What I found interesting in the early chapters of Weller (2020) was the idea of Learning Objects (LO). This concept of modular components that can be mix and matched to develop courses efficiently is attractive especially in my experience with transfer credit evaluations. For example, we may assess a first-year statistics course to be equivalent across institutions A, B, and C. However, a similar introductory statistics course offered at institutions D and E are assessed to be not eligible for transfer credits. Many questions arise regarding the differences in learning outcomes, expectations, quality, and curriculum. If the fundamental concepts of statistics are the same globally, why are the courses not equivalent? Additionally, would the application of LO level the playing field in terms of the quality of education across institutions? After that, would the rankings and accreditation of schools be influenced more by the quality of educators compared to the quality of the content?
As Weller (2020) described, learning and educational content should be a flavourful interaction between educator and learners. The material should spark dialogue, discussion and reflection. I believe that gaining knowledge is more than just absorbing and knowing, but also the application and experience that comes with it. This leads directly to Weller’s notion that education is messy (2020). Each educator will bring unique flavour to the course such as personal experience, alternative ideas, and context. This adds value to a course which expands the learner experience beyond the initial purpose and design of the LO. It may also be meaningful to compare the learning experiences offered by educators who were trained to teach compared to lecturers who are experts in their field but have not been formally trained to teach.
References
Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.
I appreciate Weller’s observation in Chapter 7 that although learning objects (LOs) were not widely adopted in these early years, elements of them do carry forward. I worked with a curriculum company just a few years ago that structured its courses using LOs, and I do see the benefits of being able to re-use and restructure content easily. I also see the challenges that Weller cited, and I couldn’t agree more about the “messy” factor in education, but often that presents opportunities for innovation and creativity.
Maybe a combination of LOs and unique “sinew” or “connective tissue” material could be woven together to create a course. I am working on a project that sort of implements these ideas right now as I am “renovating” an existing online course, retaining some discrete chunks of material but also building in some narrative threads and new material. I will say that in my experience, instructors need to own and personalize online course material, so a course made out of only prefabricated LOs does not seem to suffice. I guess that the bottom-line may be that a course does not consist solely of the sum of its content parts. As you describe so beautifully, it is also the, “flavorful interaction between educator and learners.”
I am sure your experience with “renovating” an existing online course has been interesting and a great learning opportunity! When I was working with an OPM, the course development team had scheduled revision dates for each of the courses offered. This gave them an opportunity to apply revisions on an ongoing basis, and allow the lead instructor to review and update the course as needed. I think this demonstrates how important it is for instructors to actively participate in the course development process. One challenge that comes to mind is the use of adjunct or contract faculty who would not be included in the revision process and how their teaching experience could differ from the lead instructor’s.
To me LOs are one of those concepts that sounds great in theory, but can be challenging in execution. I think LOs are very dependent on controlling the scope of use and allowing for that educational messiness to seep in to benefit the learning experience. Additionally the current reward system/objectives of many education institutions don’t necessarily align with widespread LOs. Institutions (in most cases) want to keep their competitive edge and sharing beyond their organization is perceived as a threat to their well being. Add on the difficulty of getting a large group to all agree on a LOs correctness and it’s a tough prospect when applied to a larger scale.
I agree! There is so much that contributes to institutional prestige and brand-building. More than the course content, I think a large component of the learner experience and institutional reputation also depends on the faculty. To my knowledge, large institutions are often able to provide more funding for faculty research. This, in turn, attracts researchers who are experts in their field and bring this knowledge and experience to their lectures. Each of these experts will likely bring their own interpretations of the learning concepts, which will keep LOs in the backseat (if on the vehicle at all).
To add t Zac’s point… i think that a huge issue with Learning Objects, is a sense of ownership. I think that educators are so very proud of the content that they put together, and design it in a specific way because in their opinion, the message and method may be superior. With Learning Objects I couldn’t help but think “who gets the final say?” Maybe this would require the creation of a tribunal, or a review committee…
They also require a large amount of sharing, which Weller elaborated on is often hard with educational content.
Thanks for writing on this! The concept of LOs were different to me, coming from a private industry where all that we teach/learn on is proprietary.
Paula.
As an educator, the concept of learning objects is directly applicable to where I find myself now. I am rebooting my courses and I wondered how open sharing would work in my field. In Television and film, copyright is everything. Would my colleagues or the production industry be able to differentiate between sharing ideas or creating a pool of tools and and holding copyright laws close to the chest?
In my industry, a high price is paid for law firms to protect copyright assets. We pay to use any resource that is not cleared. If music or a news reel or film is in the public domain that’s awesome, if it is not, often we cannot use it. While there is some flexibility with copyright laws in an educational setting, there are usually limits to what you can use or how much you can use. An example would be shooting a concert and being restricted to shooting the first 60s of the first three songs. But what happens if the great shots are further in? We cannot shoot them and the viewer loses out.
The majority of LOs we use are locked down; words on a page, music, editing software, scripting, storyboarding, images, sound fx, hard ware, set designs, animation, special fx, visual fx and so on down the line. We do have access to some items however, there is usually a time limit or only certain areas are open for use.
It would be interesting to pursue LOs in filmmaking and broadcast. I believe we are doing the same thing from house to house; creating content that is informative and entertaining. Is there a way we could share behind the scenes designs and methods to cut back on wasting time or save money, make workflows more efficient, staying under budget. Is any of this possible when Profs don’t even like to share course plans or project designs. I look forward to raising this issue with my colleagues at Fanshawe. I’m curious what the response would be.
Thanks for your interesting comment from the filmmaking and broadcast perspective. The statement that stands out the most to me is “…cannot shoot them and the viewer loses out.” This really highlights the balancing act that exists between what the consumer (learners or viewers) should receive, what the providers (educators or filmmakers) are able to create and share, and the quality and value of the product which links the consumer and the provider (course or film). I would be interested to hear how your discussion at Fanshawe goes!