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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AcovelliM.GambleM. (1997). A coaching agent for learners using multimedia simulations. Educational Technology, 37(2), 44–49
2.
AdamsA.LubegaJ.WalmsleyS.WilliamsS. (2004). The effectiveness of assessment learning objects produced using pair programming. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2(2). Retrieved July 28, 2005 from http://www.ejel.org/volume-2/vol2-issue2/v2-i2-artl-adams.pdf
3.
AgostinhoS.BennettS.LockyerL.HarperB. (2004). Developing a learning object metadata application profile based on LOM suitable for the Australian higher education market. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 191–208
4.
AkpinarY.HartleyJ. R. (1996). Designing interactive learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12(1), 33–46
5.
AlbaneseM. A.MitchellS. A. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52–81
6.
AtifY.BenlarmiR.BerriJ. (2003). Learning objects based framework for self-adaptive learning. Education and Information Technologies, 8(4), 345–368
7.
AtkinsM. J. (1993). Theories of learning and multimedia applications: An overview. Research Papers in Education, 8(2), 251–271
8.
BaguiS. (1998). Reasons for increased learning using multimedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(1), 3–18
9.
BarbeiteF. G.WeissE. M. (2004). Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an Internet sample: Testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(1), 1–15
10.
BartlettA. (2002). Preparing preservice teachers to implement performance assessment and technology through electronic portfolios. Action in Teacher Education, 24(1), 90–97
11.
BartzJ. (2002). Great idea, but how do I do it? A practical example of learning object creation using sgml/xml. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(3). Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.3/bartz.html
12.
BaruqueL. B.MeloR. N. (2004). Learning theory and instructional design using learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 343–370
13.
BennettMcGree (2005). Transformative power of the learning object debate. Open Learning, 20(1), 15–30
14.
BoyleT. (2003). Design principles for authoring dynamic, reusable learning objects. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 46–58
15.
BradleyC.BoyleT. (2004). The design, development, and use of multimedia learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 371–389
16.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA.DuiguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42
17.
BrunerJ. (1983). Child's talk. Learning to use language. Toronto, Canada: George J. McLeod Ltd
18.
BrunerJ. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
19.
BrushT.GlazewskiK.RutowskiK.BergK.StromforsC.Van-NestM.StockL.SuttonJ. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51(1), 57–73
20.
BullockD. (2004). 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. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 211–237
21.
ButsonR. (2003). Learning objects: Weapons of mass instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 667–669
22.
BuzzaD. C.BeanD.HarriganK.CareyT. (2004). Learning design repositories: Adapting learning design specifications for shared instructional knowledge. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(3), 79–101
23.
CalviL. (1997). Navigation and disorientation: A case study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6(¾), 305–320
24.
CareyT.SwallowJ.OldfieldW. (2002). Educational rationale metadata for learning objects. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(3). Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.3/carey_etal.html
25.
CarrollJ. B. (1990). The Nurnberg funnel. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
26.
CarrollJ. M.MackR. L. (1984). Learning to use a word processor: By doing, by thinking, and by knowing. In ThomasJ. C.SchneiderM. (Eds.), Human factors in computer systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
27.
ChristensenR. W.KnezekG. A. (2000). Internal consistency reliabilities for 14 computer attitude scales. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 327–336
28.
ChristiansenJ.AndersonT. (2004). Feasibility of course development based on learning objects: Research analysis of three case studies. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(3). Retrieved July 30, 2005 from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Mar_04/article02.htm
29.
CochraneT. (2005). Interactive QuickTime: Developing and evaluating multimedia learning objects to enhance both face-to-face and distance e-learning environments. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1. Retrieved August 3, 2005 from http://ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p033-054Cochrane.pdf
30.
COHERE Group. (2002). The learning object economy: Implications for developing faculty expertiseCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(3). Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.3/cohere.html
31.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S.NewmanS. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates
32.
CollisB.StrijkerA. (2003). Re-usable learning objects in context. International Journal of E-Learning, 2(4), 5–16
33.
ComptonV.HarwoodC. (2003). Enhancing technological practice: An assessment framework for technology education in New Zealand. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(1), 1–26
34.
