This oft-referenced piece is actually the first chapter of a book co-authored and edited by Wiley entitled The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. The book itself provides a substantive treatment of instructional issues affecting learning object design and delivery. In this chapter, three concerns are fleshed out:

• the confusion created by various definitions of "learning object" and the lack of attention to instructional design theory in the learning object enterprise
• a critique of the Lego metaphor and the recommendation of a new metaphor
• " the construction of a neutral taxonomy to facilitate successful learning experiences

In the first section, Wiley critiques some definitions as being too broad and others as being too narrow. He hesitantly provides the following working definition for the purposes of his discussion: "any digital resource that can be reused to support learning". He argues that his definition avoids many of the pitfalls and confusion created by those offered by others working in this arena. Furthermore, and more importantly to Wiley, the definition highlights the "purposeful use of learning objects to support learning".

Next, Wiley critiques the lack of attention to instructional design theory in the design, development, and delivery of learning objects. For Wiley, it is not simply that instructional strategies and criteria for the application of learning objects must be included in the learning object discussion, but that they must play a large role. He is especially critical of the lack of discussion in the efforts of the Learning Objects Metadata (LOM) Working Group, which is associated with the Learning Technology Standards Committee. He notes that while it was stated that the goal of the group was to facilitate delivery of learning objects to learners, "no instructional design information was included in the metadata specified by the current version of the LOM Working Group". Wiley believes that questions about what it means for "a computer to 'automatically and dynamically compose personalized lessons" requires consideration of what it means to take individual learning objects and combine them in such a way that the learning objects and their sequencing make "instructional sense". Concerned about a possible trend that may leave out instructional design theory, Wiley argues that effective object mediated learning requires instructionally grounded sequencing decisions.

The discussion summarized to this point could be characterized as fairly negative. By the latter third of the article, Wiley offers a more positive view. Citing Richey (1986), he notes the role of taxonomies in helping to "identify and organize the relevant variables; defining, explaining, and describing relationships among the variables". Citing a lack of a general learning object taxonomy compatible with multiple instruction design theories, he provides one of his own, and a table illustrating a Preliminary Taxonomy of Learning Object Types. A detailed discussion explains the chart's content: learning object types (of which he distinguishes five) and learning object characteristics (of which he identifies eight). For Wiley, the connection between instructional design theory and learning objects is that a neutral taxonomy can facilitate meaningful learning experiences because it allows for the linking of learning objects through multiple instructional design theories. Hence, the object combination delivered to the learner will have a sense of coherence and purpose.

In the midst of his critique, Wiley provides one of the best discussions of metadata using clear illustrations. He also provides a cost-benefit analysis of granularity from both an efficiency point of view and an instructional point of view.

For the full text, see http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

Back to main Pedagody and Androgogy page ....