primarily as a device to support learn-ing through tutorial, drill, production, and communication within the classroomenvironment (this is inferred from the reported use of technology by teachersthrough self-reported surveys and although this may not be the most reliablemeasure of use in general, it represents what has been reported) (Becker, 2001). Thenotion of learning objects fits the first two of these usages. The PK-12 communityhas been slower to adopt the concept of reuse and repurposing, particularly for usewithin online learning environments which are less common in K-12 that in otheradult learning venues. Clark (2001) found that approximately 40,000 to 50,000K-12 students were engaged in online courses in 2001–2002, in a variety of contexts,few taking all courses virtually and many in blended or hybrid environments.Cavanaugh (2001) found that some e-learning mechanisms and strategies in K12were more effective than others, particularly those that utilized online learning (asopposed to two-way video and audio) or used distance education as a supplement toregular instruction for short durations with smaller groups was most effective. Thesefindings are at odds with ROI arguments that distributed education can serve largepopulations without denigrating effectiveness, a trend seen in higher education.

Learning object development and use in K-12 environments differs globally. Forexample, Australia and Canada have made intentional efforts to engage K-12 institu-tions in the design and development of initiatives while in other countries, learningobjects have been an outcome of adoption by higher education. Additionally, thelabel of learning objects has not always been attached to repositories. Apple’s Learn-ing Exchange (http://ali.apple.com/) was one of the first repositories and yet the term‘learning object’ could not be found attached to the site until recently. One the otherhand, the National Science Foundation funded SMETE Digital Library(www.smete.org/smete/) was clearly developed as a learning object repository and isused as a resource and knowledge base by both K-12 and higher education instructors(Lowe et al., 2003). Currently, then, the use of learning objects in PK-12 is moreinstructor-driven through the use of LOs used within a traditionally learning frame-work, apparently different from what occurs in higher education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


In post-secondary education, technology is also used to support learningalthough primarily as an Information Communication Technology (ICT) throughwhich knowledge is constructed, learning is managed, or learning objects aredisseminated. E-learning has become standard in higher education, as evidencedby the burgeoning and robust market for course management systems, Web-basedtutorials and simulations and mobile computing (Green, 2003). Increasingly, post-secondary learning occurs through technology systems and outside the control ofeducational systems (see Open Knowledge Initiative) as well as from family, socialgroups and other social, religious or civic organizations (Bransford et al., 2000).The proliferation of repositories and learning portals illustrates how learners canaccess learning objects at their whim rather than wait until information is deliveredin a classroom. Such learning outside the classroom is ill-structured (Spiro et al.,1988) and not necessarily outcome-driven, while learning that is not situated inwork or education is typically uniquely structured and without conditional assess-ment measures. For most of us, our preparation to learn strategically in formal andorganized settings begins at an early age in traditional institutions of education.The nature of this type of learning is so institutionalized that it crosses mostcultures, economic groups and generations. Yet when we leave an educationalsetting and are required to learn in workplace environments the nature of learningshifts.

In the workplace, technology is also used as an ICT although the focus is more onjob skills training for just-in-time, just-in-need, or just-in-case learning that relates tojob tasks, seen as performance support. Designs for workplace learning knowledgemanagement systems (KMS) are equally recommended to be learner-oriented ininterface and content as well as management (Raybould, 2002). Learning objects(born within a military context) were quickly adopted by corporate interest to savemoney and increase reuse of instructional materials across contexts. The AdvancedDistributed Learning initiative,4 once strictly a US endeavor but now international,created SCORM specifications that triggered adoption of a learning object paradigmby vendors of ECMS. However the military has focused more on mastery of basicskills rather than educational effectiveness (Gailble, 2002), contrary to PK-12 andHE education.

