Learning Objects: The new new thing or same as it ever was? Michael Van Der Roychsma, Academic Computing Services Wesleyan University CLAC 2002: Gizmos, Gadgets, and Gigabytes June 2002 Hope College Holland, Michigan Michael Roy

Introduction Context Definitions Examples Our project Objections Questions/interactive small group work End

Context # 1: Wesleyan University 2700 undergraduates 300 graduate students (sciences and ethnomusiciology)

Context # 2:Just another delivery mechanism (e.g. Same as it ever was) ? Book/ paperback Radio Scholarly Journal Overhead projector Photocopier Television/vcr Videoconferencing Gopher Web pages Chalkboard

Context #3: The new new thing: Evolution of instructional services: Public computing labs resnet Smart classrooms Separation of Instructional support from desktop support (4 FTE dedicated to instructional/research support) Webtech program Course management systems Learning object development Faculty Development Site/Digitization Service

Quizzing Grading Testing Assessing Writing, publishing,analyzing, critical reading, discussing, graphing,simulating, annotating, comparing, contrasting, mapping, editing Learning Registering Requesting Services Scheduling Announcing Authorizing Selecting Reflecting Evaluating sources Choosing texts Categorizing Administration Planning & Advising Context #4: learning process

Definitions: What is a learning object? Negative Definitions: Not document delivery Not course management Not templates Positive Definitions Modular Re-purposeable Discoverable Integrateable

Wesleyan Examples Ricardian Explorer Research Randomizer Morning After Pill Solar Mass Lightbox Greek Verbs

Wesleyan’s project Graphic designer Programmer Usability process List of objects

process Faculty requests object Library research to see if object exists Develop object Catalog object Document its use in curriculum

Standards/Frameworks OKI (Open Knowledge Initiative) Dublin Core SCORM (shareable content object reference model) IMS/IEEE

The Bigger Picture: Cataloging/collaborating/coordinating Merlot Institutional Repositories (e.g. dspace ( Consortial development: Nitle and CLAC and ?

Objection # 1 Lack of relevance to the type of high- contact, personalized, interactive learning environment of this institution.

Objection # 2 This is not even an issue. I have never seen any compelling argument for faculty to take on the training, time, and effort to create learning objects. Each course created here is unique to itself, and faculty insist on creating their own materials. Sharing with other institutions is not a topic of discussion, and there's no reason to do it if we don't get paid for doing so. Intellectual property issues would be an additional problem. And NO one has ever explained how faculty are supposed to find useful materials originated by others- it would be a huge search through a vast wasteland. My opinion is that this is a great sounding idea which has little or no future in creating online courses at major universities.

Objection # 3 These questions embody a bias that learning objects (and, more generally, a "mass-production" approach to pedagogy is inherently good. Many faculty members at don't accept these presuppositions.

Questions Is this the sort of thing liberal arts schools should be involved in? What does it cost to support this kind of activity? Does it actually improve learning? What does it mean to 'actually improve learning?' If it does actually improve learning, does the expense merit the cost? What is the appropriate ratio of consumption to production? Who should be making them?

Audience Participation List the disciplines on your campus that are either actively using learning objects in their curriculum or who have expressed interest in using/developing learning objects What activities/resources on your campus and through organizations like CLAC and Nitle would enable the efficient sharing of learning objects that we might develop on our local campuses?

Thanks!