Education Tech Research dev (2007) 55:479–497 DOI 10.1007/s11423-006-9000-y DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE
Towards a useful classification of learning objects Daniel Churchill
Published online: 20 September 2006 Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2006
Abstract The learning object remains an ill-defined concept, despite numerous and extensive discussion in the literature. This paper attempts to address this problem by providing a classification that potentially brings together various perspectives of what a learning object may be. Six unique types of learning objects are proposed and discussed: presentation, practice, simulation, conceptual models, information and contextual representation objects. The common characteristics of each are synthesized in a proposal that a learning object is best described as a representation designed to afford uses in different educational contexts. The classification of learning objects proposed could be useful as a framework for designers of digital resources and for those engaged in use of these resources in educational contexts. Keywords Learning object Æ Technology integration Æ Design Æ Classification Æ Representations Æ Presentation object Æ Practice object Æ Simulation object Æ Conceptual model object Æ Information object Æ Contextual representation object Introduction In the last few years, the notion of the learning object has received considerable attention in education communities. Initially inspired by objectoriented programming practice in computer science, the idea appears to have emerged from traditional, instructional software design approaches issuing from professionals attempting to articulate more effective and economical Examples of learning objects are available for preview at http://www.learnactivity.com/lo/ D. Churchill (&) Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China e-mail:
[email protected]
123
480
D. Churchill
strategies for management and reuse of resources in networked environments. The immediate understanding was that curriculum content of a course can be broken down into small, reusable instructional components that each address a specific learning objective, and that could be tagged with metadata descriptors and deposited in digital libraries for subsequent machine-defined reuse into larger structures such as lessons and courses (see Cisco Systems, 2001; E-learning Competency Center, 2003; IMS Global Learning Consortium, 2002; L’Allier, 1998; Wiley, 2000). Another understanding was that a learning object might be anything with an application in technology-supported learning (e.g., IEEE, 2001). As the notion of the learning object spread through education communities, it began to attract the attention of teachers and other professionals with an interest in technology in the context of educational reforms and contemporary pedagogies (which promote learner-centeredness, inquiries, experimentation and transformation of material, knowledge construction, conceptual change, authentic activities, problem solving and collaboration). This resulted in growing recognition that initial ideas may be incomplete and of limited use, and a call for reconsideration of what a learning object may be (e.g., Jonassen & Churchill, 2004; Lukasiak et al., 2005; McGreal, 2004; Wiley, 2002). For this community of education professionals, existing definitions of a learning object are directed at solving disparate problems–predominately technical or economical and much less pedagogical in orientation. Some colleagues in this community are already arguing that learning objects do not exist at all and propose the term resources as a better descriptive option. Currently, then, there is a need for a widely acceptable definition of the learning object that would serve as a framework for further discussions and development of strategies. It appears unlikely that any of existing definitions can serve to align communities with diverse perspectives (e.g. traditionalist and constructivist educators, or instructional product designers and school teachers as learning designers) around any common understanding leading to advancement in education and learning outcomes through technology integration. In addition to this problem with definition, a spectrum of resulting issues further confuse the matter and contribute to the ill-defined nature of the learning object: for example, the extent to which learning objects may be used and reused (reusability); size of a learning object (granularity); the information needed to describe a learning object (metadata); the difference between a content object, an instructional object and a learning object (content and structure); whether a learning object should contain internal logic to support collection of information (tracking); integration with other learning objects developed by different producers (standards); and implementation in different learning and content management systems (interoperability). The notion of the learning object has the potential to serve as an effective framework for support of design and reuse of technology-based educational material and individuals involved in these processes. I am basing this argument largely upon perspectives of an educational technology professional engaged in support of teachers and their technology integration in teaching
123
Towards a useful classification of learning objects
481
and learning. In this context, my intention is to expand the applicability of learning objects and to make this notion more appropriate for a variety of educational situations, leading to improved learning outcomes in schools, colleges and higher education. I suggest that an acceptable classification accompanying a definition should synthesize different interpretations and allow learning objects to be ‘‘labelled, described, investigated and understood in ways that make the simplicity, compatibility and advantages claimed for them readily apparent to teachers, trainers an other practitioners’’ (Friesen, 2003). The existence of an acceptable definition and a suitable classification should contribute to resolution of associated issues, and further development in a range of areas such as approaches to the design of learning objects, digital repositories, support of teacher technology integration, and relevant research.