Over the developmental life of the learner, then, the organizational uses and expec-tations of technology shifts at the institutional level as well as the learner’s experi-ence. The open and free exchange of learning objects across systems such as theinter-institutional repository system CAREO (http://careo.ucalgary.ca/) in Canada orAESharenet (www.aesharenet.com.au) in Australia necessitates cross-institutionalstrategies and negotiated value structures to sustain a viable economy. Much of thelearning object community has focused on construction and dissemination, withlittle concern about embodiment and use; these are critical components to a mean-ingful and sustained economy if LOs can indeed be repurposed for different settingsand by different individuals: learner, instructor or trainer. Reuse must be more thatreformatting, revising, or re-accessing; it must mean open knowledge across systemsand organizations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Learning objects as transformer

Learning objects—right-sized content that may be reused, re-contextualized, and repur-posed—bring with them small seeds of change that likely will grow vigorously in the future.(Acker et al, 2003, p. 83)

As noted throughout this article, the transformation of the academy depends uponseveral critical elements developing simultaneously. However, they cannot have animpact if they are not accessible and accessed. We argue that there are a number ofseeds of change finding fertile soil that promise to take hold and transform a varietyof practices and policies.

Course Management Systems (CMS), learning

Currently, learning objects can be categorized, stored and delivered through multiplestructures. Without an information architecture, the university infrastructure willremain a jigsaw puzzle, with ill-fitting connections between legacy data systems,propriety CMS structures, and library or departmental digital repositories. Multipleauthentication systems will clash as each highlights a different security mission, andimpede the need-based flow of information through the infrastructure. Individualdisciplinary repositories (e.g., science, math, humanities, etc) will be developed outof context of the university’s larger mission, remaining small cottage industries whichmay prove viable and valuable to one department but fail to enrich the largeracademic community due to lack of interoperability. That key learning object feature,interoperability, needs to be part of the original design of all individual units’ work oncorralling educational and operational knowledge. In order to utilize LOs, interde-partmental cooperation and collaboration becomes essential, creating a communityof developers and designers who share resources and operate from an agreed uponprocess and standards (McGee & Diaz, in press).

Steinbrenner (2003) acknowledges the role of universities as information produc-ers and consumers. The magnitude of the challenge is highlighted by the statistic that90% of all university data is unstructured. How can we meet the information needsof an organization that seems to do nothing but consume and produce data and infor-mation? Steinbrenner proposes that the needs of the entire academic community canbe met by the harnessing of our multiple knowledge management tools into two broadcategories:

● Enterprise Content Management System (ECMS).● Enterprise Information Portal (EIP).

This elegantly simple (but admittedly difficult to achieve) information architectureapplies to any corporate environment as well, where information production andconsumption are critical to profitability, the corporate world’s benchmark ofsuccess. Because of the decentralization of power on a campus, bringing stakehold-ers to the negotiating table to develop an information architecture remains a signifi-cant challenge. As more universities define the position of corporate information

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


officer (CIO) and empower this role with enterprise level goals, the challenge isbeing met.

While that organization endeavor is being pursued, faculty and support staff mustprepare for new roles and develop a culture of sharing, not competition. Wilhelm andWilde, in this issue of Open Learning, examine the process of ‘developing a universitycourse for online delivery based on learning objects’. They identify their strategiesand their research method and in the end, they ‘acquired a “ready-made” commercialwebsite featuring learning objects and electronic materials embedded in a compre-hensive course website’. One of their most positive outcomes turned out to be thediscovery of ‘precious time to design novel instructional and diagnostic features onour companion university course site’, a practical as well as creative outcome. If wecling to the idea that faculty will create these learning objects or that ‘assembly’ ofthese objects, harvested freely from the vast garden of the Internet, is a straightfor-ward and efficient process, we will make little progress in transforming the learningenvironment in higher education.

Acker et al. (2003) claim that faculty today fear ‘deconstruction of their teachingrole into components: knowledge creation, knowledge packaging, knowledge deliveryand student assessment’ (p. 87). They emphasize the potential benefits of reframingcourse design and the shape of course content. Embracing these new roles can releasecreativity and facilitate lifelong learning in all its rich potential. In this way, traditionalroles within the institution evolve and seeds of departmental affiliation shifts supportreanalysis of cost benefits occur.

