Meeting Training and Learning Challenges with Reusable Learning Objects

Using RLOs

Reusability adds value to learning objects. The value of the learning object has a direct correlation to the organization’s ability to use it multiple times. The concept of creating small bits of learning information that are reusable is not a new one. Teachers and instructors have been doing this for a long time. This reusability often saves the instructor time and energy in designing new courses or revising existing ones. This is probably the context in which most practitioners relate to the idea of learning objects.

We would like to point out two particular applications of learning objects that may not be as obvious, to offer a thought about the focus of learning objects and to give you two brief examples of actual design and re-use.

RLOs and blended learning

Blended learning is an important potential application for RLOs. Well-designed and well-developed reusable learning objects will migrate across platforms and allow an organization to expand the reach of training.

For example, we produced some simple movies for one of our clients, and we incorporated these into online asynchronous training applications. These same movies transferred efficiently to mobile learning devices provided to production employees on the factory floor. The recycling of the movies into “just-in-time learning” was simple because the original design of the reusable learning objects (the movies) supported scaling. Scaling makes it possible to transfer objects to PowerPoint (for classroom training), and to mobile learning devices such as iPods, Blackberries, cell phones, and PDA’s.

In fact, we went a little further. We created job training aids (posters) directly from the learning objects to further enhance the learning initiative. The client positioned these posters at the factory workstations where they functioned as on-the-job training aids. With the creation of one set of online reusable learning objects, the company obtained materials for multiple uses ranging from “train the trainers” and traditional classroom instruction, to self-directed and just-in-time learning.

Flexibility for the learner

While reusing content for learning and training is the primary reason for creating learning objects, a second reason is the ability to put the information into a form that the learner can use individually. The form is first and foremost the setting, context, and environment for engaging a learning object. The form changes viewers into learners and digital objects into learning objects. Form can combine with the way a learning object becomes available to the learner as part of the knowledge base to create the intention for learning.

In order for the intention to become learning, you need to guide learners toward an understanding of the object. Reorganize the learner’s understanding through textual, visual, auditory, or interactive concepts. In the world of the Internet this means that for a media object (for example, a video, a podcast, a PDF document) to become a learning object the inter face has to establish a way of relating the object that makes understanding possible. As Polsani writes, learning objects have to combine digital elements and explanation.

You can incorporate learning objects into your courses in ways that enhance reusability and continuity for the learner. Thinking small, and organizing a course around a single designer or author can help. Another method is to embed the learning object inside a wider framework or curriculum. The expectations of the learners are open to a variety of experiences with a curriculum. They expect diversity in a curriculum, and continuity in a course. As educator and technology writer Susan Gaide points out, today continuity is provided by narrative elements that create coherence in the course, but tomorrow, on the educational Web, this may occur via the interface in response to the learner’s needs.

Is it time for an example?

An example: Moving a learning object to an iPod

Today’s learners are used to high quality media productions. One must also consider a slight “re-design” of content to accommodate the smaller screen of the mobile device and the iPod. (See Figure 3.)

Figure 3 This module displays either as a desktop asynchronous e-Learning unit, or as a video Podcast.

In this example we created a training program with a rapid development tool, Adobe Presenter. We took the content, rebuilt the screens in Flash, and redesigned them to accommodate a 320X240 window size. This meant spreading the content over more screens and synchronizing movement according to the script. Even with these adjustments, the process was substantially faster and cheaper than it would have been to create the iPod version from scratch. To see a sample of the stand-alone e-Learning program and the slightly redesigned video Podcast go to: http://brookwood.com/temporary/ipod/ipodsop.html.

Don’t focus on instructional design theory

In a regular classroom, the instructor determines the mode of operation. The instructor’s delivery determines the teaching style. This is true no matter what the content is, and no matter what the instructional designer called for in the lesson plan. The instructor can transition from a lesson written by one designer to a lesson written by another, or for another group, and maintain continuity and style.

This is not true with learning objects. With learning objects, it is the interface and the content itself that determine the style of the instruction. Unfortunately, this means there can be a problem with continuity and instructional style if the individual learner assembles a set of independent learning objects. Part of this problem is because so many developers incorporated one particular instructional design theory or another in their learning objects — or no design theory at all! Learners can receive a mixture of very different instructional experiences in the same course — an eclectic experience. The effect of the lack of continuity and the practicality of reusability often create heated debate in instructional design circles. Although instructional design theory can add a major contribution to learning objects it cannot be the focus of the development effort, as Kevin Oakes (formerly President of SumTotal Systems and currently CEO at the Institute for Corporate Productivity) and his co-author Raghavan Rengarajan wrote in 2002.

