The eLearning Guild’sww.w.cedma-europe.org/newsletter articles/eLearning Guild/Meeting Training...

9
August 6, 2007 After almost ten years of discussion, modular e-Learning based on learning objects is coming into wider acceptance and use. This week’s authors offer insights into why and how companies are using learning objects to deliver instruction, performance support, and reference information to employees across languages, cultures, and continents. Meeting Training and Learning Challenges with Reusable Learning Objects By Jacqueline D. Beck and Bobbe Baggio M any companies are reaping large returns by chunking small bits of learning and then re- using them over and over. Global organizations that support a multinational, multicultural, and diverse work force are leveraging media assets on multiple platforms to provide more learning and support options for their employees. Your organization can adopt reusable learn- ing object (RLO) technology to experience these results too, and in this article we present some ideas to help you get started, some mistakes to avoid, and some of our own experience in helping companies use RLOs. The organizations we mentioned in the first paragraph faced the challenge of developing e-Learning that would be reusable, cost-effective, transferable, and lightweight. The solution they found consists of two ideas that have been around learning and training for a long time, modularity and reusable learning objects (RLO’s). Modular e-Learning refers to learning units comprising a number of sepa- rate objects or modules. Reusable learning objects have the ability to display on multiple platforms, in many formats and languages, using different tech- nologies, without requiring developers to rebuild the learning unit. (See Figure A publication of THIS WEEK: Management Strategies The eLearning Guild’s Practical Applications of Technology for Learning SM

Transcript of The eLearning Guild’sww.w.cedma-europe.org/newsletter articles/eLearning Guild/Meeting Training...

Page 1: The eLearning Guild’sww.w.cedma-europe.org/newsletter articles/eLearning Guild/Meeting Training and Learning...of developing e-Learning that would be reusable, cost-effective, transferable,

August 6, 2007

After almost ten years

of discussion, modular

e-Learning based on

learning objects is coming

into wider acceptance and

use. This week’s authors

offer insights into why and

how companies are using

learning objects to deliver

instruction, performance

support, and reference

information to employees

across languages, cultures,

and continents.

Meeting Training and LearningChallenges with ReusableLearning ObjectsBy Jacqueline D. Beck and Bobbe Baggio

Many companies are reaping large returns by

chunking small bits of learning and then re-

using them over and over. Global organizations that

support a multinational, multicultural, and diverse work

force are leveraging media assets on multiple platforms

to provide more learning and support options for their

employees. Your organization can adopt reusable learn-

ing object (RLO) technology to experience these resultstoo, and in this article we present some ideas to help you get started, somemistakes to avoid, and some of our own experience in helping companies useRLOs.

The organizations we mentioned in the first paragraph faced the challengeof developing e-Learning that would be reusable, cost-effective, transferable,and lightweight. The solution they found consists of two ideas that have beenaround learning and training for a long time, modularity and reusable learningobjects (RLO’s).

Modular e-Learning refers to learning units comprising a number of sepa-rate objects or modules. Reusable learning objects have the ability to displayon multiple platforms, in many formats and languages, using different tech-nologies, without requiring developers to rebuild the learning unit. (See Figure

A publication of

THIS WEEK: Management Strategies

The eLearning Guild’s

Practical Applications of Technology for Learning

SM

Page 2: The eLearning Guild’sww.w.cedma-europe.org/newsletter articles/eLearning Guild/Meeting Training and Learning...of developing e-Learning that would be reusable, cost-effective, transferable,

Management Strategies

2LEARNING SOLUTIONS | August 6, 2007

degree program, is an expert on technology-enhancedpedagogy. Beck maintains a nationally recognizedWebsite on learning objects, where he offers this viewfrom the Wisconsin Online Resource Center (WORC):“Learning Objects are a new way of thinking aboutlearning content. Traditionally, content comes in a sev-eral hour chunk. Learning Objects are much smallerunits of learning, typically from 2 minutes to 15 min-utes.”

