Students' perceptions of the characteristics of "good" and "poor" digital learning objects

This presentation reports on one component of an on-going evaluation of an online curriculum program: The Learning Federation (TLF). TLF is charged with creating online curriculum content in priority curriculum areas and making the content available to all education authorities in Australia and New Zealand. TLF's curriculum materials take the form of learning objects (LOs), which aim to capitalise on the potential of digital technologies to enhance learning, and which are potentially standalone interactive learning activities, integrating a variety of media (text, audio, animation, graphics). This presentation reports on an analysis of interviews with 300 students concerning their interactions with a total of 30 LOs. The themes identified in the students' talk were used to identify characteristics of "good" and "poor" LOs. The findings will be of value not only to developers of online content but also to teachers having to make decisions about using digital content in their classroom practice. It is a common assumption that young people will be engaged with any use of new technologies in classrooms. The results of this study contributes to a more complex understanding of students' engagement with LOs, as well as other ICT applications.

[1]  P. R. Freebody.  Does the use of online curriculum content enhance motivation, engagement and learning? The Le@rning Federation Trial Review , 2005 .

[2]  P. R. Freebody.  Early-stage use of The Le@rning Federation's learning objects in schools , 2006 .

[3]  David McRae,et al.  Technology, curriculum, and pedagogy in the evaluation of an online content program in Australasia , 2009 .

[4]  Robert McCormick,et al.  Keeping the pedagogy out of learning objects , 2003 .

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

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

[7]  Jon Nichol,et al.  Editorial: Rhetoric and reality - the present and future of ICT in education , 2003, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[8]  Michael Derntl,et al.  Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: issues, applications and technologies , 2009 .

[9]  Minna Lakkala,et al.  Case studies of learning objects used in school settings , 2006 .

[10]  Diana G. Oblinger,et al.  The Next Generation of Educational Engagement , 2004 .

[11]  R. McCormick,et al.  An evaluation of European learning objects in use , 2006 .

[12]  Tomi Jaakkola,et al.  Effectiveness of learning objects in various instructional settings , 2006 .

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

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

[15]  Tomi Jaakkola,et al.  Promises and pitfalls of learning objects , 2006 .

[16]  Ed Smeets,et al.  Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? , 2005, Comput. Educ..

[17]  James Paul Gee,et al.  What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy , 2007, CIE.

[18]  Mimi Recker,et al.  Discovery and Use of Online Learning Resources: Case Study Findings , 2004, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

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

[20]  Paul C. Burnett,et al.  ICT Integration and Teachers' Confidence in Using ICT for Teaching and Learning in Queensland State Schools. , 2006 .