QUESTIONS: Some people believe that open educational resources “fix” many of the problems experienced by those who work with learning objects. Why do you think they would say this? Do you agree? Why or why not?

First of all, I found the reading of this week very interesting for the following reasons:

a. concise readings. Not easy at all, but short and clearly pointing at other resources (to find in the web!) if wished from the reader

b. for the first time in the course, I could read some words about pedagogy - even though they come in as queer topic, I mean it is stated that LOs (whatever they are) aren’t thought from educators and aren’t built from teachers therefore pedagogical intentions are far from them (did someone see the wonderful film Far from heaven? I can point at it as a metaphor for LOs and pedagogical/educational purposes…)

c. The “audio/video” wasn’t so that easy to me, but could grasp some things out of it (maybe my english is better reading than listening…. though I can understand Buble’s songs at first time!).

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

So far my thoughts about LOs and OER.

LOs: Lucky Italians. Lucky Italians following the discussion about LOs begun by Gianni Marconato in his blog. He is rather critic against LOs (whatever they are). His point of view is based upon a long time working experience (in the field of education of adult learners for job purposes) and at the same time a tight ideological (pardon me Gianni!) nearness to Jonassen’s positions about the LOs. Gianni didn’t discuss only in his blog (answering also to our reactions) but also opened a discussion group at Nings called “orientamenti e disorientamenti” (directing and misdirecting).
The focus point from Marconato’s standpoint of view (and I share and embrace it) is that ITs (and LOs are part of it) are nothing less or nothing different than “instrucitivist” objects for education, if they are not used in a constructivist perspective.
Further on, I can only agree with the critical voices mentioned in the learning objects literature about LOs themselves.
I find - but my knowledge about the topic might be not well-grounded - that LOs and related discussions about them are based upon a colossal misunderstading about the original terms of the topic itself…. curious/funny
I don’t trust LOs. Too rigid. Too small. Too big. Too much. To me is relevant the use that we (underline: we) can do each time in a given occasion of something useful to learn.
We is: my classroom and me. Not that I could say “a urinal is a LO”, but I’m on the way to…. (smile).
I’m not fully on the way to, because I believe - strongly believe - that the pedagogical aspect is far more important than the object itself. I read in the learning objects literature that many think that pedagogy has been let outside of the LOs discussion (just like Marconato’s position).
I would go one step ahead: when you say “learning object”, I suppose the main word is “object” and “learning” is meant as an adjective.
Now, if my grammar basics aren’t wrong, an adjective describe a noun (learning being adjective and object being the noun), logically the focus is on object and not on learning….
Isn’t that misleading at all?
Curiously, in Italy we had through the last years some “update/upgrade” courses for teachers, which were based upon the former Education Minister of the previous government’s school reform. Even though I didn’t like the general structure of that school reform, the courses were somehow interesting because brought us teachers to reflect upon this topic: why do you name italian language, foreign language, maths, geography and so on “materie” (=materials) instead of something else?
Materie (=materials) transmits a sense of non-living, dead, non moving, heavy.
The alternative given was - as a possible one - to develop “learning activities”.
These ones must be projected according to that peculiar classroom, or groups in the classroom, or at least even for a single student if necessary.
Projectet and not planned: because a project is open (to changes), a plan is more or less static.
Ok, I’m making it simple, pardon my english, hopefully you can grasp what I mean!
Thus my core idea is that we as teacher are not interested in objects - which are in themselves static (whatever small they can be), we as teacher are interested in processes (of learning) and relationships. Education is all about relationships and the processes of learning. Not too much original, uhu?! But…
Objects - and instruments - can be interesting to us in the exact degree in which they help us to help persons to learn better.
I don’t know if the OERs will help to fix the problems experienced by those who work(ed) with LOs. I don’t use LOs. in the way defined until now - generally speaking.
I wish to use LOs (a book page, a listening from the radio, my own mimic in the classroom, a video from youtube) in order to let my students develop themselves and by themselves what is better for themselves.
And this comes from context, being the first and unavoidable form of context the human relationship between teacher(s) and student(s).
I figure it out more or less like the buddhist mentor-disciple relationship. In this relationship there is no difference between mentor and disciple in their essence, being the only difference the experience gained through time from the mentor.
More basically, the relationship is what counts more than the mentor and the disciple alone. If the disciple doesn’t find a good mentor, then he/she (disciple) can’t develop his/her potential.
But a mentor who doesn’t find good disciples (being they persons who carry on and develop the “teachings”) is more or less worth nothing.
If mentor and disciple don’t accord their minds - nevertheless developing their lives in their own specific ways - nothing great will be ever achieved.

—-
I liked very much Wiley’s position in RIP-ping on LOs where he talks about bringing the OER to poor people. I believe someone in the course wrote something about it - about laptops at 100 $ and failing connections… who can help me to find it again?
One thing is sure: even the most unexpensive OER needs, sooner or later, to be used through a machine and/or to be printed.