Workshop “Ontwikkelen van en Werken met Leer Objecten” Allard Strijker, 27 juni 2005 Universiteit Twente voor Thales Training en development

Deelnemers van de Workshop Introductie Taal (Engels of Nederlands) Wie is wie Organisatie Verwachting Wat wel en wat niet? Vragen

Introductie

Taal (Engels of Nederlands)

Wie is wie

Organisatie

Verwachting

Wat wel en wat niet?

Vragen

Doelgroep en locatie De workshop is bedoeld voor onderwijskundig ondersteuners en ontwikkelaars van cursusmateriaal De workshop vindt plaats op 27 juni 2005 van 9.00 tot 12.00 uur op de Universiteit Twente

De workshop is bedoeld voor onderwijskundig ondersteuners en ontwikkelaars van cursusmateriaal

De workshop vindt plaats op 27 juni 2005 van 9.00 tot 12.00 uur op de Universiteit Twente

Inhoud Workshop De workshop gaat in op: De definitie en granulariteit van leerobjecten. Ontwikkelen van templates voor leerobjecten Hoe worden binnen Learn eXact Leerobjecten toegepast? Relatie van Lex met een learner portal.

De workshop gaat in op:

De definitie en granulariteit van leerobjecten.

Ontwikkelen van templates voor leerobjecten

Hoe worden binnen Learn eXact Leerobjecten toegepast?

Relatie van Lex met een learner portal.

Leerdoelen Workshop Na afloop van de workshop is de deelnemer in staat om: de granulariteit van leerobjecten weer te geven verschillende voorbeelden van het gebruik van het LCMS deel (de Packager) van Learn eXact te beschrijven de verschillende mogelijkheden van het gebruik van templates met Learn Exact te beschrijven het concept van een learner portal te beschrijven

Na afloop van de workshop is de deelnemer in staat om:

de granulariteit van leerobjecten weer te geven

verschillende voorbeelden van het gebruik van het LCMS deel (de Packager) van Learn eXact te beschrijven

de verschillende mogelijkheden van het gebruik van templates met Learn Exact te beschrijven

het concept van een learner portal te beschrijven

Learning Objects Human Perspective In the corporate context, learning objects are generally defined in the terminology of the vendor supplying a LMS or LCMS. Chapman and Hall (2001), note that in this context that there is no consistent definition of a learning object; "…each of the companies using the learning object metaphor has their own defined relationship and characteristics for what constitutes a learning object" (p. 9). In their review of LCMSs, they identify definitions as varying as "a structured, reusable learning event" (p. 52) and "a single page or a group of pages, typically they should not exceed about 20-25 pages" (p. 81). Although "typically they should be five to 15 minutes in length (seat time)” (p. 9), they may also be objects such as a single image.

In the corporate context, learning objects are generally defined in the terminology of the vendor supplying a LMS or LCMS. Chapman and Hall (2001), note that in this context that there is no consistent definition of a learning object; "…each of the companies using the learning object metaphor has their own defined relationship and characteristics for what constitutes a learning object" (p. 9). In their review of LCMSs, they identify definitions as varying as

"a structured, reusable learning event" (p. 52) and

"a single page or a group of pages, typically they should not exceed about 20-25 pages" (p. 81). Although

"typically they should be five to 15 minutes in length (seat time)” (p. 9),

they may also be objects such as a single image.

Learning Objects Human Perspective Mortimer (2001) shares this impression of confusion within the corporate setting: “ Learning object. Reusable learning object. Reusable information object. Shareable content object. Modular building block. Chunk. Nugget. Lego. Whatever. The list goes on…no single learning object definition exists...there seem to be as many definitions as there are people to ask.” Chapman and Hall conclude their review by saying "We hope to see better definitions and common standards for learning objects in the future" (p. 9).

Mortimer (2001) shares this impression of confusion within the corporate setting:

“ Learning object. Reusable learning object. Reusable information object. Shareable content object. Modular building block. Chunk. Nugget. Lego. Whatever. The list goes on…no single learning object definition exists...there seem to be as many definitions as there are people to ask.”

