WILEY, D. A.

Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A

Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory:

A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy

David A. Wiley, II
Utah State University
Digital Learning Environments Research Group
The Edumetrics Institute
Emma Eccles Jones Education 227
Logan, UT 84322-2830
(435) 797-7562
[email protected]

1
 Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory:

A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce an instructional technology concept

known commonly as the “learning object.” First a review of the literature is presented as

groundwork for a working definition of the term “learning object.” A brief discussion of

instructional design theory is followed by an attempt to connect the learning objects

approach to existing instructional design theory, and the general lack of such connective

efforts is contrasted with the financial and technical activity generated by the learning

objects notion. The LEGO metaphor frequently used to describe learning objects is

critically examined and a successor metaphor is nominated. A taxonomy of learning

object types is presented as a foundation for continued research in learning objects and

related instructional design theories. Finally, the connecting of instructional design theory

to the taxonomy is demonstrated and the benefits of this approach are briefly espoused.

This introduction should provide the reader with a context for interpreting the remaining

chapters of this book.

What is a learning object?

Technology is an agent of change, and major technological innovations can result

in entire paradigm shifts. The computer network known as the Internet is one such

innovation. After affecting sweeping changes in the way people communicate and do

business, the Internet is poised to bring about a paradigm shift in the way people learn.

Consequently, a major change may also be coming in the way educational materials are

designed, developed, and delivered to those who wish to learn. An instructional

technology called “learning objects” (LTSC, 2000a) currently leads other candidates for

2
the position of technology of choice in the next generation of instructional design,

development, and delivery, due to its potential for reusability, generativity, adaptability,

and scalability (Hodgins, 2000; Urdan & Weggen, 2000; Gibbons, Nelson, & Richards,

2000).

Learning objects are elements of a new type of computer-based instruction

grounded in the object-oriented paradigm of computer science. Object-orientation highly

values the creation of components (called “objects”) that can be reused (Dahl & Nygaard,

1966) in multiple contexts. This is the fundamental idea behind learning objects:

instructional designers can build small (relative to the size of an entire course)

instructional components that can be reused a number of times in different learning

contexts. Additionally, learning objects are generally understood to be digital entities

deliverable over the Internet, meaning that any number of people can access and use them

simultaneously (as opposed to traditional instructional media, such as an overhead or

video tape, which can only exist in one place at a time). Moreover, those who incorporate

learning objects can collaborate on and benefit immediately from new versions. These are

significant differences between learning objects and other instructional media that have

existed previously.

Supporting the notion of small, reusable chunks of instructional media, Reigeluth

and Nelson (1997) suggest that when teachers first gain access to instructional materials,

they often break the materials down into their constituent parts. They then reassemble

these parts in ways that support their individual instructional goals. This suggests one

reason why reusable instructional components, or learning objects, may provide

instructional benefits: if instructors received instructional resources as individual

3
components, this initial step of decomposition could be bypassed, potentially increasing

the speed and efficiency of instructional development.

To facilitate the widespread adoption of the learning objects approach, the

Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) of the Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers (IEEE) formed in 1996 to develop and promote instructional

technology standards (LTSC, 2000a). Without such standards, universities, corporations,

and other organizations around the world would have no way of assuring the

interoperability of their instructional technologies, specifically their learning objects. A

similar project called the Alliance of Remote Instructional Authoring and Distribution

Networks for Europe (ARIADNE) had already started with the financial support of the

European Union Commission (ARIADNE, 2000). At the same time, another venture

called the Instructional Management Systems (IMS) Project was just beginning in the

United States, with funding from Educom (IMS, 2000a). Each of these and other

organizations (e.g., ADL, 2000) began developing technical standards to support the

broad deployment of learning objects. Many of these local standards efforts have

representatives on the LTSC group.

The Learning Technology Standards Committee chose the term “learning objects”

(possibly from Wayne Hodgins’ 1994 use of the term in the title of the CedMA working

group called “Learning Architectures, API’s, and Learning Objects”) to describe these

small instructional components, established a working group, and provided a working

definition:

Learning Objects are defined here as any entity, digital or non-digital, which can

be used, re-used or referenced during technology supported learning. Examples of

4
 technology-supported learning include computer-based training systems,

interactive learning environments, intelligent computer-aided instruction systems,

distance learning systems, and collaborative learning environments. Examples of

Learning Objects include multimedia content, instructional content, learning

objectives, instructional software and software tools, and persons, organizations,

or events referenced during technology supported learning (LOM, 2000).

This definition is extremely broad, and upon examination fails to exclude any

person, place, thing, or idea that has existed at anytime in the history of the universe,

since any of these could be “referenced during technology supported learning.”

Accordingly, different groups outside the Learning Technology Standards Committee

have created different terms that generally narrow the scope of the canonical definition

down to something more specific. Other groups have refined the definition but continue

to use the term “learning object.” Confusingly, these additional terms and differently

defined “learning objects” are all Learning Technology Standards Committee “learning

objects” in the strictest sense.

The proliferation of definitions for the term “learning object” makes

communication confusing and difficult. For example, computer-based training (CBT)

vendor NETg, Inc., uses the term “NETg learning object” but applies a three-part

definition: a learning objective, a unit of instruction that teaches the objective, and a unit

of assessment that measures the objective (L’Allier, 1998). Another CBT vendor,

Asymetrix, defines learning objects in terms of programming characteristics. “ToolBook

II learning objects - pre-scripted elements that simplify programming … provide

instantaneous programming power” (Asymetrix, 2000). The NSF-funded Educational

5
Objects Economy takes a technical approach, only accepting Java Applets as learning

objects (EOE, 2000). It would seem that there are almost as many definitions of the term

as there are people employing it.

In addition to the various definitions of the term “learning object,” other terms

that imply the general intention to take an object-oriented approach to computer-assisted

instruction confuse the issue further. David Merrill uses the term “knowledge objects”

(Merrill, Li, and Jones, 1991). Merrill is also writing a book on the topic of object-

oriented approaches to instruction to be called “Components of Instruction” (personal

communication, March 21, 2000), which is sure to introduce yet another term,

“instructional component,” into the instructional design vernacular. The previously

mentioned ARIADNE project uses the term “pedagogical documents” (ARIADNE,

2000). The NSF-funded Educational Software Components of Tomorrow (ESCOT)

project uses the term “educational software components” (ESCOT, 2000), while the

Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and On-Line Teaching (MERLOT)

project refers to them as “online learning materials” (MERLOT, 2000). Finally, the

Apple Learning Interchange simply refers to them as “resources” (ALI, 2000).

Depressingly, while each of these is something different, they all conform to the Learning

Technology Standards Committee’s “learning object” definition. An in depth discussion

of the precise meanings of each of these terms would not add to the main point of this

discussion: the field is still struggling to come to grips with the question, “What is a

learning object?”

This terminological confusion forces any introductory chapter on the topic to

answer the question, “So what is a learning object?” The Learning Technology Standards

6
Committee definition seems too broad to be useful, since most instructional technologists

would not consider the historical event “the war of 1812” or the historical figure “Joan of

Arc” to be learning objects. At the same time, the creation of yet another term only seems

to add to the confusion. While the creation of a satisfactory definition of the term learning

object will probably consume the better part of the author’s career, a working definition

must be presented before the discussion can proceed. Therefore, this chapter will define a

learning object as “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning.” This

definition includes anything that can be delivered across the network on demand, be it

large or small. Examples of smaller reusable digital resources include digital images or

photos, live data feeds (like stock tickers), live or prerecorded video or audio snippets,

small bits of text, animations, and smaller web-delivered applications, like a Java

calculator. Examples of larger reusable digital resources include entire web pages that

combine text, images and other media or applications to deliver complete experiences,

such as a complete instructional event. This definition of learning object, “any digital

resource that can be reused to support learning,” is proposed for two reasons.

First, the definition is sufficiently narrow to define a reasonably homogeneous set

of things: reusable digital resources. At the same time, the definition is broad enough to

include the estimated 15 terabytes of information available on the publicly accessible

Internet (Internet Newsroom, 1999).

Second, the proposed definition is based on the LTSC definition (and defines a

proper subset of learning objects as defined by the LTSC), making issues of compatibility

of learning object as defined within this chapter and learning object as defined by the

LTSC explicit. The proposed definition captures what the author feels to be the critical

7
attributes of a learning object, “reusable,” “digital,” “resource,” and “learning,” as does

the LTSC definition. With that compatibility made explicit, the proposed definition

differs from the LTSC definition in two important ways.

First, the definition explicitly rejects non-digital (by dropping the word and

dropping the idea of a learning object being simply "reference"-able) and non-reusable

(by dropping the phrase "used or" which seems to imply the acceptance of single use)

resources. The definition of learning object presented in this chapter does not include

actual people, historical events, books (in the traditional sense of the term), or other

discrete, physical objects. The definition also drops the phrase "technology supported"

which is now implicit, because all learning objects are digital.

Second, the phrase "to support" has been substituted in place of "during" in the

LTSC definition. Use of an object "during" learning doesn't connect its use to learning.

The LTSC definition implies that nothing more than contiguity of an object’s use and the

occurrence of learning is sufficient, meaning that a banner advertisement atop an online

course web page would be a legitimate learning object. The definition adopted for this

chapter emphasizes the purposeful use (by either an instructional designer, an instructor,

or a student) of these objects to support learning.

Armed with a working definition of the term learning object, the discussion of the

instructional use of learning objects can proceed.

Instructional design theory and learning objects

Instructional design theories have been overviewed frequently in the literature

(Dijkstra, Seel, Schott, & Tennyson, 1997; Reigeluth 1983, 1999b; Tennyson, Schott,

Seel, & Dijkstra, 1997). Reigeluth (1999a) defines instructional design theory as follows:

8
 [I]nstructional design theories are design oriented, they describe methods of

instruction and the situations in which those methods should be used, the methods

can be broken into simpler component methods, and the methods are

probabilistic. (p. 7)

Reigeluth’s current definition of design theory as prescriptive theory follows

earlier definitions of design theory (Simon, 1969; Snelbecker, 1974; Reigeluth, 1983).

Because the very definition of “theory” in some fields is “descriptive,” design theories

are commonly confused with other types of theories that they are not, including learning

theory and curriculum theory (Reigeluth, 1999a).