Classification of learning objects I propose a classification that contains the following types of learning objects: presentation, practice, simulation, conceptual models, information and contextual representation objects (see Table 1). Three types of learning objects—presentation, practice and conceptual models—emerged from previewing definitions from the literature. The following interpretations of what a learning object may be are noted: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8. 9. 10.
11. 12.
Any digital or non-digital entity for technology-supported learning (IEEE, 2001). Any digital resource used to support learning (Wiley, 2000). Any digital resource used to mediate learning (Wiley & Edwards, 2002). A reusable digital resource built in a lesson (McGreal, 2004). Interactive practice exercise (McGreal, 2004). Small, stand-alone unit of instruction (E-learning Competency Center, 2003). An instructional component that includes instruction that teaches a specific learning objective and assessment that measures achievement (L’Allier, 1998). A collection of 7±2 components containing content, practice and assessment parts (Cisco Systems, 2001). A content object with a pedagogical component (Clifford, 2002). Combined knowledge object and a strategic object representing a mental model to be developed by a learner through incremental elaboration (Merrill, 2000). Interactive digital resource illustrating one or more concepts (Cochrane, 2005). Interactive visual representation (Churchill, 2005).
Based on these interpretations, a learning object may be: (a) an instruction or presentation object (6, 7, 8, and 9 refer); (b) a practice object (5 refers); (c) a
123
123
• Direct instruction and presentation resources designed with the intention to transmit specific subject matter • Drill and practice with feedback, educational game or representation that allows practice and learning of certain procedures • Representation of some real-life system or process • Representation of a key concept or related concepts of subject matter
• Display of information organized and represented with modalities
• Presentation object
• Information object
• Contextual representation • Data displayed as it emerges from represented authentic scenario
• Conceptual model
• Simulation object
• Practice object
Explanation
LO type
Table 1 Types of learning objects
• Quiz question requiring a learner to use representation of a protractor to measure angles and answer a question regarding ratio between base and height of the right-angled triangle • Simulation of a compass allowing a learner to draw a geometric shape (e.g., equilateral triangle) • Representation that allows manipulation of parameters of a triangle, which in turn changes displayed modalities such as visual representation of a triangle, and numerical values of sizes of its angles and sides, and displays a graph showing changes in relationship between sides or angles • Representation that allows learners to change angles and sizes of a triangle and, based on configuration, to obtain information such as the type of triangle illustrated, a picture showing it in real-life and a short description of its properties • Representation that shows real-life examples of triangles (e.g., roof of a building) and allows a learner to use representation of a tool (e.g., tape measure) to collect data about dimensions of these triangles
• An instructional sequence on classification of triangles
Simple example
482 D. Churchill
Towards a useful classification of learning objects
483
conceptual model, (10, 11 and 12 refer); (d) anything digital (2, 3 and 4 refer), or (e) anything digital and non-digital (1 refers) McGreal (2004) writes that ‘‘the reality lies in accepting the limitation that LOs must be digital learning resources’’ (p. 26), thus suggesting that the possibility that a learning object might be non-digital should be excluded. However, confining learning objects in general to digital form is also inappropriate because, as Merrill (2000) suggests, a learning object must be something more specific. Anderson (2003) writes that many definitions of a learning object do ‘‘practically nothing to meaningfully discriminate one learning resource from another’’ (p. 20) and this is ‘‘not helpful to those in the profession actually looking to develop reusable instructional resources’’ (p. 20). Three types of learning objects emerge from these interpretations as candidates for classification: presentation (instruction), practice and conceptual model objects. Wiley (2000) previously proposed a classification of learning objects; however, it received little attention in the literature and does not appear to have been of much use. Contrary to his interpretation of learning objects as anything digital, in his classification he appears to assert that learning objects are predominately instructional components. Wiley classified learning objects according to parameters, such as types and quantity of elements contained and whether these can be extracted and reused in other learning objects (e.g., a single image, digital video, a web page, a machine-generated instructional module that monitors learner performance on practices and tests). Wiley’s classification appears to support the inclusion in the classification of two types of learning objects—instruction and practice objects—on the basis of common function (how learning objects are used). Wiley’s taxonomy hints at another type of learning object: presentation (including a single media display and exhibit). However, instruction and presentation objects are similar in that they present certain material with the intention to transmit