The LTD Project Blog

This post is a follow-on to Food for Thought, e-Cobblers, a question about learning objects, or “fungible digital parts,” an import from pab’s potpourri (2007.07.30).

With reference to Susan Metos (2005), who defines a learning object as a “digital resource” that “include[s] or link[s] to (1) a learning objective, (2) a practice activity, and (3) an assessment,” Brian Lamb explains the demise of learning objects:

With only the noblest of intentions, proponents of learning objects (and I was one of them) went at the problem of promoting reuse by establishing an arduous and complex set of interoperability standards and then working to persuade others to adopt those standards. Educators were asked to take on complex and ill-defined tasks in exchange for an uncertain payoff. Not surprisingly, almost all of them passed.

(Lamb, 2007, Dr. Mashup…)

References

Lamb, Brian. (2007). Dr. Mashup; or, Why Educators Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Remix. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 42, no. 4 (July/August 2007), 12-25. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/erm07/erm0740.asp?bhcp=1

• companion audio mashup (UBCWiki)

Metos, Susan E. (2005). Learning Objects: A Rose by Any Other Name…. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 40, no. 4 (July/August 2005), 12–13. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/er/erm05/erm05410.asp

Blogged with Flock

This entry was posted on Monday, September 3rd, 2007 at 9:08 am and is filed under InformationLiteracy, IntellectualProperty, rss. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.