'LO,'LO - learning objects and learning outcomes: new-generation learning technologies and school libraries

By Sue Spence

ACCESS, Vol. 19, issue 4 2005, pp. 5-8.

(The views expressed in articles are those of the author(s) concerned and do not necessarily represent the views of ASLA.)

HEALTH WARNING
People with an aversion to acronyms are warned to read no further!
The desperate may refer to the glossary provided at <http://www.learningcircuits.org/glossary>.

Abstract
What are learning objects and how can they contribute to improved learning outcomes? This overview of learning objects and their delivery through a virtual learning environment includes a personal perspective on a Le@rning Federation demonstrator project of learning objects. The contributions of school libraries and teacher librarians to the innovative use of this technology are also discussed.

Introduction
While teacher librarians have generally been at the leading edge of the use of learning technology in schools, the new generation of learning technologies has been mysterious or frustrating to many. What is the difference between a learning object and a digital resource? Are LAMS and LMS the same? What on earth does VLE + MIS = MLE mean? And, most of all, how does it affect us in school libraries?

Learning objects are interactive multimedia teaching and learning resources. They consist of various media (for example, graphics, text, audio, animation, calculator) and they provide constructive feedback as the learner/user progresses through the activity. (Learning Federation 2005)

Learning objects (LOs) differ from digital resources or assets, the latter being individual bytes of media that can be combined into LOs:
Digital resources consist of a single item, such as a section of moving image footage or a set of items, accompanied by descriptive information and interpretation of their educational value. As well as moving footage, items include images of documents, line drawings, paintings or maps, photographs, and audio files of songs and broadcasts. (Learning Federation 2005)
For example, the sound file of Waltzing Matilda forms part of an LO about Australia.

An Internet search for learning object will produce many confusing hits. The Learning Object Portal has one of the most sensible and least intimidating introductions to learning objects, even though it has not been updated since 2003. Other useful portals include those provided by the University of Milwaukee  and CMIS in Western Australia. The Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching (MERLOT) offers a federated search of several LO repositories, courtesy of the Global Learning Objects Brokered Exchange (GLOBE) alliance. Other groups have also done pioneering work in developing LOs and providing access to them: the Canadian SchoolNet , and its European equivalent, European SchoolNet . Here in Australia:
TLF (The Le@rning Federation) is an initiative designed to create online curriculum content and infrastructure to enhance teaching and learning in Australian and New Zealand schools. TLF is funded for the period 2001–06 by the governments of Australia, the Australian states and territories, and New Zealand. (Le@rning Federation 2005)

A European project, Celebrate (2002–04), has already facilitated the creation of more than 1400 learning objects that were trialed by teachers between January 2003 and May 2004. The evaluation reported that:
On the most basic level, the program as a whole will achieve critical mass only if at every stage of its development:
· sufficient teachers want to use LOs
· sufficient LOs are produced
· the ones produced are the ones that are wanted
· teachers are able to find and successfully use the LOs they want. (McCormick et. al. 2004, p. 157)

Delivering LOs, from whatever repository, is a crucial issue with which organisations are still wrestling. Several schools across Australia were involved in a trial of BELTS (Basic E-Learning Tool Set), a demonstrator project for the LOs available from TLF, during 2004. The full evaluation report and the local trial reports across all education sectors throughout Australia are available on the website, but this author would like to add her personal perspective as a teacher librarian at one of the trial schools in South Australia.

Initial training
The IT co-ordinator, another teacher and I received initial training mid-term three, 2004. Attempts were made to run small-group professional development sessions with interested staff. Our aim was to start with amenable staff then get them to ‘drive’ the process within their faculties. Unfortunately, by the time we had negotiated release time, many staff lacked the time and energy to participate due to other commitments such as senior classes, exams, staffing issues projecting into 2005 and all the usual end-of-year activities.

When we did manage to coach a teacher in the use of BELTS, further problems were encountered including:
· access to computer labs
· lack of sound in the labs – efforts to rectify this were time-consuming
· difficulties with logins that, along with the sound problems, diffused the focus of students
· outdated technology, which was often not capable of running the BELTS system
· the cancellation of plans to work with classes as the network went down for maintenance.

A trial lesson did eventuate with a group of negotiated-education-plan students. The lesson used the fashion design (advertising, market research, studio and quality control) learning objects as a stimulus for group discussion on careers pathway planning. A literacy outcome was that students developed appropriate vocabulary for the world of work. This could have been improved for these students if all the text had been available as audio files. The experience also helped refute the belief that technology makes the teacher obsolete, as the teacher had to monitor progress closely and assist individuals to ensure the students were coping with the task.

We did identify several impediments to the success of this trial:
· timing of trial – a very busy time of year for all concerned
· network problems – our network was too old and slow to cope with multi-user access to LOs
· multiple versions of the same LO were kept on the database, which was confusing
· lack of LOs suitable for secondary schools, especially in some subjects. Science and maths were generally well served but there were only two LOs for Japanese and none for German
· the quality and educational value of some LOs was variable. Commercial designers may lack the necessary educational perspective
· The delivery platform is crude and the metadata provides no interoperability with existing Library Information Management Systems (LIMS).

The evaluation session on this BELTS trial in South Australian government schools indicated that such problems were not uncommon, although primary schools seemed to achieve greater success (perhaps due to different timetable and computing arrangements). A review commissioned by the Le@rning Federation steering group in 2004 raised some wider issues:

· The place of pedagogy: ‘… while some is always present in the design, the placement of the object in the context of the learning activities in the classroom is most fruitfully the teacher’s decision. Hence, teachers’ levels of comfort with and use of learning objects will provide the next most important benchmarks in the utilisation of learning objects. (Muirhead & Haughey 2005, p. 3)
· Reusability: ‘… requires a database or repository and writers were concerned about issues such as the fatigue of metatagging and reuse of publishers’ materials. (Muirhead & Haughey 2005, p. 3)
· The most successful learning objects: ‘... came from teams whose members had expertise in instructional design, technology use in classrooms and the subject matter. (Muirhead & Haughey 2005, p. 4)
· Sustainability required: ‘… willing teacher-users who could easily access, use and choose from sufficient numbers of learning objects that met the learning interests of their pupils’; ‘… teachers’ development of confidence with technology, easy access to a relatively robust infrastructure, and the ready availability of learning objects’; ‘… visible and fadeable scaffolding to meet students’ individual needs and learning styles; the use of narrative both as a story-telling device and also as a way to communicate interactively with students; and a combination of realistic and symbolic visualisations to enhance credibility, student interest, ownership and capacity to learn’. (Muirhead & Haughey 2005, p. 4)
· Staff PD: ‘The most appropriate professional development model is not a cascade model using a train-the-trainers approach, but a community-of-practice model that is localised and builds new expertise on extensive classroom pedagogical experience’ (Muirhead & Haughey 2005, p. 5); ‘….an online teachers exchange to encourage the sharing of best practices, classroom instructional material, units or modules which employed learning objects’ (Muirhead & Haughey 2005, p.10).
· Future development: ‘… explore developing virtual learning environment (VLE) for use by educators. Such a VLE would provide not only an environment for interaction but also be a powerful medium for teachers to create and “publish” learning materials for new learning activities. (Muirhead & Haughey 2005, p. 11)

BELTS was only a demonstration project. Since then, improved infrastructure and the availability of robust, open-source software has opened the door for a fully featured learning management system (LMS). This is sometimes referred to as a CMS, or course management system. Until recently, the field was restricted to expensive commercial products such as WebCT (widely used in tertiary and distance education). Now we have free, open-source software systems such as Moodle and learning activity management systems (LAMS). My school is taking part in a South Australian trial of Moodle using HarvestRoad as a repository of LOs. Other schools are using LAMS. While I did attend a Mooters Gather (a Moodle conference) and was impressed by what others have done, I have not yet had the chance to play in the sandpit (Moodle jargon) myself. I can, however, see the need to provide access to all of the following in school libraries of the 21st century via a one-stop-shop interface:
· Library catalogue: No, the book is not dead and never will be – burgeoning book sales and the success of  Premier’s Reading Challenges around Australia attest to this. New-generation LIMS are browser based and provide access to catalogued websites as well as audio-visual resources. Some already provide a ‘federated search’ facility. It is now possible to integrate access to the catalogue across a network and to provide remote access from outside the school.
· Subscription databases: One would like to think that state and/or federal consortium arrangements will reduce the cost of these and put them within reach of smaller or poorer schools.
· Networked CD-ROMs
· Virtual library: At my last three schools, I have developed a virtual library of Pathfinders, hotlists and online assignments with embedded web links, plus a collection of online, just-in-time help on research skills based on the information process. I would love to see a template available so that all schools can develop their own virtual library without having to reinvent the wheel.
· Interactive components: Moodle and LAMS are free, open-source software and offer interactive components such as chat rooms and discussion forums that were previously only available to institutions that could afford expensive commercial systems such as WebCT. This software can engage students in creating their own learning experience. It also provides teachers with a content delivery system (including LOs) and an online assessment tracking tool.

Consider the following equation: VLE + MIS = MLE (where VLE is virtual learning environment, MIS is management information system and MLE is managed learning environment). Tertiary institutions are already putting these in place, usually with expensive commercial software. The Le@rning Federation seems our best (and cheapest) hope of delivering MLEs for primary and secondary schools. In the forthcoming Moodle trial at my school, I will play an active role in creating a one-stop-shop interface for all the components listed above.

Teacher librarians already manage many of the resources listed above. As information specialists and educators, we have a unique expertise in creating systems to manage resources and make them accessible, and helping teachers to scaffold the learning experiences that they offer their students. I am aware but not yet involved in new-generation LIMS that offer intranet-style management features and federated searches. I am already planning the shift to a browser-based LIMS and would be interested in hearing how effective these new LIMS are.