Definitions

Perhaps because reusable learning objects are a newapproach to reusing content, researchers, e-Learningexperts, international associations, and private sectorcompanies have yet to agree on a single definition.What has evolved is a somewhat elusive concept.Nonetheless, this concept promises to change the

Learning Solutions e-Magazine™ is designed to serve as a catalyst for innovation and as a vehicle for the dissemination of new and practicalstrategies, techniques, and best practices for e-Learning design, devel-opment and management professionals. It is not intended to be THEdefinitive authority ... rather, it is intended to be a medium through which e-Learning professionals can share their knowledge, expertise, and expe-rience. As in any profession, there are many different ways to accomplisha specific objective. Learning Solutions will share many different per-spectives and does not position any one as “the right way,” but rather we position each article as “one of the right ways” for accomplishing anobjective. We assume that readers will evaluate the merits of each articleand use the ideas they contain in a manner appropriate for their specificsituation.

The articles in Learning Solutions are all written by people who areactively engaged in this profession — not by journalists or freelance writ-ers. Submissions are always welcome, as are suggestions for future top-ics. To learn more about how to submit articles and/or ideas, please visitour Web site at www.eLearningGuild.com.

Publisher David Holcombe

Editorial Director Heidi FiskEditor Bill BrandonCopy Editor Charles Holcombe

Design Director Nancy Marland Wolinski

The eLearning Guild™ Advisory BoardRuth Clark, Lance Dublin, Conrad Gottfredson, Bill Horton, Bob Mosher, Eric Parks, Brenda Pfaus,Marc Rosenberg, Allison Rossett

Copyright 2002 to 2007. Learning Solutions e-Magazine™ (formerly TheeLearning Developers’ Journal™). Compilation copy-right by The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. Pleasecontact The eLearning Guild for reprint permission.

Learning Solutions e-Magazine™ is published weeklyfor members of The eLearning Guild, 375 E Street,Suite 200, Santa Rosa, CA 95404. Phone:+1.707.566.8990. www.eLearningGuild.com

1.) As P. R. Polansi noted in the Journal of DigitalInformation (see the References at the end of this arti-cle), the extent to which an or-ganization can deployand redeploy a learning unit enhances both the valueand the shelf life of the learning unit.

RLO basicsThe idea behind reusable learning objects is to

develop an inventory of small, independent, self-con-tained chunks of instruction. Designers can use thesechunks to assemble larger units of instruction. Givenaccess to a repository of learning objects, learnerscan retrieve these reusable chunks in order to con-struct knowledge and perform tasks, as well as toachieve designated learning objectives. Because ofthe potential they possess for reusability, generativity(the capacity for combining or generating other learn-ing objects), adaptability, and scalability, learningobjects lead all other candidates as the technology ofchoice in the evolution of instructional design, devel-opment, and delivery according to David Wiley, Dir-ector of the Center for Open and Sustainable Learn-ing at Utah State University.

Robert Beck of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where he now serves the Center for Inter-national Education and teaches in the Global Studies

Figure 1RLOs can be delivered via print, PC desktop, orinstructor-led session,hosted on a server, playedfrom CD, or downloadedfrom any Web page to aniPod or Mobile device

Page 3: The eLearning Guild’sww.w.cedma-europe.org/newsletter articles/eLearning Guild/Meeting Training and Learning...of developing e-Learning that would be reusable, cost-effective, transferable,

form of content delivery. Some definitions of the term “reusable learning

object” seem to concentrate on specific examples.One of these, the definition of learning objects in TheField Guide to Learning Objects by the AmericanSociety for Training and Development and SmartForce includes:

• lessons (a combination of text, graphics, anima-tion, audio, questions, and exercises),

• articles, • case studies, • mentored exercises, • discussion boards, • role-play simulations, • software simulations, • research projects, • and performance tests, among others. Other definitions take a more generic, functional

approach. Ruth Clark, a highly regarded expert on thescience of instruction, in an article written for the Inter-national Society for Performance Improvement, sug-gests it is best to keep the definition simple and cen-tered. “Learning objects are small, granular ‘bytes’ ofknowledge that can be stored in data bases and recy-cled within organizations.”

The definition debates continue. Whether one callsthem reusable learning objects, educational objects,knowledge objects, data objects, or instructional ob-jects, and whether one takes the specific or the gener-ic approach, the concept is the same.

How do you know whether you should be thinkingabout using learning objects as part of your organiza-tion’s learning strategy?

Decision factors

RLO’s are not for every e-Learning effort. Considerthese three factors when making the decision todesign e-Learning using RLOs: shelf life, scalability,and deployment. (See Figure 2.)

We recommend reserving RLO’s for content thathas a longer shelf life, such as processes and proce-dures. Those that are tried and true and unlikely tochange, the back bone of operations, are good candi-dates.

Scalable content that could support reuse in multi-ple settings is also a good candidate for RLOs. Anexample would be manufacturing operations andtechniques comprising small and definite steps thatworkers in all plants do the same way.

Segments of learning meant for global deploymentwould be good candidates for delivery in RLOs. Thisincludes content for translation into multiple languages,across cultures, and for multiple learning styles. A learn-ing audience consisting of many people across the en-terprise would be another prime example.

3LEARNING SOLUTIONS | August 6, 2007

Management Strategies

In addition to these three considerations, RuthClark raises another reason to adopt learning objecttechnology. Any corporation that wishes to competeglobally is looking for cost-effective ways to maintainand protect intellectual property assets. Intellectualproperty within organizations is a main concern. Pro-tecting intellectual property has become a priority, andthis also makes organizations ready for the concept oflearning objects.

Benefits

The traditional way of developing and disseminatingtraining no longer meets the needs of today’s modernand global corporations. It is too slow, it is expensive,and it addresses general needs, not the needs of indi-vidual learners or of employees engaged in a task.The advent of Internet connectivity and more sophisti-cated technologies have influenced the spread of theconcept of learning objects, as Ruth Clark anticipatedin her 1998 article on recycling knowledge. Further-more, a continuing need to augment human skills andexpertise coupled with re-engineering and technologi-cal turmoil has created a need for just-in-time training.

Because they are a system of little pieces of knowl-edge, tagged and stored in data bases, learning ob-jects are available for use over and over, and for amultitude of needs. You can assemble them into flexi-ble structures such as modules for personalized train-ing or for customer support, or as wizards for per-formance support. Learning objects offer a way toharness and distribute massive, ever-changing vol-umes of content and deliver it to individual learners inany location.

Figure 2Consider these factorswhen deciding whether touse learning objects todevelop learning modules.

Modular e-Learningrefers to learning unitscomprising a numberof separate objects ormodules. Reusablelearning objects havethe ability to display onmultiple platforms, inmany formats and lan-guages, using differenttechnologies, withoutrequiring developers torebuild the learningunit.

Page 4: The eLearning Guild’sww.w.cedma-europe.org/newsletter articles/eLearning Guild/Meeting Training and Learning...of developing e-Learning that would be reusable, cost-effective, transferable,

• EXPLORE using different models ofadvanced ID

• DISCOVER new approaches and theories to advance e-Learning ID

• EXAMINE advanced ID techniques for different types of e-Learning

• ENSURE that your instructional designaddresses all types of advanced userand content needs

Advanced e-LearningInstructional Design: NewTechniques and Strategies

August 16 & 17, 2007

Register Today! +1.707.566.8990www.eLearningGuild.com

Hosted by:

TechnologySponsor:

Management Strategies

4LEARNING SOLUTIONS | August 6, 2007

In order to envision the possibilities for reusablelearning objects, it is important to revisit some funda-mentals. First, to say that learning objects are “self-contained” also means that learning objects are mod-ular, as we said earlier. The components within alearning object (including smaller learning objects)model things that learners might need to know in thereal world. Some of these elements are simple infor-mation, or data attributes, such as a course name,and some are more complex. Learning objects usuallyinclude a combination of data attributes, methods(what the object needs to do), uses, and definitions.By including transforming objectives, content, andmethods for teaching, rehearsal, evaluation, and feed-back, instructional designers can produce one instanceof teaching materials (in other words, a learning ob-ject) that they can use over and over to reach a multi-tude of learners. Mark Merkow provides a detailedintroduction to the process in his TechLearning article.

