Displaying Learning Objects
Because learning objects are distributed as XML files, they may be displayed using a wide variety of hardware and software combinations.
The most simple and straightforward implementation of this is through the conjoining of XML files with related style sheets defined in XSL (extensible Stylesheet Language), as mentioned above. For example, an XML file and an XSL file merge to create an HTML file:
In this simple example, each element in an XML file is associated with an output format (defining such things as font styles and sizes or background colours) in the XSL file. The XSL file describes these elements in standard CSS (Cascading Style Sheet).[78] Thus combining the XML and XSL definitions yields an HTML output understood by web browsers.
Because style and substance are separated, the same XML data may be output in a variety of formats:
The learning object itself is composed of data and metadata (left), stored in a database. An XML application interprets the data through a schema, which defines the properties that will be displayed in the resulting XML document. This document is sent to output formatting, which will use one XSL file to produce an HTML page, another XSL file to produce a LATEX page, and yet a third XSL file to produce a printable PDF page.[79]
This model provides tremendous flexibility. For a given set of data, one set of metadata may produce an XML file useful for online students while another may produce an XML document useful for real estate agents, depending on which schema is used. And any given XML document may be output in a variety of formats, depending which XSL file is used. One XSL file may define the format used by the University of Chicago while another may define the document template used at the University of Toronto. One style sheet may be used for online viewing, while another may define the print version of the document.
Indeed, an XML file, merged with other XML and XSL sources, may be displayed in a highly customized or personalized format. Proposed, for example, is an agent-based learning system that recognizes individual users and formats pages accordingly. This agent would alter not only display preferences, but would also amend content according to previously established user preferences.[80]
In traditional education, learning objects would be distributed in the context of a course; that is to say, an online course would consist of an ordered collection of related learning objects unified by some set of common learning objectives or course-wide assessment techniques, such as a final essay.
Learning objects would also be used in a wide variety of non-traditional educational scenarios. Consider this proposal to the corped (corporate education) mailing list:
Now, imagine that corporate educators build repositories of chunked learning objects (knowledge management databases), incorporate browser and search engine components, and place this electronic resource on every employees´ desktop. Suppose that corporate educators use event notification to send friendly e-mail messages to users to offer assistance or to identify early warning signs of trouble (e.g., users searching for learning objects on discrimination, sexual harassment, career counseling, or abusive bosses). Imagine constructing the application to permit self-assessment tools for users, electronic registration for classes, and asynchronous and synchronous collaboration tools (e.g., chat rooms, listserves, and Web conference rooms). Corporation could even link communication technologies to permit employees to have immediate access to professional mentors. This combination of technologies could comprise a total learning solutions with the flexibility to accommodate diverse styles of learning.[81]
No matter how learning objects are distributed, their method of access will be similar in every event. By clicking on a link (or making a similar selection), a student will from his or her desktop browser send a request to the object, which will be delivered as an XML file. The request will also refer the distributor to another XML file, which will contain user specifics, such as their name, institution, and course.
On the distributor end, the learning object will be packaged and send to the client. In many cases, the package will be a simple XML file, though often, the XML file will be compiled on the fly in response to the user data sent with the request. The distributor will also note the request in its logs, update its billing or license data, and if requested, send notification to the student´s employer or educational institution.
The object, when retrieved, is then fed to a viewer. The viewer may be included in standard web browsers (as, for example, graphics are today) or may require a seaparate viewer. Viewers may be defined (and even available) through the institution´s web site. Most likely, specialized viewers will be downloaded and installed on an as-needed basis as java applets are today.
Different viewers will be used for different types of output device. This, just as graphics today may be viewed on a screen, send via fax, printed on pager or sent as an email attachment, so also different viewers for each type of learning object will be available for different distribution mechanisms.
The Learning Object Economy: A Polemic
We can be visionary. We can imagine a proliferation of cottage industries involved in the production of learning objects. Standards bodies, reviewers and other filter mechanisms will become important. Because a payment scheme is built-in, the model becomes sustainable. But because each individual object view is so inexpensive, online learning becomes affordable.
Yet what about traditional university education, where professors see their courses as unique creations which re-make the field of enquiry each time they are taught?[82]
This approach is the core of traditional liberal arts education. It is this very aspect of online learning which pits computer-assisted learning, such as is envisioned in a learning object economy, against traditional face-to-face professorial learning.
