Learning Objects: Resources for Instruction

Clinical Laboratory Science, Summer 2006 by Brickell, Jean, Kanuth, Michelle, Freeman, Vicki, Latshaw, Sandra, Larson, Carol

OBJECTIVE: Upon completion of this article, the reader will be able to describe learning objects (LOs) and discuss their use in clinical laboratory sciences instruction.

DESIGN: Through a questionnaire, educators evaluated clinical laboratory sciences-related LOs for accessibility, usability and instructional qualities.

SETTING: LOs were presented on a password-accessed website. Evaluations were completed on the website.

PARTICIPANTS: Nine educators participated in the evaluation.

INTERVENTIONS: The LOs were made available to participants for use in their own instructional material.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The evaluation measured educators' interest in and perceived usefulness of LOs in clinical laboratory sciences curriculum.

RESULTS: On a scale of one to five with one equal to poor and five equal to excellent, participants rated LOs as accessible (4.68) and usable (4.61). Ninety-eight percent stated that they would use LOs in their curriculum. Fifty-seven percent stated that they could attribute improved learning performance on student exposure to LOs.

CONCLUSION: LOs are useful, relevant, and time-saving resources to clinical laboratory sciences instruction.

ABBREVIATIONS: CLS = clinical laboratory sciences; LO = learning object.

INDEX TERMS: instruction; Internet; teaching.

Clin Lab Sci 2006;19(3):184

Learning objects (LOs) are elements of a new type of computer-based instruction grounded in the object-oriented paradigm of computer science. LOs are instructional components that can be reused in different learning contexts to communicate material that is jointly used in die presentation of many topics.1,2 These elements can be delivered over the Internet, and accessed by a number of individuals simultaneously.1 LOs often represent autonomous, fundamental concepts presented by most instructors. Through joint preparation and review, creators standardize the content element while reducing instructional preparation time. Individuality is retained by the instructor through the choice of context in which the LO is used.

Key to the development of LOs is the ability to name and easily retrieve the object. Although all LOs have certain properties, it is their differences that aid in categorization. Several taxonomies may be used to differentiate LO types. Bloom provides a system of differentiating statements by cognitive levels.3 Proponents of LOs suggest a system of differentiating LOs on the basis of the instructional design, technology, and interactivity of the object:

* Fundamental - a JPEG of a hand playing a chord on a piano keyboard

* Combined-closed - a video of a hand playing a chord on a piano keyboard with accompanying audio

* Generative-presentation - a chord identification problem

* Generative-instructional - instructs and provides practice for any type of procedure1

Properties that add to ease of use for LOs include consistent use of terminology, use of comprehensible formats, absence of references to other LOs, uniformity of grammar and tone, consistency of language level and the use of searchable keywords. Content management of LOs is aided by the use of a metatag, or descriptive information about the LO.4 Metatags facilitate storing, searching, and retrieval of content by technological databases.

Traditional instructional media, such as an overhead or videotape, may be used by one instructor at one time. LOs may be used by thousands of instructors and students at one time. Instructors may collaborate on the creation of LOs for increased standardization and time savings. Such objectorientation is grounded in instructional theory. Reigeluth and Nelson suggest that when teachers organize instructional materials, they break the content down into fundamental components.5 They reassemble the components to support their own context. Burns and Parlett describe expert performance as the process of disintegration of complex performances into progressively simpler performance units.6 It is a natural step to apply this expert performance to the creation of digital technology. In this model, instructors do not have to develop their own instructional components. Instead they can use objects developed by others, bypassing the step of breaking down lessons to repackage in their own lesson format. This allows for increased speed and efficiency of instructional development and decreased faculty preparation time. Merrill applies an algorithmic model of computing to instruction, in which knowledge is represented by data and instructional strategies are represented as algorithms.7

The use of LOs applies the learning theory of constructivism. Constructivism describes learning as an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge, and it describes instruction as a process of facilitating that construction. Constructivists propose that the learner individually interprets experience from a knowledge base that permits reference, reuse, and reconfiguration of knowledge objects. They suggest that the same knowledge objects can be configured into different types of instructional formats including presentation, practice, and learner evaluation.8 Central to the theory of constructivism is the belief that learners perceive knowledge objects differently, based on their own set of experiences.9