Just how easy is it to reuse materials someone else has created for a different purpose?

[Activity 6]

The Reusability Paradox

Yes, it does indeed fit with the single-sourcing concept in technical communication. You sometimes end up writing quite small fragments so that they work in whatever context they are placed (a tutorial, a reference card, a step in set of instructions) and there is a lot of skill in doing so. Many technical communicators with a lot of experience can't do it - it's not something I do a lot of, so my own skill is probably somewhat lacking - and certainly isn't something a subject matter expert (SME) is likely to be able to do.

Three objections to learning objects and e-learning standards

Terminology has to be sorted out before you can get anywhere. I once spent a week having long discussions (e.g. arguing) with another clinician deciding how best to implement a feature required in a software application before we realised that we were actually agreeing and were talking about the same thing, just using different terminology.

A lot of e-learning standards discuss the technology and compatibility but forget to mention anything about learning. I personally don't see this as a huge option - we've already covered that in the umbrella topic of "learning", that has as subordinates "classroom learning", "distance learning" (possibly using books) and "e-learning" among others.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should...

Large budgets and ability to create anything using e-learning does not mean that is the best approach. E-learning is great for some things - but isn't necessarily the best approach, especially if the e-learning approach is more costly, more time-consuming and less effective.

Brian Lamb discusses learning objects

This highlights one of the key problems - throw money at it, and hope for the best. Without someone taking some sort of control, you end up with organised chaos. I'm not proposing that anyone should "take control", but elearning has a long way to go to catch up with (for example) the Dewey classification system that is established for libraries (the traditional repositories).

Other thoughts

There appears to be a choice, as well...

In the "traditional" sharing module (printing multiple copies of a book and putting them in libraries), you can guarantee that getting a copy in one library is identical (highlights and margin notes notwithstanding) to any copy in any other library. Multiple copies, unchangeable.

In the "electronic" sharing module, a choice has to be made:

• One copy, multiple access - potentially access problems (millions of people trying to access the same server at roughly the same time
• Multiple fixed copies in various places - mirror sites
• Multiple copies that people can amend - all of a sudden copy A in one place is NOT the same as copy B that exists elsewhere - like open source software