Instructional designer Lori Mortimer points outanother benefit to RLOs. Reusable learning objectsoffer the potential for learners to individualize learning.This includes on-demand access to reusable contentthat the individual can select and tailor to his or herpersonal needs for the information.

Some issues

Although many believe that reusable learning ob-jects have the power to transform education, poorcommunication has slowed the progress and accept-ance of the concept. The lack of a comprehensivedefinition, discussed earlier, has certainly hurt themovement, but other issues have also contributed tothe slowdown.

Faculty and training professionals are not accus-tomed to sharing their methods and content freely.Concerns regarding intellectual property rights andcopyright issues have evolved. The time involved indevelopment, and the high cost of development, hasalso contributed. Difficulty in creating tagging stan-dards and retrieval criteria are also part of the trouble.Susan Metros, Professor, Design Technology at TheOhio State University, offers another big reason whythe learning objects movement is going slowly, andone that should not be overlooked: there is very littleresearch that proves learning objects support learningany better than other more traditional methods.

Poorly designed and inappropriately used learningobjects can cause learning to stop before it ever getsstarted. In many cases at academic institutions, facul-ty members were in charge of designing and develop-ing learning objects. Most faculty have concernsabout intellectual property, ownership, and accessibili-ty. Many feel uncomfortable about placing “their stuff”on a server. Technology writer Jennifer Lorenzetti also

Page 5: The eLearning Guild’sww.w.cedma-europe.org/newsletter articles/eLearning Guild/Meeting Training and Learning...of developing e-Learning that would be reusable, cost-effective, transferable,

5LEARNING SOLUTIONS | August 6, 2007

Management Strategies

learning” was simple because the original design ofthe reusable learning objects (the movies) supportedscaling. Scaling makes it possible to transfer objectsto PowerPoint (for classroom training), and to mobilelearning devices such as iPods, Blackberries, cellphones, and PDA’s.

In fact, we went a little further. We created jobtraining aids (posters) directly from the learning ob-jects to further enhance the learning initiative. Theclient positioned these posters at the factory worksta-tions where they functioned as on-the-job trainingaids. With the creation of one set of online reusablelearning objects, the company obtained materials formultiple uses ranging from “train the trainers” and tra-ditional classroom instruction, to self-directed andjust-in-time learning.

Flexibility for the learner

While reusing content for learning and training isthe primary reason for creating learning objects, asecond reason is the ability to put the information intoa form that the learner can use individually. The formis first and foremost the setting, context, and environ-ment for engaging a learning object. The form chang-es viewers into learners and digital objects into learn-ing objects. Form can combine with the way a learn-ing object becomes available to the learner as part ofthe knowledge base to create the intention for learn-ing.

In order for the intention to become learning, youneed to guide learners toward an understanding ofthe object. Reorganize the learner’s understandingthrough textual, visual, auditory, or interactive con-cepts. In the world of the Internet this means that fora media object (for example, a video, a podcast, aPDF document) to become a learning object the inter-

found that others may be subject experts, but have lit-tle or no training in pedagogy or lack the desire tolearn technical skills.

Potential impediments such as these are worththinking about as you plan how to use RLOs in yourorganization.

Using RLOsReusability adds value to learning objects. The

value of the learning object has a direct correlation tothe organization’s ability to use it multiple times. Theconcept of creating small bits of learning informationthat are reusable is not a new one. Teachers and in-structors have been doing this for a long time. Thisreusability often saves the instructor time and energyin designing new courses or revising existing ones.This is probably the context in which most practition-ers relate to the idea of learning objects.

We would like to point out two particular applica-tions of learning objects that may not be as obvious,to offer a thought about the focus of learning objectsand to give you two brief examples of actual designand re-use.

RLOs and blended learning

Blended learning is an important potential applica-tion for RLOs. Well-designed and well-developedreusable learning objects will migrate across plat-forms and allow an organization to expand the reachof training.