Instructional design theory, or instructional strategies and criteria for their

application, must play a large role in the application of learning objects if they are to

succeed in facilitating learning. This statement echoes Reigeluth and Frick’s (1999) call,

“more [instructional design] theories are sorely needed to provide guidance for … the use

of new information technology tools” (p. 633). The following discussion takes a step in

this direction, by recasting two of the largest issues in the learning objects area –

combination and granularity – in instructional design terms.

Combination. While groups like the Learning Technology Standards Committee

exist to promote international discussion around the technology standards necessary to

support learning object-based instruction, and many people are talking about the financial

opportunities about to come into existence, there is astonishingly little conversation

around the instructional design implications of learning objects.

Indicative of this lack of thought about instructional design is item 7(d) of the

Learning Objects Metadata Working Group’s (a working group of the Learning

9
Technology Standards Committee) Project Authorization Request (PAR) form (LTSC,

2000b). The PAR is the mechanism by which IEEE projects are officially requested and

approved, and must contain statements of the project’s scope and purpose. Section 7 of

the PAR deals with the purpose of the proposed project, and item (d) in the Learning

Objects Metadata Working Group’s PAR (LOM, 2000) reads as follows:

To enable computer agents to automatically and dynamically compose

personalized lessons for an individual learner.

As the Learning Object Metadata standard neared finalization in early 2000, some

questions were raised regarding the current standard’s ability to achieve this purpose.

Apparently no one had considered the role of instructional design in composing and

personalizing lessons. If the reader will pardon a brief digression, at this point a brief

discussion of metadata, the focus of the Learning Object Metadata Working Group’s

efforts, is necessary.

Metadata, literally “data about data,” is descriptive information about a resource.

For example, the card catalog in a public library is a collection of metadata. In the case of

the card catalog, the metadata are the information stored on the cards about the Author,

Title, and Publication Date of the book or resource (recording, etc.) in question. The

labels on cans of soup are another example of metadata: they contain a list of Ingredients,

the Name of the soup, the Production Facility where the soup was canned, etc. In both the

case of the library book and the can of soup, metadata allow you to locate an item very

quickly without investigating all the individual items through which you are searching.

Imagine trying to locate Paradise Lost by sifting through every book in the library, or

looking for chicken soup by opening every can of soup in the store and inspecting their

10
contents! The Learning Objects Metadata Working Group is working to create metadata

for learning objects (such as Title, Author, Version, Format, etc.) so that people and

computers will be able to find objects by searching, as opposed to browsing the entire

digital library one object at a time until they find a satisficing one.

The problem with 7(d) arose when people began to actually consider what it

meant for a computer to “automatically and dynamically compose personalized lessons.”

This meant taking individual learning objects and combining them in a way that made

instructional sense, or in instructional design terminology, “sequencing” the learning

objects. It seemed clear to some that in order for a computer to make sequencing or any

other instructional design decisions, the computer must have access to instructional

design information to support the decision-making process. The problem was that no

instructional design information was included in the metadata specified by the current

version of the Learning Objects Metadata Working Group standard.

The lack of instructional design discussion at this standards-setting level of

conversation about learning objects is disturbing, because it might indicate a trend. One

can easily imagine technology implementers asking, “if the standards bodies haven’t

worried about sequencing, why should we?” Once technology or software that does not

support an instructionally-grounded approach to learning object sequencing is completed

and shipped to the average teacher, why would he or she respond any differently? This

sets the stage for learning objects to be used simply to glorify online instruction, the way

clip-art and dingbats are used in a frequently unprincipled manner to decorate elementary

school newsletters. Wiley (1999) called this “the new CAI – ‘Clip Art Instruction’” (p.

11
6). Obviously, instructionally grounded sequencing decisions are at the heart of the

instructionally successful use of learning objects.

Granularity. Discussion of the problem of combining learning objects in terms of

“sequencing” leads to another connection between learning objects and instructional

design theory. The most difficult problem facing the designers of learning objects is that

of “granularity” (Wiley, et al., 1999). How big should a learning object be? As stated

above, the Learning Technology Standards Committee’s definition leaves room for an

entire curriculum to be viewed as a learning object, but such a large object view

diminishes the possibility of learning object reuse. Reuse is the core of the learning object

notion, as generativity, adaptivity, and other –ivities are all facilitated by the property of

reuse. This is why a more restrictive definition has been proposed in this chapter.

Lest the answer seem too straightforward, because learning objects commonly

require the creation of metadata (which can mean filling out a form of twenty-some odd

fields like “Semantic Density”), designating every individual graphic and paragraph of

text within a curriculum a “learning object” can be prohibitively expensive. From an

“efficiency” point of view, the decision regarding learning object granularity can be

viewed as a trade-off between the possible benefits of reuse and the expense of

cataloging. From an instructional point of view, alternatively, the decision between how

much or how little to include in a learning object can be viewed as a problem of “scope.”

While reality dictates that financial and other factors must be considered, if learning is to

have its greatest chance of occurring, decisions regarding the scope of learning objects

must also be made in an instructionally grounded, principled manner.

