MDDE 604: Reflection on Learning Object Evaluation
Conference #2:
Collaborative Review Activity
Reflection on Learning Object Evaluation
Terralyn McKee
MDDE 604: Instructional Design in Distance Education
Dr. Griff Richards
March 8, 2009
MDDE 604: Reflection on Learning Object Evaluation
The initial posting of our collective scores seemed to demonstrate a wide
deviation in the scoring of the individual LORI dimensions. Cheikh’s and my
assessments were more closely aligned in part because of our ongoing discussions
of the assignment readings and a cursory review each other’s Learning Objects.
While we displayed some disparity in our ratings, they were not nearly as significant
as the ratings applied by Sharon and Amanda.
Over the course of approximately 7 days, Cheikh, Diana (Ostrich group) and I
were able to modify our initial interpretations of the criteria because of our dialogue
on the assigned and recommended readings. We shared our confusion and
experiences with a number of Learning Objects and were able to work through the
confusing portions by consensus. I demonstrated my inexperience through overly
rigid scores for each of the elements. Cheikh was far more pragmatic, ba sed on his
current work in the field of instructional design, and relied on a premise of ‘is it
practical?’ I think it would have benefited our group greatly to have connected prior
to the conference to discuss the LORI tool, the working definitions of Le arning
Objects, and shared our collective wisdom in the area. While our group was able to
reach consensus on criteria meaning and rating, it was an understanding I believe
was guided in large part by the previous work done by Chiekh and myself.
I don’t believe there were issues with the LORI criteria once we had the
opportunity to discuss the rationale for our ratings. The initial deviations were
driven by Amanda’s overly generous marking, skewing the overall score deviations.
The challenges for this assignment for the group lay in the impreciseness of
criteria – its subjective nature of characteristic qualities when working in isolation.
Amanda and Sharon also admitted to not having read the assigned and
suggested readings thoroughly enough to feel confident in assigning ratings. I found
this frustrating given the collaborative nature of our assignment. Their working
knowledge of the LORI tool appeared to be quite superficial and based on personal
preferences and cursory reviews of some of the elements of their LO.
How can LORI work for my community of practice? As stated upfront by
Leacock and Nesbit in the Framework document, the LORI scale is a summative
tool to balance out validity and evaluation efficiency through broadly interpreted
MDDE 604: Reflection on Learning Object Evaluation
dimensions of quality. There are trade-offs to be made in using this tool – the higher
degree of subjectivity – which can be mediated through convergent processing of
learning objects. So, for our learning community here at UCN, which is just
beginning the development of Learning Objects and the creation of distance and
distributive learning, LORI would be a wonderful tool to support a more accessible
process for novice faculty. With limited expertise at our institution, it would initiate
the collaborative discussions within faculties and programs about a more uniform
and consistent development of curriculum in general, and Learning Objects
specifically, with potential for learning repository development.
It has already had an impact as I reviewed each of the dimensions of qualityit has provided a ‘guide’ against which to measure each stage of development and
overall quality. This activity has allowed me to prioritize my energies rather than
focusing too narrowly on content – or design – and introduced dimensions within
each quality that I had not previously considered (accessibility issues and standards
compliance). It has allowed me to more effectively organize my thinking and
sequencing of developmental activities and provided me with examples via the LO
we reviewed and how others within the group reacted to each element.
With regards to the elements of this activity to keep or change, I have the
following recommendations, based solely on my learning styles!
KEEP:
The required readings were excellent – A Framework for Evaluating the Quality of
Multimedia Learning Resources has earned a spot in my collection. It is easy to use,
I appreciated the expanded discussion on each of the dimensions.
Phone Conference – an excellent medium for connection and discussion.
ADD:
I found the following articles quite helpful in developing an understanding of
Learning Objects –
Wiley, D. (2003). Learning Objects: Difficulties and Opportunities.
http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/lo_do.pdf

MDDE 604: Reflection on Learning Object Evaluation
Wiley, D.A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory. A
definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy.
http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

Downes, S. (2006). Learning Objects: Their Use, Their Potential, and Why They Are Not Dead Yet
http://www.slideshare.net/Downes/learning-objects-their-use-their-potential-and-whythey-are-not-dead-yet

If this course plans on maintaining a profile for Learning Objects, I would find
it helpful to reconfigure the collaborative assignment by:
1) adding a practice opportunity by assigning a LO that groups must make
collaborative recommendations on using the LORI scale – it would focus the group
as a team more quickly and provide initial practice with and dialogue on the
elements of each LORI dimension.
2) providing a working example of a “strong” Learning Object and a “weak” Learning
Object – and a summary explanation of the elements that makes them strong or
weak examples.
For me, this activity added another dimension of consideration when
developing course content or moving course-based programs from the classroom
into digital formats for access in distributed learning environments. It fit nicely into
the sequential development of pedagogical frameworks and pragmatic practices
emerging with online and distance learning. My assumption prior to enrolling in
MDDE was that distance learning was the ‘poor-cousin’ to face to face learning, a
necessary evil that education would need to incorporate to support the changing
dynamics of learning. The MDDE courses have demonstrated to me that the real
potential and evolution in learning is distributive – and learner focused, whether it
be for distance learning on the web or traditional classroom based learning at postsecondary institutions. This course in particular has forced me to examine my
attitudes and my practices in course development – which I thought were quite
strong prior to this course. With this particular activity I found the nine dimensions of
quality provided a more comprehensive reflection of overall content quality than the
MDDE 604: Reflection on Learning Object Evaluation
traditional formats I learned in my education programs. More emphasis is now
placed on universal design – accessibility dimensions – and on adaptations. Even
traditional course-based classes are incorporating technology into the classroom
blurring the lines between distributive and in class learning. This activity has
provided me with a structure for the development of high quality learning objects
within my lessons, courses and overall curriculum development. I would recommend
training with LORI to all education students, not just distance education specialists
as one more tool for use in comprehensive and guided curriculum development.
An additional benefit comes from learning how to use LORI effectively, and
that is a contribution to open-source knowledge base being developed and shared
on the web. This movement has returned education ownership to the individual, a
neo-liberalism that has been lost to the narrower domains of education-for-work
agenda of recent decades. I would like to contribute to this open format by
contributing information and learning objects that rate as high as possible on the
quality scale.