messages; therefore, they should both be classified under the same category: presentation object. The fourth type, a simulation object, emerges from a relatively old classification of computer-based educational material by Alessi and Trollip (1991). This classification suggests computer-based instruction or tutorial packages, drill and practice, simulations and games as possible types of computer-based educational resources. Although such computer-based material is conceptually different from learning objects, their forms and intended uses are similar. This classification hints at two additional types of computer-based resources besides presentation (computer-based instruction) and practice objects: simulation and games. Although simulation is a clear candidate for inclusion in the classification, many educational games I previewed appear to be in form of practice-type learning objects. The educational intention behind them is that underlining the design of practice objects; for example, a learner practices until a degree of competency or understanding is achieved. The remaining two types—information and contextual representation objects—emerged from my reflection and experience in designing educationally useful material, and from literature in relation to representation, including ideas such as: external multimedia representations (Schnotz & Lowe, 2003), dynamic
123
484
D. Churchill
visualization (Ploetzner & Lowe, 2004), information visualization (Bederson & Shneiderman, 2003), visual explanations and envisioning information (Tufte, 1990, 1997, 2001), visual and multimedia displays (Mayer, 2003), multiple representations (Van Someren, 1998), modality and multimodality (De Jong et al., 1998; van Someren, Boshuizen, de Jong, & Reimann, 1998) and interactive computer visualization (Fraser, 1999). These ideas also influenced my thinking in relation to the design of other types of learning objects.
Proposed definition of the learning object I suggest a definition of the learning object that might serve as an umbrella for the six types proposed by the classification. All types of learning objects appear to have these common characteristics: (a) they are digital, utilizing different media modalities (and often interactivity) to represent data, information, reality, concepts and ideas, and (b) they are designed to afford educational reuse. Accordingly, I propose a general definition: a learning object is a representation designed to afford uses in different educational contexts. This definition, to be clearly understood, should be considered in the context of the proposed classification. The following are some further clarifications in relation to this proposed definition. A learning object integrates various media modalities into a single representation for learning (Van Someren, 1998). For De Jong et al. (1998), modality indicates a particular form of expression such as text, animations, diagrams, graphs, algebraic notions, formulae, tables and real-life observation (video). van Someren et al. (1998) suggest that multimodality (multiple modalities) supports learning by allowing learners to learn by exploring and linking different modalities. Literature sometimes uses the term representation to interchangeably refer to things of the mind and things of the world. This may unintentionally give the impression that there are representations in the world that can be copied to, rather than deconstructed in the world and reconstructed in the mind. Von Glasersfeld (1997) writes that this ‘‘use of representation is misguided, because it entails the belief that certain ideas we abstract from our experience correspond to a reality that lies beyond experience.’’ For Von Glasersfeld, knowledge is never representation of real world but a collection of conceptual structures adopted from experience. It is the learner who segments parts of his or her experience into ‘‘raw elementary particles’’ and combines these into conceptual structures. In terms of the definition, a learning object originates for educational use, and in this context its design should be based on certain principles that might include issues such as effective subject-matter analysis, multimedia communication, human learning, effective screen presentation and interface design of educational material. Suitability of traditional instructional design models for design of all types of learning objects should be explored. Educational context in the terms of the definition indicates that a learning object affords use in variety of foreseen and unforeseen circumstances, for
123
Towards a useful classification of learning objects
485
example, a teacher may use learning objects as a demonstration and presentation aid; learning objects may be used to initiate classroom and on-line discussions; they may be used as a component in direct instruction for on-line delivery, as a mediating instrument in a problem-solving activity, or as the subject of an inquiry; learners may use learning objects during independent studies, assignments and projects; learning objects may be used as a model for design of other learning objects; they might be used as media in design of other learning objects, and might be delivered via a variety of technologies such as computers, portable digital assistants and interactive whiteboards. Those who design a learning object might perceive it as applicable to a particular educational use, but it also might be perceived in novel ways by those who are engaged in integration of the learning object in educational applications, or an emerging use may be recognized during the process of the educational application of a learning object.
Discussion of the types of learning objects in the context of the proposed classification In this section of the paper, I discuss and illustrate each of the types of learning objects in the proposed classification. The illustrations provided are products of my attempt to validate the understanding of different types of learning objects by producing an example for each of them. Presentation objects Presentation objects include resources designed with a purpose to transmit a body of subject matter or lead to achievement of a specific learning objective. A presentation object attempts to transmit knowledge to learners by displaying messages representing chunks of subject matter. These messages can be aided by modalities and usually, certain principles are in place to ensure that learners are motivated and not overloaded. Content of such objects is usually divided into screens and sections, with a learner going through one section at a time. Other forms of a presentation object can be slide presentations with or without talking heads, videoed or audio-recorded lecturers, demonstrations, instructional video segments and animated instructions. Figure 1 shows an example of a presentation object developed with a software tool that allows easy recording and packaging of a presentation for on-line delivery. An instructional object might be considered as a subset of the presentation object category in the proposed learning object classification. On other hand, an instructional package ready for implementation with individual students might be a combination of learning objects (from the same or different categories) packaged with intentions (and often with some additional descriptions) to serve as an expository instructional module. Designers might use other learning objects—for example, a simulation object—as media to be
123
486
D. Churchill
Fig. 1 An example of a presentation object
coupled with additional explanation or description (usually textual or as audio narrative) to create an instructional object. Although presentation objects are mostly developed to support traditional pedagogical approaches, they might also support more contemporary pedagogies and activities such as problem solving. Davydov (1999) suggests that any resource might be used to mediate learning activity if that resource is given an instrumental role in the activity. Learners do not learn simply from reading and being exposed to instructional messages from resources, but they may effectively use that information to inform their decisions and actions in a learning activity. Practice objects Practice objects allows learners, to practice certain procedures (e.g., dismantling a water pump), complete crosswords, drag objects and carry on certain tasks (e.g., dragging a protractor to measure an assigned angle), engage with an educational game or answer quiz questions. They might be designed to: 1.
2.
3. 4.
Incorporate interactivity and modalities and require learners to engage in some purposeful action and decisions before answering a question or executing an action. Provide constructive feedback (which might utilize modalities) and encourage learners to reflect on their action and further explore material, digital libraries, the internet, post a question on-line, engage in discussion with classmates, etc. Facilitate extension of learners’ current levels of understanding (or misunderstanding). Enable learners to build models of their own action and mistakes while executing a procedure.
123
Towards a useful classification of learning objects
487
Educational games might also be considered as practice objects, because they can promote persistent practice until a degree of competency or understanding is achieved. In more contemporary approaches, practice objects can be considered as parts of a learning activity process, rather than as some postlearning task that aims to strengthen learners’ recall and understanding of subject matter presented by a teacher or resources. Thus, a practice object might be given an instrumental role in an activity. Whatever learners conceptualize from their involvement with a practice object can be utilized for examples to inform their problem-solving decisions. Figure 2 shows a screen from the ‘‘Volume of a Pyramid’’ practice object. The question in the object requires a learner to approximate the volume of the pyramid presented in the scenario. This pyramid is an interactive 3-dimensional representation that can be rotated and visually examined by a learner. A learner rotates the pyramid and uses the provided ruler to capture its dimensions. The scale on the ruler is randomized. This means that different learners will have rulers of different lengths and that their answers will be different. This opens a possibility for collaboration between the learners, while removing the possibility of copying answers. Exchanging ideas on the solving of a problem is an important part of the learners’ collaboration. Copying of a method and copying of answers are two different things. Copying of a method opens the possibility for learners to learn from each other. Simulation objects Simulation objects represent some real system or process: e.g., a simulation of a microscope or of electricity consumption in a household. They allow a learner to explore, usually by trial and error, operational aspects of a system,
Fig. 2 ‘‘Volume of a Pyramid’’ practice object
123
488
D. Churchill