Example: Worldwide manufacturing applications

RLOs offer organizations a simplified solution for taking their learning and training program global. It is always challenging to accommodate cultural differences in addition to the usual barriers such as location - related issues and individual learning styles. By using well-designed, modular RLO’s, we have found it possible to deliver cost-effective solutions in a painless and timely manner.

How? Build the RLO’s with the end use in mind. By taking into account cultural and localization issues (swapping out graphics, translating text) in the original design, deployment becomes smooth and easy. But the most important practice is to build the elements that foster learning into the RLO’s from the beginning so the result is effective instruction. As you saw in our first example, we have been able to overcome technical limitations such as having no computers on the factory floors by using iPods with play lists that supported videos of the production techniques.

To stay with the first example a bit longer, a blended learning model of modular reusable learning objects supported flexible and multiple learning solutions. We developed the solution in order to train supervisors, trainers, factory workers, and new hires. We designed and developed four specific units of learning, and then transferred them to multiple platforms. You have seen two of the results in the other example. The complete list of units was:

• How to read the instruments
• How to meet the specs
• How to implement the techniques
• How to record the information for QA/QC and compliance

The Adobe tools Presenter, Flash, and Premiere were enormously helpful in facilitating this effort. We leveraged the highly accessible Flash player because of its availability on PCs, Mac’s, and devices that support mobile learning. Our client bought a custom course and then leveraged small RLOs that were components to use on other platforms.

Another client deployed a module titled, “How to Measure Pants.” Figure 4 shows the identical content as “just-in-time” content on an iPod, on a cell phone, and in the asynchronous course.

Figure 4 Video clip from e-Learning application (far right) can play as a Podcast and on a cell phone for remote learning anytime and anywhere.

To view a sample of a rebranded and scaled-down version of the module, go to http://brookwood.com/rlo/example/ (Editor's Note: As of February 23, 2010, this article appears to have been removed from the Web.). We created this module in French, English, and Chinese, as you can tell by the tri-lingual text on the screen. The video clips do not have sound. The reason we designed the clips as a “visual guide only” was to save cost on re-creating them with narrators in three languages. This cost-effective solution allowed us to re-use the objects in multilingual courses without the need for editing or manipulating. This option saves time and money and helps add more value to the training we created with our subject matter experts in English.

As with the first example, we used Adobe Presenter to create and deliver the courses for the clothing manufacturer, so that they took hours to build, not days or weeks. The course in the sample was also available as a standalone piece to aid the workers on the factory floor as just-in-time learning. To do this, we extracted videos (as seen in Figure 4) and factory workers could use the learning at their work stations to see demonstrations on demand using an iPod or other mobile device.

The Cost of Reusable Learning Objects

Managers should also consider the economic side of RLOs. One of the justifications for learning objects is the long-run potential to save money. If learning objects can be developed and then used over and over again for a variety of needs, then the costs of delivering the instruction should come down. However, in the short run, learning objects, especially interactive multimedia objects, can be very expensive.

Ironically, it is the repetition in creating learning objects that adds to the cost. Jennifer Lorenzetti found that programming and developing each learning object from scratch, regardless of the similarities to other learning objects can push the costs upward of “$2,500 to $25,000, making a multimedia-rich course an expensive proposition indeed.” Breaking every individual learning element down within a curriculum and designating it as a learning object can be cost-prohibitive. In David Wiley’s opinion, from a cost standpoint the decisions regarding learning objects are a tradeoff between possible benefits from reusability and the expense of producing and cataloging the learning objects.

To reduce the costs, developers produce templates to facilitate quicker and cheaper creation. Templates for everything from drag-and-drop to intelligent paragraph checking accommodate a wide variety of learning and teaching styles. The next step may be to combine artificial intelligence (AI) that alters teaching styles depending on learner needs.

Development is only part of the costs. A learning content management system (LCMS) is a software application that tracks, labels, manages, and organizes RLOs for delivery to the learner. The costs to develop and manage a LCMS can be between $90 K and $1M, according to Margaret Driscoll’s calculations. (Driscoll is an Associate Partner in IBM Global Services, Human Capital Practice.)

The most important step in making a LCMS work is to define what comprises a reusable learning object. Difficulties in accomplishing this have led to expensive project failures. This in turn has impacted organization’s and institution’s willingness to spend large amounts of money on the development of reusable learning objects.

Even without a strong success record, interest in creating reusable learning objects has been strong and is continuing to grow. The main reason for this is that when RLOs work, they work very well. RLOs can generate high rates of return on investment.