12
 Viewed in this manner, the major issues facing would-be employers of learning

objects, granularity and combination, turn out to be perhaps the two considerations

known best to instructional designers: scope and sequence. There are a number of

existing instructional design theories that provide explicit scope and sequencing support

that, while not intended to be, are applicable to learning objects. Reigeluth’s Elaboration

Theory (Reigeluth, 1999b), van Merriënboer’s Four-component Instructional Design

model (van Merriënboer, 1997), and Gibbons and his colleagues’ Work Model Synthesis

approach (Gibbons et al., 1995) come to mind, among others. Wiley (2000) recently

synthesized these and other instructional design theories into a learning object-specific

instructional design theory, called Learning Object Design and Sequencing Theory.

Interest in the learning objects idea

Even without a strong commitment to instructional principles on the part of

standards bodies, there has been a considerable investment in the idea of learning objects.

The IMS Project, which develops and promotes compliance with technical specifications

for online learning, was until recently funded by memberships. The highest level of

participation, “Contributing Member,” was associated with an annual fee of $50,000,

retroactive to the project’s beginning. Over 30 vendors, universities, and other

organizations belonged to this program (IMS, 2000b) whose membership list reads like a

who’s who of software developers and high-powered organizations: Microsoft, Oracle,

Sun, Macromedia, Apple, IBM, UNISYS, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S.

Department of Labor, the California State Universities, International Thompson

Publishing, and Educational Testing Service, to name a few. The next level of

13
membership down, the “Developers Network,” has over 200 members, most of which are

universities.

Additionally, a report released by investment banking firm W. R. Hambrect

contains more than the common predictions for the future of online learning, for example,

that the online learning market will reach $11.5 billon by 2003 (Urdan & Weggen, 2000).

As evidenced in the report, even brokers are talking about learning objects and

encouraging investors to make sure that the e-learning companies they buy rely on the

technology:

[Online learning content] development cycles are predicted to shorten by 20%

every year to two or three weeks by 2004. This imperative will drive more

template-based designs and fewer custom graphics. Learning objects will be

created in smaller chunks and reusable formats. As a consequence, the industry

will become more efficient and competitive…We are convinced that the move to

defined, open standards is crucial to the continuing successful adoption of e-

learning, especially as it begins to transition beyond early adopters into the rapid

growth phase of the market. Authoring tools will need to operate across different

platforms and communicate with other tools used to build learning systems.

Content and courseware must be reusable, interoperable, and easily manageable at

many different levels of complexity throughout the online instructional

environment. Enterprise learning systems have to accommodate numerous and

varied learner requirements, needs, and objectives. Corporate customers need to

be able to easily track content created by multiple content providers through one

training management system and search vast local or distributed catalogs of

14
 content to identify learning objects or modules on a particular topic. The race for

education technology standards is on (Urdan & Weggen, 2000, p.16).

Whether or not the learning object paradigm is grounded in the best instructional

theory currently available, there can be little doubt that the United States and the world

(the ARIADNE coalition has a similar list of European members) are about to be flooded

with learning object-based tools. Microsoft has already released a toolset it touts as “the

first commercial application of work being delivered by the Instructional Management

System (IMS) Project” (Microsoft, 2000). Recognition, adoption, and the potential for

future support for the learning objects idea is significant, and includes some of the

biggest players in software, higher education, and even investment. Learning objects

seemed to be poised to become the instructional technology of online learning. However,

technical standards and venture capital are not enough to promote learning. In order to

promote learning, technology use should be guided by instructional principles.

The post-LEGO learning object

From its genesis, the learning object community has used metaphors to explain

the learning objects concept to the uninitiated. Learning objects and their behavior have

been likened to LEGOs, Lincoln Logs, and other children’s toys in a twofold effort to (1)

communicate the basic idea and (2) put a friendly, familiar face on a new instructional

technology. These analogies continue to serve their intended purpose of giving those new

to the idea an easy way of understanding what we are trying to do: create small pieces of

instruction (LEGOs) that can be assembled (stacked together) into some larger

instructional structure (castle) and reused in other instructional structures (e.g., a

spaceship). Unfortunately, the metaphor has taken on a life of its own. Instead of serving

15
as a quick and dirty introduction to an area of work, this overly simplistic way of talking

about things seems to have become the method of expression of choice for those working

at the very edge of our field -- even when speaking to each other. This point was driven

home recently at a conference of a professional educational technology organization,

where the LEGO metaphor was referred to in every presentation on learning objects, and

even those on related topics such as metadata.

The problem with this ingraining of the LEGO metaphor is the potential degree to

which it could control and limit the way people think about learning objects. Consider the

following properties of a LEGO block:

• Any LEGO block is combinable with any other LEGO block.

• LEGO blocks can be assembled in any manner you choose.

• LEGO blocks are so fun and simple that even children can put them together.

The implicit assumption, conveyed by the metaphor, that these three properties are also

properties of learning objects is needlessly restricting some people’s views of what a

learning object could potentially be and do. It is the author’s belief that a system of

learning objects with these three properties cannot produce anything more instructionally

useful than LEGOs themselves can. And if what results from the combination of learning

objects is not instructionally useful, the combination has failed regardless of whatever

else it may do. The recommendation of another metaphor seems necessary.

Instead of making something artificial (like a LEGO) the international symbol for

learning object, let us try something that occurs naturally, something about which we

already know a great deal. This should jump start our understanding of learning objects

16
and the way they are put together into instructionally meaningful units. Let us try the

atom as a new metaphor.

An atom is a small "thing" that can be combined and recombined with other

atoms to form larger "things." This seems to capture the major meaning conveyed by the

LEGO metaphor. However, the atom metaphor departs from the LEGO metaphor in some

extremely significant ways:

• Not every atom is combinable with every other atom.

• Atoms can only be assembled in certain structures prescribed by their own

internal structure.

• Some training is required in order to assemble atoms.

The implications of these differences are significant. The task of creating a useful,

real-world learning object system is complicated enough without the requirement

inherited from LEGO-type thinking that each and every learning object be compatible (or

combinable) with every other learning object. This requirement is naïve and over-

simplistic, and if enforced may keep learning objects from ever being instructionally

useful.

The task of creating a useful learning object system is also hindered by the idea

that learning objects need to be combinable in any manner one chooses. (According to

http://www.lego.com/, six of the standard 2x4 LEGO blocks can be combined in

102,981,500 ways.) This is what is currently touted as "theory neutrality." Software

vendors and standards bodies describe their learning object related work as being

“instructional theory neutral.” Were this the case all would be well in learning object

land. Problematically, a more accurate description of their products is “instructional

17
theory agnostic,” or in other words, “we don't know if you're employing an instructional

theory or not, and we don't care.” As stated above, it is very likely that the combination

of learning objects in the absence of any instructional theory will result in larger

structures that fail to be instructionally useful.

Finally, the task of creating a useful learning object system is stuck in the idea

that anyone should be able to open a box of learning objects and have fun assembling

them with their three-year-old. While the assembly of learning objects should not be

made any more difficult than necessary, the notion that any system developed should be

so simple that anyone can successfully use it without training seems overly restrictive. It

prevents learning objects-based instructional design research from reaching Simon’s

(1969) ideal of being “intellectually tough, analytic, formalizable, and teachable.” It

seems to prevent the field from making any cumulative, scientific progress.

Worse yet, the three “LEGO properties” of learning objects point toward a

possible trend: the tendency to treat learning objects like components of a knowledge

management system (perhaps the term “information objects” would be appropriate).

While no two people may ever reach a common definition of instruction, most would

agree that instruction is more than information, as Merrill is so fond of reminding us.

This type of thinking manifests itself as people equate learning objects with “content

objects” to the exclusion of “logic objects” and “application objects,” for example.

If we take atoms as the new learning object metaphor, questions that were once

difficult to answer become transparent. For example, take the question mentioned

previously, “what degree of granularity is the most appropriate for instructionally

effective learning object combination?” One answer can be found by examining the atom

18
metaphor more closely. (While pushing a metaphor is risky business, because all

metaphors break down at some point, it can be useful as a properly contextualized

educational exercise.)

It is commonly accepted that atoms are not the smallest bits of stuff in the

universe. Atoms are, in fact, combinations of smaller bits (neutrons, protons, and

electrons), which are combinations of smaller bits (baryons and mesons), which are

combinations of even smaller bits (quarks, anti-quarks, and gluons), etc. It is the

particular manner in which these top-level bits (neutrons, protons, and electrons) are

combined in an individual atom that determines which other atoms a particular atom can

bond with. In other words, it is the structure of the combination that determines what

other structures the combination is compatible with, much the way the shape of a puzzle

piece determines where in the puzzle it may be placed.

Applying this to learning objects, it seems that smaller bits (i.e., learning objects

of a finer grain size) may be combined into structures that promote one learning object's

combination with a second, while the same structure prevents the first object's

combination with a third. One answer to the question, “what degree of granularity is the

most appropriate for instructionally effective learning object combination?” suggested by

the atom metaphor is, then, the level of aggregation at which the learning objects display

this structural bonding characteristic. From a constructivist point of view, which

promotes learning within a rich context (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996), this could be

interpreted as meaning that learning objects should be internally contextualized to a

certain degree – a degree that promotes their contextualization (combination) with a

19
closed set of other learning objects, while simultaneously preventing their combination

with other learning objects.

Atomic bonding is a fairly precise science, and although the theories that explain

it are well understood (albeit probabilistically) at the macro-level of neutrons, protons

and electrons, they are understood less well at the levels of the smaller bits. While the

smaller bits are an area of curiosity and investigation, this does not prevent fruitful work

from occurring at the macro-level. Similarly, instructional design theories function

probabilistically at a high level, while less is understood about the exact details of the

smaller instructional bits. Here again, however, fruitful work continues to occur at the

higher level while lower level explorations are being carried out. It should be obvious at

this point that a person without understanding of instructional design has no more hope of

successfully combining learning objects into instruction than a person without an

understanding of chemistry has of successfully forming a crystal. Rather than thinking

about LEGOs or Lincoln Logs, perhaps our minds should be pointed toward something

like a "learning crystal," in which individual learning objects are combined into an

instructionally useful, and to some degree inherent, structure.

