The document provides an overview of learning objects, covering their definitions, effectiveness, and usage in distance education along with various theories and barriers associated with their development. It emphasizes the importance of factors such as granularity, specificity, and accessibility in creating effective learning objects and includes references to various studies and guidelines. The text also discusses the role of technology in enhancing learning experiences and the necessity of training for educators in using these digital resources.

1. *
Rosemarri Klamn, MAPC, CHRP
November 10, 2015
EDDE803: Teaching and Learning
in Distance Education

2. *
*What are learning objects
*What makes learning objects effective
*Learning objects and theories
*How Learning objects are being used
*Barriers to developing and using learning
objects
*Learning object examples

3. David Wiley (2000) points to the Learning
Technology Standards Committee of the Electrical
and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) definition of
Learning Objects (LO), as too broad:
*“any entity, digital or non-digital, that can be
used, reused or referenced during technology
supported learning (IEEE, 2000)”
*Wiley defined Learning Objects were “any digital
resource that can be reused to support learning”
(2000)
*
Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a
taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version.

4. Moisey, Ally & Spencer note several different versions that
evolved over time:
*Sosteric and Hesemeier (2002) added context to their
definition of LO that were to be used for pedagogical
purposes”
*Siciliia and Garcia (2003) included “digital entities”, and
the use of a “metadata record” to help support the
capacity to search for learning objects to use or re-use
*Ally (2004) specified the addition of learning outcomes to
describe learning objects that should include pre-learning
and post-learning components to check for mastery of the
topic
Moisey, S., Ally, M., & Spencer, R. (2006). Factors affecting the development and use of learning
objects. American Journal of Distance Education, 20 (3), 143-161.
*

5. Robert Beck (2009) suggests that learning objects
include:
*Small chunks or units of learning, usually from 2
minutes to 15 minutes
*Self-contained sections that can be used
independently, re-used in multiple contexts for
multiple purposes, or can be aggregated into “larger
collections of content”
*Tags with metadata to describe its content and
structure so it can be found by a search
*
Beck, Robert J. (2009). “What are Learning Objects?”, Learning Objects, Centre for International Education,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Retrieved November 5, 2015 from
http://www4.uwm.edu/cie/learning_objects.cfm?gid=56

6. *
Gibbons et al., suggest two factors are necessary
in developing effective learning objects:
*the goals of computerized instruction
(adaptive, generative, scalable), and;
*the structure of the technological design
space within a ‘convergence zone’ where
conceptual artefacts are given form, using
“programming constructs of a particular
software tool”
*
Gibbons, A. S., Nelson, J. & Richards, R. (2000). The nature and origin of instructional objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The
Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version

7. *
Beck and Baggio (2007) suggest:
*Reserve RLO’s for processes and procedures that have
a long shelf life.
*Scalable content that can be re-used in multiple
ways, such as operations or techniques that involve”
small and definite steps that workers in all plants do
the same way”
*“Chunks of learning that includes content that can be
“translated into multiple languages, across cultures,
and for multiple learning styles” that can be used for
global deployment
Beck J. & Baggio, B. 2007. Meeting Training and Learning Challenges with Reusable
Learning Objects. Learning Solutions Magazine. August 6, 2007.

8. *Scudelari de Macedo & Ulbricht propose guidelines for
accessible learning objects:
*Based on universal design principles and recommendations for
Creating Accessible Web Content” W3C, and “Best Practices for
Production and Application of Accessible Content” that guides
Instructional Management Systems (IMS)
*Accessibility should be central in creation of a learning object,
not an afterthought as adaptations of access can change the
content and divert attention away from the original content
Scudelari de Macedo, C.M., & Ulbricht, V.R. (2012). Accessibility Guidelines for the Development of Learning
Objects. Procedia Computer Science 14 (2012) 155 – 162. SciVerse Science Direct.

