Talk:Learning object

message: As at August 20, 2006, this is a shockingly poor article and I am puzzled as to why as it seems a number of capable people have worked on it.
As of October 22, 2007, this is still a shockingly poor article. Many of the sentences are meaningless. Futurepower(R) 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Learning Object' would be a proper noun. The subject of this article is not a proper noun. --mav 08:47, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, maybe I was getting confused with something else. Google seems to show it being used with the capitals mostly but that might not be what this article is talking about. I unprotected the page too. I assume it was done by accident. It might even have been me I suppose. Angela 13:33, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
I changed UK LOM to UK LOM Core, since that is the name of the beast, see the thread 'a new name ... for the UKCMF' on CETIS Metadata SIG mailling list. 
The LOM and profiles of the LOM probably deserve an entry for themselves. (--Philbarker 10:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I changed the element types for the UK LOM Core, as per the most recent draft . N.Fegen 09:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor article 

message: This entry would be far more useful if it presented the context in which this concept emerged. In particular the work of Wiley and others, and also the general theoretical position from which this emerged. As it stands it reads like an advert by a vendor for why you need to buy a SCORM-compliant system!
The LO concept emerges from  the instructional model of education, in particular intelligent tutoring (replacing teachers and learning conversations with packaged content) which itself emerges from the work of Pask, but also generally the 80's AI evangelism.
Today, while LOs are a common concept in elearning, there is also a critique, which also includes many of the original creators of the concept (e.g. David Wiley, again).
I think the diagram midway through this article is also useful, in both positive and negative ways (it explains a viewpoint on LOs, and also surfaces some very mechanistic assumptions about human development): http://www.learningspaces.org/n/papers/objections.html
There is also the relationship between re-use of chunked predesigned content in the LO space, and the dynamic remixing and repurposing of user-created content in the web 2.0 space.
Without this kind of information I don't think this article really offers much value. Not that I'm offering to do more than provide these pointers for now!
Scott Wilson
Virtual Manipulatives
Is this a synonym for a learning object? Do learning objects need to be interactive? This term should at least be referenced. See http://www.freewebs.com/schoolgamemaker/#manipulatives for examples. (I have refrained from editing the main page) Tony Forster
: Well... it depends on what definition you prefer (since they are rather different), for instance IEEE LTSC defines a LO as "Any entity, digital or non-digital" while CETL and many people think of them as "Web-based interactive chunks". 
Since web-based interactive chunks are one kind of digital resources, I think the first definition is wider and should be preferred in order to distinguishing between content and supporting technology. Rjgodoy (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical context 

message: OK, I've spent quite some time on this article, to try to get it into shape.  I think I've gone about as far as I can without doing further research.  I am very much not an expert in this field.  Further revisions, expansion, and sourcing is more than welcome--and is in fact very much needed.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: external ref: -
1.^ a b Beck, Robert J., "What Are Learning Objects?", Learning Objects, Center for International Education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CIE/AOP/LO_what.html, retrieved on 2008-04-29
results in forbidden no access permission on this server
82.16.45.239 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: I've added a section for criticisms, and started it with a reference to Dave Wiley's early paper The Reusability Paradox. Those in the field should by-now be well aware of the numerous criticisms of Learning Objects, both as a theory and in the various implementations to date. I'd like to add more references to the section - such as the links Learning Object development has had to Learning Management Systems, and the array of criticism that approach attracts in the education sector, but I'm short on time at the moment so I'm hoping others will. Many early leaders in the fieldof Learning Objects, Brian Lamb at the University of British Columbia, and D'Arcy Norman at the University of Calgary, have also since criticised the ideas behind Learning Objects, opting out of the "movement" and concentrating on the engagement and use of social media and Open Educational Resources instead.  Regards Leighblackall (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Learning object. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/ibs/solutions/learning/whitepapers/el_cisco_rio.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111209134708/http://legacy.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm/SCORMSDocuments/2004%204th%20Edition/Overview.aspx to http://legacy.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm/SCORMSDocuments/2004%204th%20Edition/Overview.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified