learning design and learning objects tom boyle learning technology research institute (ltri) london...
TRANSCRIPT
Learning design and learning objects
Tom Boyle
Learning Technology Research Institute (LTRI)
London Metropolitan University
Leuven Jan 10 2008
“The use of learning objects
promises to increase the
effectiveness of learning …”
Duval et al 2004
How can this be achieved?
Perspective 1: standards, interoperability and reuse
– knowledge engineering based approach
Perspective 2: through improving the design of reusable learning objects
– design/pedagogy based approach
The wider picture – a global view of the (inter)relationship between learning objects and learning design
Themes of talk
Standardization approach (briefly)– focusing on content as the reusable learning
resource A ‘learning design’ perspective
– focusing on design as the reusable learning resource
– Generative Learning Objects (GLOs) Towards a synthesis relating content-oriented and
design- oriented approaches Productive questions
Standardization and reuse?
Standards, interoperability and reuse
IMS-CP
IEEE LOM
SCORM
“.. by making content more readily available, by reducing the cost and effort of producing quality content, and by allowing content to be more easily shared”
Vision and outputs
Vision of the “learning object economy” – “Pedagogical neutrality”– Divide the problem space so the design quality is
deliberately excluded
Repositories of learning objects based on standards to support search, retrieval and reuse
Tool support for packaging learning objects etc
Perspective 2: pedagogy/design focus
“The use of learning objects promises to increase the effectiveness of learning …”
Began with a real and significant problem
– Need to design high quality resources
– That could be reused and exchanged
Viewed learning objects as “micro-contexts” for learning in which the most important factor was the quality of the pedagogical design
Learning objects for programming (2002 --)
“This chapter argues that high quality design and development of learning objects is crucial before we
get to issues of metadata and software packaging. The primary message of the chapter is good pedagogical design is at the heart of effective learning objects”.
“The Design of Learning Objects for Pedagogical Impact” Boyle (2008)
(In Handbook of Learning Objects and Learning Design)
Design of the EASA learning objects
Winner of European Academic Software Award 2004
Two major dimensions
Pedagogical effectiveness
– achieve a clear learning goal or objective
Structural design for reuse
– cohesion – decoupling (Boyle 2003)
Design for reuse
Cohesion– each unit should do one thing and one thing only
– minimum pedagogically meaningful unit
Decoupling– the unit should have minimal bindings to other units
– there should be no necessary navigational bindings to other units (embedded hyperlinks)
– learning object content should not refer to the content in another source so as to cause necessary dependencies
Engage
students
with familiar
every day
examples
Active
student
learning
Interact with
samples
of code
Scaffold student
learning
Module results
Course
LondonMet HNDLondonMet BScBolton BSc
LondonMet MSc
Percentage point increase2002-3 2003-4
+19 +27 +15 +21 +23 +12 +12 +19
Note: based on number of students completing modules compared with 2001-2
Pass rates increased for all modules
These increases exceeded our expectations
Pass rates
CETL for Reusable Learning Objects
Started in April 2005 with £3.3 million funding from HEFCE for the period 2005-2010
Partners: London Metropolitan University, University of Cambridge, University of Nottingham
Develop reusable learning objects (RLOs) – with a strong pedagogical focus
Use and evaluate these RLOs with substantial student cohorts
Extensive staff development and dissemination programme Advance the conceptual basis for RLOs
Critique of the EASA learning objects
Successful educationally
but
Limitations in productivity
Weak support for repurposing and local adaptation
Successful designs are implicit and not easily available for reuse
Generative learning objects (GLOs)
The basis for reuse is the pedagogical pattern rather than ‘content’ of the learning object
A richer basis for reuse and repurposing
This gives a tremendous increase in productivity
Allows local tutors to repurpose learning objects to meet their local needs and preferences
GLOs separate design pattern
from
Instantiation
(specific learning object)
How to elucidate and articulate these patterns?
and
How to make the result usable by tutors?
