You are here:

Learning Pod: A New Paradigm for Reusability of Learning Objects
ARTICLE

, , Southern Illinois University, United States

IJELLO Volume 4, Number 1, ISSN 1552-2237 Publisher: Informing Science Institute

Full Text

Abstract

Learning objects have long promised dramatic savings of time and money in course and curriculum development, but they have failed to deliver the return on investment that seems a natural extension of their existence - reusability. Because a single hour of online instruction can take up to 300 hours to develop, reusability is the core value message offered by learning object promoters, from the earliest days to the present. Yet, after 12 years of successive evolution, learning objects are still primarily a collection of stand-alone modules that rarely interconnect outside of strictly controlled regimes, such as those imposed by corporate and military training guidelines. Among the contributing factors to this impediment are definition of a learning object, size of a learning object and aesthetics of a learning object. In response to this shortcoming, we propose to introduce a new entity - the learning pod. Engineered for reusability, the learning pod incorporates several modules that bring current technology to create an experientially seamless interconnection between disparate learning objects. These modules communicate with one another to build a consistent unit of instruction that uses several learning objects depending on the requirements. Several technologies including semantic web, XSL/XML and CSS are utilized to achieve presentation cohesiveness.

Citation

Mogharreban, N. & Guggenheim, D. (2008). Learning Pod: A New Paradigm for Reusability of Learning Objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 4(1), 303-315. Informing Science Institute. Retrieved April 13, 2021 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. ADL. (2006). SCORM 2004 (3rd edition). Retrieved August 30, 2007, from http://www.adlnet.gov/scorm/index. Aspx
  2. Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
  3. Brusilovsky, P., & Peylo, C. (2003). Adaptive and intelligent web-based educational systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 13, 156-169. Retrieved September 11, 2007 from http://aied.inf.ed.ac.uk/ Brusilovsky, P., & Vassileva, J. (2003). Course sequencing techniques for large-scale web-based education. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 13(1/2).
  4. Churchill, D. (2005). Learning object: An interactive representation and a mediating tool in a learning activity. Educational Media International, 42(4), 333–349.
  5. Churchill, D. (2007). Towards a useful classification of learning objects. Education Tech Research Devel-opment, 55,479–497.
  6. Cisco Systems. (1999). Reusable information object strategy: Definition, creation overview, and guidelines. San Jose, CA: Cisco Systems, Inc.
  7. Cisco Systems. (2001). Reusable learning object strategy: Designing information and learning objects through concept, fact, procedure, process, and principle template. San Jose, CA: Cisco Systems, Inc.
  8. Cochrane, T. (2005). Interactive quicktime: Developing and evaluating multimedia learning objects to enhance both face-to-face and distance e-learning environments. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1(1), 33–54. Retrieved from http://ijello.org/Volume1/v1p033-054Cochrane.pdfDownes,S.(2003).Designandreusabilityoflearningobjectsinanacademiccontext:Aneweconomyofeducation?USDLAJournal:ARefereedJournaloftheUnitedStatesDistanceLearningAssociation,17(1).RetrievedSeptember11,2007fromhttp://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JAN03_Issue/article01.html
  9. Du Plessis, J. (2005). Learning objects: Using language structures to understand the transition from affordance systems to intelligent systems. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1(1), 55–67. Retrieved from http://ijello.org/Volume1/v1p055-066duPLessis.pdf
  10. García, P., Amandi, A., Schiaffino, S., & Campo, M. (2007). Evaluating Bayesian networks’ precision for detecting students’ learning styles. Computers& Education, 49, 794–808.
  11. García-Valdez, M., Licea, G., Castillo, O., & Alanis, A. (2007). Simple sequencing and selection of learning objects using fuzzy inference. Proceedings of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society, NAF IPS ’ 07 Annual Meeting, 628-632.
  12. Griffiths, J., Stubbs, G., & Watkins, M. (2007). From course notes to granules: A guide to deriving Learning Object components. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2696–2720.
  13. Hodgins, H.W. (2000). The future of learning objects. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects: Online version. Retrieved August 21, 2007, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/hodgins.docHodgins,W.,&Conner,M.(2000,Fall).Everythingyoueverwantedtoknowaboutlearningstandardsbutwereafraidtoask.LearningintheNewEconomye-Magazine(LiNEZine.RetrievedSeptember11,2007,fromhttp://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/wheyewtkls.htm
  14. IEEE. (2001). WG12: Learning object metadata. Retrieved September 4, 2007, from http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/ Reusability and Learning Objects
  15. Kapp, K.M. (2003). How long does it take? Estimation methods for developing e-learning. ASTD Learning Circuits. Retrieved November 6, 2007 from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/jul2003/kapp.htm
  16. Kaur, A., Dunning, J., Bhattacharya, S., & Ahmed, A. (2005). Re-purposeable learning objects based on teaching and learning styles. Encyclopedia of multimedia and technology. London, Melbourne, New York: Idea Group Publishing. 882-887. Retrieved October 20, 2007 from www.indiana.edu/~geosci/peopl e/ fa culty/dunning/pdf/en cyc.pd f
  17. Liber, O. (2005). Learning objects: Conditions for viability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 366-373.
  18. Liu, J., Huang, B., & Chao, M. (2005). The design of learning object authoring tool based on SCORM. Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. Retrieved August 30, 2007 from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/ 10084/32317/01508815.pdf? arnumbe r=1508815
  19. McGreal, R. (2004). Learning objects: a practical definition. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(9), 21–32.
  20. Mejias, U.A., & Shoemaker, D. (2005). Learning molecules model. Learning Circuits, May 2005. Virginia: American Society for Training& Development. Retrieved November 6, 2007 from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2005/may2005/shoemaker.htm
  21. Merrill, M.D. (1999). Instructional transaction theory (ITT): Instructional design based on knowledge objects. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 397-424).
  22. Merrill, M.D. (2000). Knowledge objects and mental models. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects. Retrieved August 21, 2007 from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/me Rrill. Doc
  23. Polsani, P.R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital Information, 3(4), Article No. 164. Retrieved August 21, 2007, from http://jodi.tamu.edu/Articles/v03/i04/Polsani/ Rehak, D. , & Mason, R. (2003). Keeping the learning in learning objects. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing online resources: A sustainable approach to elearning. London: Kogan Page.
  24. Reigeluth, C.M., & Stein, F.S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  25. Santally, M.I., & Senteni, A. (2005). A learning object approach to personalized web-based instruction. European Journal of Distance Learning (EuroDL). Retrieved October 20, 2007 from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2005/Santally.htm
  26. Wiley, D.A. (1999). The post-LEGO learning object. Retrieved September 6, 2007, from http://wiley.byu.edu/post-lego/post-lego. Pdf
  27. Wiley, D.A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects. Retrieved August 21, 2007, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley. Doc
  28. Wiley, D., & Edwards, E. (2002). Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/ososs. Pdf
  29. Wolf, C. (2002). IW eaver: Towards an interactive web-based adaptive learning environment to address individual learning styles. European Journal of Distance Learning (EuroDL). Retrieved October 10, 2007 from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2002/2HT ML/iW eaver

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Links