Talk:Learning object

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poor article[edit]

As at August 20, 2006, this is a shockingly poor article and I am puzzled as to why as it seems a number of capable people have worked on it.

As of October 22, 2007, this is still a shockingly poor article. Many of the sentences are meaningless. Futurepower(R) 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major problems - there is no explanation of the motivation for learning objects - there is no documentation of the history of the concept or its relation to OO programming - there is no explanation of specifications and standards for learning objects - one may not like SCORM but it should be covered, as should AICC for that matter - there is no discussion of actual use of learning objects (as opposed to the stale repository approach) and of the kinds of problems that occur - the relation of learning object approaches to mash ups and other related Web 2.0 approaches would be useful, though not really necessary - given the current environment, i.e. the Blackboard patent, a review of patents and learning objects would also be valuable

I wonder if this article has been edited so often it has lost coherence and if a new attempt should be made? [[steven 01:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

I think this should have stayed at Learning Object. Why was the capital L removed? Angela

'Learning Object' would be a proper noun. The subject of this article is not a proper noun. --mav 08:47, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I was getting confused with something else. Google seems to show it being used with the capitals mostly but that might not be what this article is talking about. I unprotected the page too. I assume it was done by accident. It might even have been me I suppose. Angela 13:33, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

I changed UK LOM to UK LOM Core, since that is the name of the beast, see the thread 'a new name ... for the UKCMF' on CETIS Metadata SIG mailling list. The LOM and profiles of the LOM probably deserve an entry for themselves. (--Philbarker 10:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC))

I changed the element types for the UK LOM Core, as per the most recent draft [1]. N.Fegen 09:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what is here is about LOM or LO repositories, and could perhaps be better moved elsewhere so the LO page is just about LOs. N.Fegen 11:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of April 25, 2008, this remains a horribly poor article. And people are noticing. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical context[edit]

This entry would be far more useful if it presented the context in which this concept emerged. In particular the work of Wiley and others, and also the general theoretical position from which this emerged. As it stands it reads like an advert by a vendor for why you need to buy a SCORM-compliant system!

The LO concept emerges from the instructional model of education, in particular intelligent tutoring (replacing teachers and learning conversations with packaged content) which itself emerges from the work of Pask, but also generally the 80's AI evangelism.

Today, while LOs are a common concept in elearning, there is also a critique, which also includes many of the original creators of the concept (e.g. David Wiley, again).

I think the diagram midway through this article is also useful, in both positive and negative ways (it explains a viewpoint on LOs, and also surfaces some very mechanistic assumptions about human development): http://www.learningspaces.org/n/papers/objections.html

There is also the relationship between re-use of chunked predesigned content in the LO space, and the dynamic remixing and repurposing of user-created content in the web 2.0 space.

Without this kind of information I don't think this article really offers much value. Not that I'm offering to do more than provide these pointers for now!

Scott Wilson

Virtual Manipulatives Is this a synonym for a learning object? Do learning objects need to be interactive? This term should at least be referenced. See http://www.freewebs.com/schoolgamemaker/#manipulatives for examples. (I have refrained from editing the main page) Tony Forster

Well... it depends on what definition you prefer (since they are rather different), for instance IEEE LTSC defines a LO as "Any entity, digital or non-digital" while CETL and many people think of them as "Web-based interactive chunks".

Since web-based interactive chunks are one kind of digital resources, I think the first definition is wider and should be preferred in order to distinguishing between content and supporting technology. Rjgodoy (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know what happened to EduSource ? It appears the project has been abandoned since February of 2004...

Ericblazek 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

This article is poorly written. ~~

---

butt, uhave to know al these things are myths, without an y logic, so be care full, u hve to , chngafer ok bye main chalti hoon..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.47.96 (talk)

Undo removed blog ref[edit]

I'm not sure whether the blog reference meets WP:N but removing the reference only is not acceptable per WP:V. Both the reference and the quotation should be either removed or kept. I choose the less disruptive option. If the blog author is an expert in LOs, there should be more reliable sources other than blog (e.g. papers or books); if he is not, then not only the reference but also the definition is not notable and it should not be listed at all.

Rjgodoy (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

> If the blog author is an expert in LOs, there should be more reliable sources other than blog (e.g. papers or books);

Sorry, this is just not true, and especially not true in the domain of learning technology. My own work, for example, is located almost exclusively on my website - although I am widely acknowledged as an expert on Learning Objects I rarely publish in journals and I don't publish books. The editors of Wikipedia need to get over this idea that the only authoritative references are publications. It's just not true, and the Encyclopedia is ruining itself with pointless criticisms.

My website FYI is www.downes.ca and you can verify for yourself whether or not it is considered authoritative. Stephen Downes

That is why I didn't delete the definition. Instead, I restored the citation (which had been removed, leaving the definition unsourced). [2]

Furthermore, it represents a concept which is assumed by several people, and is quite different from other definitions (LOM, Wiley, CETL) which were stated in the article, thus it is a valuable contribution to the article's coverage.

However, I think that such a radical point of view should have been published somewhere else (because if the author had published an article, he would have to clarify what he understands as "Learning Object" as it differs from other well-known definitions). In that case, the same definition from the same author could be attributed to an article-or-whatever, which is more reliable than a blog (of course, there are exceptions with blogs, but I feel the article reference is preferable).

Note I didn't say "authoritative" but "reliable". Several people criticize Wikipedia because "anyone can edit it". Those critics could be rendered senseless by providing clear and reliable references to authoritative sources.

Regards,

Rjgodoy (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision[edit]

OK, I've spent quite some time on this article, to try to get it into shape. I think I've gone about as far as I can without doing further research. I am very much not an expert in this field. Further revisions, expansion, and sourcing is more than welcome--and is in fact very much needed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

references[edit]

external ref: - 1.^ a b Beck, Robert J., "What Are Learning Objects?", Learning Objects, Center for International Education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CIE/AOP/LO_what.html, retrieved on 2008-04-29

results in forbidden no access permission on this server

82.16.45.239 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Paul C[reply]

Criticism[edit]

I've added a section for criticisms, and started it with a reference to Dave Wiley's early paper The Reusability Paradox. Those in the field should by-now be well aware of the numerous criticisms of Learning Objects, both as a theory and in the various implementations to date. I'd like to add more references to the section - such as the links Learning Object development has had to Learning Management Systems, and the array of criticism that approach attracts in the education sector, but I'm short on time at the moment so I'm hoping others will. Many early leaders in the fieldof Learning Objects, Brian Lamb at the University of British Columbia, and D'Arcy Norman at the University of Calgary, have also since criticised the ideas behind Learning Objects, opting out of the "movement" and concentrating on the engagement and use of social media and Open Educational Resources instead. Regards Leighblackall (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Learning object. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]