This is a very nice paper capturing most of the traditional debate surrounding learning objects (and taking a fairly traditional line, arguing that only something that"combines its digital element and an exposition" can be a learning object). There is some insightful stuff here, too, foreshadowed with the discussion of an object's "form" and "relations" and instantiated with a lucid outline of Wittgenstein's concept of the "language game." Consider this: "According to Wittgenstein, the meaning of a word in a language is neither inherent to it nor is it derived from an object it stands for. Instead, the word becomes meaningful in its rule-governed use in a language." Quite right. The author then takes the next step, one I have been urging in my writings: "The LO should be thought of as a word or preposition, and the usages of LOs as language-games. Like a word, a LO is abstract, but can be understood and shared among users. Similarly, as individual words cannot independently produce meaning, the LOs - self-standing and self-referential - in themselves are insufficient to generate significant instruction." So far so good, but now I disagree with what follows: "Creating LOs that conform to the conceptual definition advanced here requires that the structure of the LO reflect the two basic foundational principles, learning intent and reusability." Well, no. We just got done saying that a learning object cannot contain a learning intent, that this intent is derived solely from its relation with other objects in a context of learning. We cannot now require that the intent be contained within the object. Hm? Anyhow, do read this paper; it's a nice read by an author who knows what he's doing.
Today: 0 Total: 13 [Direct link] [Share]
