Learning Objects or Learning
Frameworks:
Reusing the Design of a Multimedia
Anthropology Resource
Steve Bond, London School of Economics
Pia Marks, University of Waterloo
Overview
1. Reuse
–
the promise vs. the reality
2. Repurposing vs. reuse
– a better approach?
3. What’s Going On?
– The LSE/UW experience
Reuse: the promise
“The essential benefit of learning objects is
their capacity for reuse, leading to
reduction in production costs”
(Oliver & McLoughlin, 2003, p.95)
• development costs
• instructor time
Reuse: the reality
“For some time now there has been a
“Uptakeawareness
of these resources
happening
growing
that evenisthe
most
at a slowerresources
than desirable
accessible
have pace,
failed despite
to be
the unquestionable
quality
of design and
widely
adopted by the
educational
production, high levels of investment in
community and as a result have also failed
professional development and the
to
fulfill their
considerable
educational
rationally
anticipated
outcome
of this
potential”
(Campbell, 2003, p.35)
investment”
(Gunn, Woodgate & O’Grady, 2005, p.189).
Cultural factors
Why the
gap
between
promise
Institutional
culture
offers
“little incentive
or support”and
for
Technical factors: interoperability and problems with
instructors to share or reuse
resources
reality?
cataloguing
of resources
Learning
objects
Educational
factors
(Campbell,
2003,
p. 36).can be difficult to adapt to a
–“Will
Although
the
technology
isteaching
inidentified
place:
new
context:
Problems
with
reuse
the
•  Rewards/recognition
for
is ain
real
barrier
individuals
be
able
to
preserve
their
own to
“…
resources
[can
be]
or impossible
toon
adapt
reuse:
many
instructors
feel
that
“research
is more
highly
literature:
teaching
style?
How
willdifficult
this
policy
impinge
the
“the
technology
to support
reuse
is now
and
often
address
a very
specific
educational
valued
than
teaching
and
so
feel
a
conflict
when asked
or
becoming
more
stable,
and
interoperability
evaluation
of
teaching?”
(McNaught,
2003,
p.204).
Time
•expected
Inflexibility
ofemploy
resources
objective
or
a particular
to
spend
considerable
time
inmaturing”
learning to use
standards and specifications
arepedagogical
“Locating
resources
and2003,
assessing
the
perspective”
(Campbell,
p.36).
technology
in
teaching”
(McNaught,
2003,
p.206)
(McNaught,
2003,
p.200).
• Technical
problems
suitability
of their
content
besupport
frustrating

Little
documented
proof
thatcan
LOs
learning
• “The
issue
of
reward
for
publicising
teaching
and
learning
–any
Questions
remain
around
the
issue
of
and
time-consuming”
(Campbell,
2003,
p.36).
better
than
the
traditional,
linearly
organized
•materials
Time
is
of
paramount
importance
…
This
necessary
“The
more inherently
contextual an object is, the less
cataloguing
resources:
course;
fewacademic
published
studies
describing
successful
change
in
the
culture
will
be
a
slow
one.”
reusable
it
may
be;
something
already
loaded
with
• Cultural
factors
Whose
is(Metros,
it? Creator? Librarian?
Are they
use•context
of
LOs
inrole
HE
p.12-13).
(Koppi
et
al., may
2004,
bep.461)
difficult or 2005,
impossible
to reuse in a
willing
andfactors
able toetdoal.,
it?2004, p.450).
•
Educational
new
context”
(Koppi
• “Sole author” publication culture: the need to establish
• The
JORUM hybrid
model
personal
reputations
may discourage
work within a
collaborative project (McNaught, 2003, p. 207)
•
Repurposing vs. Reuse
Gunn, Woodgate & O’Grady (2005) propose a
participative repurposing design model
– defined as “a process where the original structure of
a learning object is populated with content from a
different source and/or subject area and used to
develop new learning activities” (p.191).
