From what I can tell, learning objects are basically just a way for self-motivated learners to get information. It is meant to be reused by people all over the world, making learning easier and more accessible to everyone. But, it seems to me as that just cannot simply be it. Im really at a loss on this one.
So, since I am at a loss, let me just make some comments about the articles...
1. The Bannan Article: preface: My comment has nothing to do with learning objects.
"Humans are viewed as goal directed agents who actively seek information." Dont make me laugh. Obviously the writers of this have never lived where I live. Dont get me wrong; most days I like where I live, but it would take more than my fingers and toes to count the number of people who are not goal directed and do not actively seek information. Now, there are quite a few people that do, but I think this is a HUGE generalization and very poor assumption. I do not think humans are goal directed. At best, I think you could say 50% of humans are goal directed. Call me skeptical, but...
2. Maybe I am confused because like the Koppi articles states, there are many definitions and some are debatable. That makes me feel better.
3. The LRC makes me think of a library. So is all this just a "puffed-up" library?
4. I can see how this style of learning or this idea would be useful in life. Searching many different places to find an answer is a very valuable skill. I cant think of any problem that I have been presented where I didnt have to go to many sources to find an answer.
5. I dont really like the decontextualization part. I do like teaching things in context. Giving students background and then going from there. So not sure how I feel about no background. I think that some student would be lost without context.
So, for tonight that will have to be all. Excuse my cynicism for the evening. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment