So, what did I learn? It’s difficult to express exactly what I learned, but here’s a listing of the items that caught my attention:

• Reusable Learning Objects (RLO)
• Cisco’s RLO Strategy
• SCORM, AICC
• Metadata
• Functions of Learning Management Systems (LMS) and Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS)
• Accessibility of e-learning to people with disabilities

The bottom line to this course was that learning, delivered by electronic means (e-learning defined), can be flexible, reusable and accessible if a strategy is carefully planned out and applied.

It’s on now to the next course, IPT 523 – Authoring Skills for Instructional Multimedia.  It’s a hard-skills course where we’ll be using Adobe Captivate and applying it to e-learning.  It should be fun and I’m currently using it for other projects.  It’s a powerful tool and capable of doing many things and I’m looking forward to learning more about it and applying it back to the work I’m doing.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Let’s begin by looking at SCOs. SCOs are a component of the Content Aggregation Model (CAM) which is a component of the SCORM. The CAM is comprised of Learning Objects divided into three categories:

• Assets
• SCOs
• Content Organizations

The contents of the learning objects are described by metadata. In addition, CAM includes a definition of how RLOs can be packed, delivered, and used.

Now, let’s look at RLOs and RIOs.  Discussions about RLOs and RIOs have occurred in many posts throughout this blog.  RLOs were discussed in Reusable Learning Object Strategies and RIOs were discussed in Expanding on E-Learning: Instructional Architectures and Learning Objects.  The bottom line is RLOs are comprised of RIOs.  RIOs by themselves do not have any context.  They are simply “chunks” of information.  When gathered together under a RLO, they create context meaningful to the learner.  This is illustrated in Cisco System’s Reusable Object Strategy.

It may be safe to conclude that although SCOs and RLOs are not the same, SCOs contain RLOs.  That’s the way I see it, but I’m open to correction on this. After all, that was the purpose of this blog – to create a discussion with other students of E-learning and professionals working in the field.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I guess this means I’m at the official half-way point of my first full semester of higher education in so many years.

Yes, it’s time for Spring Break!

I’m 34 years old (at last check) and my liver can’t withstand the commitment it takes to enjoy fun in the sun and the unpredictability of life that comes with youthful indiscretion.  Instead, I’ll be using the time to reflect and catch up on blog posts I should have been making over the course of the IPT 525 class.

I’ve got at least three posts in mind for this week:

• Compare and contrast LMS and LCMS
• A breakdown of the differences between RLO, RIO and SCO
• Praise for a fellow student in a paper she wrote on the benefits of adopting a SCORM-Conformant E-Learning Strategy

I’m looking forward to the time off and catching up.  I know this blog hasn’t necessarily turned out the way I wanted to, but with less pressure from completing class assignments hopefully I can get back on track.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I made mention of SCORM in a previous post but didn’t get into too much detail about it.  SCORM is a very detailed subject when it comes to E-learning, but here’s my attempt to define it based on what I learned these past couple weeks and put it into its proper context.

SCORM is the Sharable Content Object Reference Model.  It is a set of standards and specification for web-based E-learning.  It’s actually the product of the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative (ADL) founded in 1997 by the The United States Department of Defense (DoD) and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

The ADL Initiative’s overall vision is to provide access to high-quality learning that can be tailored to individual needs and delivered cost-effectively anytime, anywhere.  To accomplish these goals, SCORM was created to foster the creation of reusable learning content as “instructional objects” within a common framework.

The high-level requirements of the SCORM, often referred to as their “-ilities”, highlight the importance of this model in standardization of online learning:

• Accessibility – the ability to locate and access instructional components from one remote location and deliver them to many locations.
• Adaptability – the ability to tailor instruction to individual and organizational needs.
• Affordability – the ability to increase efficiency and productivity by reducing the time and costs to deliver instruction.
• Durability – the ability to withstand technology changes without costly redesign, reconfiguration or recoding.
• Interoperability – the ability to take instructional components developed in one location with one set of tools or platform and use them in another location with a different set of tools or platform.
• Reusability – the flexibility to incorporate instructional components in multiple applications and contexts.