Chapman and Hall conclude their review by saying "We hope to see better definitions and common standards for learning objects in the future" (p. 9).

Learning Objects from a Technical Perspective Oracle introduced the Oracle Learning Architecture (OLA), an early attempt at an authoring environment using learning objects (Wagner, 2002). (Oracle later stopped the development of OLA because of the fast changes in specifications in the Microsoft Windows platforms.) The definition used for learning objects by Oracle was the following: A Learning Object can be defined as a distinct, stand-alone piece of education. It can be taken in isolation or as part of a larger course. This is exactly the same principle behind Programming Objects, where stand-alone components are reused in different ways for different applications. When Learning Objects are fully implemented, it is possible for every user to define their own unique educational experience (Ellwood, 1997).

Oracle introduced the Oracle Learning Architecture (OLA), an early attempt at an authoring environment using learning objects (Wagner, 2002). (Oracle later stopped the development of OLA because of the fast changes in specifications in the Microsoft Windows platforms.) The definition used for learning objects by Oracle was the following:

A Learning Object can be defined as a distinct, stand-alone piece of education. It can be taken in isolation or as part of a larger course. This is exactly the same principle behind Programming Objects, where stand-alone components are reused in different ways for different applications. When Learning Objects are fully implemented, it is possible for every user to define their own unique educational experience (Ellwood, 1997).

Learning Objects from a Technical Perspective Barritt who worked on the development of OLA continued these efforts for Cisco Systems (Barritt, Lewis, & Wieseler, 1999) and this resulted in a release of Cisco’s white paper on Reusable Learning Objects in 1998. In this white paper Cisco defines two sorts of learning objects, RIOs and RLOs. At its core is the RIO, a learning nugget that contains content, practice, and assessment components. Each RIO is defined as a concept, fact, process, principle, or procedure, and tagged appropriately. Several RIOs, as few as five and as many as nine, are combined together to create a Reusable Learning Object (RLO). If a RIO can be equated with an individual component of a learning objective, an RLO is the sum of RIOs needed to fulfill that objective. Each RLO, which also includes introduction, summary, and assessment items, is designed to meet a learning objective derived from a specific job task (Barritt, Lewis & Wieseler, 1999). A more holistic definition comes from Wiley (2000b) who worked closely with Merrill and defined learning objects as: Any digital resource that can be reused to support learning.

Barritt who worked on the development of OLA continued these efforts for Cisco Systems (Barritt, Lewis, & Wieseler, 1999) and this resulted in a release of Cisco’s white paper on Reusable Learning Objects in 1998. In this white paper Cisco defines two sorts of learning objects, RIOs and RLOs. At its core is the RIO, a learning nugget that contains content, practice, and assessment components. Each RIO is defined as a concept, fact, process, principle, or procedure, and tagged appropriately. Several RIOs, as few as five and as many as nine, are combined together to create a Reusable Learning Object (RLO). If a RIO can be equated with an individual component of a learning objective, an RLO is the sum of RIOs needed to fulfill that objective. Each RLO, which also includes introduction, summary, and assessment items, is designed to meet a learning objective derived from a specific job task (Barritt, Lewis & Wieseler, 1999). A more holistic definition comes from Wiley (2000b) who worked closely with Merrill and defined learning objects as:

Any digital resource that can be reused to support learning.

Learning Objects from a Technical Perspective Working together does not mean that definitions used are the same. This broad definition of Wiley somewhat contradicts the strict definition of knowledge objects used by Merrill (2000): A knowledge object consists of a set of fields (containers) for the components of knowledge required to implement a variety of instructional strategies. These components include: the name, information about, and the portrayal for some entity; the name, information about, and the portrayal for parts of the entity; the name, information about, values, and corresponding portrayals for properties of the entity; the name, and information about activities associated with the entity; and the name and information about processes associated with the entity.