Challenges
Elucidating design patterns
Grounded analysis
Elucidating deep structure• influence of linguistics
• generative structure
Representing the pattern• Pedagogical patterns literature
• Capturing meaning
Implementation• Object oriented design/programming
Linguistics
Pedagogical patterns
Object Oriented thinking
Deep structure of GLO
1. Hierarchical decision structure not (just) linear sequence
2. Each node has a pedagogical function
3. Which is refined/expanded through options available at that choice point
4. Pedagogical commentary makes explicit the pedagogical function and choices available
It maps the decisions underlying a certain class of learning objects
Surface structure
Each GLO pattern binds to a default surface structure, which consists of a -
Sequence
of Pages (screen layouts)
consisting of and co-ordinating Components
into which are loaded Assets/content
Generative learning object (GLO) definition
“An articulated and executable learning design that produces a class of learning objects.”
The representation in a GLO is articulated in two distinct ways:
The first form relates to human understanding. A GLO articulates and renders explicit (the often implicit) decisions involved in design for learning. It does this by using a form of representation borrowed and adapted from generative linguistics.
The second form of articulation is rendering explicit these decisions in a way that can be executed by computer software to produce learning objects based on the design.
Making GLOs available to users
In practice, the pedagogical designs are represented as ‘plug-in’ patterns to the GLO Authoring tool.
The tool can be used to create specific learning objects based on the chosen pattern.
Each of these learning objects developed in this way can be re-purposed by local tutors (or learners), using the same tool, to adapt the resources to their local needs and preferences.
All the learning objects so created, or adapted, run as stand-alone Web based learning objects.
GLO Authoring Tool
How does it all fit together – a preliminary view
Traditional content oriented approaches to learning objects
GLO design oriented approach
Wider approaches to learning design e.g. IMS LD
Towards an initial problem representation space for visualizing the relationship between different approaches to learning objects and learning designs
Mapping the learning object space
Object Pattern
Complex
Base Raw
Packaged
The Learning Object Cube - LOC
Exploring the LOC space
Packaged
Instance Pattern
Base
Holo
Raw
Def: “a learning object as any entity that … may be used in learning” …. IEEE LOM
Learning objects as basic units
Object Pattern
Holo
Base Raw
Packaged
“the smallest independent structural experience”
- the minimum meaningful pedagogical unit
Packaged
Instance Pattern
Base
Holo
Raw
Content aggregation models
Complex or higher order learning objects
such as ALOCOM – five levels of aggregation
Packaged
InstancePattern
Base
Holo
Raw
“A micro-context for learning”
Reusable pedagogical patterns
Extract the reusable learning design – the pedagogical pattern and make it reusable
Generative learning objects (GLOs)
The basis for reuse is the pedagogical pattern rather than ‘content’ of the learning object
A rich basis for reuse and repurposing
This gives a tremendous increase in productivity
Allows local tutors to repurpose learning objects to meet their local needs and preferences
Deep Meaning
Form
Realization
Hierarchical intention structure
Layered learning design?
The Design of Learning Objects for Pedagogical Impact –
Boyle (2008)
Course
Session
Activity
Learning object
Each layer provides services to the layer above– e.g. GLOs provide resources for lesson level learning designs
JISC D4L (2007)
Relationship on IMS LD to learning objects
There is a shortcircuiting of the design space
Generative learning object layer
Develop layering model of design space
Explore correspondences between design layers and content aggregation levels
IMS Learning Designs
Learning objects
Layering correspondence?
Assets
Design
Courses
Sessions
Aggregation
Larger objective
Single objective
Content objects
Content fragments
Content
?Learning
object
Component
Some productive questions
How do we extract and make available reusable learning designs at all levels?
Develop a richer integrated view of the relationship between learning designs and learning objects
– Learning objects as instances of learning designs
Explore the relationship between content aggregation models and layered learning design?
Finally, provide a comprehensive, articulated view of the problem space that relates learning design and learning object work
RawObject Pattern
Holo
Base
Packaged