the establishment of fundamental principles

8/8/2019 The Establishment of Fundamental Principles

1/43

NL.ULUM.WWW :42:2009-JulyI:th Year7

1

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF

LEARNING OBJECT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT: BASED ON

RELATED THEORIES

Yazrina Yahya

National University of Malaysia

[email protected]

Abstract

Education is currently moving from traditional environment towards revenuegeneration such as e-Learning. This channel has allowed learners to gainknowledge and participate extensively in the learning process regardless oflocation and time constraints. The advent of communication technology hasalso led to the emergence of learning object concept (LO) which introducessharing of digital learning materials over the Internet. Although much work

on LO has been done spanning from technical- to practice-based, little has been conducted on the theoretical aspects. There are limited resourcesconcerning LO design and development theory available and minimalattention is given to the theoretical principles related to its development.Therefore, this paper intends to serve as a pillar for the foundation of LOdesign and development by providing the importance of theoreticalknowledge in LO design, related theories that influence its development, andthe ways the theories support the implementation of the learning objectdesign mechanism.

Keywords: Learning Object, LO, Theories Related to LO, Learning ObjectDesign and Development, LO Theoretical Principles

Introduction

In recent years, World Wide Web has grown exponentially and this has ledto drastic changes in the education environment world wide. The growth ofWorld Wide Web provides the channel for the expansion of deliveringeducation to the audience; hence the traditional classroom methods or CD-ROMs are currently being replaced with e-Learning and virtual learning


2/43


2

applications. Learning materials stored in these applications are available toa wider set of audience as they are accessible on the Internet. Theaccessibility of these materials and its potential for reusability has sparkedthe emergence of learning object concept.

Learning object is a reusable unit of instructions made available to theaudience through the use of World Wide Web. In other words, it is a digitalentity which not only can be searched, discovered, accessed, adapted, used

and reused on the web, but also interoperable and scalable to enhance andextend learning by including affiliations, chronicles and suggestions on therelevant context when using the object (Yahya, 2006). Due to its just-in-timeand adaptive nature, it currently leads other candidates for the position ofchoice in the next level of learning technology, instructional design,development and delivery.

However, despite being a world wide educational agenda for several yearsnow and regardless of scores of researches conducted on learning object byvarious researchers such as Akpnar & imek, 2005; Cook & Boyle, 2005;

McGreal, 2004; Sosteric & Hesemeier, 2002; Wiley, 2002; Mortimer, 2002;Thompson & Yonekura, 2005; Vicente, 2005; Duval & Hodgins, 2004;Earle, 2002; Agostinho et al., 2004; Jonassen & Churchill, 2004; Santally &Senteni, 2005, to name a few, the work done in providing the fundamental

principles of learning object is still inadequate. The research conducted byseveral researchers are shown in Figure 1and it shows that a lot has beenwritten about learning object subject matters specifically concerning itsdesign and development practices. However, there are limited resources onlearning object design and development theory available. This reveals thatlimited attention has been given thus far to the theoretical principles of

learning object development.In addition, at present the vast bulk of literature on learning object is

practice-based and they are typically presented in descriptive format. Themajority of learning object articles and presentations available consist ofissues highlighted and research description. As such the literature appears to

be fragmented and only a few common terms are used consistently. Historyshows that theoretical underpinnings play a central role in the developmentof practice across all fields of activity. Related exploration and debateswould provide a wider platform and a common philosophy for any field of


3/43


3

activity and therefore the learning object development can be achieved.However, there are limited examples of academic literature on learningobject design and development. Furthermore, currently most academicwritings are very much technology led, as emphasis is on technology ineducation, instead of theory led (Ravenscroft, 2001) causing more confusionabout the basis of learning object design and development. Hence, a theoryfor learning object design and development is needed to provide thefundamental guidelines for learning object design and development process.

A Theory Denotation

A theory, according to Berger (2000), is essential as it plays an importantrole in changing, learning and understanding in greater depth the subjectmatter or the field of activity. It has been described as the root of the subjectmatter that determines the subject growth and expansion. A theory is alsoused to provide coherent variables and relationships of subject matter to both

practitioners and researchers (Garrison, 2000). Therefore, it is crucial tohave learning object design and development theory applicable to all

instances of learning object, decision making, philosophy of practice andeffective implementation through practice.

According to Nichols (2003), the first step taken to establish a theory is todefine a common set of terms used and the meaning that is widely accepted

by the mass public or popular to the audience. Besides, it is noted that a soliddefinition should also be established, as it would aid in identifyingfundamental principles of learning object design and development. Uponobtaining the set of terms, the next move is to identify the fundamental

principles required for learning object design and development. The

principles derived would then aid practitioners and researchers understandmore about learning object, and its design and development.