Working together does not mean that definitions used are the same. This broad definition of Wiley somewhat contradicts the strict definition of knowledge objects used by Merrill (2000):

A knowledge object consists of a set of fields (containers) for the components of knowledge required to implement a variety of instructional strategies. These components include: the name, information about, and the portrayal for some entity; the name, information about, and the portrayal for parts of the entity; the name, information about, values, and corresponding portrayals for properties of the entity; the name, and information about activities associated with the entity; and the name and information about processes associated with the entity.

Learning Objects from a Technical Perspective Knowledge objects can also been seen as learning objects in terms of reusability and also can be compared with the definition of Barritt, Lewis, and Wieseler, (1999) who identified: Educational learning objects, Content objects, Training components, Nuggets, and Chunks as terms used in the industry. This broader set of industrial terms includes even a broader pool of definitions. For example from Robson (2001): The Learning objects are the core concept in an approach to learning content in which content is broken down into "bite size" chunks. These chunks can be reused, independently created, and maintained, and pulled apart and stuck together like so many legos.

Knowledge objects can also been seen as learning objects in terms of reusability and also can be compared with the definition of Barritt, Lewis, and Wieseler, (1999) who identified: Educational learning objects, Content objects, Training components, Nuggets, and Chunks as terms used in the industry. This broader set of industrial terms includes even a broader pool of definitions. For example from Robson (2001):

The Learning objects are the core concept in an approach to learning content in which content is broken down into "bite size" chunks. These chunks can be reused, independently created, and maintained, and pulled apart and stuck together like so many legos.

Learning Objects from a Technical Perspective The definition used in this research will be adapted from that of the IEEE Standardisation Body (2003) which in turn was adapted from the Learning Object Metadata (LOM) (LTSC, 2002) definition that defines an object as: A learning object is any entity, digital or non-digital, that may be used for learning, education or training.

The definition used in this research will be adapted from that of the IEEE Standardisation Body (2003) which in turn was adapted from the Learning Object Metadata (LOM) (LTSC, 2002) definition that defines an object as:

A learning object is any entity, digital or non-digital, that may be used for learning, education or training.

Aggregation levels and granularity The definition of learning objects does not prescribe the size of learning objects, Robson (2001) notes that: There is no standard for the size (or granularity) of a learning object. Larger learning objects are typically harder to reuse, and smaller learner objects save less work for those who are reuse them. Per the literature of pedagogy, the happy medium has been estimated as between five and fifteen minutes of learning material.

The definition of learning objects does not prescribe the size of learning objects, Robson (2001) notes that:

There is no standard for the size (or granularity) of a learning object. Larger learning objects are typically harder to reuse, and smaller learner objects save less work for those who are reuse them. Per the literature of pedagogy, the happy medium has been estimated as between five and fifteen minutes of learning material.

Aggregation levels and granularity Also Hodgins (2000b) suggests that: There is no set absolute size to a learning object, since the size of the object will be relative to the needs of learners and the requirements. This corresponds with the white paper of Cisco (Barritt, 2001) that starts with a comment about the size of an object: The size and shape of an "object" is open to each organisation to define. This decision is based upon the needs, tools, processes, and business goals of the organisation.

Also Hodgins (2000b) suggests that:

There is no set absolute size to a learning object, since the size of the object will be relative to the needs of learners and the requirements.

This corresponds with the white paper of Cisco (Barritt, 2001) that starts with a comment about the size of an object:

The size and shape of an "object" is open to each organisation to define. This decision is based upon the needs, tools, processes, and business goals of the organisation.