9. *
Moisey et al. note that granularity and specificity are
necessary considerations in learning object effectiveness.
*Granularity: (size matters) large learning objects have
higher educational value; but lower reusability value
*Specificity: (detail matters) tagging and metadata
creation enable effective searchable of learning objects
*Evaluation: (understanding matters) examine content and
process to help students understand the principles of the
course
Moisey, S., Ally, M., & Spencer, R. (2006). Factors affecting the development and use of learning objects.
American Journal of Distance Education, 20 (3), 143-161.

10. *Williams favors Stufflebeam’s (1971) long-standing approach to
evaluation that considers:
*Context: evaluate socio-political, organization, and other
contextual variables
*Input: compare alternative inputs identified in context
evaluations
*Process: formatively assess the planning, design, development,
and implementation of learning objects
*Product: evaluate summative judgments about quality, utility,
and value of learning objects and infrastructures that support
them
Williams, D. D. (2000). Evaluation of learning objects and instruction using learning objects. In D. A. Wiley
(Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version.
*

11. *
Bannan et al., advocate mapping the application of
learning theories that align with the principles of
constructivism to learning object systems:
*Situated and distributed cognition
*Cognitive Flexibility Theory
*Social Interaction and Action Learning
*Generative Learning Theory
*Inquiry Theory
*Action Theory
Bannan-Ritland, B., Dabbagh, N. & Murphy, K. (2000). Learning object systems as constructivist learning
environments: Related assumptions, theories, and applications. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of
Learning Objects: Online Version.

12. *
Approaches consistent with fostering learning:
*Direct, discussion, experential, problem based
learning and simulation approach (Reigeluth & Carr-
Chellman, 2009)
*Learning through Acquisition, Inquiry, Discussion,
Practice, and Collaboration (Laurillard, 2012)
Reigeluth, C.M. & Carr-Chellman, A.A. 2009. Instructional Design Theories and Models: Building a Common Knowledge
Base: Volume III. Routledge.
Laurillard, D. 2012. Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. Routledge.

13. *
*Bratina et al. promote providing more technology
training for preservice and inservice teachers and
using mentors (teachers that are experienced in
designing effective digital learning objects) to help
find and practice using learning objects
*Using sites that are interesting to both teachers
and potential students incorporate great “hooks”
and demonstrate appropriate learning principles
Bratina, T.A., Hayes D. and Blumsack, S.L. (2002). Preparing Teachers to use Learning Objects. The
Technology Source Archives at the University of North Carolina. November/December 2002.

14. *Bratina et al. list learning objects that would enable mentoring
during informal meetings:
*Graphic of five figures holding different number of coins and
including sigma and subscripts to demonstrate a formula was used
with non-mathematics education students; then used with a group
of fifth grade students (minus the sigma and subscripts) to
demonstrate simple arithmetic operations
*The Exploration Museum of Science, Art, and Human Perception
with a section about “Global Climate Change” and “The Science
of Hockey” developed with NHL coaches and scientists to discuss
the scientific aspects of hockey
Bratina, T.A., Hayes D. and Blumsack, S.L. (2002). Preparing Teachers to use Learning Objects. The
Technology Source Archives at the University of North Carolina. November/December 2002.
*

15. *
*Clarity on purpose and use of learning object
*Metadata is useful, especially in encouraging open educational
resources, but not always necessary
*Creating a learning object is easier than trying to repurpose the
object
*Little consistency in structure, quality of learning objects, and
metatagging in repositories
*Finding learning objects that were not “all flash” with few or
no learning principles; or inconsistent granularity (too large or
too small)
*Copyright and intellectual property
Moisey, S., Ally, M., & Spencer, R. (2006). Factors affecting the development and use of learning objects.
American Journal of Distance Education, 20 (3), 143-161.

