February 8, 2005
Learning Objects: A Brief Developmental Taxonomy
David Wiley has an excellent design taxonomy for learning objects that he created as part of his LODAS design theory (Word Doc). David is on my dissertation committee and I am working from a grounded perspective, rather than a theoretical one. As those of you who follow this blog know, I am working on a user-centered ISD process model for learning objects in a corporate environment. I am using formative methodology to create this model based on the practice of an instructional design team.
One of the issues that came up in this formative effort was the need to classify learning objects not based on their design (which David’s taxonomy addresses) but based on their reusability status. I thought I would reveal a brief overview of this taxonomy here so that others might be able to ponder it a bit. It is not yet complete and it focuses only on one dimension: the nature of reusability. There is another dimension that I am considering and that is one of formality.
To follow Wiley’s (Wiley, 2000) definition of a learning object, "any digital resource that can be used to support learning" (p. 23) means that anything on the internet can be used to support learning. At first I was a bit unsure of this definition because I had been looking at how learning objects were being described from a SCORM or LMS vendor perspective. These objects being chunks of content that are formally designated as learning objects based on LOM or some other proprietary code. However, as I am finding in my research with people doing the design work, informal learning objects are more in line with what Wiley was talking about. Even in a corporate environment where the public internet is more off-limits, intranets are chocked full of existing content that can be used as-is or with some modification that are not formally tagged as learning objects in the metadata sense of the term. But both are relevant to the instructional designer albeit in different ways.
So, with the caveat that I am still pondering the formal/informal dimension and how to represent it, here is the other dimension that seems to be more useful and straightforward:
Reusable: These are content components that are pulled directly into the course from other sources and an exact copy is used as-is in the new course. Content might also be created for the course with the specific intent that it be reused as-is in other courses.
Repurposeable: Content that is pulled into the course from other sources but modified to work in the course. Similar to reusable objects, there might be cases where objects can be created for your particular course project that can be easily repurposed for use in another course. An example of this might be a game interface for a self-check exercise built in Flash™ where the graphics, scoring engine, and interaction remain the same but new questions can easily be entered into the exercise when it is put in a different course.
Sharable: Content that lives outside of the course that you are building. In this case, there is one instance of the object in a repository (image, video, animation) and that object is shared in many different courses. A change to the object changes the content of all of the courses where the object is used.
Non-reusable: content that is specific to the course that is not intended to be re-used outside of that course. The majority of development time for courses might be on the non-reusable parts of the course. This might include context around other learning objects and any proprietary content.
Note that this quick rendition does not include all of the background research and thinking that has gone into this and I realize there are many other possible ways to view this issue (e.g. please see the extensive work on this topic by Wayne Hodgins and others). For all of that background, you’ll just have to wait for the whole dissertation. This is just a small part of what is emerging based on my inquiry into instructional designers and what they need to effectively use learning objects in a particular environment.
Reference
Wiley, D. A. (2000). Learning object design and sequencing theory. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Brigham Young University.
PDF Online at: http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/dissertation.pdf
Posted by Rovy at February 8, 2005 10:11 PM