7 thoughts on “Learning Objects: RIP or 1.0?”

  1. Daly Update — December 10, 2006

    Here’s our take on news that matters for Monday, January 9. Today’s theme is discovery and here are a some links to headlines about technology that is changing the way we live and learn.

    Gaming –According to a Forrester report, video games marke…

  2. Learning Objects: Rip

    David Wiley just wrote an excellent post about the “death” of learning objects. He’s right on the mark, emphasizing the learning part of the buzzword, while us geeks who were attempting to implement some of the early LO-based software got…

  3. Hm, I would rather say LO’s are 100% dead. If there ever was something like Learning Objects 1.0 then it was more of a “Vaporware” which promised to deliver but never did. If someone wants to bring up the 2.0 of LO’s, well I wish him all the best.

    The concept of LO is by nature a concept with a huge defect in understanding. Just replace “Object” with “Thing” and you will easily recognize that a “Learning Thing” is all and nothing at the same time. I would say it is clearly nothing, because in science you have to be specific otherwise things get complicated! If you cannot name it you cannot criticize it (that’s perhaps why this zombie never was successfully killed until now). LO’s contributed nothing but a huge cloud of dangerous and expensive fog to the E-Learning community.

    All technically challenged persons loved it because they saw “Object” and just thought, well how cool, I am thinking in “objects” already this must be an easy going. LO’s were a huge disservice to the E-Learning from my point of view. It’s all about humans and their social processes stupid. It is not about “canning some learning” for later reuse. You just cannot store learning like an instant meal. It is a complex process (which is by definition a product which unfolds over time) which cannot be put in a can.

    LO’s are a dead end, though a very fascinating one. It’s like a siren bogging your ears, eyes and mind which was very successful, capturing the attention of technical geeks out there. The definition of LO’s is from my point of view one of the worst definitions I have ever seen.

    A mathematician would get so upset with this definition he would rather jump out of the window then beeing forced to work with it.

    just my 2 provocative cents.

  4. Right on Helge!
    I remember back a couple of years ago, when I was fooling around with Flash for educational resource development. I was just a young chum, amazed by all the money flying around for this line of work, bewildered by what the big guns were conferencing about. They talked about sharable learning objects, I pretended to understand, I wasted hours and hours reading papers, listening to talks, trying to understand.. I felt stupid for just not quite getting it. But I took the ideas and applied them as best I could to what I was doing – which was struggling to keep up with developments in Flash and action script! 🙁

    Then I came to realise that if I couldn’t get it – someone who was just a little more knowledgable than the average teacher out there, then what was the realistic chance of this object theory getting any real traction? Then I started looking for others questioning the mainstream, and found sanity at last! The emporer was indeed wearing no clothes!

    Around about the same time as I realised this, I was discovering free and open source software. Amazed at the free alternatives to the 3 million dollar LMSes we were using, I started asking more questions.. the emporer was paying a lot of public money on these no clothes!

    Then I discovered blogging et al. The rest was smooth sailing from then on. Teachers are taking to blogging more than we could have ever dreamed of with LMSes, and Flash, etc.

    Thank god we have finally gotten past that dot com era in education. Now we can return to what the Internet has always been about.. open, free sharing of what eva!

  5. I’m not sure the concept of “learning objects” are a dead end, as much as a forced nighttime march through an unmarked minefield. It’s really easy to take a wrong step.

    We’ve seen many groups gather ’round the Learning Object watering hole, spouting rhetoric in order to secure a portion of a funding pie.

    Even if the concept is reduced to a set of content production guidelines, it’s still useful – perhaps moreso in than limited manner, without the danger of Reusability At All Costs, and Metadata Is King ruling their ugly heads…

    I think I just won some kind of lamest-blog-comment-ever award, with all of the mixed incomplete metaphors in this one 🙂

Comments are closed.