CubanL. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
35.
DoeringA.HughesJ.HuffmanD. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with technology?Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 342–361
36.
DownesS. (2001). Learning objects: Resources for distance education worldwide. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v2.1/downes.html
DruinA.BedersonB.BoltmanA.MiuraA.Knotts-CallahanD.PlattM. (1999). The Design of Children's Technology. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc
39.
DurndellA.HaagZ. (2002). Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitude towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an east European sample. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18(5), 521–535
40.
DuvalE.HodginsW.RehakD.RobsonR. (2004). Learning objects symposium special issue guest editorial. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 331–342
41.
EiflerK.GreeneT.CarrollJ. (2001). Walking the talk is tough: From a single technology course to infusion. The Educational Forum, 65(4), 366–375
42.
FiaidhiJ.MohammedS. (2004). Design issues involved in using learning objects for teaching programming language within a collaborative eLearning environment. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(3). Retrieved August 3, 2005 from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Mar_04/article03.htm
43.
FriesenN. (2001). What are educational objects?Interactive Learning Environments, 9(3)
44.
GadanidisG.GadanidisJ.SchindlerK. (2003). Factors mediating the use of online applets in the lesson planning of pre-service mathematics teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(4), 323–344
45.
GibbonsA. S.NelsonJ.RichardsR. (2000). The nature and origin of instructional objects. In WileyD. A. (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved July 1, 2005 http://reusability.org/read/chapters/gibbons.doc
46.
HamelC. J.Ryan-JonesD. (2002). Designing instruction with learning objects. International Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1). Retrieved June 1, 2005 from http://www.ao.uiuc.edu/ijet/v3nl/hamel/
47.
HannaL.RisdenK.CzerwinskiM.AlexanderK. J. (1999). The role of usability in designing children's computer products. In DruinA. (Ed.), The design of children's technology. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc
48.
HarmanK.KoohangA. (2005). Discussion board: A learning object. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1. Retrieved August 5, 2005 from http://ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p067-077Harman.pdf
49.
HarpS. F.MayerR. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434
JonassenD.ChurchhillD. (2004). Is there a learning orientation in learning objects?International Journal on E-Learning, 3(2), 32–41
52.
JonesM. G.FarquharJ. D.SurryD. W. (1995). Using metacognitive theories to design user interfaces for computer-based learning. Educational Technology, 35(4), 12–22
53.
KayR. H. (1989). A practical and theoretical approach to assessing computer attitudes: The computer attitude measure (CAM). Journal ofResearch on Computing in Education, 21(4), 456–463
54.
KayR. H. (1992). An analysis of methods used to examine gender differences in computer-related behaviour. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(3), 323–336
55.
KayR. H. (1993a). A critical evaluation of gender differences in computer-related behaviour. Computer in the Schools, 9(4), 81–93
56.
KayR. H. (1993b). An exploration of theoretical and practical foundations for assessing attitudes toward computers: The computer attitude measure (CAM). Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 371–386
57.
KayR. H. (2006). Addressing gender differences in computer ability, attitudes and use: The laptop effect. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 187–211
58.
KayR. H.KnaackL. (2005). Developing learning objects for secondary school students: A multi-component model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 229–254. Retrieved December 1, 2005 from http://ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p229-254Kay_Knaack.pdf
59.
KayR. H.KnaackL. (2007). Evaluating the learning in learning objects. Open Learning, 22(1), 5–28
60.
KennedyD. M.McNaughtC. (1997). Design elements for interactive multimedia. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 1–22
61.
KennyR. F.AndrewsB. W.VignolaM. V.SchilzM. A.CovertJ. (1999). Towards guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia instruction: Fostering the reflective decision-making of preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(1), 13–31
62.
KlaweM. M. (1999). Computer games, education and interfaces: The E-GEMS Project [Word File From Web Page]. Available: http://taz.cs.ubc.ca/egems/home.html [2000, January 15, 2000]
63.
KoehlerM. J.LehrerR. (1998). Designing a hypermedia tool for learning about children's mathematical cognition. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 123–145
64.
