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. Critique: a case study – JORUM  JORUM – UK National Repository –not well used –very variable quality –no community of practice (CD-LOR project)  IPR barriers  It fails to achieve the vision

8. 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 --)

9. “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)

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

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

12. 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

13. Engage students with familiar every day examples

14. Active student learning

15. Interact with samples of code

16. Scaffold student learning

17. Module results Course LondonMet HND LondonMet BSc Bolton BSc LondonMet MSc Percentage point increase 2002-32003-4 +19 +27 +15 +21 +23 +12 +12 +19 Note: based on number of students completing modules compared with 2001-2 Pass rates increased for all modules These increases exceeded our expectations Pass rates

18. 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

20. 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

21. 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

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

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

24. Deep structure of GLO 1. Hierarchical decision structure not (just) linear sequence 2. Each node has a pedagogical function 3. Which is refined/expanded through options available at that choice point 4. Pedagogical commentary makes explicit the pedagogical function and choices available It maps the decisions underlying a certain class of learning objects

25. 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

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. GLO Authoring Tool

30. 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

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

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

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

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

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

36. 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

37. Deep Meaning Form Realization Hierarchical intention structure

38. 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)

39. 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

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

41. 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 Raw ObjectPattern Holo Base Packaged