The role of taxonomy development

The discussion of learning object characteristics, such as sequence, scope, and

structure, leads one to consider what different types of learning objects might exist. In

other words, can types of learning objects be meaningfully differentiated? Taxonomy

development has historically accompanied instructional design theories (Bloom, 1956;

Gagne, Briggs, and Wager, 1992), and is recommended by Richey (1986) and Nelson

(1998) in their instructional design theory development approaches. According to Richey

20
(1986), the development of conceptual models such as taxonomies serves to “identify and

organize the relevant variables; defining, explaining, and describing relationships among

the variables” (p. 26-27).

While object categorizations exist specific to particular instructional design

theories, such as Merrill’s (Merrill, Li, and Jones, 1991) sets of process, entity, and

activity classifications, a general learning object taxonomy compatible with multiple

instructional design theories does not exist. The lack of such a broadly applicable

taxonomy significantly hinders the application of the learning object to existing

instructional design theories, as current practice has been to create theory-specific

taxonomies to support each implementation (Merrill, Li, and Jones, 1991; L’Allier,

1998), considerably increasing the time, resource, and effort necessary to employ

learning objects. The rest of this chapter will present a general taxonomy of learning

object types.

A taxonomy learning object types

All learning objects have certain qualities. It is the difference in the degree to

which (or manner in which) they exhibit these qualities that makes one type of learning

object different from another. The following taxonomy differentiates between five

learning object types. Examples of these five object types are given below, followed by

the taxonomy, which explicates their differences and similarities.

• Fundamental - For example, a JPEG of a hand playing a chord on a piano

keyboard.

• Combined-closed - For example, a video of a hand playing an arpeggiated chord

on a piano keyboard with accompanying audio.

21
 • Combined-open - For example, a web page dynamically combining the previously

mentioned JPEG and QuickTime file together with textual material “on the fly.”

• Generative-presentation - For example, a JAVA applet capable of graphically

generating a set of staff, clef, and notes, and then positioning them appropriately

to present a chord identification problem to a student.

• Generative-instructional - For example, an EXECUTE instructional transaction

shell (Merrill, 1999), which both instructs and provides practice for any type of

procedure, for example, the process of chord root, quality, and inversion

identification.

Distinguishing between the learning object types is a matter of identifying the

manner in which the object to be classified exhibits certain characteristics. These

characteristics are critical attributes and are stable across environmentally disparate

instances (e.g., the properties remain the same whether or not the learning objects reside

in a digital library). Table 1 presents the taxonomy. The purpose of the taxonomy is to

differentiate possible types of learning objects available for use in instructional design.

This taxonomy is not exhaustive in that it includes only learning object types that

facilitate high degrees of reuse. Other types of learning objects that hamper or practically

prevent reuse, (e.g., an entire digital textbook created in a format that prevents any of the

individual media from being reused outside of the textbook context), have been

purposefully excluded. Finally, the taxonomy's characteristics' values (such as High,

Medium, and Low) are purposefully fuzzy, as the taxonomy is meant to facilitate inter-

object comparison, and not to provide independent metrics for classifying learning

objects out of context (such as file size in kilobytes). Table 1 is followed by a more in

22
depth discussion of each of the characteristics of learning objects and a discussion of the

learning object types themselves.

23
Table 1. Preliminary Taxonomy of Learning Object Types.

Learning Object Fundamental Combined-closed Combined-open Generative- Generative-

Number of elements One Few Many Few - Many Few - Many

Type of objects Single Single, Combined- All Single, Combined- Single, Combined-
contained closed closed closed, Generative-
presentation

Reusable component (Not applicable) No Yes Yes / No Yes / No

Common function Exhibit, display Pre-designed Pre-designed instruction Exhibit, display Computer-generated
instruction or and / or practice instruction and / or
practice practice

Extra-object No No Yes Yes / No Yes

Type of logic (Not applicable) None, or answer None, or domain-specific Domain-specific Domain-independent
contained in object sheet-based item instructional and presentation strategies presentation,
scoring assessment strategies instructional, and
assessment strategies

Potential for High Medium Low High High

Potential for Low Low Medium High High

24
 Learning object characteristics. The characteristics in Table 1 are described

below.

• Number of elements combined – Describes the number of individual elements

(such as video clips, images, etc.) combined in order to make the learning object.

• Type of objects contained – Describes the type of learning objects that may be

combined to form a new learning object.

• Reusable component objects – Describes whether or not a learning object’s

constituent objects may be individually accessed and reused in new learning

contexts.

• Common function – Describes the manner in which the learning object type is

generally used.

• Extra-object dependence – Describes whether the learning object needs

information (such as location on the network) about learning objects other than

itself.

• Type of logic contained in object– Describes the common function of algorithms

and procedures within the learning object.

• Potential for inter-contextual reuse – Describes the number of different learning

contexts in which the learning object might be used, that is, the object's potential

for reuse in different content areas or domains.

• Potential for intra-contextual reuse – Describes the number of times the learning

object might be reused within the same content area or domain.

Learning object type definitions. The five types of learning objects have been

exemplified and their characteristics have been described. While the creation of strict

25
definitions for these types is an ongoing effort, the author's current best thinking with

regard to definitions of each type is captured below.