Another seed of transformation is, on the surface, unrelated to learning objects butis ultimately essential to the success of the vision of lifelong learning, working effec-tively and creatively in all learning spaces, physical and virtual. All learners who hopeand expect to benefit from the explosion of e-learning and the opportunity to learnanywhere, anytime must develop a cognitive skill set somewhat different from the onewhich powered many of us to academic success in the traditional bricks and mortarworld. That cognitive skill set includes such essentials as:

● Searching efficiently.● Evaluating with precision for relevance.● Synthesizing for new knowledge.● Focusing in order to produce.● Time management.● Knowledge management.● Metacognitive awareness of learning preferences.

Although these skills are self-evident, there is little if any evidence to suggest thathigher education is consciously developing them through the curricula. Assumingthat such skills will emerge as the learner adjusts to a virtual learning space is short-sighted and certainly has contributed to a traditionally high attrition rate in onlinelearning venues (Martinez, 2003). The learners become less attached to the institu-tion through which they learn but rather become managers and generators of theirown knowledge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Conclusion

Out of the controversy surrounding learning objects and their potential utility tohigher education, the path to the future is becoming clearer. The debate is illuminat-ing some critical issues. Therefore, the articles that critique and deflate the hypesurrounding learning objects actually prepare us to move forward realistically, to shiftour thinking from ‘definition’ to ‘design’, and from database to knowledge manage-ment and cognitive sciences. When you explore the assumptions embedded in someof our most popular metaphors for learning objects, you can begin to break out of theold paradigms more readily. As Socrates noted, ‘An unexamined life is not worthliving’. Learning is too critical a human endeavor to allow us the luxury of remainingin traditional comfort zones. Advances in technology demand that we adjust or be leftbehind. Scrutinizing the science and the art of human learning causes us to shift ourperspective.

Outside that realm, we note the new autonomy of the learner, facilitated within theframework of anytime, anywhere learning. Cross-institutional exchanges and consor-tiums foster borderless learning. Learners now contribute to knowledge throughcontribution-oriented pedagogy, a new path made possible by the advent of pervasivecomputing. Repurposing information through knowledge management allows newgenerative processes to enrich existing knowledge bases. Legal and policy debatesabout intellectual property rights challenges us to refine our attitudes and thinkingabout innovation, creativity, and intellectual ownership. As lifelong learning becomesa reality as well as an economic necessity, knowledge management systems mustdevelop in new ways to encompass this trend. All in all, the learning object debatetouches fruitfully on many important issues.

Notes

1. ECMS are institution-level systems that store institutional data and information (e.g., registrar,employment, course, library, etc) so that disparate knowledge systems are integrated and crossdata analysis can be conducted.

2. Norm Friesen is Director of the CanCore Initiative, a Canadian project dedicated to providingmetadata profiles for educational resources as a strategy to support access and reuse (seewww.cancore.ca/indexen.html).

3. Shareable Content Reference Model created by the Advanced Distributed Learning project.SCORM includes a Content Aggregation Model (CAM), A Run Time Environment (RTE)and Sequencing and Navigation (SN).

4. ADL is jointly sponsored by government, industry and higher education (see www.adlnet.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=abtadl).

References

Acker, S., Pearl, D. & Rissing, S. (2003) Is the academy ready for learning objects? Syllabus.Available online at: www.syllabus.com/article.asp?id=7886 (accessed 30 September 2004).

Bates, A. W. (1997) Restructuring the university for technological change. Paper presented at theCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, What Kind of University? London.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Bates, A. W. (2000) Managing technological change: strategies for university and college leaders (SanFrancisco, Jossey Bass).

Becker, H. J. (2001) How are teachers using computers in instruction? Available online at:www.crito.uci.edu/2/pubdetails.asp?id=292 (accessed 30 September 2004).