Common Set of Terms Used

The definition of learning object is given in the previous section and the setof common terms used in the learning object environment is provided below:


4/43


4

1. OnlineLearning:

This term describes education that occurs only through theweb or the Internet as the medium of interaction.Therefore, it does not consist of any face-to-face contact.

2. Pedagogy: This term is used to describe the application of soundeducation practice in the learning object environment.


5/43

NL.

ULUM

.

WWW

:

42:

2009

-

July

7thYear:I

5

ClassificationofRe

searchIssues

Definition

Recognition

LOM

odelDetermination

&Ide

ntificationofObject

Types

Incorpo

rationof

MeaningfulLearning

Ev

ent

LearningObjectAvailability

Establishm

ent

Other

Research

Issues

DifferentDefinition

Abound

(Akpinar&S

imsek,

2005;Cook&Boyle,

2005;McGreal,2004)

AbsenceofWell

FoundedDefinition

(Sosteric&

Hesemeier,2002;

Wiley,2002)

Problemswith

ExistingTerms&

Definition

(Friesenetal.,2004)

Disagreementonthe

ExistingDefinitions

(Rehak&Mason,

2003)

Structure

Granularity

Absence

ofLO

Structure

/Model

(Mortime

r,2002;

Thompson&

Yonekura

,2005;

Vicente,2005)

Need

for

Founda

tional

Modelf

orLO

(McLean&

Lynch,

2003)

Absenceof

Gene

ral

ApplicableLo

Archite

cture

(Duval&

Hodgins,2004)

Unclear

Descriptionof

LOGranularity

(Earle,2002;

Thompson&

Yonekura,2005)

Argumentsin

Determining

Appropriate

Granularity

(Murphy,2004;

South&

Monson,2004)

LOPredicament

inDetermining

theTypes&

Form

(Agostinhoet

al.,2004;Wiley,

2002)

WideVarieties

ofLO

Granularities

(Duval&

Hodgins,

2004)

LO

DoesNot

S

upport

Me

aningful

Learning

(Jonassen,2004;

Wiley,2003)

L

ackof

Ped

agogical

ModelinCurrent

LOStandards

(Kraan&W

ilson,

2002)

LOF

ailsToFit

IntoT

heContext

ofLearning

(Ko

per&Es,

2004)

Retrievability&

Reusability

Interoperability

AbsenceofContext

andMetadata

(Allert,etal.,2001;

Recker&W

iley,

2001;Robson,

2004;Sacksetal.,

2002)

Absenceof

Pedagogical

InstructionalRole

(Cowley&Wesson,

2000;Friesen,

2004;Recker&

Walker,2003)

LimitedNumberof

Vocabulariesin

MetadataElements

andRelevant

MetadataElementto

EscalateTheObject

Reusability

(Dillon,2000)

RequirementforAn

AgreedVocabulary

(Phillipsetal,.2004)

LOM

LOR

Requirement

forReusability

Evaluation

(Sicilia&

Garcia,2003)

Requirement

forNew

Metadata

Elementsto

Promote

Reusability

(Duval&

Hodgins,

2

004;Sampson

&

Karampiperis,

2004)

Inadequate

ElementsTo

Support

Reusability

(Santally&

Senteni,2005)

Independe

ntPortals

(Richards

etal.,

2004)

Useof

Informa

tion

Visualisation

Techniquein

Access

ing

LO

(Duval&

Hodgins,

2004

)

Integration

ofAgent

Base

d

Concept

with

LO

(Lin,20

04)

Useof

Seman

tic

Web

in

Developing

Decentralise

dMetadata

(Palmer,

2004

)


6/43

NL.

ULUM

.

WWW

:

42:

2009

-

July

7thYear:I

6

Figure1:Learnin

gObjectResearchArea


7/43


7

3. LOM: This term describes the metadata used to detail thelearning object attributes or particulars. LOM is alwaysassociated with a standard known as learning objectmetadata standard (LOM Standard) and the most widelyaccepted LOM standard is by the IEEE LTSC.

4. LOR: This term describes the learning object database or

currently known as learning object repository. A learningobject repository stores the learning objects developed andthe LOR system provides functions that allow theaccessibility, retrievability and reusability of the learningobjects.

5. Context: This term refers to that extra, associated, related, assumedand also any priori information or knowledge that isrequired to meaningfully interpret the learning object

content from any given information sourced. It alsodescribes the how, when and where and if the learningobject might be applied.

6. ApplicationProfiles:

This is the subset of LOM standard where only certainmetadata elements (from the 77 elements identified byIEEE) are adopted for a particular local application.

7. LCMS: Or Learning Content Management System includes theauthoring tools to produce content objects, the tools forcontent tagging and the assembly functions for creatinglearning objects from lower level content objects, contentrepository for storing learning objects and deliveryinterface which include functions for searching andorganizing learning objects.