• Fundamental – An individual digital resource uncombined with any other, the

fundamental learning object is generally a visual (or other) aid that serves an

exhibit or example function (Wiley & Nelson, 1998).

• Combined-closed – A small number of digital resources combined at design time

by the learning object's creator, whose constituent learning objects are not

individually accessible for reuse (recoverable) from the Combined-closed learning

object itself. A video clip exemplifies this definition, as still images and an audio

track are combined in a manner which renders these constituent pieces

unrecoverable (or, at least difficult to recover). The Combined-closed learning

object may contain limited logic (e.g., the ability to perform answer sheet-

referenced item scoring) but should not contain complex internal logic (e.g., the

capacity to intelligently grade a set of item forms or case types) since this

valuable capability would not be reusable in other learning objects. Combined-

closed learning objects are generally single purpose, that is, they provide either

instruction or practice.

• Combined-open – A larger number of digital resources combined by a computer

in real-time when a request for the object is made, whose constituent learning

objects are directly accessible for reuse (recoverable) from the Combined-open

object. A webpage exemplifies this definition, as its component images, video

clips, text, and other media exist in reusable format and are combined into a

learning object at request-time. Combined-open learning objects frequently

26
 combine related instructional and practice-providing Combined-closed and

Fundamental objects in order to create a complete instructional unit.

• Generative-presentation – Logic and structure for combining or generating and

combining lower-level learning objects (Fundamental and Combined-closed

types). Generative-presentation learning objects can either draw on network-

accessible objects and combine them, or generate (e.g., draw) objects and

combine them to create presentations for use in reference, instruction, practice,

and testing. (Generative-presentation learning objects must be able to pass

messages to other objects with assessment logic when used in practice or testing).

While Generative-presentation learning objects have high intra-contextual

reusability (they can be used over and over again in similar contexts), they have

relatively low inter-contextual reusability (use in domains other than that for

which they were designed).

• Generative-instructional – Logic and structure for combining learning objects

(Fundamental, Combined-closed types, and Generative-presentation) and

evaluating student interactions with those combinations, created to support the

instantiation of abstract instructional strategies (such as "remember and perform a

series of steps"). The transaction shells of Merrill's Instructional Transaction

Theory (Merrill, 1999) would be classified as Generative-instructional learning

objects. The Generative-instructional learning object is high in both intra-

contextual and inter-contextual reusability.

27
Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory

The main theme of this chapter has been that instructional design theory must be

incorporated in any learning object implementation that aspires to facilitate learning. The

taxonomy of learning object types presented in this chapter is instructional design theory-

neutral, making it compatible with practically any instructional design theory. (The

taxonomy’s explicit references to domain-dependent and domain-independent

presentation, instruction, and assessment logic, which must come from somewhere, keep

it from being instructional theory agnostic.)

Wiley (2000) posited and presented three components of a successful learning

object implementation: an instructional design theory, a learning object taxonomy, and

“prescriptive linking material” that connects the instructional design theory to the

taxonomy, providing guidance of the type “for this type of learning goal, use this type of

learning object.” In addition to providing a worked example of this process, Wiley (2000)

also presented design guidelines for the five learning object types.

Previously, any person or organization who wanted to employ learning objects in

their instructional design and delivery was required to either create their own taxonomy

of learning object types or work in an ad hoc, frequently higgledy-piggledy manner.

Taxonomy development requires significant effort above and beyond normal

instructional design and development, and is certainly one cause of the current poverty of

instructionally-grounded practical applications of learning objects. However, any

instructional designer may potentially connect the instructional design theory of their

choice to the theory-neutral taxonomy presented in this chapter via the creation of

“prescriptive linking material,” a considerably simpler exercise than the creation of a new

28
taxonomy. It is the author’s desire that the development of the learning object taxonomy

presented herein will (1) speed the practical adoption of the learning object approach, (2)

allow the simplified application of any instructional design theory to the learning object

approach, and (3) provide a common ground for future research of the instructional

technology called “learning objects.” Application of the “prescriptive linking material”

approach and scrutiny of the taxonomy will help both improve significantly over time.

Conclusion

Like any other instructional technology, learning objects must participate in a

principled partnership with instructional design theory if they are to succeed in

facilitating learning. This chapter has presented a possible partnership structure. If

learning objects ever live up to their press and provide the foundation for an adaptive,

generative, scalable learning architecture, teaching and learning as we know them are

certain to be revolutionized. However, this revolution will never occur unless more

voices speak out regarding the explicitly instructional use of learning objects – the

automated or by-hand spatial or temporal juxtaposition of learning objects intended to

facilitate learning. These voices must penetrate the din of metadata, data interchange

protocol, tool/agent communication and other technical standards conversations. While

instructional design theory may not be as “sexy” as bleeding-edge technology, there must

be concentrated effort made to understand the instructional issues inherent in the learning

objects notion. The potential of learning objects as an instructional technology is great,

but will never be realized without a balanced effort in technology and instructional design

areas. We need more theorists.

29
Acknowledgements

The development of this chapter was funded in part by the Edumetrics Institute and NSF

grant #DUE-0085855.

