Learning Objects: definitions and characteristics
Learning Objects
For and against LOs
Reusability is one of the key concepts of an LO.
Can this promise be fullfilled?
COMPATABILITY, ADAPTABILITY AND SELF-CONSISTENCY
P
|
Didactic material which is specifically prepared for use in many contexts can be reused with small changes much more easily than material developed for specific contexts. |
The context and the meaning of a learning object are inter-linked. Reusability is often limited (even for relatively simple objects) due to the need to change or personalise them, and this can be difficult when the object is removed from its context |
C
|
INTEROPERABILITY AND FLEXIBILITY
P
|
The independence from operating systems and from LMSs facilitates the sharing of chunks of teaching material in an unlimited way. |
The large number of models, which are also very different from one another, inhibit the real portability of digital, didactic material. |
C
|
ACCESSIBILITY
P
|
The large number of models, which may be very different one from another, inhibit the real portability of digital, didactic material. |
Difficulty in editing/ interpreting the metadata because there isn't a standard for shared meaning. Different people use different terms to describe the same documents even if they have to choose from a controlled vocabulary. |
C
|
Is effective teaching possible with LOs?
<><>
C
O
N
T
R
A
P
|
The idea of an LO allows the content to be adapted to a learning style that is more suited to the student:
|
Learning with technology is lacking when compared to the emotionally richer methods typically used in traditional teaching methods. Today most LOs are developed following a self-learning model with a pedagogical approach centred on transmitting knowledge, while current pedagogical research focuses on the building of 'social knowledge' |