carry on a task that the system supports, and develop a mind model of that system’s functionalities. Although fidelity is often high in simulations, development of skills is hardly ever completed and learners must usually move to a real system to complete their practice to genuine competency level. However, by the time a learner shifts to the real system, he or she would already have constructed a mind model of the system’s functionalities and operational possibilities. This is particularly effective when learning to use the real system requires an understanding beyond being able to operate it (e.g., understanding how a system works) and when the real system is expensive, unavailable or available in limited number, or learning to operate it is costly and possibly dangerous. A simulation might also involve dynamic processes such as manufacturing processes, financial flows and energy consumptions. In this case, a learner might manipulate certain parameters as he or she learns to manage that process. Figure 3 shows an interface of a ‘‘Digital Multimeter’’ simulation object. This learning object allows a learner to explore uses of a digital multimeter instrument by collecting different measurements for Voltage, Current and Resistance. A learner also explores correct positioning of probes in the circuit. Besides the main purpose of this simulation object (learning how to use the instrument), a learner might also collect different measurements of Voltage, Current and Resistance and explore relationships which exist between these parameters in order to derive understanding of a relationship known as Ohm’s Law. Conceptual models A conceptual model is a type of a learning object that represents one or more related concepts or ideas, usually in an interactive and visual way. It might be appropriate to think of a conceptual model as a representation of a cognitive
Fig. 3 ‘‘Digital Multimeter’’ simulation object
123
Towards a useful classification of learning objects
489
resource existing in the mind of a subject matter expert, as useful conceptual knowledge that aids decision-making, disciplinary problem-solving and discipline-specific thinking. Psychologists use a variety of terms such as schemas (Paivio, 1974), mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983) and concepts (Vygotsky, 1962) to more or less indicate the same idea that there are constructs in the human mind that mediate higher psychological functioning. Sometimes the term representation is used for constructs in the human mind. However, Von Glasersfeld (1997) writes that this ‘‘use of representation is misguided, because it entails the belief that certain ideas we abstract from our experience correspond to a reality that lies beyond experience.’’ For Von Glasersfeld, knowledge is never representation of the real world, but a collection of conceptual structures adopted from experience. He suggests that humans segment part of their experiences into ‘‘raw elementary particles’’ and combine these into dynamic conceptual structures. An example of a conceptual model, ‘‘Exploring Trigonometry’’, is presented in Fig. 4. This learning object represents a key concept from trigonometry: a trigonometric circle. A subject matter expert, a mathematics teacher in this case, identified this as one of the key concepts in his mathematics knowledge which guides his thinking in problem-solving involving trigonometry. Through design process and analysis of his own knowledge, the learning object architect constructed this artifact. Learners can input different values for angle x and observe changes in values of sine and cosine as they conduct an inquiry. The changes in the values of sine and cosine are presented in multiple representation formats: 1. 2.
3.
Numerically, as numbers between 0 and 1; Visually, as projections of an arm of an angle along the x-axis (for value of cosines) and along the y-ordinate (for value of sine x) of a trigonometric circle (a circle with radius one unit long), and As points along the sine and cosine line on the graph.
Fig. 4 ‘‘Exploring Trigonometry’’ conceptual model
123
490
D. Churchill
Previous research with visual educational material introduced a conceptual model (see Mayer, 1989). Mayer suggests that these improve the ability of learners to transfer their learning to solve new problems because learners have constructed useful mind models that they are able to mentally manipulate when needed. Based on later studies involving technology-based representations, Mayer (2003) suggests that multiple representations facilitate learning because different modalities are encoded and organized in different mind models which, when mentally connected, lead to deeper understanding. Limitations of traditional non-interactive technologies and tools made these conceptual models not much different from print-based diagrams, images, drawings and charts. Now we have powerful technology-based tools that enable us to add critical dimensions to the design of conceptual models: interactivity and modalities. For Fraser (1999), these capabilities of contemporary technology provide unique opportunity for communication of concepts to learners through representational pedagogical models. Fraser writes ‘‘in the past, we relied on words, diagrams, equations, and gesticulations to build those models piece by piece in the minds of the students... we now have a new tool—not one that replaces the older ones, but one that greatly extends them: interactive computer visualization.’’ Models were also discussed by Gibbons (n.d.). Gibbon suggests that all instruction should be based around three types of models representing instructional content: (a) models of environment; (b) models of natural or manufactured systems, and (c) models of human performance. However, these models appear to be representations of reality and expert performance, rather than models of conceptual knowledge. Interactivity and modalities allow the creation of conceptual models that potentially represent conceptual knowledge and ideas (not a simulation or demonstration of a performance). My thinking here is influenced by ideas of higher psychological functions, and models as effective tools for sharing of socio-historical knowledge accumulated by humanity (Vygotsky, 1978; Wartofsky, 1979). However, I intend to call on further research in the future to explore this idea of a conceptual model as a representation of conceptual knowledge and ideas, and to investigate how supplying these models can bring learners to higher levels of ‘‘zone of proximity development’’. To design a conceptual model, a learning object architect must primarily examine ‘‘knowledge in a head’’ rather than information. The process can be informed by external factors such as similar designs by other people, tools, reference material and discussion with colleagues, but essentially, analysis of knowledge is central. This presents a difficulty for traditional instructional designers who are not usually subject matter experts, but rely upon documents, books, artifacts and other material to design instructional resources. To design a conceptual model, a learning object architect must either experience and construct knowledge by acquiring and applying it, or be able to effectively articulate such models through interaction with a subject matter expert. The first option is difficult, because no concept is an isolated cognitive resource, relating rather to many other concepts held by the subject matter expert, and