8.e-Learning: The use of tools that are web-based, web-distributed orweb capable for education purposes.


8/43


8

Fundamental Principles for Learning Object Design

The determination of fundamental principles for learning object design anddevelopment largely depends on theories related to learning object. Due tothe lack of established principles for learning object, related theories arelooked at to determine the learning object design and developmentfundamentals. These principles will then assist the development of thelearning object concept framework.

According to Koppi & Lavitt (2003) learning object is classified as a newconcept in educational technology or instructional technology field. Theinstructional technology is defined as the theory and practice of design,development, utilization, management and evaluation of processes andresources for learning. Its purpose is to affect and effect learning (Cohen &

Nyez, 2006; Seels & Richey, 1994). The instructional technology field dealswith five specific domains mainly the design, development, utilization,management and evaluation. These domains are considered to be related tolearning object as it inherits the parent (i.e. instructional technology field)domain. Details of the domains, their meanings, sub categories and relatedtheories and themes are presented in Table 1. The table summarizes therelation between the domain of instructional technology and its relatedtheories and themes. The theories and themes indicated represent the

potential ideas used to develop learning object fundamental principles.

Table 1: Instructional technology domains and related theories and

themes

InstructionalTechnology

Domain

DomainDefinition

Sub Categories Related Theories andThemes

Design The process ofspecifyingcondition forlearning

InstructionalSystem Design

Message DesignInstructional

StrategiesLearner

Behaviorism,Cognitivism,Constructivism,Humanism

Systematic Designof Instruction


9/43


9

Characteristics PsychomotorBehavioral

PerceptualDrill and Practice,

Recalling FactsConcept Map,

Elaboration Theory

Development Process oftranslating thedesignspecificationinto physicalform

Print orPublishingTechnologies

Audio VisualTechnologies

ComputerBased

TechnologiesIntegrated

Technologies

InformationRetrieval

Activity TheoryKnowledge

RepresentationCommunication

Theory

Social Constructionof TechnologyDigital DivideMedia: Hypertext,

InternetComputer Support

CollaborativeNetwork

Utilization The act of using process andresources forlearning

MediaUtilizationDiffusion of

InnovationImplementatio

nInstitutionalizat

ionPolicies and


10/43


10

Regulations

Management Involvescontrollinginstructionaltechnologythrough

planning,

organizing,coordinatingand supervising

KnowledgeManagement

TacitKnowledge

ExplicitKnowledge

PersistentModification

KnowledgeManagement

Content ManagementOrganizational

LearningLearning

ManagementSystem

Learning ContentManagementSystem

Evaluation Process fordetermining theadequacy ofinstruction

ProblemAnalysis

CriterionReferenced

MeasurementNorm

ReferencedMeasurement

Formative andSummativeEvaluation

Learning Object and Its Related Theory

There are a considerable number of theories and themes related toinstructional technology field as described in Table 1. However, it can beinferred that relevant theories related to learning object design anddevelopment are learning and technology related theories and themes

particularly the learning theories, instructional system design, informationretrieval and content management. This is due to the fact that learning objectis used in learning and teaching process and is accessible and retrievable viathe network or on the Internet.


11/43


11

Learning Object and Learning Theory

The basic purpose to establish learning object is to educate learnersanywhere and anytime, and to promote the concept of learning objectreusability. Therefore, it should contain meaningful educational contenttogether with specific learning outcomes, which are tailored to specificlearners needs. As such, learning object should embed sound pedagogiesand approaches in the content to ensure that meaningful learning will take

place during the learning process (Hadjerrouit, 2007). A number ofpedagogies and approaches to learning are widely mentioned and availablein the learning theory of behaviorism (Dembo, 1994; Good & Brophy, 1990;Skinner, 1968), cognitivism (Bruner, 1960, 1966, 1971) and constructivism(Glassersfeld, 1990; Resnick, 1983; Saunders, 1992). These three principallearning theories are useful in providing the foundation for establishinglearning object design and development (LO D&D) principles.

Behaviorism: its implications to the LO D&D

Behaviorism is a theory based on observable changes in behavior

(Thorndike, 1913, 1914; Pavlov, 1928; Skinner, 1974). It focuses on a newbehavioral pattern being repeated until it becomes automatic, based on thestudy of overt behavior that can be observed and measured (Good & Brophy,1990). Therefore, behaviorism learning is defined as a sequence of stimuliand responses to actions in observable cause and effect relationships. ThePavlovs experiment led to the establishment of the behaviorism principleswhich influenced the traditional learning and teaching process. Currentlywith the advent of computer technology, behaviorism influences are alsodiscovered in drills and practice applications, where questions provided actas stimuli and rewards given to learners are used to strengthen their interestin continuing the exercises given. This is in agreement with the Pavlovsexperiment indicating the possibility of using behaviorism theory ininstructional technology application specifically in learning object designand development. In addition to the establishment of goals and objectivesduring design phase, the measurement taken to show learning occurrencesand the separation of instruction into different levels can be used in LOD&D.


