A Systematic Evaluation of Learning Objects for Secondary School Students

Empirical research evaluating the effectiveness of learning objects is noticeably absent. No formal research has been done on the use of learning objects in secondary schools. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of learning objects by high school students. The evaluation metric used to assess benefits and quality of learning objects was theoretically sound, reliable, and partially validated. Overall, two-thirds of the students stated they benefitted from using learning objects. Students benefitted more if they were comfortable with computers, the learning object had a well organized layout, the instructions were clear, and the theme was fun or motivating. Students appreciated the motivational, interactive, visual qualities of the learning objects most. Computer comfort was significantly correlated with learning object quality and benefit. Younger students appeared to have less positive experiences than their older counterparts. There were no gender differences in perceived benefit or quality of learning objects, with one exception. Females emphasized the quality of help features significantly more than males.

[1]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Reusable educational software: a basis for generic e-learning tasks’ , 2003 .

[2]  Robin Mason,et al.  Keeping the learning in learning objects , 2003 .

[3]  Susan E. Metros.  Visualizing knowledge in new educational environments: a course on learning objects , 2005 .

[4]  Laura Hall,et al.  Computer self-efficacy, training effectiveness and user attitudes: An empirical study , 1999, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[5]  George P. Schell,et al.  Merlot : A Repository of e-Learning Objects for Higher Education , 2002 .

[6]  Tom Carey,et al.  Learning Design Repositories:Adapting Learning Design Specifications For Shared Instructional Knowledge , 2004 .

[7]  M. Albanese,et al.  Problem‐based Learning: A Review of Literature on Its Outcomes and Implementation Issues , 1993, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[8]  J. Bruner.  Child's Talk: Learning to Use Language , 1985 .

[9]  J. Hughes,et al.  Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with technology? , 2003 .

[10]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Learning to use a word processor: by doing, by thinking, and by knowing , 1984 .

[11]  Griff Richards.  Editorial: The Challenges of the Learning Object Paradigm , 2002 .

[12]  Madhumita,et al.  Twenty-one Guidelines for Effective Instructional Design. , 1995 .

[13]  N. Davis,et al.  Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education , 2003 .

[14]  A. Sølvberg.  Gender Differences in Computer-related Control Beliefs and Home Computer Use , 2002 .

[15]  Kamran Sedighian.  Interface style, flow, and reflective cognition : issues in designing interactive multimedia mathematics learning environments for children , 1998 .

[16]  R. Kay.  An exploration of theoretical and practical foundations for assessing attitudes toward computers: The Computer Attitude Measure (CAM) , 1993 .

[17]  Licia Calvi.  Navigation and disorientation: a case study , 1997 .

[18]  Roger Mundell,et al.  Experiences with reusable E-learning objects: From theory to practice , 2002, Internet High. Educ..

[19]  Robin Kay,et al.  Evaluating the learning in learning objects , 2007 .

[20]  C. Maddux,et al.  Computer Attitude and Achievement: Is Time an Intermediate Variable? , 2004 .

[21]  Tom Boyle,et al.  Design principles for authoring dynamic, reusable learning objects , 2003, ASCILITE.

[22]  P. Twining.  Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom , 2002 .

[23]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[24]  M. J. Atkins.  Theories of learning and multimedia applications: an overview , 1993 .

[25]  Iain MacLaren.  New trends in web-based learning: objects, repositories and learner engagement , 2004 .

[26]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Is There a Learning Orientation in Learning Objects , 2004 .

[27]  Tony Koppi,et al.  Institutional Use of Learning Objects: Lessons Learned and Future Directions , 2004 .

[28]  Robin Kay,et al.  Developing Learning Objects for Secondary School Students: A Multi-Component Model , 2005 .

[29]  Sean W. M. Siqueira,et al.  Increasing the Semantics of Learning Objects , 2004, Int. J. Comput. Process. Orient. Lang..

[30]  Yavuz Akpinar,et al.  Designing interactive learning environments , 1996 .

[31]  Dick Botteldooren,et al.  Implementation and Evaluation of a Course Concept Based on Reusable Learning Objects , 2003 .

[32]  Basmat Parsad,et al.  Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994?2003. ED TAB. NCES 2005-015. , 2005 .

[33]  Gilbert Paquette,et al.  Organic Aggregation of Knowledge Object in Educational Systems , 2002 .

[34]  Lynda R. Wiest.  The Role of Computers in Mathematics Teaching and Learning , 2001 .

[35]  Janet Bartz,et al.  Great Idea, but how do I do it? A practical example of learning object creation using SGML/XML , 2002 .

