Learning design and learning objects

1. Learning design and learning objects Tom Boyle Learning Technology Research Institute (LTRI) London Metropolitan University Leuven Jan 10 2008

2. “The use of learning objects promises to increase the effectiveness of learning …” Duval et al 2004

3. How can this be achieved? • Perspective 1: standards, interoperability and reuse • knowledge engineering based approach • Perspective 2: through improving the design of reusable learning objects • design/pedagogy based approach • The wider picture – a global view of the (inter)relationship between learning objects and learning design

4. Themes of talk • Standardization approach (briefly) • focusing on content as the reusable learning resource • A ‘learning design’ perspective • focusing on design as the reusable learning resource • Generative Learning Objects (GLOs) • Towards a synthesis relating content-oriented and design- oriented approaches • Productive questions

5. Standardization and reuse? • Standards, interoperability and reuse • IMS-CP • IEEE LOM • SCORM • “.. by making content more readily available, by reducing the cost and effort of producing quality content, and by allowing content to be more easily shared”

6. Vision and outputs • Vision of the “learning object economy” • “Pedagogical neutrality” • Divide the problem space so the design quality is deliberately excluded • Repositories of learning objects based on standards to support search, retrieval and reuse • Tool support for packaging learning objects etc

7. Perspective 2: pedagogy/design focus “The use of learning objects promises to increase the effectiveness of learning …” • Began with a real and significant problem • Need to design high quality resources • That could be reused and exchanged • Viewed learning objects as “micro-contexts” for learning in which the most important factor was the quality of the pedagogical design • Learning objects for programming (2002 --)

8. “This chapter argues that high quality design and development of learning objects is crucial before we get to issues of metadata and software packaging. The primary message of the chapter is good pedagogical design is at the heart of effective learning objects”. “The Design of Learning Objects for Pedagogical Impact” Boyle (2008) (In Handbook of Learning Objects and Learning Design)

9. Design of the EASA learning objects Winner of European Academic Software Award 2004

10. Two major dimensions • Pedagogical effectiveness • achieve a clear learning goal or objective • Structural design for reuse • cohesion • decoupling (Boyle 2003)

11. Design for reuse • Cohesion • each unit should do one thing and one thing only • minimum pedagogically meaningful unit • Decoupling • the unit should have minimal bindings to other units • there should be no necessary navigational bindings to other units (embedded hyperlinks) • learning object content should not refer to the content in another source so as to cause necessary dependencies

12. Engage students with familiar every day examples

13. Active student learning

14. Interact with samples of code

15. Scaffold student learning

16. Module results Pass rates increased for all modules Pass rates CourseLondonMet HNDLondonMet BScBolton BScLondonMet MSc Percentage point increase 2002-3 2003-4 +19 +27 +15 +21 +23 +12 +12 +19 Note: based on number of students completing modules compared with 2001-2 These increases exceeded our expectations

17. CETL for Reusable Learning Objects • Started in April 2005 with £3.3 million funding from HEFCE for the period 2005-2010 • Partners: London Metropolitan University, University of Cambridge, University of Nottingham • Develop reusable learning objects (RLOs) • with a strong pedagogical focus • Use and evaluate these RLOs with substantial student cohorts • Extensive staff development and dissemination programme • Advance the conceptual basis for RLOs

19. Critique of the EASA learning objects • Successful educationally but • Limitations in productivity • Weak support for repurposing and local adaptation • Successful designs are implicit and not easily available for reuse

20. Generative learning objects (GLOs) • The basis for reuse is the pedagogical pattern rather than ‘content’ of the learning object • A richer basis for reuse and repurposing • This gives a tremendous increase in productivity • Allows local tutors to repurpose learning objects to meet their local needs and preferences

21. GLOs separate  design pattern from Instantiation (specific learning object) Challenges How to elucidate and articulate these patterns? and How to make the result usable by tutors?

22. Elucidating design patterns Linguistics • Grounded analysis • Elucidating deep structure • influence of linguistics • generative structure • Representing the pattern • Pedagogical patterns literature • Capturing meaning • Implementation • Object oriented design/programming Pedagogical patterns Object Oriented thinking

23. Deep structure of GLO 1. Hierarchical decision structure not (just) linear sequence 2. Each node has a pedagogical function • Which is refined/expanded through options available at that choice point • Pedagogical commentary makes explicit the pedagogical function and choices available It maps the decisions underlying a certain class of learning objects

24. Surface structure Each GLO pattern binds to a default surface structure, which consists of a - • Sequence of • Pages (screen layouts) consisting of and co-ordinating • Components into which are loaded • Assets/content

25. Generative learning object (GLO) definition “An articulated and executable learning design that produces a class of learning objects.” The representation in a GLO is articulated in two distinct ways: The first form relates to human understanding. A GLO articulates and renders explicit (the often implicit) decisions involved in design for learning. It does this by using a form of representation borrowed and adapted from generative linguistics. The second form of articulation is rendering explicit these decisions in a way that can be executed by computer software to produce learning objects based on the design.

26. Making GLOs available to users • In practice, the pedagogical designs are represented as ‘plug-in’ patterns to the GLO Authoring tool. • The tool can be used to create specific learning objects based on the chosen pattern. • Each of these learning objects developed in this way can be re-purposed by local tutors (or learners), using the same tool, to adapt the resources to their local needs and preferences. • All the learning objects so created, or adapted, run as stand-alone Web based learning objects.

27. GLO Authoring Tool

29. How does it all fit together – a preliminary view • Traditional content oriented approaches to learning objects • GLO design oriented approach • Wider approaches to learning design e.g. IMS LD • Towards an initial problem representation space for visualizing the relationship between different approaches to learning objects and learning designs

30. Complex Packaged Base Raw Object Pattern Mapping the learning object space The Learning Object Cube - LOC

31. Holo Packaged Instance Pattern Raw Base Exploring the LOC space Def: “a learning object as any entity that … may be used inlearning” …. IEEE LOM

32. Holo Packaged Base Raw Object Pattern Learning objects as basic units “the smallest independent structural experience” - the minimum meaningful pedagogical unit

33. Holo Packaged Instance Pattern Base Raw Complex or higher order learning objects Content aggregation models such as ALOCOM – five levels of aggregation

34. Holo Packaged Raw Base Pattern Instance Reusable pedagogical patterns “A micro-context for learning” Extract the reusable learning design – the pedagogical pattern and make it reusable

35. Generative learning objects (GLOs) • The basis for reuse is the pedagogical pattern rather than ‘content’ of the learning object • A rich basis for reuse and repurposing • This gives a tremendous increase in productivity • Allows local tutors to repurpose learning objects to meet their local needs and preferences

36. Hierarchical intention structure Deep Meaning Form Realization

37. Layered learning design? The Design of Learning Objects for Pedagogical Impact – Boyle (2008) Course Session Activity Learning object Each layer provides services to the layer above • e.g. GLOs provide resources for lesson level learning designs JISC D4L (2007)

38. Relationship on IMS LD to learning objects There is a shortcircuiting of the design space Generative learning object layer Develop layering model of design space Explore correspondences between design layers and content aggregation levels IMS Learning Designs Learning objects

39. Content Design Aggregation Larger objective Single objective Content objects ? Assets Content fragments Layering correspondence? Courses Sessions Learning object Component

40. Holo Raw Packaged Base Object Pattern Some productive questions • How do we extract and make available reusable learning designs at all levels? • Develop a richer integrated view of the relationship between learning designs and learning objects • Learning objects as instances of learning designs • Explore the relationship between content aggregation models and layered learning design? • Finally, provide a comprehensive, articulated view of the problem space that relates learning design and learning object work