12/43


12

Cognitivism: its implications to the LO D&D

The Cognitive learning theory was introduced to address certain social behavior that had occurred mainly in children that the behaviorist theorycould not explain (Piaget, 1962; Gagne, 1985; Vygotsky, 1978). The theorysees learning as internal process that involves memory, thinking, reflection,abstraction, motivation and metacognition (Ally, 2004); knowledgeacquisition is measured accordingly based on a learners knowledge. It alsoemphasizes the understanding of a learners mental structure and viewslearning as involving acquisition or reorganization of the cognitive structuresthrough which human process and store information (Good & Brophy,1990). In addition, according to the theory, learning involves storage,encoding and retrieval; it is an active process, which involves mentalstructure organization, knowledge construction based on current and pastexperiences, self-learning monitoring process and context influences(Doolittle, 2001; Doolittle et al., 2004). These aspects are applicable tolearning object design and development process which suggests that relevantknowledge or skills pertinent to learning object should be included or

attached to learning object. In addition, the activity of cognitive processingsuggests the inclusion of prior knowledge information and relatedknowledge relationship in learning object. Consequently, cognitive theoryalso suggests that learning activities must be focused on buildingunderstanding through the use of examples, problem solving and reading.This is put forward in learning object design in which learning objectcontent should include activities that facilitate the recall of related existingcognitive structure, through the use of hypertext. Additionally, the theoryalso suggests the use of network concept in storing information (Ally, 2004),which brings about the use of information maps or topic maps in learningobject. In other words, learning object design should encompass amechanism for generating information maps in order to provide thevisualization of all related information relevant to learners.

Constructivism: its implications to the LO D&D

The Constructivist theory differs from behaviorism and cognitivism; itemphasizes mostly on the activity to obtain experience and formulate alearners own knowledge and understanding (Fosnot, 1996; Jonassen, 1991a,1991b; Merrill, 1991; Steffe & Gale, 1995; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). In


13/43


13

brief, constructivism views learners as being active during the learningprocess and hence knowledge is obtained and created by the learners ownunderstanding, experience and the mental model established. It highlightsthe importance of a learners role in the learning process and place emphasison meaning construction where it views learning as a process of searchingfor significant, relevant, important and valid information through a learnersown understanding based on related parts and the learning context. Inaddition, it also promotes the establishment of mental models through self-

paced learning. This is further incorporated in learning object design anddevelopment through the use of learning object aggregation (Bannan-Ritlandet al., 2002). The aggregation concept used allows learning object to be at itslowest level where content is context dependent. The learner is then able touse and combine these objects to form a new one according to his or her

personal interpretation. This reveals that self-paced learning promoted byconstructivism is applicable and can be implemented in the learning objectconcept. Beyond that, learning object repository system can also providetemplates or facilities to allow learners to create their own new objects and

make them available to others.Besides using constructivism principles to aid learning object design, thecentral strategies used for building CLE (Computer Learning Environment)are also equally important to assist the learning object design anddevelopment. Situated learning, one of the strategies used in CLE has putforward the concept of enculturation (Ally, 2004; Jonassen, 1994; Jonassenet al., 2002) where learners are able to interact with the environment (Brownet al., 1989; Jonassen et al., 2002). Therefore, it emphasizes the factors ofcollaboration, realistic representation, knowledge construction, negotiation

among learners, exploration, coaching and social interaction (Harman &Koohang, 2005). These features are certainly useful to facilitate the learningobject design process.

Enculturation is achieved in learning object concept through the use ofhistorical information attached to learning object and the availability ofinteraction mechanism with the previous users learning object (Yahya &Yusoff, 2005a, 2005b). On the whole, it can be concluded thatconstructivism fundamentals do have influence on the learning object designand development. Consequently, it can be deduced that these fundamentals


14/43


14

will provide the indications to assist in designing and developing thefundamental principles of learning object.

Learning Object and Instructional Design Theory

Instructional design theory is drawn from many theory bases such as thegeneral system, communication, learning and instructional theories (Smith &Ragan, 1999). These theories have brought forth substantial impact oninstructional design development procedures, particularly learning and

instructional theory, which has the most substantial influence in developinginstructional design principles. It is a theory that shows how to go abouttackling a problem that links the theoretical solution to the technology of

practice (Wilson, 1997). This results in the development of instructionaldesign model, which is used and utilized during the instructional design

process.

