INST 7150 - Final project

Can be found here.

FYI - I began the paper prior to the guidelines coming out...thus continuity may be lacking. Coherency too, as I am somewhat lacking in the sleep department. (Courtesy of the final paper-writing marathon as well as my *$%#&% neighbors below and to the side who have spent the last 2 weeks drinking cheap beer and getting in fights with each other every night.)

INST 7150

The Great Thing About Standards: Learning Technology Standards and Learning Objects
This is the one I've been waiting for..... standards - my absolute favorite! ; )
When will this one be completed?
Truthfully though - I am curious.

INST 7150

"I don't know if you guys have ever played any educational games, but some of them could pass as instruction."
Without a specific title, I don't think I can agree with you here. I've used/played a lot of educational games, but have never found one that could pass as instruction. I can use a game as part of my instruction, but the game itself does not pass as instruction. SimTown is a "game" that I used with my 2nd and 3rd graders. The game alone had little to no educational value for my kids. However, within the context of our studies on communities and cities, the game took on more meaning. When used within the context of my instruction, which involved community planning, decided what were "needs" (i.e. hospitals, stores, libraries) vs. wants (Apple store, The Gap, Blockbuster Video) the game became an aspect of my instruction.

1)Why do we restrict our thinking about learning objects to content? What other kinds of learning objects could exist within the context of digital, reusable, and supporting learning?
OK - I read this one at least 3 times, but I'm still a little unclear on where exactly you were heading with this...and how to answer it. Perhaps some forms of software might fit this - Kidspiration is one that comes to mind - digital, reuseable in multiple contexts, supports learning...... Some educational websites, perhaps....

"C: What? No one else shops at Target?"
Nope - not anymore. Not since they started allowing pharmacists to discriminate against women, people who are HIV positive, and any person who is unfortunate enough to contract an STD by denying them their prescriptions if they are "morally opposed". I have a moral opposition to the way some kids are raised, but I don't deny them access to education because of it. What's next - my doctor has a moral opposition to public education, therefore she can now refuse me services because of that? How about the 6 year old who contracted HIV as a result of a blood transfusion - it's not the kid's fault, yet the pharmacist can refuse to fill the prescription for antiretrovirals because he/she has a moral opposition to homosexuality, and of course HIV/AIDS is a homosexual's disease that God gave them as punishment.
Target, Walgreens, Eckerd, Safeway, WalMart, RiteAid - all allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions based on moral objections.
It's Costco or KMart for me

OT minor rant.....

OK - why is usability pronounced yoos-a-bility, when, following the rules of pronunciation, it should be pronounced us-ability, because there is no 'e' to make the 'u' have a long-yoo sound? Use and us are not pronounced the same, so why should usability and useability be pronounced the same? (Grading WAY too many tech plans that say usability and refraining from correcting them because, according to Word and most dictionaries, both are acceptable.) AARRGGHHH!

INST 7150 - Accessibility

"Look forward to hearing your additional thinking about accessibility issues.."

Ha. Accessibility is another pet peeve of mine. In this case I was thinking of a couple of ways in which accessibility issues arise.
1) The obvious - Windows vs. Mac
How many java applets did I look at when trying to find useable learning objects for the original incarnation of my final project? Many. Many. Many. How many were cross-platform or useable for Macs? Virtually none. Of the couple I found, they were either: 1) Meant for higher educational levels than the students I have in mind, or 2) Really lame and didn't add anything to the concept that students couldn't already get from a book or 3) Created for OS 7-9.5..... and while my iBook was perfectly happy to switch from OSX to Classic, or even boot up in 9, this Powerbook acts like I'm asking it to kiss George Bush's hiney.

2) Less obvious - the accessibility of some learning objects to my disabled students (both in digital and non-digital format). Flash does not work well with adaptive devices - this eliminates many of my students from utilizing various animated games or simulations - which I find to be extremely ironic, since these kids are often the ones who would benefit most from them. Likewise, many java applets are equally unaccessible for various reasons, including conflicts with adaptive equipment, poor visual quality that eliminates them from the use of my students who have any visual impairments whatsoever, poor quality photos or graphics, web pages that do not meet Section 508 compatibility requirements, brand-new "educational" software that does not meet Section 508 (it's the law, you rejects!), the list goes on and on. It's not just digital either - I usually have 2 versions of the same book in my library - one regular, one with adaptations so that my little ones who cannot turn pages well can actually turn the pages ON THEIR OWN! Textbooks (basal readers) should come in digital format as well as printed, so that I can pop a CD into the computer and allow a screen reader or Adobe reader to read the text to my students who cannot read it to themselves.

3) Final thought - which may or may not go properly under accessibility depending on how you think about it.....
Accessibility in that you can move it (i.e, classroom webpage), reuse it, or repurpose it without breaking copyright. There are many things out there that I would like to use, just not in their current context, but I cannot access them or move them or repurpose them without having the Feds (or worse - Disney) on my back.

And now that I've digressed slightly from my appointed task of writing the 25+ page paper that is due on Tuesday (yes, this Tuesday)..... back to the fun world of multiple baseline designs. Joy.
(insert swear word of choice here)

INST 7150

"How is reusing and connecting learning objects with learners any different from reusing and connecting textbooks, research articles, and transparencies with learners?"
Coming from a K-12 background, I don't see that there should be a difference, other than the obvious technical issues that might arise. I would direct a student to a particular learning object in the same manner that I would direct them to a passage in their textbook or other reading material - only the interface would differ. Eventually, a textbook becomes outdated and is replaced by a newer version. Likewise, a learning object becomes obsolete, or no longer useable due to its format or content, and is (hopefully) replaced by a newer version.

(Unless it is is created through a project funded by grant funds through the U.S. gov't (DOE) or NSF, in which case they either let it fall by the wayside or switch to a pay site and you no longer have access to everything you had before.... can you sense I am still somewhat bitter about this? Like they pay me well enough that I can afford to buy a subscription. My district can't even handle the funds it has - $1.4 million shortfall again this year. Oops.)

INST 7150 - in context

"How is reusing and connecting learning objects with learners any different from reusing and connecting textbooks, research articles, and transparencies with learners?"
In my mind, there shouldn't be a difference, although if using the definition of learning objects solely as digital may create some additional accessibility that the others wouldn't have. Hmm... might have to think about that one some more.

"Is creating a meaningful context for learning object reuse any different from creating a meaningful context for reusing other educational materials, like book chapters or research articles?"
NO!
I would say not.
Or at least it shouldn't be.
If I had a java applet that showed some math concept, chances are pretty good that I could use it at multiple levels - for instance, 3rd grade, where the concept is introduced, where they get the big picture as to that concept, but they probably will not understand the smaller details. Then that applet could be used again, say in 5th grade - this time looking at more of the small details - such as the equations that go into that concept. It might be used again in 6th-or 7th grade - looking at other factors again, and then might be used in a programming class as an example of a java applet. Each time it is used in a different context and for a different purpose/learning objective.
The same could be said of a poem - where in lower grades, you might simply be looking at rhyming or the rhythm of said poem. In upper grades, you might get into word choice, structure, iambic pentameter, and in secondary or higher ed, you might be researching the background of the poet who wrote it to see how the word choice or the message/intent of the poem was a representation of that time period, or of events in the poets' life. Different context for each use of the poem.
(How's that for vague - can't think specifics at this time of night...)

INST 7150

Ha-ha - see my previous post about my stupidintendent and his automated system dreams ("takes the need for people completely out of the loop") and the teacher next door with the same dittos/art projects/books/activities for the last 10 years ("teacher zoning out is the equivalent of the system selecting an object that doesn't "fit" with the objects that had come before").