[36]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[37]  Robin H. Kay,et al.  Addressing Gender Differences in Computer Ability, Attitudes and Use: The Laptop Effect , 2006 .

[38]  Richard F. Kenny,et al.  Towards Guidelines for the Design of Interactive Multimedia Instruction: Fostering the Reflective D , 1999 .

[39]  David A. Wiley,et al.  The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version , 2000 .

[40]  Russell Butson,et al.  Learning objects: weapons of mass instruction , 2003, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[41]  Sarah J. Stein,et al.  Preservice Primary Teachers' Thinking About Technology and Technology Education , 2000 .

[42]  John C. Nesbit,et al.  A Convergent Participation Model for Evaluation of Learning Objects , 2002 .

[43]  Norm Friesen,et al.  What are Educational Objects? , 2001, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[44]  M. Cole,et al.  Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. L. S. Vygotsky. , 1978 .

[45]  Pithamber R. Polsani,et al.  Use and Abuse of Reusable Learning Objects , 2006, J. Digit. Inf..

[46]  Lúcia Blondet Baruque,et al.  Learning Theory and Instructional Design Using Learning Object , 2022 .

[47]  Marianne Acovelli,et al.  A Coaching Agent for Learners Using Multimedia Simulations. , 1997 .

[48]  Katina Zammit,et al.  Computer Icons: A Picture Says a Thousand Words. Or Does It? , 2000 .

[49]  Andrew S. Gibbons and Jon Nelson and Robert Richards,et al.  The nature and origin of instructional objects , 2000 .

[50]  Allison Littlejohn,et al.  Issues in reusing online resources , 2003 .

[51]  H. Robertson.  Toward a Theory of Negativity , 2003 .

[52]  David Wiley,et al.  Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy , 2000 .

[53]  Ed Morris,et al.  Object Oriented Learning Objects. , 2005 .

[54]  Mohamed Ally,et al.  A Study of the Design and Evaluation of a Learning Object and Implications for Content Development , 2005 .

[55]  Patricia McGee,et al.  Transformative power of the learning object debate , 2005 .

[56]  A. Bartlett.  Preparing Preservice Teachers to Implement Performance Assessment and Technology through Electronic Portfolios , 2002 .

[57]  David L. Ryan-Jones,et al.  Designing Instruction with Learning Objects. , 2002 .

[58]  Thomas Cochrane,et al.  Interactive QuickTime: Developing and Evaluating Multimedia Learning Objects to Enhance Both Face-To-Face and Distance E-Learning Environments , 2004 .

[59]  R. Kay.  An Analysis of Methods Used to Examine Gender Differences in Computer-Related Behavior , 1992 .

[60]  Krista Glazewski,et al.  Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: The PT3@ASU project , 2003 .

[61]  Martyn Wild,et al.  Motivation and interface design: maximising learning opportunities , 1998, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[62]  Alex Koohang,et al.  Discussion Board: A Learning Object , 2005 .

[63]  K. Scherer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage : A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 2004 .

[64]  T. G. Greene,et al.  Walking the Talk Is Tough: From a Single Technology Course to Infusion , 2001 .

[65]  Vicki Compton,et al.  Enhancing Technological Practice: An Assessment Framework for Technology Education in New Zealand , 2003 .

[66]  Elizabeth M. Weiss,et al.  Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an Internet sample: testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales , 2004, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[67]  R. F. Lorch,et al.  Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes , 1989 .

[68]  R. Kay.  A practical theoretical approach to assessing computer attitudes: the computer attitude measure (CAM) , 1989 .

[69]  Katherine Campbell.  The learning object economy: Implications for developing faculty expertise , 2002 .

[70]  Marek Hatala,et al.  The Evolution of Learning Object Repository Technologies: Portals for On-line Objects for Learning , 2002 .

[71]  Shelley B. Wepner,et al.  Three Teacher Educators' Perspectives about the Shifting Responsibilities of Infusing Technology into the Curriculum , 2003 .

[72]  George Gadanidis,et al.  Factors Mediating the use of Online Applets in the Lesson Planning of Pre-service Mathematics Teachers , 2003 .

[73]  Tatsunori Matsui,et al.  An adaptive sequencing method of the learning objects for the e-learning environment , 2005 .

[74]  Hai-Ning Liang,et al.  Interactivity of Visual Mathematical Representations: Factors Affecting Learning and Cognitive Processes , 2006 .

[75]  J. Bruner.  Actual minds, possible worlds , 1985 .

