eLearning Rebel

Well I finally went out and purchased an iPod. I purchased a 16 Gb Nano. It is such an elegant device and a powerful learning tool. Ok, I know it’s not much different then books on tape or CD but what makes the device so amazing is the ability to go into iTunes and download information on demand from institutions like Harvard Business School, MIT, Princeton and Stanford. I was amazed and pleased to find that these institutions were posting audio lectures for free. There’s nothing better then free.

Go into iTunes and then click on Podcasts. Go to the Education section. Scroll down and look on the left hand side and there’s the treasure, Higher Education. And then look there’s are also language lessons … for free. How great is that?

I have become addicted to talks on innovation and design. My first podcast was a 1 hour talk presented by Tom Kelley of Ideo. Ideo is a company that innovates. They are designers and inventors. How cool is that. So on my 90 minute commute to work I can not listen and learn from lectures given at the most prestigous Universities in the U.S. and maybe the world.

That’s the big idea. It’s not that I am listening to audio recorded lectures. That’s old news. It’s that I can download hours and hours of lectures that only a few years ago simply would not be available to the general public. If knowledge is power then power is now made available to anyone with an iPod. Thank you Steve Jobs and thank you to the Universities willing to take the time to record these wonderful treasures of knowledge.

Now for the question. Is listening to a lecture going to improve my skills? Well probably not but they do get the mind thinking and that can lead to learning. I listened to several pod-casts on innovation. When I got to the office I jotted down some ideas from the talks on my white board. I plan to turn them into action items and do further research. Get the picture. The podcast is a catalyst for learning much like a good article would be.

So how can we use Pod-casting to support learning in our companies. I would simply encourage people to explore and listen to whatever they feel like. This type of exploring is what leads to learning.

The area in Computer Sciences of relevance in this discussion is that of Object Oriented Programming (OOP) methodologies. This is a very extensive topic. The first programming language to adopt this technology goes back to the mid 1960s. Some current programming languages that use OOP are C++, Java and most recently Version 3.0 of Flash Action Script. My explanation of what an object is, in the strange world of computer programming is a representation of a physical object in software form. For example if you want to create a software version of a light switch, you would first identify the attributes of a light switch. What are the different types of light switches, (two way, three way, dimmer ..)? What can light switches do or rather how do they function? Once you know all of these attributes and functionalities you can then sit down and right this into programming or code. The code is referred to as a Class. The class in this case would be the Light Switch Class. A light switch has attributes such as color, type, and amp rating. Those attributes can be converted into variables in code format. Switches have one simple function which is to change state, open or closed.

OK, that was pretty simple and it’s fine if you want to teach someone how to turn a light switch on and off. Dr. David Merrill in his classic presentations on his Component Display Theory he used a switch object and a light bulb object to show this principle. However in order to learn how light switches work with light bulbs you need another Class Object that is not a tangible object. It could be called the Electric Circuits Class which could have the definitions of what happens when a switch object is closed and connected to a light in a circuit.

Now let’s take this concept one step further. Take a look at this office scene. The objects in this scene are somewhat obvious. There’s a person, a desk, a computer, a printer. Each object has it’s own attributes. Each object can do something. You the user or learner can do something with the objects, (e.g., turn on the computer, talk to the person). However if we programmed these objects to function in this simulated environment we still do not have a Learning Application. We need a learning object that is virtual. We need an Instructional Strategy object that monitors the objects in the environment and monitors your actions as a learner. In programming language this is referred to a Listener object.

What if we created a software object called a “Learning Challenge Class”. There would be different types of learning challenges. And here’s the key …. classes are reusable. If you embed research in cognitive sciences into your Learning Challenge Class non-cognitive scientists could reuse the objects over and over again to create learning applications that actually engage learners in activities that promote long term memory learning.

Library Sciences + Information Sciences = Content Management

Many articles that refer to reusable learning objects normally refer to courses, lessons or pages with textual content and media assets. Media assets are reusable. Small pieces of content are also reusable. However, management of content and media assets leads to a discussion of “Content Management Systems” or “Information Systems” in the field of Library Sciences.

For example a lesson on particular topic may be considered a reusable learning object. However, a lesson with contextual content is a Shareable Content Object but not a Reusable Learning Object.

Let’s look at an example. Ben & Jerry teaches everyone how they make ice cream. I love this online tutorial. The navigation is very simple and creative. The entire piece of content was built in Flash. It’s simple and fun. However, a piece of content like this is not reusable. It is highly contextual.

So here’s the question. Can this content be reused in a different context or to support a different instructional strategy? Maybe, but with limited flexibility. Maybe if the content could be edited.

Cognitive Sciences + Computer Sciences + Library Science = Reusable Learning Objects
If we are looking to design and develop objects that support learning we need to merge “Cognitive Science” with “Computer Science” and “Library Sciences”. If we take out “Cognitive Science” out of the equation we will end up with a library of “Content Objects” but not “Learning Objects”.What benefits should we expect from Reusable Learning Objects?

• Reduce rework by allowing for re-use of designs in multiple contexts
• Reduce the need for expertise (FTEs) in programming and cognitive science by allowing a small team to design and develop reusable learning objects that all developers and instructional designers can use. A simple analogy are website development templates. With these templates and easy to use tools, a non-programmer can quickly create a very professional looking website.

What do we mean when we refer to Cognitive Sciences? It is .. “the study of intelligence and intelligent systems, with particular reference to intelligent behaviour as computation” (Simon & Kaplan, 1989) Simon, H. A. & C. A. Kaplan, “Foundations of cognitive science”, in Posner, M.I. (ed.) 1989, Foundations of Cognitive Science, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

…. to be continued

There is a never ending argument about what Reusable Learning Objects (RLOs) are. In my opinion the folks at ADL have helped out the discussion by referring to objects in SCORM as Shareable Content Objects (SCOs). Notice that the folks at ADL referred to objects in their system as Content objects as opposed to Learning objects.

The definition of a SCO from the ADL site suggests that the size of a SCO is not important, nor is it important what is inside the SCO to make it a SCO. Basically the SCO model was built off of the (book, chapter, page, quiz) metaphor and as a result most elearning courses are based on this page turning design model.

Now of course it’s not fair to blame ADL for all the poor elearning design out there. The primary reason for poor elearning design is the fact that people jump in and post content with no thought to learning sciences. As a result we have a great deal of content out there, little of which is shareable and even less that applies learning principles.

Which brings us to the term, Reusable Learning Object. Let’s break down the phrase one word at a time. In this entry I will start by defining objects.

Object
Objects normally have either a hierarchy (like a description of the animal kingdom) or are an assembly of parts (like a motor).

So lets first look at an example of an animal, the cuddly Panda Bear. Pandas are animals. They belong to the animal kingdom and share attributes of all other animals.

Animals::
All members of the animal kingdom are multicellular (made up of many cells) and are heterotrophic (get their nourishment by eating other organisms). All animals require oxygen for their metabolism.

However Pandas are also part of the class of animals known as Mammals. Mammals have attributes that other types of animals do not have.

Mammals (Class):
All mammals have hair, are able to regulate their body temperature, and females can produce milk.

Finally, Pandas are a special type of mammal. They are bears which is a sub-class of mammal and all bears have unique attributes that all other mammals do not have.

Ursidae (Bears) (Sub-Class)
Members of the bear family have five toes on each foot and some can walk upright for short distances. Bears are intelligent animals with a great sense of smell.

Ok so all you computer programmers out there should be getting this by now. In object oriented programming we use Packages, Classes and Sub-Classes to develop programming Objects. And guess what, …. programming Objects are Reusable.

to be continued …