Review by: Ehmann, Christa (2005-03-24)

Prompted by increasing attention from government and industry initiatives worldwide, this article addresses problems associated with (i) attaching ill-defined labels to e-learning tools and methods, and (ii) attempts at standardizing e-learning in ways that do not account for the complexities of the educational processes involved.

Friesen begins by addressing his objection to the overuse of the label “learning objects” in most e-learning situations. For Friesen, “learning objects” is a vague, overly broad term which holds little meaning and has little resonance for teacher practitioners who are pressured to promote and incorporate such “objects” into their classrooms. Friesen argues that for the “positive potential of learning objects to be realized, they need to be…understood in ways that make the simplicity, compatibility, and advantages claimed for them readily apparent to teachers” and others alike. His emphasis on the need for such approaches to be practitioner-centric rings true to the reader – it is the classroom educators who must understand, support, and have influence over the technologies they are positioned to use.

Further, Friesen is skeptical of the way in which e-learning standardization is portrayed as supporting “multiple forms and practices of learning”, and questions how such standardization can capture the wide spectrum of pedagogical approaches. Referring to a specific example, the author is critical of the SCORM program (Shareable Courseware Object Reference Model) which, Friesen claims, oversimplifies the teaching and learning processes it attempts to systematize. Although his suggestion that learning objects and e-learning standardization “bear the imprint of the ideology and culture of the American military-industrial complex” is questionable and somewhat distracting to the reader, Friesen’s concerns regarding attempts at e-learning systemization and standardization within public education are well taken: such endeavors must take account of the idiosyncratic nature of teaching and learning and of inherently ‘non-neutral’ pedagogical approaches. Frameworks of systems development and work-flow that may be successful in other fields (such as engineering) might be not applicable to education. New thinking about e-learning standardization and systems is, therefore, needed to address the complex dynamics of school contexts.

On the whole, Friesen’s points are well taken. His final suggestions about how to address the very problems he raises, however, could offer more concrete ways forward. For example, Friesen does not suggest more profitable terms that could replace ‘learning objects’. He concludes by challenging developers and designers of e-learning technologies and infrastructures to “recognize and choose relevant (and probably differing) pedagogical positions, or pedagogical irrelevance”, but he offers no specific advice about how such objectives can actually be achieved. In sum, Friesen’s work accomplishes it’s goal of raising questions about learning objects, standards, and systemization – and challenging current thinking surrounding these issues. This piece would be best used as a starting point for the development of more tangible strategies of improving and expanding e-learning opportunities.