Much has been written about the value of blended learning – a judicious combination of online and face-to-face learning. Teacher librarians have a role to play in both. In addressing the issues raised by the 2005 Le@rning Federation review:

· we can be the agents who help teachers become more comfortable with the use of learning objects
· we can deal with issues of metadata and copyright
· we already have expertise in instructional design and technology use in classrooms, and collaborate with and provide professional development to classroom teachers
· increasing numbers of us already provide ‘visible and fadeable scaffolding’ that enables ‘easy access to a relatively robust infrastructure’, and we are in a prime position to ensure ‘the ready availability of learning objects’
· finally, and not just in this arena of learning technology, we are professional-development providers extraordinaire who are already in place and building communities of practice.
Perhaps the powers-that-be need to be made aware of all of the above and how much we could assist in developing virtual learning environments (VLE) for use by educators.

It is in our best interests to become aware and unafraid of these new technologies and harness them – as we do books, DVDs and websites – to improve student learning outcomes. MCEETYA has already articulated national priorities for action by schools in Learning in an online world 2003–06. Check what is happening in your sector and your state at <http://www.thelearningfederation.edu.au/tlf2/>.

That is the challenge, but you can be comforted in the knowledge that whenever you feel out of your depth, there is help available through professional associations and networks.

Author’s note: Those of you who have survived the onslaught of acronyms and abbreviations in this article may now like to try the Acronym Alphabet Soup Matching exercise – experience using a learning object to achieve a learning outcome.

References

CMIS nd, Examples of Learning Objects and Learning Object Repositories, Department of Education and Training, Western Australia, viewed 20 September 2005, <http://www.eddept.wa.edu.au/cmis/eval/curriculum/learningobjects/obj1.htm>.

Coopers Technology College 2003, A Managed Learning Environment, viewed 20 September 2005 <http://www.e-learningfoundation.com/uploads/A%20Managed%20Learning%20Environment.pdf>.

Dougiamas M 2005, Moodle, viewed 20 September 2005, <http://moodle.com/>.

EUN 2005, European SchoolNet, viewed 20 September 2005, <www.eun.org>.

Harriman G nd, Blended Learning, viewed 20 September 2005, <http://www.grayharriman.com/blended_learning.htm>.

HarvestRoad 2005, HarvestRoad Partners with Moodle to Deliver Learning Object Repository Solution Worldwide, viewed 20 September 2005, <http://www.harvestroad.com/news/release.cfm?id=55>.

The Le@rning Federation (TLF) 2001–2005, Basic E-Learning Tool Set (BELTS), viewed 20 September 2005, <http://belts.sourceforge.net/>.

The Le@rning Federation nd, The Le@rning  Federation  Schools Online Curriculum Content Initiative, viewed 20 September 2005, <http://www.thelearningfederation.edu.au/tlf2/>.

The Le@rning Federation 2001–2005, State and territory activities, viewed 20 September 2005, <http://www.thelearningfederation.edu.au/tlf2/showMe.asp?nodeID=59>.

McCormick R, Scrimshaw P,  Nai L and Clifford C 2004, CELEBRATE Evaluation Report
Version 2, The Open University, viewed 20 September 2005, <http://www.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/Include_to_content/celebrate/file/Deliverable7_2EvaluationReport02Dec04.pdf>.

MCEETYA 2005, Pedagogy Strategy – Learning in an online world, viewed 20 September 2005, <http://www.mceetya.edu.au/pdf/pedagogy_strategy.pdf>.

MDDE663: Learning Objects Group 2003, Learning Objects Portal, viewed 20 September 2005, <http://ilearn.senecac.on.ca/lop/index.htm>.

Ministry of Education 2005, Canadian SchoolNet, viewed 20 September 2005,  <http://www.schoolnet.ca/home/e/>.

Muirhead B and Haughey M 2005, An Assessment of the Learning Objects, Models and Frameworks Developed by The Le@rning Federation Schools Online Curriculum Content Initiative Australia, Phase Two, viewed 20 September 2005, <http://www.thelearningfederation.edu.au/tlf2/sitefiles/assets/docs/brochures_reports/research/muirhead_haughey_0105.pdf>.

Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching 2005, MERLOT, viewed 20 September 2005, <http://www.merlot.org/Home.po>.

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 2005 Learning Objects: an introduction, viewed 20 September 2005, <http://www4.uwm.edu/cie/learning_objects.cfm?gid=55>.

Sue Spence, the co-ordinator of library, information literacy, languages other than English, and multiculturalism at Valley View Secondary School in South Australia, has a particular interest in developing online learning scaffolds.  She is active within the School Library Association of South Australia and ASLA and uses her website to publish the professional development materials and advocacy writings that she has presented to teacher librarians and educators nationally.  She contributed 'A teacher librarian toolkit for teacher librarians' to the book The information literate school community: Issues of leadership, which was edited by James Henri and Marlene Asselin in 2005.

Copyright of ACCESS is held by ASLA; of each article therein by its author.