For example, we produced some simple movies forone of our clients, and we incorporated these intoonline asynchronous training applications. These samemovies transferred efficiently to mobile learning de-vices provided to production employees on the facto-ry floor. The recycling of the movies into “just-in-time

Because of the poten-tial they possess forreusability, generativity(the capacity for com-bining or generatingother learning objects),adaptability, and scala-bility, learning objectslead all other candi-dates as the technolo-gy of choice in the evo-lution of instructionaldesign, development,and delivery...

Early-bird Savings! The $100 Early-bird

Registration Discount expires September 21, 2007

November 5 - 9, 2007San Jose, CA

Page 6: The eLearning Guild’sww.w.cedma-europe.org/newsletter articles/eLearning Guild/Meeting Training and Learning...of developing e-Learning that would be reusable, cost-effective, transferable,

Management Strategies

6LEARNING SOLUTIONS | August 6, 2007

face has to establish a way of relating the object thatmakes understanding possible. As Polsani writes, learn-ing objects have to combine digital elements and ex-planation.

You can incorporate learning objects into yourcourses in ways that enhance reusability and continu-ity for the learner. Thinking small, and organizing acourse around a single designer or author can help.Another method is to embed the learning object in-side a wider framework or curriculum. The expecta-tions of the learners are open to a variety of experi-ences with a curriculum. They expect diversity in acurriculum, and continuity in a course. As educatorand technology writer Susan Gaide points out, todaycontinuity is provided by narrative elements that cre-ate coherence in the course, but tomorrow, on theeducational Web, this may occur via the interface inresponse to the learner’s needs.

Is it time for an example?

An example: Moving a learning object toan iPod

Today’s learners are used to high quality media pro-ductions. One must also consider a slight “re-design”of content to accommodate the smaller screen of themobile device and the iPod. (See Figure 3.)

In this example we created a training program witha rapid development tool, Adobe Presenter. We tookthe content, rebuilt the screens in Flash, and re-designed them to accommodate a 320X240 windowsize. This meant spreading the content over morescreens and synchronizing movement according tothe script. Even with these adjustments, the processwas substantially faster and cheaper than it wouldhave been to create the iPod version from scratch. Tosee a sample of the stand-alone e-Learning program

and the slightly redesigned video Podcast go to:http://brookwood.com/temporary/ipod/ipodsop.html.

Don’t focus on instructional design theory

In a regular classroom, the instructor determinesthe mode of operation. The instructor’s delivery deter-mines the teaching style. This is true no matter whatthe content is, and no matter what the instructionaldesigner called for in the lesson plan. The instructorcan transition from a lesson written by one designerto a lesson written by another, or for another group,and maintain continuity and style.

This is not true with learning objects. With learningobjects, it is the interface and the content itself thatdetermine the style of the instruction. Unfortunately, thismeans there can be a problem with continuity and in-structional style if the individual learner assembles a setof independent learning objects. Part of this problem isbecause so many developers incorporated one particularinstructional design theory or another in their learningobjects — or no design theory at all! Learners can receivea mixture of very different instructional experiences in thesame course — an eclectic experience. The effect of thelack of continuity and the practicality of reusability oftencreate heated debate in instructional design circles. Al-though instructional design theory can add a major con-tribution to learning objects it cannot be the focus of thedevelopment effort, as Kevin Oakes (formerly Presidentof SumTotal Systems and currently CEO at the Institutefor Corporate Productivity) and his co-author RaghavanRengarajan wrote in 2002.

Example: Worldwide manufacturing applications

RLOs offer organizations a simplified solution fortaking their learning and training program global. It is

With learning objects, it is the interface andthe content itself thatdetermine the style ofthe instruction. Unfor-tunately, this meansthere can be a problemwith continuity andinstructional style if the individual learnerassembles a set ofindependent learningobjects. ... Learnerscan receive a mixtureof very different in-structional experien-ces in the same course— an eclectic experi-ence.

Figure 3This module displayseither as a desktop asyn-chronous e-Learning unit,or as a video Podcast.