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (2000) How people learn: brain, mind, experienceand school (Washington DC, National Academy Press).

CICSO (2000) Reusable learning object strategy: definition, creation process and guidelines forbuilding.

Clark, T. (2001) Virtual schools: trends and issues. Available online at: www.wested.org/online_pubs/virtualschools.pdf (accessed 30 September 2004).

Downes, S. (2002) Smart learning objects. Available online at: http://education.qld.gov.au/staff/learning/courses/sdownesapril.html (accessed 30 September 2004).

Friesen, Norm (2003) There objections to learning objects. Available online at:phenom.edu.ualberta.ca/~nfriesen (accessed 30 September 2004).

Gaible, E. (2002) Learning objects technology: implications for educational research and practice,panel discussion at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, NewOrleans, Louisiana. Available online at: www.learndev.org/LearningObjectsAERA2002.html(accessed 30 September 2004).

Green, C. (2003) The 2003 national survey of information technology in US higher education. Availableonline at: www.campuscomputing.net/ (accessed 30 September 2004).

Jafari, A. (2002) Conceptualizing intelligent agents for teaching and learning, EDUCAUSEQuarterly, 3, 28–34.

Lauer, T. R. (2001) Questions and information: contrasting metaphors, Information SystemsFrontiers, 3(1), 41–48.

Learning about Learning Objects (2004) www.learning-objects.net/ (accessed 30 September2004).

Littlejohn, A. (2003) Reusing online resources: a sustainable approach to e-learning (London,Kogan Page).

Lowe, R., McGee, P. & Metros, S. (2003) Issues for Understanding learning objects in a pedagog-ical context, paper presented at the NLII Fall Focus Session on Learning Objects, Columbus,Ohio.

Martinez, M. (2003) High attrition rates in e-learning: challenges, predictors and solutions,Elearning Guild. Available online at: www.elearningguild.com/pdf/2/071403MGT-L.pdf(accessed 30 September 2004).

McGee, P., & Diaz, V. (in press). Planning for the digital classroom and distributed learning:Policies and planning for online instructional resources. Planning for Higher Education.

McGreal, R. (2004) Online education using learning objects (New York, RoutledgeFalmer).MERLOT (2004) www.merlot.org/Home.po (accessed 30 September 2004).Nadeau, G. (n.d.) US K-12 enterprise interoperability. Available online at: www.ctlt.org/docu-

ments/us_oec/11-14%20Slides%20ppt.pdf (accessed 30 September 2004).New Media Consortium (2003) Online conference on learning objects. Available online at:

www.nmc.org/events/2003_online_conf/index.shtml (accessed 30 September 2004).Noble, D. (1991) The classroom arsenal (Bristol, Taylor & Francis).Open Knowledge Initiative (2004) http://web.mit.edu/oki/ (accessed 30 September 2004).Parrish, Patrick E. (2004) The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 52(1), 49–67.Picciano, A. G. (2002) Educational leadership and planning for technology (Upper Saddle River, NJ,

Merrill/Prentice Hall).Raybould, B. (2002) Building performance-centered Web-based systems, information systems,

and knowledge management systems in the twenty-first century, in: A. Rossett (Ed.) TheASTD e-learning handbook (New York, McGraw-Hill)

Reusability (2004) www.merlot.org/Home.po (accessed 30 September 2004).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014


Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J. & Anderson, D. K. (1988) Cognitive flexibility theory:advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains (Champaign, University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading).

Steinbrenner, K. (2003) The information architecture imperative, ECAR research report. Availableonline at: www.educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666?Redirect=True&ID=ERB0302(accessed 30 September 2004).

Wiley, D. (2000) Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: a definition, ametaphor and a taxonomy, in: D. Wiley (Ed.) The instructional use of learning objects.Available online at: www.reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc (accessed 30 September2004).

Wiley, D. (2000) The instructional use of learning objects. Available online at: www.reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc (accessed 30 September 2004).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

55 2

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

transformative power of the learning object debate

Documents