[Edu-sig] re: NLII 2004 Annual Meeting

Jason Cunliffe jason.cunliffe at verizon.net
Sun Dec 21 11:25:22 EST 2003

Our [brave embedded reporter] Arthur wrote:

> In a minute's perusal, I know I am in an enemy camp.
> This is no more or less, to me, than the internet bubble mentality alive
> academia.
> My counter-organization would be the Center for Appropriate Use of
> Technology in Education. CAUTE.

Yes thanks for diving in there..and the quick front-line report
Fascinating and scary. Shades of a large well-intentioned grant-attractor
Bits and pieces that I skimmed resonate at moments but then many appalled
me. Hard to put my finger on why.

Is it just mantric grant-speak of learning learning learning prose that
threatens to go out of control?
Too many words too few good examples?
Lack of lucid design philosophy?
Imbalance of Admin vs. hands-on-ness?

"Learning Objects" in itself is good idea, one which I've been working
towards myself without any knowledge of the phrase or NLII influence..

As practice and understanding evolve, a number of different definitions have
emerged for learning objects (see Resources below for a few examples). The
NLII Learning Objects work group uses David Wiley's definition:

Learning Object: Any digital resource that can be reused to support

Learning objects are digital resources, modular in nature, that are used to
support learning. They include, but are not limited to, simulations,
electronic calculators, animations, tutorials, text entries, Web sites,
bibliographies, audio and video clips, quizzes, photographs, illustrations,
diagrams, graphs, maps, charts, and assessments. They vary in size, scope,
and level of granularity ranging from a small chunk of instruction to a
series of resources combined to provide a more complex learning experience.

Learning objects are an emerging NLII theme because their use has the
potential "to provide learning customized for each specific learner at a
specific time, taking into account, their learning styles, experience,
knowledge and learning goals" (Schatz, 2000). In addition, learning objects
may "offer great value in terms of saving time and money in course
development, increasing the reusability of content, enhancing students'
learning environment, sharing knowledge within and across disciplines, and
engaging faculty in a dynamic community of practice" (Metros, 2001).


Learning Objects = OK

But there is almost nothing here about students or their actual experience,
process, perspective, input, happiness success, results etc. It seems to be
more about management and budgets.

I'd hate to be misreading all this without doing my homework properly.
I am far outside of the formal school system so I'd welcome further analysis
and comments

CAUTE [Center for Appropriate Use of Technology in Education] is good idea

happy solstice wishes to you all
- Jason

More information about the Edu-sig mailing list