Page 7: The eLearning Guild’sww.w.cedma-europe.org/newsletter articles/eLearning Guild/Meeting Training and Learning...of developing e-Learning that would be reusable, cost-effective, transferable,

Management Strategies

7LEARNING SOLUTIONS | August 6, 2007

always challenging to accommodate cultural differ-ences in addition to the usual barriers such as loca-tion-related issues and individual learning styles. Byusing well-designed, modular RLO’s, we have found itpossible to deliver cost-effective solutions in a pain-less and timely manner.

How? Build the RLO’s with the end use in mind.By taking into account cultural and localization issues(swapping out graphics, translating text) in the originaldesign, deployment becomes smooth and easy. Butthe most important practice is to build the elementsthat foster learning into the RLO’s from the beginningso the result is effective instruction. As you saw in ourfirst example, we have been able to overcome techni-cal limitations such as having no computers on thefactory floors by using iPods with playlists that sup-ported videos of the production techniques.

To stay with the first example a bit longer, a blend-ed learning model of modular reusable learning ob-jects supported flexible and multiple learning solu-tions. We developed the solution in order to trainsupervisors, trainers, factory workers, and new hires.We designed and developed four specific units oflearning, and then transferred them to multiple plat-forms. You have seen two of the results in the otherexample. The complete list of units was:

• How to read the instruments• How to meet the specs• How to implement the techniques• How to record the information for QA/QC and

complianceThe Adobe tools Presenter, Flash, and Premiere

were enormously helpful in facilitating this effort. Weleveraged the highly accessible Flash player becauseof its availability on PCs, Mac’s, and devices that sup-port mobile learning. Our client bought a customcourse and then leveraged small RLOs that werecomponents to use on other platforms.

Another client deployed a module titled, “How toMeasure Pants.” Figure 4 shows the identical contentas “just-in-time” content on an iPod, on a cell phone,and in the asynchronous course.

To view a sample of a rebranded and scaled-downversion of the module, go to http://brookwood.com/rlo/example/. We created this module in French, Eng-lish, and Chinese, as you can tell by the tri-lingual texton the screen. The video clips do not have sound. Thereason we designed the clips as a “visual guide only”was to save cost on re-creating them with narrators inthree languages. This cost-effective solution allowedus to re-use the objects in multilingual courses with-out the need for editing or manipulating. This optionsaves time and money and helps add more value tothe training we created with our subject matter expertsin English.

Reusable learning ob-jects offer the potentialfor learners to individu-alize learning. This in-cludes on-demand ac-cess to reusable con-tent that the individualcan select and tailor to his or her personalneeds for the informa-tion.

As with the first example, we used Adobe Present-er to create and deliver the courses for the clothingmanufacturer, so that they took hours to build, notdays or weeks. The course in the sample was alsoavailable as a standalone piece to aid the workers onthe factory floor as just-in-time learning. To do this,we extracted videos (as seen in Figure 4) and factoryworkers could use the learning at their work stationsto see demonstrations on demand using an iPod orother mobile device.

The Cost of Reusable LearningObjects

Managers should also consider the economic sideof RLOs. One of the justifications for learning objectsis the long-run potential to save money. If learningobjects can be developed and then used over andover again for a variety of needs, then the costs ofdelivering the instruction should come down. How-ever, in the short run, learning objects, especiallyinteractive multimedia objects, can be very expensive.

Ironically, it is the repetition in creating learningobjects that adds to the cost. Jennifer Lorenzettifound that programming and developing each learn-ing object from scratch, regardless of the similaritiesto other learning objects can push the costs upwardof “$2,500 to $25,000, making a multimedia-richcourse an expensive proposition indeed.” Breakingevery individual learning element down within a cur-riculum and designating it as a learning object can becost-prohibitive. In David Wiley’s opinion, from a coststandpoint the decisions regarding learning objectsare a tradeoff between possible benefits from reusa-bility and the expense of producing and catalogingthe learning objects.

To reduce the costs, developers produce tem-plates to facilitate quicker and cheaper creation. Tem-plates for everything from drag-and-drop to intelligentparagraph checking accommodate a wide variety oflearning and teaching styles. The next step may be tocombine artificial intelligence (AI) that alters teachingstyles depending on learner needs.

