Characteristics of learning-objects

3.2.2.1 Object-ness.

The term ‘object’ is ostensibly borrowed from object-oriented programming, and provides a nice allusion to computer code that is constructed in such a way that it will be possible for other programmers to re-use the code in new programs. Although the initial extra effort may not directly give a return on a programmer's time, being able to build up a library of re-usable code may return significant benefits in the long run, especially if an entire community of programmers made their code available to each other. (Richards, 2002, p.1)

The above quotation helps to explain the principles underpinning the object-oriented paradigm of software engineering (Richards, 2002). Here, software objects within the object-oriented paradigm perform restricted, well defined tasks and, so long as the system-conditions necessary for the object to perform its tasks are maintained – the results of using an object will be predictable. The notion of developing a new system based, in part, on ‘bolted together components’ that have been developed and tested elsewhere is appealing and, as a development paradigm for educational content, appears to offer many advantages— reduce the reinventing the wheel phenomena, resource is

available for use across a range of contexts, well defined functionality. Emphasis is on reuse of objects/materials but experiences on the ground seem significantly different from the conceptualised development model. For example, Wiley (2003, p. 75), has observed that “there is no reason to expect that educational objects will ever be widely reused, when empirical research has demonstrated that OOP objects (the model on which learning objects are supposedly built) are infrequently if ever reused”. He says that the programming resources that are frequently re-used, libraries (that contain very small, algorithmic functions), may have implications for thinking about learning-objects:

This suggests that research in learning objects should follow a very different path. If we are to follow the software development model we claim to hold dear, learning objects should not contain content at all; rather, they should contain the educational equivalent of algorithms – instructional strategies (teaching

techniques) for operating on separately available, structured content. (Wiley, 2003, p. 75)

Again Wiley’s thinking has direct relevance to the packaging and construction of

instructional material within the Malawian IRI programmes. The researcher in this thesis reports elements of resistance by practitioners/teachers in using IRI as partly due to technical issues concerning the programme. Findings indicated that in some cases teachers seemed unfamiliar with terminology (e.g. outcomes; objective versus results, etc) used in these programmes and that created resentment (see analysis of main study, chapter 6). The fundamental difficulties in trying to apply new ideas and terminology from the object-oriented paradigm to education have been noted by Allert and Nedjl (2002, p.17) who claim that “pedagogy and instructional design are ill-structured domains” whereas the object-oriented paradigm, it could be argued, offers an all- pervasive approach to software development. The difficulties of introducing innovative

ideas and practices to education which are borrowed from elsewhere (in this case applying ideas from the objected-oriented software development paradigm) creates problems and incongruities as noted by Friesen (2004, p. 61):

This incongruity can also be seen to repeat a negative historical pattern that has recurred in different forms with previous innovations in educational technology. In this pattern, these innovations are introduced into educational contexts and practices clearly bearing the stamp of their technical origin. Instead of being presented in terms familiar and meaningful to educators, they bear connotations that appear unclear or even negative in these practical contexts. Next in this pattern is the appearance of various forms of resistance to these innovations on the part of practitioners. Finally, this is followed by teachers and other

practitioners being blamed for their resistance and inflexibility in not adopting such innovation.

3.2.2.2 Learning is inherent within a learning-object

In a situation where it is possible to identify a set of ‘things’ that are learning-objects, it should also be possible to identify another set of things as non-learning-objects, which are all those things that lie outside the boundary formed by the set learning-objects. Regardless of context (a learning-object in one setting could be non-learning object in another), a class of objects associated with learning lie within the set referred to as learning-objects.

A conclusion can therefore be drawn that the title ‘learning-object’ infers that there are inherent characteristics of learning-objects that are directly associated with learning and these characteristic(s) can be unambiguously identified. Explicitly, this means that the learning is in the content, a perspective that is deeply engrained in the phrase (or metaphor) ‘flexible delivery’ and the transmission model of learning. One of the many

authors that have identified and critiqued this perspective on learning-objects is Mayes (2003, p. 9):

While long advocating the reuse of learning dialogues as a learning resource, I have nevertheless thought of myself as a sceptic on the topic of learning objects. My attitude had been rooted in the belief that it is fundamentally misguided to think of learning as having anything much to do with content.

Mayes (2003, p. 9) elaborates that: “It had seemed to me that the idea of learning-objects that could be automatically combined into a course, tailored for an individual learner, was a re-emergence of that flawed vision [automated instruction embedded within intelligent tutoring systems]” . Mayes acknowledges that his earlier perspective on learning-objects was based on outdated thinking and what he was referring to as learning-objects is now referred to as a knowledge object or a content or information object. Nevertheless, much attention to date, in discussion about learning-objects has been on the notion that learning is an inherent characteristic or facet of a learning-object, a kind of naïve-essentialist perspective, and that learning can be packaged up and delivered electronically to numerous learners. In this respect the following quotation from the International Standards Organisation (ISO) appears relevant:

Not only would the development and use of international standards [in e-learning] produce a direct cost saving, but the information technology systems could be used in a wider range of applications, and used more efficiently. Better, more efficient and interoperable systems, content, and components will produce better learning, education, and training – which has a positive effect upon all societies. (cited in Friesen, 2004, p. 62)

The above quotation concludes with a strong assertion about the causal relationship between (interoperable) content and learning—an issue that might require critical

scrutiny in relation to the expansion of the Malawi IRI programme through REFILM project as suggested in this study (see chapter 8).

Mason (1992) explains problems associated with describing how a learning-object might be used to support or facilitate learning by looking at how an individual learning-object, which may be part of a larger collection designed for a particular learning purpose, often requires contextual elements that provide the ‘glue’ to ensure that the learning-object makes sense and is usable. She asserts that, “the glue and context are not formally expressed, but are hidden or implicit throughout the learning-objects and the description of the learning experiences” (Mason, 1992, p.29). This leads to the discussion on teacher learning as another important construct in the present study. First, a look at the notion of ‘learning’ becomes very important in thinking about how primary teachers in the

Malawian context might benefit from use of IRI as an artefact for teacher learning and professional development as discussed in chapters 7 and 8 of this thesis. For this reason, the review in the next section aims at opening up the discussion on concepts of learning and how these might relate to IRI’s use for professional development of our target group. This discussion is carried forward in Chapter 7 (General Discussion) where an attempt has been made to relate findings from field studies, regarding our respondents’ own conceptions of learning and perceptions of education, to what might be an appropriate approach of IRI programming for purposes of CPD of teachers in educationally disadvantaged contexts.