Many companies are reaping large returns by chunking small bits of learning and then reusing them over and over. Global organizations that support a multinational, multicultural, and diverse work force are leveraging media assets on multiple platforms to provide more learning and support options for their employees.
Your organization can adopt reusable learning object (RLO) technology to experience these results too, and in this article we present some ideas to help you get started, some mistakes to avoid, and some of our own experience in helping companies use RLOs.
The organizations we mentioned in the first paragraph faced the challenge of developing e-Learning that would be reusable, cost-effective, transferable, and lightweight. The solution they found consists of two ideas that have been around learning and training for a long time, modularity and reusable learning objects (RLO’s).
Modular e-Learning refers to learning units comprising a number of separate objects or modules. Reusable learning objects have the ability to display on multiple platforms, in many formats and languages, using different technologies, without requiring developers to rebuild the learning unit. (See Figure 1.) As P. R. Polansi noted in the Journal of Digital Information (see the References at the end of this article), the extent to which an organization can deploy and redeploy a learning unit enhances both the value and the shelf life of the learning unit.
Figure 1 RLOs can be delivered via print, PC desktop, or instructor-led session, hosted on a server, played from CD, or downloaded from any Web page to an iPod or Mobile device
RLO basics
The idea behind reusable learning objects is to develop an inventory of small, independent, self-contained chunks of instruction. Designers can use these chunks to assemble larger units of instruction. Given access to a repository of learning objects, learners can retrieve these reusable chunks in order to construct knowledge and perform tasks, as well as to achieve designated learning objectives. Because of the potential they possess for reusability, generatively (the capacity for combining or generating other learning objects), adaptability, and scalability, learning objects lead all other candidates as the technology of choice in the evolution of instructional design, development, and delivery according to David Wiley, Director of the Center for Open and Sustainable Learning at Utah State University.
Robert Beck of the
Definitions
Perhaps because reusable learning objects are a new approach to reusing content, researchers, e-Learning experts, international associations, and private sector companies have yet to agree on a single definition. What has evolved is a somewhat elusive concept. Nonetheless, this concept promises to change the form of content delivery.
Some definitions of the term “reusable learning object” seem to concentrate on specific examples. One of these, the definition of learning objects in The Field Guide to Learning Objects by the American Society for Training and Development and Smart Force includes:
- lessons (a combination of text, graphics, animation, audio, questions, and exercises),
- articles,
- case studies,
- mentored exercises,
- discussion boards,
- role-play simulations,
- software simulations,
- research projects,
- and performance tests, among others.
Other definitions take a more generic, functional approach. Ruth Clark, a highly regarded expert on the science of instruction, in an article written for the International Society for Performance Improvement, suggests it is best to keep the definition simple and centered. “Learning objects are small, granular ‘bytes’ of knowledge that can be stored in data bases and recycled within organizations.
The definition debates continue. Whether one calls them reusable learning objects, educational objects, knowledge objects, data objects, or instructional objects, and whether one takes the specific or the generic approach, the concept is the same.
How do you know whether you should be thinking about using learning objects as part of your organization’s learning strategy?
Decision factors
RLO’s are not for every e-Learning effort. Consider these three factors when making the decision to design e-Learning using RLOs: shelf life, scalability, and deployment. (See Figure 2.)
Figure 2 Consider these factors when deciding whether to use learning objects to develop learning modules.
We recommend reserving RLO’s for content that has a longer shelf life, such as processes and procedures. Those that are tried and true and unlikely to change, the back bone of operations, are good candidates.
Scalable content that could support reuse in multiple settings is also a good candidate for RLOs. An example would be manufacturing operations and techniques comprising small and definite steps that workers in all plants do the same way.
Segments of learning meant for global deployment would be good candidates for delivery in RLOs. This includes content for translation into multiple languages, across cultures, and for multiple learning styles. A learning audience consisting of many people across the enterprise would be another prime example.
In addition to these three considerations, Ruth Clark raises another reason to adopt learning object technology. Any corporation that wishes to compete globally is looking for cost-effective ways to maintain and protect intellectual property assets. Intellectual property within organizations is a main concern. Protecting intellectual property has become a priority, and this also makes organizations ready for the concept of learning objects.
Benefits
The traditional way of developing and disseminating training no longer meets the needs of today’s modern and global corporations. It is too slow, it is expensive, and it addresses general needs, not the needs of individual learners or of employees engaged in a task. The advent of Internet connectivity and more sophisticated technologies have influenced the spread of the concept of learning objects, as Ruth Clark anticipated in her 1998 article on recycling knowledge. Furthermore, a continuing need to augment human skills and expertise coupled with re-engineering and technological turmoil has created a need for just-in-time training. Because they are a system of little pieces of knowledge, tagged and stored in data bases, learning objects are available for use over and over, and for a multitude of needs. You can assemble them into flexible structures such as modules for personalized training or for customer support, or as wizards for performance support. Learning objects offer a way to harness and distribute massive, ever-changing volumes of content and deliver it to individual learners in any location.
In order to envision the possibilities for reusable learning objects, it is important to revisit some fundamentals. First, to say that learning objects are “self-contained” also means that learning objects are modular, as we said earlier. The components within a learning object (including smaller learning objects) model things that learners might need to know in the real world. Some of these elements are simple information, or data attributes, such as a course name, and some are more complex. Learning objects usually include a combination of data attributes, methods (what the object needs to do), uses, and definitions. By including transforming objectives, content, and methods for teaching, rehearsal, evaluation, and feedback, instructional designers can produce one instance of teaching materials (in other words, a learning object) that they can use over and over to reach a multitude of learners. Mark Merkow provides a detailed introduction to the process in his TechLearning article.
Instructional designer Lori Mortimer points out another benefit to RLOs. Reusable learning objects offer the potential for learners to individualize learning. This includes on-demand access to reusable content that the individual can select and tailor to his or her personal needs for the information.
Some issues
Although many believe that reusable learning objects have the power to transform education, poor communication has slowed the progress and acceptance of the concept. The lack of a comprehensive definition, discussed earlier, has certainly hurt the movement, but other issues have also contributed to the slowdown.
Faculty and training professionals are not accustomed to sharing their methods and content freely. Concerns regarding intellectual property rights and copyright issues have evolved. The time involved in development, and the high cost of development, has also contributed. Difficulty in creating tagging standards and retrieval criteria are also part of the trouble. Susan Metros, Professor, Design Technology at The Ohio State University, offers another big reason why the learning objects movement is going slowly, and one that should not be overlooked: there is very little research that proves learning objects support learning any better than other more traditional methods.
Poorly designed and inappropriately used learning objects can cause learning to stop before it ever gets started. In many cases at academic institutions, faculty members were in charge of designing and developing learning objects. Most faculty have concerns about intellectual property, ownership, and accessibility. Many feel uncomfortable about placing “their stuff” on a server. Technology writer Jennifer Lorenzetti also inter-found that others may be subject experts, but have little or no training in pedagogy or lack the desire to learn technical skills.
Potential impediments such as these are worth thinking about as you plan how to use RLOs in your organization.