Development is only part of the costs. A learningcontent management system (LCMS) is a software

Figure 4Video clip from e-Learningapplication (far right) canplay as a Podcast and ona cell phone for remotelearning anytime and any-where.

Page 8: The eLearning Guild’sww.w.cedma-europe.org/newsletter articles/eLearning Guild/Meeting Training and Learning...of developing e-Learning that would be reusable, cost-effective, transferable,

Management Strategies

8LEARNING SOLUTIONS | August 6, 2007

application that tracks, labels, manages, and organiz-es RLOs for delivery to the learner. The costs to dev-elop and manage a LCMS can be between $90 Kand $1M, according to Margaret Driscoll’s calcula-tions. (Driscoll is an Associate Partner in IBM GlobalServices, Human Capital Practice.)

The most important step in making a LCMS workis to define what comprises a reusable learning ob-ject. Difficulties in accomplishing this have led toexpensive project failures. This in turn has impactedorganization’s and institution’s willingness to spendlarge amounts of money on the development ofreusable learning objects.

Even without a strong success record, interest increating reusable learning objects has been strongand is continuing to grow. The main reason for this isthat when RLOs work, they work very well. RLOscan generate high rates of return on investment.

One of the clients in the examples spent about$15,000 for each unit, and received RLOs that were85% reusable. (See Figure 5.) The company leveragedthat investment into the ability to train 17,000 peopleacross the enterprise. But that is only the beginning of the returns on investment; they also received on-demand training, support tools, and just-in-time training.

SummaryBy breaking content into small chunks and using

tools like the Adobe products that support cross-platform applications and mobile learning devices,the companies in our examples were able to putlearning in the hands of those who could use it andwho could benefit the most. Efficiently designedRLOs gave these companies a solution to difficulttraining challenges, even though they might be acontinent away. The companies were able to use thesame RLOs in the United States as well.

The RLO solutions replaced ad-hoc training thatwas marginally effective, difficult to measure, andhard to manage. One of the companies was able toexecute a global learning strategy, measure results,and address the learning challenges of a low-endlearning audience, with localized cultural differences,high turnover rates, and transient labor force.

By creating a learning portal that became thedepot to deploy enterprise-wide learning solutions,superintendents and workers are coming up withever-new and unimagined possibilities to use theseRLOs in the field. This new approach to learning ispart of another powerful new trend, mobilization.Mobilization, in the learning business, manifests asm-Learning: otherwise mobilization refers to makingworkers mobile. Anders Gronstedt, president of theGronstedt Group, a Swedish training development

firm, says that mobilization is so important that anycompany that isn’t aggressively mobilizing their opera-tions is risking a major competitive disadvantage. Theuses and reuses of the RLOs are still unfolding.

ReferencesASTD and SmartForce (2002). A field guide to learn-

ing objects. ASTD Online booklet Retrieved April15, 2005, from http://learningcircuits.org/2002/jul2002/smartforce.pdf

Beck, R. J. (2005). Learning objects. RetrievedAugust, 16, 2005, from http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CIE/AOP/learningobjects.html

Clark, R. C. (1998). Recycling knowledge with learn-ing objects. Training and Development, 52(10), 60.Also available at http://www.clarktraining.com/con-tent/articles/LearningObjects.pdf.

Clark, R. C. (1999). Chapter 1: The technology oftraining. In Developing technical training: A struc-tured approach for developing classroom and com-puter-based instruction, Second Ed., (pp. 5-24)Silver Springs, MD: International Society of Perfor-mance Improvement.

Driscoll, M. (2002). Chapter 4: Tools of the trade, inWeb-based training, Second Ed., (pp. 61-81) SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Gaide, S. (2004). Reusing learning objects: Improvinginstructional design, reducing cost at Athabasca U.Distance Education Report. Retrieved August 3,2005, from http://www.magnapubs.com/pub/mag-napubs_der/8_13/news/596449-1.html

Gronstedt, A. (2007) The changing face of Podcast-ing puts the responsibility for learning onto the

Figure 5One company found thatits learning objects were85% reusable.

