I'm passing along this brief and well-written critique of the LO movement from Susan Nash: "Faculty and instructional designers encounter problems when they try to adapt learning objects for delivery in their general education college-level distance courses that are intended for a military audience. One result is disappointment and frustration in those who believed in the promise of learning objects to save time, provide robust solutions with depth, high quality, and perfect interchangeabilityFaculty and instructional designers encounter problems when they try to adapt learning objects for delivery in their general education college-level distance courses that are intended for a military audience. One result is disappointment and frustration in those who believed in the promise of learning objects to save time, provide robust solutions with depth, high quality, and perfect interchangeability."
I share many of the concerns expressed by the author; however having acknowledged the criticisms, I need to also state that I'd rather have the choice of finding and using LOs than not have that choice. Some of the time, for some learning situations, an LO can be located that is exactly right, one that can be readily adapted to complete a learning module. LOs can also be used independently by students to supplement materials in their texts and courses. ____JH (First noticed in D'Arcy Norman's weblog.)
_______
XplanaZine: The Problem with Learning Objects. Susan Smith Nash raises some very good points about learning objects - what are they? why would anyone care? how would someone reuse them? CAREO is mentioned specifically, and the concerns with it are entirely valid. It should be noted that CAREO and its ilk are from the first generation of learning object repositories - a [...] [D'Arcy Norman Dot Net]
1:28:34 PM 
|
|
