1. Learning Objects or Learning Frameworks: Steve Bond, London School of Economics Pia Marks, University of Waterloo Reusing the Design of a Multimedia Anthropology Resource

2. Overview 1.Reuse – the promise vs. the reality 2.Repurposing vs. reuse –a better approach? 3.What’s Going On? –The LSE/UW experience

3. 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

4. Reuse: the reality “For some time now there has been a growing awareness that even the most accessible resources have failed to be widely adopted by the educational community and as a result have also failed to fulfill their considerable educational potential” (Campbell, 2003, p.35) “Uptake of these resources is happening at a slower than desirable pace, despite the unquestionable quality of design and production, high levels of investment in professional development and the rationally anticipated outcome of this investment” (Gunn, Woodgate & O’Grady, 2005, p.189).

5. Why the gap between promise and reality? Problems with reuse identified in the literature: Inflexibility of resources Technical problems Cultural factors Time Educational factors  “Will individuals be able to preserve their own teaching style? How will this policy impinge on the evaluation of teaching?” (McNaught, 2003, p.204).  Little documented proof that LOs support learning any better than the traditional, linearly organized course; few published studies describing successful use of LOs in HE (Metros, 2005, p.12-13). Time “Locating resources and assessing the suitability of their content can be frustrating and time-consuming” (Campbell, 2003, p.36). Learning objects can be difficult to adapt to a new context: “… resources [can be] difficult or impossible to adapt and often address a very specific educational objective or employ a particular pedagogical perspective” (Campbell, 2003, p.36). “The more inherently contextual an object is, the less reusable it may be; something already loaded with context may be difficult or impossible to reuse in a new context” (Koppi et al., 2004, p.450). Cultural factors Institutional culture offers “little incentive or support” for instructors to share or reuse resources (Campbell, 2003, p. 36). Rewards/recognition for teaching is a real barrier to reuse: many instructors feel that “research is more highly valued than teaching and so feel a conflict when asked or expected to spend considerable time in learning to use technology in teaching” (McNaught, 2003, p.206) “The issue of reward for publicising teaching and learning materials is of paramount importance … This necessary change in the academic culture will be a slow one.” (Koppi et al., 2004, p.461) “Sole author” publication culture: the need to establish personal reputations may discourage work within a collaborative project (McNaught, 2003, p. 207) Technical factors: interoperability and problems with cataloguing of resources –Although the technology is in place: “the technology to support reuse is now becoming more stable, and interoperability standards and specifications are maturing” (McNaught, 2003, p.200). –Questions remain around the issue of cataloguing resources: Whose role is it? Creator? Librarian? Are they willing and able to do it? The JORUM hybrid model

6. 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).

7. 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 wordsLevel 1 Level 2: 9 months' fieldwork / 300 words Level 3: 18 months' fieldwork / 600 wordsLevel 3 Exercise completed over 2 weeks –Students also read full ethnography

8. Repurposability of WGO WGO fully customisable Can be used in new teaching contexts Tool Content Configuration Content Configuration

9. How was it modified? 1.New video 2.Different focus (from linguistic to visual interpretation) 3.Info links contained summarized content vs. journal articles What stayed the same? The structure of the activity: Level 1 (150-300 words)Level 1 Level 2 (300 words)Level 2 Level 3 (400 words)Level 3 The UW version

10. 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 UW outcomes

11. 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

12. 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/ http://clt011.lse.ac.uk:8383/steve/wgo/authoring/

13. 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? ALT- J, 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.

14. 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 e- learning (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 http://www.irhe.upenn.edu/WeatherStation.html

15. Contact details Steve Bond: s.bond1@lse.ac.uks.bond1@lse.ac.uk Pia Marks: pia@LT3.uwaterloo.capia@LT3.uwaterloo.ca LSE – DART project: –http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/anthropology/dart.htmhttp://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/anthropology/dart.htm University of Waterloo – LT3 Centre: –http://lt3.uwaterloo.ca/http://lt3.uwaterloo.ca/