KoppiT.BogleL.LavittN. (2005). Institutional use of learning objects: Lessons learned and future directions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 449–463
65.
KramarskiB.ZeichnerO. (2001). Using technology to enhance mathematical reasoning: Effects of feedback and self-regulation learning. Education Media International, 38(2/3)
66.
KraussF.AllyM. (2005). A study of the design and evaluation of a learning object and implications for content development. Interdisciplinary; Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1. Retrieved August 4, 2005 from http://ijklo.org/VOlume1/v1p001-022Krauss.pdf
67.
LampertM. (1986). Teaching multiplication. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 5, 241–280
68.
LarkinJ. H. (1989). What kind of knowledge transfers? In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction (pp. 283–305). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates
69.
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press
70.
LittlejohnA. (2003). Issues in reusing online resources. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1, Special issue on reusing online Resources. Retrieved July 1, 2005 from www-jime.open.ac.uk/2003/1/
71.
LiuL.MadduxC.JohnsonL. (2004). Computer attitude and achievement: Is time an intermediate variable?Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(4), 593–607
72.
LorchR. F. (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1(3), 209–234
73.
MacDonaldC. J.StodelE.ThompsonT. L.MuirheadB.HintonC.CarsonB. (2005). Addressing the eLearning contradiction: A collaborative approach for developing a conceptual framework learning object. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1. Retrieved August 2, 2005 from http://ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p079-098McDonald.pdf
74.
MaclarenI. (2004). New trends in Web-based learning: Objects, repositories and learner engagement. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(1), 65–71
75.
MadhumitaK. K. L. (1995). Twenty-one guidelines for effective instructional design. Educational Technology, 35(3), 58–61
76.
McGrealR. (2004). Learning objects: A practical definition. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(9). Retrieved August 5, 2005 from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_04/article02.htm
77.
McGrealR.AndersonT.BabinG.DownesS.FriesenN.HarriganK. (2004). EduSource: Canada's learning object repository network. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(3). Retrieved July 24, 2005 from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Mar_04/article01.htm
78.
McRobbieC. J.GinnsI. S.SteinS. J. (2000). Preservice primary teachers' thinking about technology and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 81–101
79.
MetrosS. E. (2005). Visualizing knowledge in new educational environments: A course on learning objects. Open Learning, 20(1), 93–102
MuzioJ. A.HeinsT.MundellR. (2002). Experiences with reusable e-learning objects from theory to practice. Internet and Higher Education, 2002(5), 21–34
82.
NesbitJ.BelferK.VargoJ. (2002). A convergent participation model for evaluation of learning objects. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(3). Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.3/nesbit_etal.html
83.
OrenT. (1990). Cognitive load in hypermedia: Designing for the exploratory learner. In AmbronS.HooperK. (Eds.), Learning with interactive multimedia (pp. 126–136). Washington: Microsoft Press
84.
OrrillC. H. (2000). Learning objects to support inquiry-based online learning. In WileyD. A. (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects: Online version. Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/orrill.doc
85.
PaquetteG.RoscaI. (2002). Organic aggregation of knowledge object in educational systems. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(3). Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.3/paquette_rosca.html
86.
ParrishP. E. (2004). The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(1), 49–67
87.
PetrinjakA.GrahamR. (2004). Creating learning objects from pre-authored course materials: Semantic structure of learning objects—Design and technology. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(3). Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol30.3/petrinjak.html
88.
PlanteJ.BeattieD. (2004). Education, skills and learning—Research papers connectivity and ICT integration in Canadian elementary and secondary schools: First results from the information and communications technologies in schools survey, 2003–2004. Statistics Canada. Retrieved August 29, 2004 from http://www.schoolnet.ca/home/documents/Report_EN.pdf
PoupaC.ForteE. (2003). Collaborative teaching with learning objects in an international, non-profit context. The example of the ARIADNE community. Educational Media International, 3–4, 239–248
91.
RehakD.MasonR. (2003). Chapter 3: Keeping the learning in learning objects. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2003(1). Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2003/1/reuse-05.html
92.
RichardsG. (2002). Editorial: The challenges of learning object paradigm. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(3). Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.3/editorial.html
93.
RichardsG.McRealR.HatalaM.FrisenN. (2002). The evolution of learning object repository technologies: Portals for on-line objects for learning. Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 67–79
94.
RobertsonH. (2003). Toward a theory of negativity: Teacher education and information and communications technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 280–296
95.
RussellM.BebellD.O'DwyerL.O'ConnorK. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and biservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310
96.
SaveryJ. R.DuffyT. M. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–34
97.
SchellG. P.BurnsM. (2002). A repository of e-]earning objects for higher education. e-Service Journal, 1(2), 53–64
98.
SedigK.LiangH, (2006). Interactivity of visual mathematical representations: Factors affecting learning and cognitive processes. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 179–212
99.
SedighianK. (1998). Interface style, flow, and reflective cognition: Issues in designing interactive multimedia mathematics learning environments for children. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
100.
SekiK.MatsuiT.OkamotoT. (2005). Anadaptive sequencing method of the learning objects for the e-learning environment. Electronics and Communication in Japan, 85(3), 330–344
101.
ShapkaJ. D.FerrariM. (2003). Computer-related attitudes and actions of teacher candidates. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19(3), 319–334
102.
SiqueiraS. W. M.MeloR. N.BrazM. H. L. B. (2004). Increasing the semantics of learning objects. International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental languages, 17(1), 27–39
103.
SloepP. (2003). Commentary on Diana Laurillard and Patrick McAndrew, Reusable Educational Software: A Basis for Generic e-Learning Tasks, in LittlejohnA. (Ed.), Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to e-Learning (Chapter 7), London: Kogan Page
104.
SolvbergA. (2002). Gender differences in computer-related control beliefs and home computer use. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(4), 410–426
105.
SternbergR. J. (1989). Domain-generality versus domain-specificity: The life and impending death of a false dichotomy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35(1), 115–130
106.
StoneyS.WildM. (1998). Motivation and interface design: Maximizing learning opportunities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14(1), 40–50
107.
StrudlerN.ArchambaultL.BendixenL.AndersonD.WeissR. (2003). Project THREAD: Technology helping restructure educational access and delivery. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 39–54
108.
ThompsonA. D.SchmidtD. A.DavisN. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 73–89
109.
TorkzadehR.PflughoeftK.HallL. (1999). Computer self-efficacy, training effectiveness and user attitudes: An empirical study. Behaviour and Information Technology, 18(4), 299–309
110.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002) Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2002. Retrieved August 30, 2004 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt419.asp
111.
ValderramaR. P.OcanaL. B.SheremetovL. B. (2005). Development of intelligent reusable learning objects for Web-based education systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 28(2005), 273–283
112.
Van ZeleE.VandaeleP.BotteldoorenD.LenaertsJ. (2003). Implementation and evaluation of a course concept based on reusable learning objects. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 355–372
113.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
114.
WaxmanH. C.ConnellM. L.GrayJ. (2002). A quantitative synthesis of recent research on the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Laboratory
115.
WepnerS. B.ZiomekN.TaoL. (2003). Three teacher educators' perspectives about the shifting responsibilities of infusing technology into the curriculum. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 53–63
116.
WhitleyB. E.Jr. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(1), 1–22
117.
WiestL. R. (2001). The role of computers in mathematics teaching and learning. Computers in the Schools, 17(½), 41–55
118.
WileyD. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In WileyD. A. (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects: Online version. Retrieved July, 1, 2005, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc
119.
WileyD.WayersS.DawsonD.LambertB.BarclayM.WadeD. (2004). Overcoming the limitations of learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 507–521
120.
WilhelmP.WildeR. (2005). Developing a university course for online delivery based on learning objects: From ideals to compromises. Open Learning, 20(1), 65–81
121.
WilliamsD. D. (2000). Evaluation of learning objects and instruction using learning objects. In WileyD. A. (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects: Online version. Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/williams.doc
122.
ZammitK. (2000). Computer icons: A picture says a thousand words. Or does it?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 217–231
