Running Head: Supporting Inquiry-Based Learning
Learning Objects to Support Inquiry-Based, Online Learning
Chandra Hawley Orrill
The current move toward reusable, easy to build tools for supporting information acquisition in learning environments (Downes, 2000; Merrill & Group, 1998; Myers, 1999) is an important one for further consideration. While there are undoubtedly advantages to the development of these learning objects, we have, as a field, overlooked the most important aspect of the tools – how they support student learning. The discussion on learning objects thus far has focused largely on their design and technical development (e.g., LTSC, 2000). The purpose of this chapter is to describe one potential use of learning objects – as support tools in a project-based action learning environment. This environment depends on student immersion in real-world problems with scaffoldings of various kinds to support their inquiry (Jonassen, 1999). Further, and perhaps most critically, it includes social interaction among peers (e.g., Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Jonassen, 1999; Savery & Duffy, 1995). “The process of using technology to improve learning is never solely a technical matter, concerned only with properties of hardware and software. Like a textbook or any other cultural object, technology resources for education – whether a software science simulation or an interactive reading exercise – function in a social environment, mediated by learning conversations with peers and teachers” (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999, p. 218).
As conceptualized by the ID2 group (e.g., Merrill, 1999; Merrill, 1998; Merrill, Jones, & Li, 1996), learning objects offer ease of development, a high degree of interchangeability, and a higher degree of individualized learning than traditional group-focused instructional interventions. However, these objects grow out of and exemplify a strong information processing foundation (Driscoll, 1994). After all, used as standalone teaching agents, they rely exclusively on the notion that information – which, in this belief system is synonymous with “knowledge” (Mayer, 1999) – is a commodity that can be transferred from the computer to the student. Once the student has seen the information and studied the information, she will be able to pass the test on that information. And, presumably, once the student has processed the information, she will be able to use it as part of a larger knowledge base. In the current conception, there is also a strong leaning toward the notion that people should learn small amounts of discrete information at one time and slowly build a network of these information chunks. For instance, an object may teach a single process or idea. Once that content is mastered, the student will move on to the next process or idea. Each object is discrete and separate from the next. In the end, however, the student is expected to tie these discrete pieces together in order to understand larger ideas. In this additive approach to education, it would be assumed that if a learner were to study maps of each region of the world independently, that learner would eventually be able to create a representation of the entire world. Finally, there is a strong emphasis in the common conception of learning objects on the traditional “presentation, practice, feedback” model that is regarded as an exceptional tool in helping deliver information to students. That is, the learning object presents the information, provides the student with an infinite amount of practice, and provides a test that allows the computer to provide feedback. This harkens back to the view that because computers are infinitely patient, the student is free to work on the material for as long as necessary, and, if she fails to master the content, she will be able to revisit the learning object. Of course, it does not embrace, or even acknowledge, the notion that the...
References: APA (American Psychological Association) (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Associations ' Board of Educational Affairs.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 17-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Boyer Commission on Education Undergraduates in the Research University (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America 's research universities. Stony Brook, NY: Author.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up digital: How the Web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change, 32(2), 10-20.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Downes, S. (2000, May 23, 2000). Learning objects, [essay]. Available: http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/downes/naweb/Learning_Objects.htm [2000, May].
Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Entwistle, N., & Marton, F. (1994). Knowledge objects: Understandings constituted through intensive academic study. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(1), 161-178.
Fleming, J. (1998). Web navigation: Designing the user experience. Sebastopol, CA: O 'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
Hill, J. R. (1999). A conceptual framework for understanding information seeking in open-ended information systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 5-27.
Hill, J. R., & Land, S. M. (1998, February 18-22). Open-ended learning environment: A theoretical framework and model for design. Paper presented at the Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, St. Louis, MO.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional technology (Vol. II, pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
LTSC (Learning Technology Standards Committee), (March, 2000). Standards for learning object metadata, [website]. IEEE. Available: http://ltsc.ieee.org/doc/wg12/LOMv4.1.htm [2000, July].
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. H. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional technology (Vol. II, pp. 141-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merrill, D. M. (1992). Constructivism and instructional design. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 99-114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Merrill, M. D. (1999). Instructional transaction theory. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional technology (Vol. II, pp. 397-424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Merrill, M. D., & Group, I. R. (1998). ID expert: A second generation instructional development system. Instructional Sciences, 26(3-4), 243-262.
Merrill, M. D., Jones, M. K., & Li, Z. (1996). Instructional transaction theory: Instructional design based on knowledge objects. Educational Technology, 36(3), 30-37.
Myers, K. L. (1999). Is there a place for instructional design in the information age? Educational Technology, 39(6), 50-53.
Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.
Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional technology (Vol. II, pp. 161-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Fancisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Stinson, J. E., & Milter, R. G. (1996). Problem-based learning in business education: Curriculum design and implementation issues. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 33-42.
U.S. Department of Labor (1991). What work requires of schools. Washington, D. C.: The Secretary 's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wiley, D. A. (1999). Learning objects and the new CAI: So what do I do with a learning object?[essay]. Available: http://wiley.byu.edu [2000, July].
Wiley, D. A. (2000). Learning object design and sequencing theory. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Available: http://davidwiley.com/papers/dissertation/dissertation.pdf
Please join StudyMode to read the full document