Instructional design model: its implications to the LO D&D

Instructional design model provides the visualized representation of an

instructional design process illustrating phases carried out in creating anddesigning an instruction. Various instructional design models such as theDick and Carey Model (Dick et al., 2001), the Kemp Model (Kemp et al.,1998), and the Hannafin and Peck Model (Hannafin & Peck, 1988), to namea few, have been proposed by practitioners and researchers. Most of thesemodels share three major activities, which are analysis, strategydevelopment and evaluation. The analysis activity requires investigation oflearning context, learners learning task and assessment tools related to theinstruction developed. Upon completion of the analysis, a set of goalstatements, principle learning environment, target learners learning

objectives and test items are identified and explained. These will assist indesigning the instruction, as a goal statement will indicate learners or usersof the instruction, and skills and tools needed during the learning process. Inaddition, identification of target learners will provide information on theircharacteristics, entry behavior, attitude and potential delivery system. Thelearning objective, on the other hand, will provide information on theexpectation upon completion. Consequently, test items will bring forth the

possible assessment instrument to measure performance or quality of theinstruction. As such, the activity will be relevant and useful guidance in


15/43


15

learning object design and development process. The activity performed canbe utilized to acquire well-designed learning object. For instance, the set ofgoal statements derived will reveal the importance of identifyinginstructional goals. Therefore, in designing learning object, there is a need toidentify the goals or the main purpose of learning object content. This should

be made available to learners through some form of mechanism, in additionto the principle environment and tools needed to operate learning object.Making this information available will assist learners in identifying the

required objects and as a result the time consuming activity of accessingunnecessary learning object can be avoided. Nevertheless, the identificationof target learners during the second analysis activity indicates the importanceof identifying target audience for learning object. The detailed informationof target audience will be used in designing the learning object content as ithelps to identify the appropriate speed of content presentation, its responsemode, the level of learners control and the media of instruction. Learningobjectives procured in the course of a learners analysis demonstrate thesignificance of having a clear objective for learning object design. Clear cut

and definite objectives for learning object design can assist learning objectauthors or creators in deciding the appropriate content, strategy andevaluations used in learning object. Consequently, the availability ofobjectives to learners would add merit to learning object as it provides

perspectives on the findings procured upon completion of using learningobject (Nash, 2005). Finally, the assessment models and tools identifiedsuggest that learning object should embed test items in the content, as it will

provide an indicator for a learners level of understanding of the contentpresented. In conclusion, the analysis activity in instructional design modelscan assist the learning object design and development through the highlightsgiven on the importance of each results obtained (i.e. the goal statement, thetarget audience, learning objectives and test items).

The strategy activity results in the determination of instruction sequences,content essential components, content presentation and classification oftarget learner during the learning process. The instructional sequenceindicates the importance of sequence and the need for identifying instructioncluster size, while the identification of content essential components willgenerate established components of the instruction. One of the main


16/43


16

components established is the preinstructional component which includescontent, sequence prerequisite, objective, content presentation, activities andassessment tools. In addition, the content presentation will integratecomponent, incorporate time required to learn the content and integratecontent with media and delivery selection. These results are helpful inguiding learning object design and development process. For example, theinstruction sequence described in instructional design model reveals the needto particularly arrange learning object and its content. Past works have

proved the importance of learning object sequencing to provide relevant andwell-arranged content tailored to learners needs (IMS, 2005; Keogh et al.,2003; Mohan & Brooks, 2003; Wiley, 2000, 2002). Furthermore, thedetermination of instruction cluster size indicates the necessity to makeknown the object size to the learner as it indirectly indicates the time neededto learn the object. This certainly adds credit to learning object, as it allows alearner to identify the expected time taken to use a specific learning object.

Finally, the appropriate media selection and delivery system denotes thenotability of identifying suitable media for the content designed. Upon

completion of the strategy phase, the final step involves the execution ofinstruction development. This requires the use of previous results such asinstructional goals, learning objectives, test tools, target learnercharacteristics and principle environment identified earlier in the analysisactivity. The end result of this particular phase is a complete draft set ofinstructional materials. Accordingly, this final step gives rise to theimportance of having previous results mentioned for usage and referenceduring the learning object design and development process as it will result ineffective, well arranged and well devised learning object specifically tailored

to the learners needs.Learning Object and Information Retrieval

Learning object needs to be accessible and retrievable from some form ofstorage or database. Therefore, it needs some kind of mechanism to allow alearner to search and access required learning object. This leads toinformation retrieval theory as it provides the basis to organize informationin one or more subject areas and bring forth the mechanism to deliver theright information as requested by the users. Relatively an information