Let me grant that this sort of re-examination of the material is necessary and desirable. But let me question whetherthis process at the same time serves as an effective teaching methodology.
To put the question in as sharp a light as possible: do first-year engineering students need a brand-new Shakespeare course, or will the interpretation developed last year (or two years ago, or in Saskatchewan) do the job?
And moreover: is it fair to require that students, whose primary goal is at best a surface understanding of Hamlet, to pay for the development of a brand-new interpretation, which last year's, or Saskatchewan's, would have done just fine?
I agree that hand-rolled bread, carefully prepared by a master chef, is superior in quality to a standard loaf purchased at Safeway. But to a person who is merely hungry - rather than a connoisseur - the obligation to purchase only hand-rolled bread is more than just an imposition, it amounts to a denial of basis sustenance for many.
The question is: could we teach first-year English using 'Hamlet modules'? Could we reduce the cost of such learning by an order of magnitude? Are the endless creations of professors necessary for the eventual goal of cultural literacy? Is it reasonable to deny such an education to many (especially in less developed nations) in order to generate each course anew each year in each university classroom?
Sorry about all the italics, but I am trying to emphasize how it looks from the other side of the equation. And I'm trying to express the sort of thinking when such object-based courses are inevitably accredited. How will the hand-craft institutions justify their art? Sure, we need reinterpretations of Shakespeare, but do we need a thousand such reinterpretations a year?
There is very much a tension, between those who create the knowledge, and who jealously guard their monopoly over its propagation and distribution, and those who must consume that knowledge to get a job, to build a life, to partake fully in society.
My personal belief is that arts and humanities professors -even those who teach senior courses - will have to redefine their approach or be priced out of existence. Probably history, not argument, will show whether this belief is well founded.
[70] Martindale´s Health Science Guide. The “Virtual” Medical Center. Web Site. Available http://www-sci.lib.uci.edu/HSG/Medical.html. Viewed 04 May, 2000.
[71] I-Syndicate. Web Site. Available http://www.isyndicate.com/. Viewed 23 May, 2000.
[72] Individual.Com. Web Site. Available http://www.individual.com/. Viewed 23 May, 2000.
[73] Netscape. NetCenter. Web Site. Available http://my.netscape.com/. Viewed 23 May, 2000.
[74] Netscape. Create Your Own My Netscape Channel. Available http://my.netscape.com/publish/. Viewed 23 May, 2000.
[75] Barron, Tom. A Portrait of Learning Portals. ASTD Learning Circuits, May, 2000. Available http://www.learningcircuits.com/may2000/barron.html. Viewed 23 May, 2000. See also Karrer, Anthony. Building a Learning Portal. ASTD Learning Circuits, May, 2000. Available
http://www.learningcircuits.com/may2000/may2000_ttools.html. Viewed 23 May, 2000.
[76] TraininkTek.Com. Web Site. Available http://trainingtek.com/. Viewed 23 May, 2000.
[77] AOL-at-School. Web Site. Available
http://www.school.aol.com/teachers/index.adp. Viewed 23 may, 2000.
[78] World Wide Web Consortium. Cascading Style Sheets. Website. Last updated April 25, 2000. Available http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/. Viewed 08 May, 2000.
[79] Diagram adapted from Bourda, Yolaine and Hélier, Marc. What Metadata and XML Can Do for Learning Objects. Webnet Journal, Volume 2, Number 1, January-March, 2000, p. 29.
[80] Suzuki, Junichi and Yamamoto, Yoshikazu. Building A Next-Generation Infrastructure for Agent-based Distance Learning. 2000. Forthcoming: International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning. Available
http://www.yy.cs.keio.ac.jp/~suzuki/project/pub/ijceell.pdf.zip (zipped PDF format). Viewed 08 May, 2000.
[81] Baucus, David. e-learning embedded in corporate work processes. Post to corped (mailing list), May 5, 2000. Available
http://www.egroups.com/message/corped/1765?&start=1739. Viewed 08 May, 2000.
[82] My thanks to Terry Butler for this phrasing and for motivating the polemic which follows.