30
References

ADL. (2000). Advanced distributed learning network website [On-line]. Available:

http://www.adlnet.org/

ALI. (2000). Apple learning interchange website [On-line]. Available:

http://ali.apple.com/

ARIADNE. (2000). Alliance of remote instructional authoring and distribution networks

for Europe website [On-line]. Available: http://ariadne.unil.ch/

Asymetrix. (2000). Customer case study: Veturist, Inc. [On-line]. Available:

http://www.asymetrix.com/solutions/casestudies/venturist.html

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: Cognitive

domain. New York: Longmans Green.

Dahl, O. J. & Nygaard, K. (1966). SIMULA - An algol based simulation language.

Communications of the ACM, 9 (9), p. 671-678.

Dijkstra, S., Seel, N., Schott, F., & Tennyson, R. (Eds.) (1997). Instructional design:

International perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design

and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for

educational communications and technology (p. 170-198). New York: Simon &

Schuster Macmillan.

EOE. (2000). Educational objects economy website [On-line]. Available:

http://www.eoe.org/eoe.htm

ESCOT. (2000). Educational software components of tomorrow website [On-line].

Available: http://www.escot.org/

31
Gagne, R., Briggs, L. & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th Ed.).

Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College.

Gibbons, A.S., Bunderson, C.V., Olsen, J.B., and Rogers, J. (1995). Work models: Still

beyond instructional objectives. Machine-Mediated Learning, 5(3&4), 221-236.

Gibbons, A. S., Nelson, J., & Richards, R. (2000). The nature and origin of instructional

objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects.

Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Hodgins, Wayne. (2000). Into the future [On-line]. Available:

http://www.learnativity.com/download/MP7.PDF

IMS. (2000a). Instructional management systems project website [On-line]. Available:

http://imsproject.org/

IMS. (2000b). Instructional management systems project website [On-line]. Available:

http://imsproject.org/imMembers.html

Internet Newsroom (1999). Internet growing too fast for search engines [On-line].

Available: http://www.editors-service.com/articlearchive/search99.html

L’Allier, J. J. (1998). NETg's precision skilling: The linking of occupational skills

descriptors to training interventions [On-line]. Available:

http://www.netg.com/research/pskillpaper.htm

LOM (2000). LOM working draft v4.1 [On-line]. Available:

http://ltsc.ieee.org/doc/wg12/LOMv4.1.htm

LTSC. (2000a). Learning technology standards committee website [On-line]. Available:

http://ltsc.ieee.org/

32
LTSC. (2000b). IEEE standards board: Project authorization request (PAR) form [On-

line]. Available: http://ltsc.ieee.org/par-lo.htm

MERLOT. (2000). Multimedia educational resource for learning and on-line teaching

website [On-line]. Available: http://www.merlot.org/

Merrill, M.D., Li, Z. & Jones, M. (1991). Instructional transaction theory: An

introduction. Educational Technology, 31(6), 7-12.

Merrill, M. D. (1999). Instructional transaction theory (ITT): Instructional design based

on knowledge objects. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and

models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. (pp. 397-424). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Microsoft. (2000). Resources: Learning resource interchange [On-line]. Available:

http://www.microsoft.com/eLearn/resources/LRN/

Nelson, L. M. (1998). Collaborative problem solving: An instructional theory for

learning through small group interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Indiana University.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C. M.

Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their

current status (pp. 3-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reigeluth, C. M. & Nelson, L. M. (1997). A new paradigm of ISD? In R. C. Branch & B.

B. Minor (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 22, pp. 24-

35). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1999a). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence

decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A

33
 new paradigm of instructional theory. (pp. 5-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1999b). What is instructional design theory and how is it changing? In

C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm

of instructional theory. (pp. 5-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reigeluth, C. M. & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating

and improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design

theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. (pp. 5-29).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Richey, R. C. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design.

London: Kogan Page.

Simon, H. A. (1969). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Snelbecker, G. E. (1974). Learning theory, instructional theory, and psychoeducational

theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Snow, R. E. (1971). Theory construction for research on teaching. In R. M. W. Travers

(Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Tennyson, R., Schott, F., Seel, N., & Dijkstra, S. (Eds.) (1997). Instructional design:

International perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Urdan, T. A. & Weggen, C. C. (2000). Corporate e-learning: Exploring a new frontier

[On-line]. Available:

http://wrhambrecht.com/research/coverage/elearning/ir/ir_explore.pdf

34
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component

instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Educational Technology Publications.

Wiley, D. A. & Nelson, L. M. (1998). The fundamental object [On-line]. Available:

http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/fundamental.html

Wiley, D. A. (1999). Learning objects and the new CAI: So what do I do with a learning

object? [On-line]. Available: http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/instruct-arch.pdf

Wiley, D. A., South, J. B., Bassett, J., Nelson, L. M., Seawright, L. L., Peterson, T., &

Monson, D. W. (1999). Three common properties of efficient online instructional

support systems. The ALN Magazine, 3(2), [On-line]. Available:

http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/Vol3_issue2/wiley.htm

Wiley, D. A. (2000). Learning object design and sequencing theory. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University. Available:

http://davidwiley.com/papers/dissertation/dissertation.pdf

35