17/43


17

retrieval theory is used to deal with issues of design and developmentinformation retrieval system. Therefore, to allow learning objectaccessibility and retrievability, some form of information retrieval systemneeds to be designed. According to Chowdhury (2004) an informationretrieval system consists of three major areas, which are information items(in this case it is the learning objects), users queries and the matchingqueries process with the database or the repository. As such, three majorsystem components are needed to support the area application namely

document, user and searching sub-system. Focus is given to searching sub-system as it promotes the accessibility and retrievability of learning object.The searching sub-system is established through the use of retrieval methodsidentified in existing literature. The current methods available in informationretrieval systems are content-based and metadata retrieval methods.However, the focus is given to metadata retrieval methods as they are usedto describe and retrieve digital objects according to selected attributes ormetadata elements. Metadata retrieval methods reveal that metadataelements are used to describe details or particulars of the digital object. The

elements vary according to subject domain, users and their use behavior, andspecific description related to the domain. This leads to the significance ofidentifying specific metadata elements needed to describe learning objects.Therefore, the concept used in metadata retrieval methods is utilized toderive required elements for accessing learning objects. For instance, inidentifying metadata elements, the first step taken is to identify metadata

potential users (that can be individuals), tools, applications or metadatarepositories (Tannenbaum, 2001). Upon obtaining potential users, it isessential to identify metadata requirements, typically the required metadataelements that comprehend element name, definition and source. It is alsoimportant to identify the metadata requirements according to potential usercategories, as this can provide specific elements required by the users.Following this the tool or the repository interfaces are determined to allowmetadata maintenance throughout the execution of metadata process. The

process of identifying metadata elements is constructive to learning objectdesign and development, as metadata can be used to describe learning objectto allow its accessibility and retrievability. The process identified will assistin determining the appropriate and required metadata for learning object.


18/43


18

Learning Object and Knowledge Representation

Knowledge representation is used for processing concepts in an informationsystem and it is widely utilized in the artificial intelligence and problemsolving research area. The main purpose of using knowledge representationis to simplify the problem representation and solution, in which the semanticnetwork technique is used to represent the knowledge. The use of semanticin knowledge representation is further extended to the semantic web andtopic maps concept.

Semantic web: implications to the LO D&D

According to Berners Lee et al. (2001) semantic web is a concept thatextends the current web usage whereby information is given well definedmeanings, hence better enabling computer and people to work ascorporation. Therefore, the essence of semantic web is the use of ontology-

based semantics that represent relations between concepts in taxonomies orto describe some areas of knowledge (Shum et al., 2000). The ultimate useof semantic web leads to several advantages to any web applications;

therefore, search mechanism is enhanced with respect to exactness andamount due to standardized web annotation and service description. On theother hand, the use of ontology-based semantics in searching mechanismwill filter unwanted results and provide more meaningful results to theaudience.

In addition, the use of ontology is applicable to e-Learning system as itprovides all means for ontology development, ontology based annotation oflearning materials, their composition in learning courses and proactivedelivery of learning materials through e-Learning portals (Arajo & Ferreira,

2004; Snae & Brueckner, 2007; Lytras & Sicilia, 2005; Stojanovic et al.,2001; Muoz & de Oliveira, 2004). The advantages of using semantic weband its currently available technology in the e-Learning domain haveevidently confirmed its applicability to the learning object design anddevelopment. The high probability of obtaining better search results throughthe use of semantic web indicates the importance of incorporating thesemantic web and its technology in the learning object design anddevelopment; hence the ontologys technology can be adopted.


19/43


19

Furthermore, the ontology technology can also be adopted by the learningobject model allowing the objects organization through the use ofsemantically annotated learning objects. The use of ontology technology inlearning object design and development will further enhance the learningobject accessibility and retrievability as semantic querying is made possibleand conceptual navigation enable.

Topic maps: implications to the LO D&D

Topic maps are an ISO standard (Biezunski, 1999; Biezunski et al., 1999)that is viewed as an interchangeable hypertext navigation meta-layer abovediverse electronic information sources and is one of the technologies tosupport the semantic web application. It supports topical findings of variouskinds of resources such as documents, graphics, database models and others,whereby the meta-layer is used to find the related resources, through theoccurrence links that connect the resources and the topics.

Topic maps is used to represent information using topics, associations andoccurrences (Garshol, 2004; Pepper, 2002; Rath, 2000) and as such, it is

similar to semantic network and mind maps respectably. Inevitably topicmaps provide a language to represent conceptual knowledge with whichlanguage is able to distinguish the learning materials semantically. The useof topic maps in the e-Learning environment will enhance the value oflearning materials stored in the e-Learning repository. It allows learners toacquire new topical knowledge, as they are able to access learning materialsand their associated topics or domains. Further use of topic maps in e-Learning system reveals a learner to procure deeper understanding of thelearning domain and its conceptual associations (Dichev et al., 2004; de

Marchi et al., 2005; Fernandez et al., 2005).As learning object is a component of LCMS (which is a subset of e-Learningsystem), likewise topic map fundamentals are also applicable to learningobject design and development. It is equally important to incorporate topicmaps into learning object design as it promotes better browsing awareness asa learner has greater understanding of the learning object conceptualstructure. Therefore, the procedures used in developing topic maps forresources should be adaptable to the learning object design and development

principles. Therefore, in identifying the topics, the content of the object


20/43


20

should be analyzed to characterize the object according to its content andcontext. The content of the topics includes the content type (i.e. video, audio,image and text) and the context, on the other hand, indicates the conceptidentified and the relationship existed (i.e. through the use of hypertext).Therefore, during the design of learning object, the topics and its relation toother objects should be made available to assist the use of topic maps inlearning object repository system.

In addition, the topic maps technology is also applicable to learning objectmetadata standard, in which the occurrences can be described by using themetadata element particularly the relation element using a specificvocabulary. The occurrences component in topic maps can also beincorporated in the learning object metadata standard through the use ofrhetorical relation (El Saddik et al., 2000, 2001a, 2001b; Fischer, 2001;Mann & Thompson, 1987, 1988; Seeberg et al., 2000) as rhetorical relationsmay provide clues of text coherence. This is achievable through the use ofrelation element in learning object metadata standard.

ConclusionThis paper has reviewed the theoretical knowledge and themes relevant tolearning object design and development. The review reveals that there are aconsiderable number of theories and themes related to the instructionaltechnology, the parent field for learning object. The review also indicatesthat only specific theories and themes will have an impact and influence onthe learning object design and development, namely the learning, theinstructional design, the information retrieval theories, and knowledgerepresentation and content management themes. In respect of the theories,

further analysis conducted reveals that each theory and theme hasfundamental design principles that are applicable to the learning objectdesign and development. These fundamental design principles are thenadopted and enhanced so that they can be used as the learning object designand development principles. The theories and themes of the principles usedto derive the learning object fundamentals are presented in Table 2. It alsoillustrates the determining of possible learning object components based onthe fundamentals derived. The results confirm that solid fundamental


21/43


21

principles apply to all instances of learning object, and can assist in effectiveimplementation of learning object as reported by Nichols (2003).

The fundamental principles of learning object design and developmentderived are then used to assist in learning object design as it underlines thenecessary actions to be taken to provide a well-designed and useful learningobject. This coordination is presented in Table 3. In brief, theoreticalknowledge and theme discussed in this paper have provided the

underpinning theories in designing and developing learning object whichwill be useful during design process.


22/43

NL.

ULUM

.

WWW

:

42:

2009

-

July

7thYear:I

22

Table2:InfluencesofRe

latedTheoriesandThemesinAcquiringLearningObjectFundamentalPrinciples

Related

Theoriesand

Themes

Theory

and

Theme

Element

TheoryFundamentals

LearningO

bjectDesignand

Development

(LODD)

FundamentalPrinciple

Possible

Mechan

ism

to

Materia

lizeThe

Principle

Positive

Reinforcem

ent

Behaviorismfocusesonobservable

changes

in

behavior

that

is

strengthenedorweakenedbythe

immediatepresenceo

frewardand

punishment

LODDequipsamechanism

that

allow

s

constructive

feedbackandpromptreplies

to

stimula

te

a

learners

action

Learnin

gobject

content

design

Learning

Theory:

Behaviorism

Measurable

actions

and

reaction

(i.e.

behavior)

Behaviorism

emphasizesonthe

useofexaminationan

dassessment

asamechanismfo

rmeasuring

observableactionsoflearning.

LODDenablesanevaluation

mechanism

embeddedinthe

learningobjectcontentto

determinea

learnerslevelof

understanding

Learnin

gobject

metadata


23/43

NL.

ULUM

.

WWW

:

42:

2009

-

July

7thYear:I

23

Behaviorism

unde

rlines

the

importanceofdesigninggoalsand

objectives

when

designing

instruction.

LODD

includesthegoals,

objectivesandthelearning

objectpurpose

into

the

learningob

jectandallows

these

to

be

viewed

by

learnersfo

rquantification

purposesup

oncompletion.

Learnin

gobject

content

design

Theprocessof

receiving

sensation

Cognitivism

provide

smeansof

understandingalearnersmental

structurethroughthememories

used

during

learning

and

the

informationtransferra

lprocess.

LODD

permits

the

incorporatio

nofsomeform

ofstrategyduringthedesign

processtoe

nsureappropriate

amountof

information

is

transferred

from

thesenses

tothesenso

rystore.

Learnin

gobject

content

design

Learning

Theory:

Cognitivism

Acquisition

of

information

based

on

attention

given.

Cognitivism

views

learning

as

involving

the

acquisition

of

informationthrought

heamountof

attentiongiven.

LODD

e

quips

learning

objectwith

well-designand

effectiveco

ntenttoenhance

a

learner

s

concentration

level

Learnin

gobject

content

design


24/43

NL.

