Learning objects for introductory programming

1
Learning objects for introductory programming
Tom Boyle Learning Technology Research
Institute, London Metropolitan University
LTSN-ICS 5th Annual Conference, 31 August 2004
2
Focus and scope of this talk

• What are learning objects?
• Learning objects for programming
• Structural design principles
• Pedagogical design
• Learning object walkthroughs
• Development and deployment
• Evaluation

3
What are learning objects?

• IEEE LOM draft definition
• A learning object is defined as any entity,
  digital or non-digital, that may be used for
  learning , education or training
• IEEE (March 2002)
• Two broad interpretations
• Minimum pedagogically meaningful unit
• clear learning goal or objective
• Granule
• Reusability
• Lego brick analogy

4
Standardization background

• International work on learning objects standards
• Two main standards/specifications
• Metadata
• Learning object packaging
• IEEE LOM (Learning Object Metadata) standard
  June 2002
• IMS content packaging specification

5
Packaging and metadata
RELOAD Editor
6
Focus of this talk

• How to
• design
• develop and
• use
• pedagogically effective learning objects
• Theoretically informed
• Empirically grounded
• Educational impact

7
The practical context

• Introductory programming in Java
• over 600 students
• National crisis low retention rates
• Project to improve pass rates
• ISSUES
• Team based development
• parallel development and sharing of eLearning
  resources
• Learning effectiveness
• Future demand for external reuse
• LTSN Centre for the Information and Computer
  Sciences

8
Design principles

• Structural design principles
• cohesive, reusable objects
• each learning object should be based on one clear
  learning goal
• Structuring principle for combining cohesion and
  richness
• compound learning objects
• Pedagogical principles
• rich effective learning objects

9
Cohesion

• Each unit should do one thing and one thing only
• One clear learning goal or objective
• Minimum pedagogically meaningful unit
• Flexible re-use
• technically
• higher order pedagogical flexibility
• Example

10
Controlled coupling

• The unit should have minimal bindings to other
  units
• There should be no necessary navigational
  bindings to other units (embedded hyperlinks)
• Learning object content should not refer to the
  content in another source so as to cause
  necessary dependencies
• Challenge how to manage coupling so as to create
• free-standing, re-usable objects
• that are pedagogically rich

11
Compound objects

• Simple, bounded learning objects
• Swann (1994) multiple perspectives enrich
  learning
• Compound objects
• a compound object consists of two or more
  independent learning objects that are linked to
  create a compound
• Provide
• pedagogical richness not available through simple
  objects
• significant base for repurposing

12
Compound objects
text text text text text text text text text text
text text text text text text text text text text
text text text text text text text text text
text text text text text text text text text text
text text text
Compound object structure to support pedagogical
richness
13
Advantages in development

• Collaborative, team based development
• Parallel development
• Re-use of rich resources
• Supports phased development
• expansion over several phases of development
• costs distributed over several passes/phases
• Fits well with Blended Learning

14
Pedagogical challenges

• Facilitating engagement
• Facilitating students in dealing with
• abstraction
• complexity
• Empowering students as learners
• Integration of learning objects in the course

15
Pedagogical approach

• 'Constructivist' principles
• Learner control of pacing
• Visualization of abstract concepts
• Engaging examples
• Interactive feedback
• Scaffolding

16
Demonstrations of learning objects illustrating
pedagogical techniques used For online examples
see www.ics.ltsn.ac.uk/Learning_Objects/lmu_learn
ingobjects/evaluation.htm
17
Deployment

• Delivered through WebCT
• Independent of WebCT
• LOs reside on a separate server
• Reusable by tutors in other institutions using
  different VLEs
• Bypassed content packaging and metadata
• not necessary at this stage
• diversion from the main aim at this stage

18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
Evaluation

• Observation
• Questionnaires
• week I student data
• week 7 on student evaluation of course
• Interviews
• 36 students
• mid semester
• Online tracking of use of learning objects

22
(No Transcript)
23
Present developments

• Adaptation of learning objects
• Univ. of Auckland (VB)
• EASA
• Codewitz
• Internal development fund award (2004-05)
• Access students (year 0)
• Python
• JISC/HEA developments

24
Group Discussion

• JISC/HEA initiative on promoting reuse of
  learning objects/resources
• Creating a community(ies) of practice
• in the development, evaluation and
  reuse of
• learning objects

25
Useful references

• 1. CETIS http//www.cetis.ac.uk/
• (Centre for Educational Technology
  Interoperability Standards)
• 2. National Learning Network learning objects
  http//www.nln.ac.uk/materials/
• UCEL http//www.ucel.ac.uk
• 4. Boyle T. (2003) Design principles for
  authoring dynamic, reusable learning objects.
  AJET 19 (1)
• http//www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/boyle.html