Page 9: The eLearning Guild’sww.w.cedma-europe.org/newsletter articles/eLearning Guild/Meeting Training and Learning...of developing e-Learning that would be reusable, cost-effective, transferable,

Management Strategies

9LEARNING SOLUTIONS | August 6, 2007

The most importantstep in making a LCMSwork is to define whatcomprises a reusablelearning object. Diffi-culties in accomplish-ing this have led toexpensive project fail-ures. This in turn hasimpacted organiza-tion’s and institution’swillingness to spendlarge amounts ofmoney on the dev-elopment of reusablelearning objects.

employees. Training and Development. January,2007, pages 20-24.

Lorenzetti, J. P. (2004). Repurposeable means moreaffordable learning objects. Distance EducationReport, 3-4

Merkow, M. S. (2002). Learning objects spark an e-Learning revolution. tech-learning. RetrievedAugust 2, 2007, 2005, from http://www.techlearn-ing.com/content/new/new200203.php.

Metros, S. E. (2005). Learning objects: A rose by anyother name. Retrieved August 3, 2005, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm05410.pdf

Mortimer, L. (2002). (Learning) Objects of desire:Promise and practicality. Retrieved August 9,2005, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/apr2002/mortimer.html

Oakes, K. & Renarajan, R. (2002, May). An objectiveview of learning objects. Training and Develop-ment, 1003-1105.

Polansi, P. (2003) Use and abuse of reusable learningobjects. Journal of Digital Information. 3(4), 1642003-02-19

Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects toinstructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor,and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instruc-tional use of learning objects: Online version.Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

Author ContactJacquie Beck, M.Ed., is Senior VicePresident, e-Learning, at Brookwood.Jacquie has been creating interactivelearning applications since 1988.She has worked with The Ford MotorCompany, Pfizer, Disney, Boeing,

FedEx, FBI Academy, Crown Holdings, Johnson &Johnson, CIGNA, Sony Music, Wyeth, PEPCO, U.S.Navy, Army, Air Force and many other organizationswith diverse e-Learning initiatives. You can see Jacquie’sexpertise throughout Brookwood’s portfolio from in-structional design and development, to learning man-agement system (LMS) interoperability.

E-mail Jacquie Beck: [email protected]

Bobbe Baggio, an accomplishedinstructional design consultant, mul-ticultural learning expert, educator,and author, is Senior InstructionalDesigner at Brookwood. She bringsover twenty-five years experience in

This is the first article by Bobbe Baggio forLearning Solutions, and the third by JacquieBeck. The eLearning Guild has previously pub-lished articles whose topics relate to this week’s.These are available to Members in the LearningSolutions Archive online. Members must log in todownload them. Here are the authors, the articletopics, and the publication dates. (Not a GuildMember? Join today for immediate access tothese articles and over two hundred others!)

Articles by Jacquie Beck

High Value, Low Bandwidth (July 21, 2003)Image Compression and Optimization Techniques

(April 30, 2002)

Articles on related topics

Joanne Mowat, Instructional Design of LearningObjects (July 9, 2007)

Guy Levert, Design for Mobile Learning (June 19,2006)

Kendrick Abell, Templates, Reusability, FutureProofing (January 23, 2006)

Jim Pellerin, Reusable Components (October 31,2005)

Peder Jacobson and Kim Ruyle, Effective CourseDesign for Reusability (February 10, 2003)

In the Archives

education and curriculum development. Proficient inall areas of instructional design in e-Learning, Bobbe’sskills range from needs analysis to application devel-opment. She has completed projects for IAC, Pfizer,Mercedes Benz, University of Pennsylvania, LehighUniversity, Adobe Systems, and Circuit City.

E-mail Bobbe Baggio: [email protected]

Discuss this article in the “Talk Back to theAuthors” Forum of Community Connections(http://www.elearningguild.com/community_connections/forum/categories.cfm?catid=17&entercat=y). You can address your comments to the author(s) of each week’s article, or you can make a general comment to other readers.

Additional information on the topics covered inthis article is also listed in the Guild ResourceDirectory.