[76]  Stephen Downes.  Learning Objects: Resources For Distance Education Worldwide , 2001 .

[77]  Maria M. Klawe,et al.  Computer Games, Education and Interfaces: The E-GEMS Project , 1999, Graphics Interface.

[78]  G. Knezek,et al.  Internal consistency reliabilities for 14 computer attitude scales , 2000 .

[79]  Marshall G. Jones,et al.  Using Metacognitive Theories to Design User Interfaces for Computer-Based Learning. , 1995 .

[80]  Marek Hatala,et al.  Edusource: Canada's Learning Object Repository Network , 2004 .

[81]  Laura M. O’Dwyer,et al.  Examining Teacher Technology Use , 2003 .

[82]  Alan Durndell,et al.  Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample , 2002, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[83]  B. Whitley.  Gender Differences in Computer-Related Attitudes and Behavior: A Meta-Analysis , 1997 .

[84]  D. Bullock.  Moving From Theory to Practice: An Examination of the Factors That Preservice Teachers Encounter as the Attempt to Gain Experience Teaching with Technology During Field Placement Experiences , 2004 .

[85]  Robert J. Sternberg,et al.  Domain-Generality versus Domain-Specificity: The Life and Impending Death of a False Dichotomy. , 1989 .

[86]  Jude T. Lubega,et al.  The Effectiveness of Assessment Learning Objects Produced Using Pair Programming , 2004 .

[87]  Michel Ferrari,et al.  Computer-related attitudes and actions of teacher candidates , 2003, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[88]  Tom Carey,et al.  Educational Rationale Metadata for Learning Objects , 2002 .

[89]  David Wiley,et al.  Overcoming the Limitations of Learning Objects , 2004 .

[90]  Russ Wilde,et al.  Developing a university course for online delivery based on learning objects: from ideals to compromises , 2005 .

[91]  Gottfried Vossen,et al.  Reengineering of educational material: a systematic approach , 2005, Int. J. Knowl. Learn..

[92]  Erik Duval,et al.  Learning Objects Symposium Special Issue Guest Editorial , 2004 .

[93]  David M. Kennedy,et al.  Design elements for interactive multimedia , 1997 .

[94]  Yacine Atif,et al.  Learning Objects Based Framework for Self-Adaptive Learning , 2004, Education and Information Technologies.

[95]  Eddy Forte,et al.  Collaborative teaching with learning objects in an international, non‐profit context. The example of the Ariadne Community , 2003 .

[96]  Rory McGreal,et al.  Learning objects: A practical definition , 2004 .

[97]  Barry Harper,et al.  Developing a learning object metadata application profile based on LOM suitable for the Australian higher education context , 2004 .

[98]  Allison Druin,et al.  The design of children's technology , 1998 .

[99]  Betty Collis,et al.  Re-usable learning objects in context. , 2003 .

[100]  Patrick E. Parrish,et al.  The trouble with learning objects , 2004 .

[101]  Richard Lehrer,et al.  Designing a Hypermedia Tool for Learning about Children's Mathematical Cognition , 1998 .

[102]  Orit Zeichner,et al.  Using Technology to Enhance Mathematical Reasoning: Effects of Feedback and Self-Regulation Learning , 2001 .

[103]  Tim Oren.  Cognitive load in Hypermedia: designing for the exploratory learner , 1990 .

[104]  Anita Petrinjak,et al.  Creating Learning Objects from Pre-Authored Course Materials:Semantic Structure of Learning Objects — Design and Technology , 2004 .

[105]  Claire Bradley,et al.  The Design, Development, and Use of Multimedia Learning Objects , 2004 .

[106]  Robin Kay.  A Critical Evaluation of Gender Differences in Computer-Related Behavior , 1993 .

[107]  Thomas M. Duffy,et al.  Problem Based Learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework , 1995 .

[108]  Neal Strudler,et al.  Project THREAD: Technology helping restructure educational access and delivery , 2003 .

[109]  Terrie Lynn Thompson,et al.  Addressing the eLearning Contradiction: A Collaborative Approach for Developing a Conceptual Framework Learning Object , 2005 .

[110]  Terry Anderson,et al.  Feasibility of Course Development Based on Learning Objects: Research Analysis of Three Case Studies , 2004 .

[111]  Rubén Peredo Valderrama,et al.  Development of intelligent reusable learning objects for web-based education systems , 2005, Expert Syst. Appl..

[112]  Susan E. Newman,et al.  Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Craft of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. Technical Report No. 403. , 1987 .