Promises and pitfalls of learning objects

Abstract

Learning objects (LOs), generally understood as digital learning resources shared through the Internet and reused in multiple learning contexts, have aroused worldwide enthusiasm in the field of educational technology during the last years. Although LOs and LO systems offer tremendous possibilities to improve educational practices, there are many theoretical problems and practical shortcomings which are usually neglected. In this article we introduce the promises of cost-effectiveness, reusability, modifiability and adaptability associated with LOs. Then we critically look at the problems underlying the LO approach, and provide our own alternative interpretation of LOs as useful elements of meaningful learning environments. Because of their flexible nature, LOs and LO systems can be used to support a variety of learning theories and instructional strategies-both sophisticated and reductionist ones (Parrish, 2004). LOs per se are not necessarily pedagogically functional or non-functional, but their pedagogical value is determined through their context of use. The implementation of LOs requires a sound pedagogical grounding, and we argue that only by using LOs according to the principles of contemporary learning theories can their promises be fulfilled.

An examination of the impact of learning objects in secondary school

“…The design, development, reuse and accessibility of learning objects has been examined in some detail for almost 10 years (Kay & Knaack 2007b). However, research on the effectiveness and usefulness of learning objects is limited (Sosteric & Hesemeier 2002; Kay & Knaack 2005; Nurmi & Jaakkola 2005, 2006a,b). Until recently, learning objects were solely used in higher education (Haughey & Muirhead 2005; Kay & Knaack 2005, 2007b).…”

“Changing the Way We Talk”: Developing Librarians’ Competence in Emerging Technologies through a Structured Program

“…Other successful resources took the form of artifacts that could be reused in a variety of ways. Despite the limitations of generic learning objects, 24 this suggests that useful artifacts can be both tailored to their contexts (that is, in terms of subject areas, student levels, or task types) and flexible enough to be embedded in different platforms or to serve a range of needs within a given course or discipline.…”

Assessing learning, quality and engagement in learning objects: the Learning Object Evaluation Scale for Students (LOES-S)

“…This emphasis on design has resulted in a model of learning that is dated and largely behavioristic-content is presented, students are asked questions, and then evaluated and rewarded based on the content they remember Krauss and Ally 2005;Nurmi and Jaakkola 2006b). For the past 20 years, though, research in cognitive science suggests that students need to construct knowledge and actively participate in the learning process (e.g., Albanese and Mitchell 1993;Bruner 1983Bruner , 1986Brown and Palinscar 1989;Chi and Bassock 1989;Collins et al 1989;Vygotsky 1978) and within the last five years, several learning object theorists have advocated the use of a more constructivist-based metric (Baser 2005;Convertini et al 2006;Gadanidis et al 2004).…”