One of the clients in the examples spent about $15,000 for each unit, and received RLOs that were 85% reusable. (See Figure 5.) The company leveraged that investment into the ability to train 17,000 people across the enterprise. But that is only the beginning of the returns on investment; they also received on-demand training, support tools, and just-in-time training.

Figure 5 One company found that its learning objects were 85% reusable.

Summary

By breaking content into small chunks and using tools like the Adobe products that support cross platform applications and mobile learning devices, the companies in our examples were able to put learning in the hands of those who could use it and who could benefit the most. Efficiently designed RLOs gave these companies a solution to difficult training challenges, even though they might be a continent away. The companies were able to use the same RLOs in the United States as well.

The RLO solutions replaced ad-hoc training that was marginally effective, difficult to measure, and hard to manage. One of the companies was able to execute a global learning strategy, measure results, and address the learning challenges of a low-end learning audience, with localized cultural differences, high turnover rates, and transient labor force.

By creating a learning portal that became the depot to deploy enterprise-wide learning solutions, superintendents and workers are coming up with ever-new and unimagined possibilities to use these RLOs in the field. This new approach to learning is part of another powerful new trend, mobilization. Mobilization, in the learning business, manifests as m-Learning: otherwise mobilization refers to making workers mobile. Anders Gronstedt, president of the Gronstedt Group, a Swedish training development firm, says that mobilization is so important that any company that isn’t aggressively mobilizing their operations is risking a major competitive disadvantage. The uses and reuses of the RLOs are still unfolding.

References

ASTD and SmartForce (2002). A field guide to learning objects. ASTD Online booklet Retrieved April 15, 2005, from http://learningcircuits.org/2002/jul2002/smartforce.pdf (Editor's Note, November 19, 2009: This document is no longer available online.)

Beck, R. J. (2005). Learning objects. Retrieved August, 16, 2005, from http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CIE/AOP/learningobjects.html (Editor's Note, November 19, 2009: This document is no longer available online.)

Clark, R. C. (1998). Recycling knowledge with learning objects. Training and Development, 52(10), 60. Also available at http://www.clarktraining.com/content/articles/LearningObjects.pdf. (Editor's Note, November 19, 2009: This document is no longer available online.)

Clark, R. C. (1999). Chapter 1: The technology of training. In Developing technical training: A structured approach for developing classroom and computer- based instruction, Second Ed., (pp. 5-24) Silver Springs, MD: International Society of Performance Improvement.

Driscoll, M. (2002). Chapter 4: Tools of the trade, in Web-based training, Second Ed., (pp. 61-81) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Gaide, S. (2004). Reusing learning objects: Improving instructional design, reducing cost at Athabasca U. Distance Education Report. Retrieved August 3, 2005, from http://www.magnapubs.com/pub/magnapubs_der/8_13/news/596449-1.html

Gronstedt, A. (2007) The changing face of Podcasting puts the responsibility for learning onto the employees. Training and Development. January, 2007, pages 20-24.

Lorenzetti, J. P. (2004). Repurpose able means more affordable learning objects. Distance Education Report, 3-4

Merkow, M. S. (2002). Learning objects spark an e-Learning revolution. tech-learning. Retrieved August 2, 2007, 2005, from http://www.techlearning.com/content/new/new200203.php.

Metros, S. E. (2005). Learning objects: A rose by any other name. Retrieved August 3, 2005, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm05410.pdf

Mortimer, L. (2002). (Learning) Objects of desire: Promise and practicality. Retrieved August 9, 2005, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/apr2002/mortimer.html

Oakes, K. & Renarajan, R. (2002, May). An objective view of learning objects. Training and Development, 1003-1105.

Polansi, P. (2003) Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital Information. 3(4), 164 2003-02-19

Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects: Online version. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

Comments

Login or subscribe to comment

Related Articles

The Instructional Design of Learning Objects

7/9/07

Learning objects have been a topic of interest for several years, but until now it has been difficult to locate information about a systematic learning object development process. Designers face the task of coordinating a considerable effort when they undertake a project that involves object production.

Creating Engaging, Interactive e-Learning – Even With Your Hands Tied!

3/17/10

We thought the client had a straightforward project. Then we read the details: “Deliver the entire training solution with just four small, IT-enabled classrooms. E-Learning should be engaging and interactive, but must be developed without the use of Flash animations, large graphics, audio, or video. It must run from a browser, not require plug-ins or software, and it must also run from a CD.”

Six Steps to Creating High Quality Video Training

12/2/09

Games and immersive learning are great, but today the most accessible and most easily developed instructional medium is video. Producing great video instruction for use online is simpler than you may think, and may also be less expensive than other rapid development methods. Here are six steps you can begin using today to develop online video e-Learning.