123
Towards a useful classification of learning objects
491
sometimes tacit and automated in one’s cognition. Focus on a single concept carries the risk of failing to note relevant knowledge structures in a way that the subject matter expert may be able to do. Design is further mediated by pedagogical knowledge, creativity and drive for innovation. Innovation is important because every new conceptual model is most often an innovative artifact. Information objects An information object utilizes information visualization capabilities of contemporary technology to provide educationally useful information. This type of learning object might be just a single representation (an image) or a multimodal display and a visual interface providing information dynamically based on interaction. Information can be represented in tables, matrixes, mind maps, illustrations, formulas, pictures, animations, videos, diagrams, 3D models and by the way of other modalities (see van Someren et al., 1998). In a series of books, Edward Tufte (1990, 1997, 2001) discusses a range of visual techniques (e.g., graphs, illustrations, icons, pictures) to represent information. For Tufte, representations can be built to present complexity through visual clarity. He suggests that traditional visualization is greatly expanded with new technologies which allow interactive, three-dimensional and animated formats. Interactivity—e.g., buttons, clickable hot-spots, roll-over area, sliders, text-entries and drag-and-drops—allow information space to be organized in a way that enables learners to engage in exploring information, changing modalities, manipulating certain parameters or configuring options and observing changes in information, and otherwise manipulating the information they are accessing through the interface (raw information might reside within an information object, or in a database). Interactivity and modalities allow large quantities of information to be represented and made available for display in a small screen space. The ways in which technology makes this possible are best illustrated by a collection of articles edited by Bederson and Shneiderman (2003). A single interface—that is, a single screen without a change of page—might be designed to act as a point of access to a large amount of information. This would allow learners not just to experience interaction and/or a lot of information in mediated formats, but also to construct a mental space of information from the learning object and understand how different pieces of information are related. Figure 5 shows an example of an information object. This simple example of an information object contains multimodal information about native and non-native animals of Australia. Information about animals is accessed by rolling a mouse pointer over the text comprising the name of an animal and through decisions that include the dragging of the animal’s name into a corresponding area indicating its origin. The initial collection of web pages with information about Australian native animals was converted through content analysis into an information object that allows learners to explore this information space and connect different pieces of information. The essence of the
123
492
D. Churchill
Fig. 5 ‘‘Natives to Australia’’ information object
information from web pages was preserved in the information object; however, long lines of texts have been reduced to short, informationally sufficient statements that are delivered to a learner randomly based on interaction. Different learners might discover different facts about certain animals, and this can lead to activities such as, for example, discussions and collaborative mind-mapping. Contextual representations The idea behind a contextual representation is to allow learners to explore some realistic scenario and collect data, usually for the purpose of inquiry and problem-solving. For example, learners might collect data about volcanic activity, weather conditions, air pollutants in the atmosphere, population of life forms at great ocean depths, statements of opinion from people, and so on. Usually, there is a contextual representation of some imaginary or real place inaccessible to learners because it is distant, time and place dependent, involves danger, is too small or too big to allow data collection, requires sophisticated tools for collection of the data, requires lab conditions, requires expertise and so on. Engaging learners in collection of authentic data allows them to experience the origins of that authentic data, and explore the context and tools used in data collection. This might also enable learners to experience authentic problems or discipline-specific inquiries as they engage in collection and exploration of data. Figure 6 shows a screen from a ‘‘Water Experiment’’ contextual representation. This learning object allows learners to collect data on factors affecting the quality of water of the imaginary lake presented in the scenario.
123
Towards a useful classification of learning objects
493
Fig. 6 ‘‘Water Experiment’’ contextual representation
This data can be used, for example, in a problem-solving activity that directs learners to act as environmentalists, investigate the situation and propose a solution to a problem in the form of a report to an environment protection agency.