– involves “working collaboratively with the structure of
an existing object, populating it with familiar content
and embedding it within self-defined learning
activities” (p.195).
What’s Going On?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Video-interpretation tool developed at LSE
First-year undergrad. ethnography module
Gorilla Thrilla – the Mbendjele hunter’s tale
Level 1: 3 months' fieldwork / 150 words
Level 2: 9 months' fieldwork / 300 words
Level 3: 18 months' fieldwork / 600 words
Exercise completed over 2 weeks
– Students also read full ethnography
Repurposability of WGO
• WGO fully customisable
• Can be used in new teaching contexts
Content
Content
Tool
Configuration
Configuration
The UW version
How was it modified?
1.
2.
3.
New video
Different focus (from linguistic to visual interpretation)
Info links contained summarized content vs. journal articles
What stayed the same?
The structure of the activity:
•
Level 1 (150-300 words)
•
Level 2 (300 words)
•
Level 3 (400 words)
UW outcomes
Student evaluation:
•
Majority of students claimed that the exercise helped them
learn about ethnography/how to analyze ethnographic
data and engage with the subject matter
Lessons learned:
•
Successful customization, with the following caveats:
– Students require encouragement to take intellectual
risks by making their own interpretations rather than
relying on supplied textual data
•
–
Use of full research articles vs. summaries should help
Students need help in analyzing and interpreting visual
data – more instructor scaffolding required
Advantages of a repurposing approach
• addresses the inflexibility issues:
– content and context are separated
• addresses the educational issues:
– “results in a sense of ownership, acceptance and
ability to realize the potential of technology in different
contexts” (Gunn, Woodgate & O’Grady, 2005, p.190.)
• addresses the reuse issue:
– Gives the instructor confidence to use the learning
object in a variety of situations
Unresolved issues
• Cultural factors:
– Incentives to invest in teaching still don’t exist:
rewards/recognition for teaching remain a barrier to reuse
and repurposing
– A credible reward system needs to be established by
senior academic administrators
• Time factor:
– Repurposing requires a time commitment from the
instructor which, if not supported by institutional culture,
will remain problematical
– WGO: A new authoring suite is available for customizing the tool
http://clt011.lse.ac.uk:8383/steve/wgo/authoring/
References
Campbell, L. (2003). Engaging with the learning object economy.
In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing Online Resources: A
Sustainable Approach to e-learning (p. 35-45). London:
Kogan Page Limited.
Gunn, C., Woodgate, S. & O’Grady, W. (2005, October).
Repurposing learning objects: a sustainable alternative? ALTJ, 13(3), 189-200.
Koppi, T., Bogle, L. & Lavitt, N. (2004). Institutional use of
learning objects: Lessons learned and future directions. J
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4),449-463.
Littlejohn, A. (2003). Issues in reusing online resources. In A.
Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable
Approach to e-learning (pp.1-6) London: Kogan Page
Limited.
References
McNaught, C. (2003). Identifying the complexity of factors in the
sharing and reuse of resources. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing
Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to e-learning (pp.
199-211). London: Kogan Page Limited.
Metros, S.E. (2005, July/August). Learning Objects: A Rose by
Any Other Name. EDUCAUSE Review, 12-13.
Oliver, R. & McLoughlin, C. (2003). Pedagogical designs for
scalable and sustainable online learning. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.),
Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to elearning (pp.94-105). London: Kogan Page Limited.
Zemsky, R. & Massy W.F. (2004). Thwarted Innovation: What
Happened to E-Learning and Why. Final Report for The
Weatherstation Project, University of Pennsylvania: The
Learning Alliance. Retrieved on July 10 2006, from
http://www.irhe.upenn.edu/WeatherStation.html
Contact details
• Steve Bond: s.bond1@lse.ac.uk
• Pia Marks: pia@LT3.uwaterloo.ca
• LSE – DART project:
– http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/anthropology/dart.htm
• University of Waterloo – LT3 Centre:
– http://lt3.uwaterloo.ca/