Aggregation levels and granularity To deal with the different approaches of defining the size of learning objects and granularity within the research there is no size or content structure of objects defined according to the definition of learning objects. However to deal with granularity aspects, within the LOM vocabulary (LTSC, 2002) four levels of granularity are defined. These four levels are used within the research to identify the level of aggregation: The smallest level of aggregation, such as raw media data or fragments (pictures, plain text, Word document, PowerPoint files, attachments in a course-management system) A collection of atoms, such as an HTML document with some embedded pictures or a lesson (a webpage, a archive item in a course management system) A collection of Level 2 learning resources, such as a web of HTML documents with an index page that links the pages together or a course (a course within a course-management system) The largest level of granularity, such as a set of courses that lead to a certificate (a set of competences that lead to a profile set of courses).

To deal with the different approaches of defining the size of learning objects and granularity within the research there is no size or content structure of objects defined according to the definition of learning objects.

However to deal with granularity aspects, within the LOM vocabulary (LTSC, 2002) four levels of granularity are defined. These four levels are used within the research to identify the level of aggregation:

The smallest level of aggregation, such as raw media data or fragments (pictures, plain text, Word document, PowerPoint files, attachments in a course-management system)

A collection of atoms, such as an HTML document with some embedded pictures or a lesson (a webpage, a archive item in a course management system)

A collection of Level 2 learning resources, such as a web of HTML documents with an index page that links the pages together or a course (a course within a course-management system)

The largest level of granularity, such as a set of courses that lead to a certificate (a set of competences that lead to a profile set of courses).

Aggregation levels and granularity As another example of granularity within learning objects, Wiley (2000a) identified five types of learning object types that vary in: number of elements, type of objects contained, reusable component objects, common function, extra-object dependence, type of login contained in the object, potential for inter-contextual reuse, and potential for intra-contextual reuse. The different types of learning objects vary in behaviour, complexity, content, and functionality. This means that also the technology has to cover the differences in the types of learning objects. Authoring tools should provide the support to deal with different types of learning objects and variances in granularity.

As another example of granularity within learning objects, Wiley (2000a) identified five types of learning object types that vary in:

number of elements, type of objects contained, reusable component objects, common function, extra-object dependence, type of login contained in the object, potential for inter-contextual reuse, and potential for intra-contextual reuse. The different types of learning objects vary in behaviour, complexity, content, and functionality.

This means that also the technology has to cover the differences in the types of learning objects. Authoring tools should provide the support to deal with different types of learning objects and variances in granularity.

Leerobjecten Links en verwijzingen Hergebruik Metadata Inhoud en structuur Granulariteit

Links en verwijzingen

Hergebruik

Metadata

Inhoud en structuur

Granulariteit

Templates for learning Objects Opdracht: Ontwerp een sjabloon voor een leerobject!

Opdracht:

Ontwerp een sjabloon voor een leerobject!

Overeenkomsten

Verschillen

Learning Content Management Systems Databases Gestructureerde data Sjablonen / Templates Data en Opmaak

Databases

Gestructureerde data

Sjablonen / Templates

Data en Opmaak

Onderwijs en training Onderwijsscenario’s / Onderwijskundige benaderingen Task based Learning Problem based learning Workplace learning Study landscape Delivery Face to face Online Blended Learning

Onderwijsscenario’s / Onderwijskundige benaderingen

Task based Learning

Problem based learning

Workplace learning

Study landscape

Delivery

Face to face

Online

Blended Learning

Templates in Learn Exact De ongewenste vrijheid De techniek staat voor niets Beheer en de toekomst Less is more Simpel is moeilijk Moeilijk is makkelijk

De ongewenste vrijheid

De techniek staat voor niets

Beheer en de toekomst

Less is more

Simpel is moeilijk

Moeilijk is makkelijk

Voorbeelden van Templates Teletop Webquests Taakgebaseerd leren Learning Design Lex

Teletop

Webquests

Taakgebaseerd leren

Learning Design

Lex

Learner Portals Authoring Tools Learning Content Management Systems Learning Management Systems ELO Course Management Systems Portals Content Management Systems

Authoring Tools

Learning Content Management Systems

Learning Management Systems

ELO Course Management Systems

Portals

Content Management Systems

Samenvatting Vragen Discussie

Vragen

Discussie