Structuring a Learning Object-Based E-Learning Course (Pt 9)
It’s now time to operationalize the Reusable Learning Object (sometimes called a Shareable Content Object) -based approach I’ve been discussing over the last few weeks. Based upon the the instructional model discussed in previous posts, I recommend designing a course to the following parameters (see Figure 1):
- Section: a sequence of 7±2 Lessons related by core Learning Objectives
- Lesson: a sequence of 7±2 Learning Objects
- (Reusable) Learning Object (LO): a learning objective comprising a series of Learning Points; unit of assessment that measures the objective.
- Learning Point/Reusable Information Object: a unit of instruction that teaches a key element of a learning object.
- Knowledge Object (KO): a discrete piece of instruction or information represented textually, graphically, aurally, visually, by using animation. Combines with other KOs to create a Learning Point.
Figure 1. Course Structure
[click to enlarge]
Within the course, lessons are aggregated to the following order of granularity in the lesson structure (see Figure 2):
- Each Lesson has 7±2 Learning Objects
- Each LO has 7±2 Learning Points (aka RIOs)
- Each LP contains a number of relevant Knowledge Objects
- KOs/LPs are developed using appropriate media types
Figure 2. Lesson Structure
[click to enlarge]
Next Time: Modifying content created for different delivery channels for inclusion in an open e-learning environment
–
January 28 2010 04:12 pm | e-learning
virginia Yonkers on 30 Jan 2010 at 6:21 pm #
One of the issues that comes up when designing a course such as this has to do with whether a course should be (or has to be) sequential or not. The group I was following for my dissertation, in fact, had this as a major conflict. The stand up trainers assumed that all training would be sequential (students had to complete all the learning objects/lessons of section 1 before continuing on section 2). However, learners had different needs in their learning and the elearning department wanted students to be able to choose which sections or even lessons they wanted to work on depending on their need.
Would you still have the same structure if the course is set up as informal or JIT (just in time) learning? Or can this format fit for that also? If not, how would JIT learning structure look? (this may be different post).
Michael Hanley on 03 Feb 2010 at 4:32 pm #
Hi Virginia,
Sincerest apologies for not getting back to you sooner; I’ve been incredibly busy in work lately and much of my blog-related correspondence has backed up. This is a very interesting topic, and one I’m actually researching with a team at the moment. We’re still in the design phase at the moment, so it’s far too early to tell if the approach we’re taking will prove to be an effective pedagogical strategy. However, I think that I can say at the moment that much depends on the individual learners’ prior knowledge and skills. Can we say that a set of equally-weighted (or clustered) learning objects is more appropriate than a linearly-sequenced trajectory? I don’t know. It’s a great discussion point.
Based upon the understandably limited detail in the remarks in your comment, it seems that the cohort in your dissertation were conflicted because of the mixed messages they were receiving: the classroom-based trainers seemed to have one set of expectations of and for their students, the e-learning department seemed to have another.
Could it be that each educational discipline (that is, ILT & e-learning) was playing to its strengths? My experience is that if the learning pedagogy (not to mention the paths learners have to pursue the learning objectives) is not agreed at the design phase, such misunderstandings can emerge. Does this make sense?
Part of the advantage of the Cisco RIO/RLO approach is that pre-assessment can enable more experienced or knowledgeable learner to move directly to the part of the prescribed sequence relevant to their immediate learning needs, rather than having to take a whole course – which of course takes on an extra urgency in workplace (and particularly) JIT learning.
My view is that this type of structure would more-or-less work for non-formal learning, probably not in “pure” informal contexts. At a very fundamental level, can informal learning actually be as rigidly structured as the RIO/RLO model demands. On the whole, I would say “not.” This is something I will explore further in two or three months, as the results of my current research begin to emerge, so watch this space!
–
virginia Yonkers on 03 Feb 2010 at 6:11 pm #
Your assessment of the problem with the group is spot on. It seems also that my research might in fact have some relevance for the field!
I was thinking though that when I teach, I like to have a certain level of flexibility so I can address gaps in my students’ learning. E-learning, however, is often in capable of that level of flexibility. Looking at the model you have above, I might link the pre assessment piece to the sections rather than the course (i.e. if you don’t have A, then you are sent to section A, if you don’t have B and E, you are sent first to B, then to E or given the choice of going to B or E depending on your time constraint or need in knowing B or E. The post test might look at the aggregate (as the model appears to show) or individual pieces.
I look forward to your future articles.
Definition of an E-Learning Curve 1: Bloom's Taxonomy | E-Learning Curve Blog on 04 Feb 2010 at 7:05 pm #
[...] undertaking some research on a different topic recently (learning objects – click here to find out more), the term ‘e-learning curve’ cropped up with a certain regularity. Those occurrences, [...]