Conclusion This paper presents a classification of learning objects consisting of six types: presentation, practice, simulation, conceptual models, information and contextual representation objects. The paper opens a possibility for the proposed categories to be challenged, or for more categories of learning objects to emerge in further inquiries involving examination of larger repositories of educational resources such as MERLOT [MERLOT repository is reputedly the best collection of learning objects in the world (Zemsky & Massy, 2004). Currently, it contains references to 12,525 learning objects (data obtained in March 2005)]. Based on common characteristics of these six types, a learning object is defined as a representation designed to afford uses in different educational contexts. Some of the learning objects can be combined with other objects into direct instruction products supporting traditional pedagogies. Other learning objects are more appropriate in the context of more contemporary approaches as resources to be deployed in educational activities planned by teachers. Design and use of learning objects are two independent processes likely to be planned by different professionals. In the conclusion to this paper, I provide some suggestions as to how this classification might be useful to the two groups. The classification might support people involved in design (e.g., a learning object architect who examines subject matter, conceptualizes potentially
123
494
D. Churchill
useful learning objects, and creates a blueprint of it for a production). It would direct design to facts, concepts, procedures, principles, real systems and tools, useful data and other stuff of a discipline that could be best represented for educational reuse with particular types of learning objects from the classification. Thus, the classification would provide a framework for subject matter analysis that might in turn lead to better quality indicators for design of educationally useful materials that exist as learning objects. The classification should also support people involved in use of learning objects (e.g., a teacher who locates a learning object in a digital repository and makes it available to students as a resource to support completion of a learning task). A variety of learning object types would support use in a variety of pedagogical approaches (e.g., direct instruction, inquiries, problemsolving and collaborative knowledge-building). This might support personal epistemological change in teachers involved in reuse of learning objects, because a variety of resources would encourage them to experiment with their pedagogical uses. Furthermore, the classification might lead to development of metadata strategy (beyond current metadata standards) that provides heuristics to people involved in use. Metadata might include information about a type of learning object, in addition to some pedagogical recommendations for its use. The concept of reuse of learning objects is currently very narrowly defined, and the reason for this could be linked to problems associated with lack of a useful definition and classification. A broadly accepted, well-validated classification would lead to better understanding of reuse, which would cater for a variety of educational applications. The proposed classification promises a number of interesting possibilities for further research in design, management and use of digital educational resources. From a design perspective, researchers might explore the cognitive processes of a designer involved in the articulation of different types of learning objects and how these processes are mediated by internal knowledge, social collaboration and external artifacts. In addition, research might attempt to explore the transformation of a designer thinking about teaching and learning as a consequence of design experience of a particular type of learning object (e.g., how an experience of design of a conceptual model leads to the transformation of a designer’s epistemology). Researchers might also attempt to understand how and if the proposed classification transforms traditional approaches to curriculum subject matter analysis. From the perspective of management of learning objects, the classification suggests a need for changes in thinking about metadata describing learning objects. The researchers might explore models for metadata describing particular types of learning objects and the effects of these descriptions upon the decisions of individuals involved in their use. This might also provide possibilities for research involving communities and individuals involved in the creation of custom metadata (folksonomy). From the perspective of using learning objects, the research might explore matches between different types of learning object or specific combinations of such objects, and suitable activities for the context of their use (e.g., use of conceptual models in the context of problem solving
123
Towards a useful classification of learning objects
495
activities). In addition, the research might explore the suitability of different learning objects in the classification for delivery using emerging technologies such as portable digital assistants. To acknowledge my own understanding by this stage, when I speak of learning objects, I am referring to representations designed to afford uses in different educational contexts. They reside in digital repositories, ready to be located and utilized by those involved in educational activities (e.g., teachers and students). These representations address: (a) key concepts from disciplines, in visual and often interactive ways not permitted with previous technologies, for sharing of socio-historical heritage of humanity (our knowledge), (b) information and data that can be useful in the context of developing disciplinary-specific thinking, culture of practice, spirit of inquiry, theoretical knowledge and information work, (c) presentation of small, instructional sequences and demonstrations delivering encapsulated descriptions of some aspects of subject matter which can support learning processes by providing ‘‘just-in-time’’ information, and (d) simulations of key equipment, tools and processes from a discipline to enable development of deep understanding of artifacts used in a culture of practice. My immediate intention is to empower education professionals with quality digital material which can support their technology integration. Finally, in conclusion, it is important to acknowledge that this paper does not resolve all the issues related to the ill-defined nature of learning objects. Rather, the aim is to at least raise some important issues for further discussion, trial and research. Acknowledgments The author wants to thank John Hedberg from Macquarie University, Australia and Jeanette Bopry from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore for comment on ideas presented in this manuscript.
References Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: methods and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Anderson, A. T. (2003). I object! Moving beyond learning object to learning components. Educational Technology, 43(4), 24–19. Bederson, B. B., & Shneiderman, B. (2003). The craft of information visualization: readings and reflections. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Churchill, D. (2005). Learning object: an interactive representation and a mediating tool in a learning activity. Educational Media International, 42(4), 333–349. Cisco Systems (2001) Reusable learning object strategy: designing information and learning objects through concept, fact, procedure, process, and principle template. San Jose, CA: Cisco Systems, Inc. Clifford, R. (2002, August). Adding a pedagogical dimension to SCORM [Digital Audio Recording]. Oral presentation at the Online Instruction for 21st Century: Connecting instructional design to international standards for content reusability, Brigham Young University, Rexburg, Idaho. Retrieved August 30, 2003 from http://zola.byu.edu/id2scorm/. Cochrane, T. (2005). Interactive quicktime: Developing and evaluating multimedia learning objects to enhance both face-to-face and distance e-learning environments. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1(1), 33–54.
123
496
D. Churchill
Davydov, V. V. (1999). The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. In Y. Engerstro¨m, R. Miettinen, & R. Punama¨ki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 39–52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. De Jong, T. et al. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science, mathematics: the use of multiple representations in technology-based learning environments. In A. Van Someren (Ed.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9–40). Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. E-learning Competency Center. (2003). Explanation on learning objects. Retrieved September 15, 2003 from http://www.ecc.org.sg/loc/ecplain.htm. Fraser, A. (1999). Web visualization for teachers. Retrieved February 23, 2004, from http:// fraser.cc/WebVis/. Friesen, N. (2003). Three objections to learning objects. Retrieved July 24, 2004 from http:// www.learningspaces.org/n/papers/objections.html. Gibbons, A. (n.d.). Model-centered instruction: beyond simulation. Retrieved September 20, 2005, from http://www.gwu.edu/~lto/gibbons.html. IEEE. (2001). WG12: Learning object metadata. Retrieved February 15, 2005, http://ltsc.ieee.org/ wg12/. IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2002). Learning resource meta-data specification. Retrieved February 15, 2005 from http://www.imsglobal.org/metadata/. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jonassen, D., & Churchill, D (2004). Is there learning orientation in learning objects? International Journal of E-learning, April–May, 32–42. L’Allier, J. J. (1998). NETg’s precision skilling: the linking of occupational skills descriptors to training interventions. Retrieved September 15, 2000, from http://www.netg.com/research/ pskillpaper.htm. Lukasiak, J., Agostinho, S., Bennet, S., Harper, B, Lockyer, L., & Powley, B. (2005). Learning objects and learning designs: an integrated system for reusable, adaptive and sharable learning content. Research in Learning Technology, 13(2), 151–169. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43–64. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139. McGreal, R. (2004). Learning objects: a practical definition. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(9), 21–32. Merrill, M. D. (2000). Knowledge objects and mental models. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects. Retrieved July 24, 2004 from http://reusability.org/read/ chapters/merrill.doc. Paivio, A. (1974). Language and knowledge of the world. Educational Researcher, 3(9), 5–12. Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 235–240. Schnotz, W., & Lowe, R. (2003). External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 117–123. Tufte, E. (1997). Visual explanations. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press. Tufte, E. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press. Tufte, E. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press. Van Someren, A. (1998). Learning with multiple representations. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. Van Someren, A., Boshuizen, P.A., de Jong, T., & Reimann, P. (1998). Introduction. In A. Van Someren (Ed.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 1–5). Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1997). Piaget’s legacy: Cognition as adaptive activity. Retrieved December 12, 2003, from http://www.umass.edu/srri/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/html/245.html. Vygotsky, S. L. (1962). Thoughts and language. Cambrige, MA: The MIT Press. Vygotsky, S. L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press. Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects. Retrieved July 24, 2004, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc.
123
Towards a useful classification of learning objects
497
Wiley, D. A. (2002). The coming collision between automated instruction and social constructivism. Retrieved September 16, 2005, from http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/collision_09.doc . Wiley, D., & Edwards, E. (2002). Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning. Retrieved November 20, 2003 from http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/ososs.pdf. Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (2004). Thwarted innovation: what happened to e-learning and why. Philadelphia, PA: The Learning Alliance, University of Pennsylvania.
Daniel Churchill is at the University of Hong Kong.
123