16. *
*MERLOT (http://www.merlot.ca) learning repository
*Portal for Online Objects in Learning (POOL)
(http://www.edusplash.net)—a resource developed by Simon
Fraser University
*Campus Alberta Repository of Education Objects
(CAREO) (http://careo.ucalgary.ca)
*University of Wisconsin’s Online Resource Center
(http://www.wisc-online.com)
*“The Instructional Use of Learning Objects”
(http://www.reusability.org).
Moisey, S., Ally, M., & Spencer, R. (2006). Factors affecting the development and use of learning
objects. American Journal of Distance Education, 20 (3), 143-161.

17. *
Learning Outcome: Create awareness of science in
young persons through a glimpse of the connection
between hockey and science (Brattina & Blumsack)
The Science of Hockey:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/hockey/index.html
Learning Outcome: Create different ways to remind
COMP 266: Introduction to Web Programming students
how to proceed through the course (Klamn)
Daniel’s
Advicehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMUpfkGz1Ck

18. Reflection
*Does the Science of Hockey site fulfil the
learning outcome of creating awareness of
science in young persons through a glimpse of
the connection between hockey and science ?
*Does “Daniel’s Advice” fulfil the learning
outcome of creating different ways to remind
COMP 266: Introduction to Web Programming
students how to proceed through the course ?
*

19. *
Bannan-Ritland, B., Dabbagh, N. & Murphy, K. (2000). Learning object systems as constructivist learning
environments: Related assumptions, theories, and applications. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of
Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved October 25, 2015 from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/bannan-
ritland.doc
Beck J. & Baggio, B. 2007. Meeting Training and Learning Challenges with Reusable Learning Objects. Learning
Solutions Magazine. August 6, 2007.
Beck, Robert J. (2009). “What are Learning Objects?”, Learning Objects, Centre for International Education,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, retrieved November 5,
2015http://www4.uwm.edu/cie/learning_objects.cfm?gid=56
Bratina, T.A., Hayes D. and Blumsack, S.L. (2002). Preparing Teachers to use Learning Objects. The Technology
Source Archives at the University of North Carolina. November/December 2002.
Gibbons, A. S., Nelson, J. & Richards, R. (2000). The nature and origin of instructional objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.),
The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved MONTH DAY, YEAR, from the World Wide Web:
http://reusability.org/read/chapters/gibbons.doc
Goodwin-Jones, R. Emerging Technologies: Scorn or SCORM? Language Learning and Technology. Vol8, No.2, May
2004, pp. 7-12
Henry, S.L., and Arch, A. eds. “Developing a Web Accessibility Business Case for Your Organization”. Updated 7
September 2012. Retrieved September 15, 2015 from: http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/

20. *
Laurillard, D. 2012. Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology.
Routledge.
Moisey, S., Ally, M., & Spencer, R. (2006). Factors affecting the development and use of learning objects. American
Journal of Distance Education, 20 (3), 143-161.
Petrie, K.B., Sloan, D., Lauke, P., Brown, S., Ball, S. and Seale, J. (2007). Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and
Processes. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Cross-disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (WRA).,
2007-05-01. Retrieved August 21, 2015 from: http://www.w4a.info/2007/prog/15-kelly.pdf
Reigeluth, C.M. & Carr-Chellman, A.A. 2009. Instructional Design Theories and Models: Building a Common
Knowledge Base: Volume III. Routledge.
Scudelari de Macedo, C.M., Ulbricht, V.R. (2012). Accessibility guidelines for the development of Learning Objects.
Procedia Computer Science 14 (2012) 155 – 162. Sciverse Science Direct. Retrieved November 2, 2015 from:
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877050912007806/1-s2.0-S1877050912007806-main.pdf?_tid=cb444e3c-8a8f-11e5-b788-
00000aab0f01&acdnat=1447478770_f5111f3c8f88cf68f7186a8d8f004cff
Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a
taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved November 2,
2015 from : http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc
Williams, D. D. (2000). Evaluation of learning objects and instruction using learning objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.),
The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved November 2, 2015 from:
http://reusability.org/read/chapters/williams.do