Learning objects are something I don't know very much about. The first time I heard the term learning object (LO) I remember picturing a 3 dimensional object in virtual space and I couldn't figure out how you would use it for learning.
I think the name is part of the problem with LOs. What constitutes a LO? Is it a lesson, a set of exercises, or an entire unit of learning? The name learning object doesn't really tell you much about what it is and there doesn't seem to be a clear definition of what LOs are in learning communities. As I mentioned in a previous post this also is the case with OERs.
Another feature OERs and LOs share is the fact that both are spread-out all over the place. There are a few repositories of LOs and OERs but there are many out there which are difficult to find.
Answering the question regarding critical success factors to open initiatives is difficult. The issues I mentioned above while possibly contributing to the lack of success in LOs are also important in maintaining flexibility in open initiatives. While a clear definition would help in identifying what an OER is it would also limit what is considered to be an OER, so I believe it is important to maintain a broad definition. Collecting all OERs to one location would also be extremely limiting. If everything is kept in one location the potential exists for stagnation of ideas. These are both issues of control and freedom.
One advantage OERs have is the potential for customization and I think this is where the secret to success lies. The ability to take a resource and change it to suit your needs while keeping the original intact is a vital step in encouraging the growth of ideas while maintaining a map of where ideas came from.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Like the idea of OERs being distributed about rather than warehoused in one place. Diversity is disappearing fast enough and I think the numbing effect of "everything" seeming to be on the internet fools people into thinking there are great quantities of difference out there when sameness is more the rule. (Rules being made by dominant cultures who control the internet by force of numbers if not by economic dominance).
ReplyDeletePeople have been adapting content to context for a long time. City based curriculums have always been reinterpreted by instructors in the smaller centers to fit their students experiences and understandings. It’s an illusion that there’s some sort of mega-relevant, all-inclusive perfect presentation anyway.
The thing that worries me about open courses is they run against the trend of "teaching to the test" that so many districts, at least in the US, are forced to do. What happens to people who's instructors alter content to be relevant to the students but it's not "relevant" to the tests? I've been through the transferable skills - prior learning exercises and it's all just nice talk. You get credit for credits and no amount of proof of competency or demonstrated conceptual understanding can overcome that rule. Of course, this could be the opportunity to put education back in school and stop worshiping sameness.
Scott
Thanks Scott,
ReplyDeleteI recently just ran into a course where I was forced to teach to the test so I have been thinking about that as well. I think this is an especially tricky issue at a Careers College level (which is the level I work at). Many of our programs are required to meet specific industry standards. The content is beyond our control. Sometimes there is enough time to explore areas not covered on exams but not often.