As an instructional designer, I feel the ability to create E-learning under a set of guidelines such as the SCORM keeps the content relevant, easy to update and transferrable.  Some people may see the SCORM as restrictive, but the beauty of such standards is that even though the technology to deliver E-learning may change, the standards by which it is designed and developed remain unchanged.  ADL’s commitment to standards and regularly updating them helps with accessibility and interoperability.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

There are many different strategies centered on RLO’s.  On a more basic level are the strategies discussed by Hodgins in his paper The Future of Learning Objects.  According to Hodgins, there are three RLO strategies that will determine success.  These are either being used currently or will be in the near future:

1. Make it relevant, make is easy- for RLO’s to be readily adopted they must be deemed by learners as high-value.  They must be conceptualized, designed, constructed and selected quickly and easily.  The technology to facilitate this must be easy to use, but the underlying complexity of the technology doesn’t have to be rudimentary, nor should it. Learners are primarily concerned only with what is being presented to them and in context to their learning needs.
2. Connect everything to everything – RLO’s by their nature have a high potential for digital connectivity.  Leveraging technology can bring connectivity to a whole new level through the use of metadata (descriptive information to categorize and catalog content) by supplying a basis for making connections between RLO’s and people.  Technically, new paradigms emerge of sharing information by promoting blended learning solutions.
3. Everything is “just” a node – Learning content, or RLO’s, are decentralized, thus leaving the decision and control of what needs to be learned in the hands of the learner.  Because everything (the RLO’s) are on their own, yet connected to one another through relational metadata, learners approach their learning needs in a contextual fashion whereby based on their need they are able to pull together the “nodes” or RLO’s they need, assemble them and consume the learning when needed.

Cisco Systems have long been using RLO’s in their learning and have created detailed strategies that have evolved over the years to become more effective.  Their RLO’s are structured to give objects the necessary context to ensure a meaningful experience for the learner.  It also allows for RLO’s to be leveraged in problem-based learning, exploratory environments, performance support systems, job aids, help systems or blended learning solutions.  The strategy Cisco employs is focused on design, development and implementation of RLO’s with the underlying philosophy that if these areas are taken care of, the training will be effective creating a better learning experience and accommodate multiple approaches to learning.  This strategy is expressed in Learning Object Development (LOD) stages:

1. Granular analysis – determining performance objectives based on specific audience(s).
2. Design and mine – where the training solution is structured, objectives captured and content types identified.  It’s also an opportunity to find what is currently out there on the subject and leverage from the content if possible.
3. Reuse and develop – actual development of the training solution, reusing (if possible) learning objects in existence and forming the training in context to the training need.
4. Delivery and reference – the training solution is delivered in a variety of formats and chosen learning architectures.
5. Lifecycle maintenance – once a learning object is created, it can then be maintained over the course of its lifecycle.  A change to a single learning object that is shared among many different training solutions can be updated in one location and published to many destinations.

All throughout these stages, evaluation takes place to make improvements to the development process or impact of the overall learning experience.

Whether the strategy is the basic model illustrated in the Hodgin’s paper or the detailed Cisco Systems model, they do work and make an immediate impact when applied.  In 2003, ASTD awarded General Motors an Excellence in Practice Citation for illustrating their blended approach to performance-based training among auto mechanics at their dealerships.

The problem that faced GM in 1999 was that mechanic training became too expensive.  Traditionally, it was instructor-led training over the course of several days.  The training grew far too complex as GM began introducing more models into the marketplace.  With more models came more demand for training that would have forced GM to expand its training infrastructure nationwide at a cost too great for the company to meet and continue to support.

The solution was to restructure the delivery of training by using E-learning as a delivery method including the use of video, web-based, computer-based and interactive distance learning.  This reduced the number of training facilities needed and increased the availability and effectiveness of the training.

Although there as no mention of the use of learning objects in the paper highlighting the reasons behind awarding the citation, it is conceivable that GM made use of learning objects in a strategy to accomplish their goal of reducing training costs and creating effective performance-based learning among their mechanics.

RLO’s may have been used for web-based and computer-based instruction where the “basic building blocks” of mechanics are developed (such as Electronic Fuel Injection or ABS Breaking Systems), but when accessed by the mechanic who is taking a service course on a specific model of vehicle, the RLO’s are assembled and presented in an organized fashion in context to the model they are studying.

—–

On their own, RLO’s are just “nodes”, as mentioned in Hodgin’s paper, but if they are brought together in a strategy (whether basic or detailed), the learner has a better experience resulting in better performance.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.