Mark Bullen

LALCO 2008

Aguascalientes, México

Introduction

Not a learning objects expert Expertise in DE, e-learning Sophisticated user Perspectives of an outsider

Premise

Learning objects emerged from the WWW

Social software and Web 2.0 are also products of the Internet

Neither began with an educational purpose

Both are technologies in search of educational purpose

Premise

Underlying ideology is learner-centered and, in many ways, anti-institutional

Driven by a non-formal view of learning Opposed to the prevailing content,

teacher and institution-centered notions of education

Premise

Need to approach these technologies critically and skeptically

Learning Objects: Beyond Technology More than creating reusable digital

learning resources About creating a truly learner-centered

educational system More than a technological innovation: a

pedagogical innovation

The Reality of Institutional Education An idealistic view of education Two problems:

1) Formal education is credential-driven

2) Depends on widespread development and sharing of objects

Our Educational System

Primarily formal Driven by credentials Learners tend to be instrumental

Development and Sharing Who is developing learning objects? Who is sharing learning objects Who is using learning objects? Examples

UBC: Master of Educational TechnologyUBC: German Reading courseBCIT: Faculty collective agreement

Development & Sharing

• Open access• Opening Up Education – Iiyoshi &

Kumar• The jury is still out on the sustainability

of OEC (C. Mackie)– Faculty lose revenue, career rewards– Content requires refinement– Copyright clearance– No tangible benefit to creator or creator’s

institution

Learning Objects: Beyond Technology A technology in search of educational

purpose Pedagogical innovation ignores reality Significant barriers to a learning objects

pedagogy

A Functionalist Approach to Learning Objects Technical benefits of sharing can be

harnessed without subscribing to the new pedagogy

Reusability can be applied on an institutional or program level

Trades and vocational training In other words we can have the technical

innovation without the pedagogical innovation

Global sharing, OEC approach is unrealistic

Web 2.0: From Transmission to Participation From learning objects to Web 2.0 Similar story Learning objects about exploiting the

distributive capability of the Internet Web 2.0 about exploiting the networking

and collaborative capabilitie

Web 2.0: From Transmission to Participation User-generated content The power (or wisdom) of the crowd Data on an epic scale Architecture of participation Network effects Openness

Web 2.0: From Transmission to Participation Web 2.0 not educational Collaborative, social and networked

nature attract educators Wikis, blogs, RSS, social networking

sites allow for easy generation and sharing of content

But too often technology is driving the pedagogy

Web 2.0: From Transmission to Participation Need to separate experimentation from

sound instructional planning Web 2.0 favors collaboration but there

are times when transmission is necessary

Wisdom of the crowd is given equal status to wisdom of the wise

Web 2.0: From Transmission to Participation Disintermediation of information is seen

as a victory for the individual

The Net Generation Myth

Web 2.0 use in education driven by net generation hype

Research-based evidence is lacking In fact research tends to show the

opposite: that current generation is not technologically savvy

Conclusion

Pedagogy before technology Educational change must be driven by

need Need must be clearly identified Change should not be driven by the

technology