Learning Objects Banner
shim.gif
INTRODUCTION

GENERAL BACKGROUND

 History

 Definitions

ANALYSIS

 Reasons

 Strategies

 Categories

 Pros/Cons

 Best Practices

 Implementation

 Future

SYSTEMIC IMPACT

IMPLICATIONS

CONCLUSIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

AUTHOR NOTES

TABLES

Email

shim.gif

Trends and Issues: The Impact of Learning Objects

Advantages/Disadvantages of Learning Objects (LOs)

Advantages

There are many advantages and disadvantages for using LOs that may help you decide whether you want to use LOs or not. Overall, LOs become valuable to companies for saving resources when it comes to building content for pieces of training that is used in several places. Longmire states “the reason designers might want add learning object capability in their design is that their content gains a “value add” that in most cases will pay off many times over (in terms of costs, development time, and learning effectiveness) and give the following advantages for an argument why (http://www.learningcircuits.org/mar2000/primer.html, 2000):

  • Flexibility
  • Ease of updates, searches, and content management
  • Customization
  • Interoperability
  • Facilitation of competency-based learning
  • Increased value of content

Disadvantages

There are some disadvantages to LOs too. First, there seems to be much confusion around how an LO actually is defined. Friesen states, “The term “learning object” suggests neither simplicity, compatibility nor any obvious relative advantage over prevailing teaching practice” (http://phenom.educ.ualberta.ca/~nfriesen/, 2003).

Second, many organizations are trying to develop standards and specifications for LOs and eLearning. With the varying areas that LOs can be used and how they have been defined creating these standards in a neutral way is a big challenge. Friesen states, “Neutrality, the state of not assisting, or actively taking the side of, helps one understand that for specifications and applications that are truly pedagogically neutral cannot also be pedagogically relevant” (http://phenom.educ.ualberta.ca/~nfriesen/, 2003).

Last, many of the organizations that are writing the standards seem to have a very rigid approach to what they are dictating for standards. Friesen states, “The SCORM documentation especially resembles a military approach to standards and is very engineering like and hard to relate to educational training” (http://phenom.educ.ualberta.ca/~nfriesen/, 2003).

Back to Top