ULUM

.

WWW

:

42:

2009

-

July

7thYear:I

24

Limited

capacity

of

working

memory

Cognitivismkeyfeat

uresincludes

cognitiveprocessingthatdescribes

themovementofinfo

rmationfrom

workingmemoryto

longterm

memory

LODDenablesvarioussizes

of

learnin

g

object

to

maximisetheuseofworking

memorydu

ringthelearning

process

Learnin

gobject

content

design

Knowledge

construction

based

on

currenta

nd

past

experience

Cognitivism

emphasi

zeson

the

knowledge

construction

through

the

self-discovery

process

and

discoveryorientedinst

ruction

LODD

enables

the

incorporation

of

relevant

prerequisite

knowledgeand

skillspertin

enttolearning

objectasto

allowalearner

tocomprehendthecontent

andassistin

theself-guided

learning

Learning

object

metadata


25/43

NL.

ULUM

.

WWW

:

42:

2009

-

July

7thYear:I

25

LODD

enablessomeform

of

relation

between

the

learningobject

designed

withrelated

knowledgeor

information

to

present

contextual

relationship

betweenth

eobjectsthus

creatinglearningawareness

amonglearn

ers

Learning

object

metadata

Cognitivismpromo

testheuseof

examples,applied

problemsto

establish

knowledge

understanding

LODDenables

sufficient

activitiestobeincludedin

thelearningobjectcontent

toallowa

learnertoprocess

anddigesttheinformation

Learnin

g

object

content

design


26/43

NL.

ULUM

.

WWW

:

42:

2009

-

July

7thYear:I

26

given(ac

tivitiessuch

as

question

and

answer,

simulation,problemsolving

needtobe

includedtoallow

alearnertounderstandthe

learningobjectcontent)

Contextualized

learning

Constructivism

promotes

a

learners

active

role

in

the

learning

process

to

allow

knowledge

construction

and

meaningdevelopm

entbasedon

thelearningexperie

nceorthrough

self-guidedlearning

LODDen

ablesalearners

activeinteraction

with

learning

object

content;

supports

collaboration

constructio

namonglearners

and

various

types

of

activities

to

support

differentle

arningmodalities

Learnin

g

object

content

design

Learnin

g

object

types

Learning

theory:

Constructivism

Constructivism

em

phasizes

the

existenceofcontextinlearning

materialsandenablealearnerto

addorincluderela

tedcontextto

thecontent

LODD

allows

the

establishm

ent

of

authorizationtorefineor

adaptthe

learningobject

content

tailored

to

the

learnersneeds

Learnin

g

object

metadata


27/43

NL.

ULUM

.

WWW

:

42:

2009

-

July

7thYear:I

27

A

learners

experienc

e

playsarolein

learning

process

Constructivism

emphasizesona

learners

experiences

to

understand

mor

e

complex

information,

as

self-guided

learningrequiresalearnertohave

some

form

of

preliminary

informationabout

thesubjector

matterslearned

LODD

allows

content

association

withalearners

level

of

expertise

and

prerequisite

knowledge

needed

Learnin

g

object

metadata

Learning

asan

extensive

process)

Constructivismdrawsattentionto

thepossibilityofle

ngthylearning

processduetoth

eself-guided

learningemphasized

LODDentitlesalearnerto

accessand

usethelearning

objectrep

eatedlyuntilthe

learningconceptisaccepted

bythelearner

Learnin

g

object

metadata

LODDp

resents

various

choicesof

learningpathsto

allowmoreoptionsgivento

learners

Learnin

g

object

relation


28/43

NL.

ULUM

.

WWW

:

42:

2009

-

July

7thYear:I

28

Instructional

DesignTheory

Learning

goal

statement,

targetlearner,

the

prin

ciple

environm

ent

and

specific

objective

must

be

established

Instructionaldesign

emphasizes

ontheimportanceo

frevealingthe

learning

goalstatement,

the

principle

environment,

target

learnerandthelear

ningobjective

tolearners

LODD

enables

the

identification

oflearning

objectgoa

lsandpurposes,

thetools

to

operatethe

learningo

bject,thetarget

usersofth

elearningobject

andthelearningobjective

tobeviewedbylearners

Learning

object

metadata

Assessment

tools

incorpora

ted

in

the

instructio

n

Instructionaldesign

underlinesthe

importanceoflearningassessment

tools

to

evaluate

a

learners

performanceastoe

nsurelearning

hasoccurred

LODDenablesassessment

ortestitem

sincorporatedin

thelearningobjectcontent

Learning

object

content

design

Instructio

n

sequence

and

its

prerequisite

requirement

needed

Instructionaldesign

insistsonthe

significanceofinstr

uctioncontent

sequence

andthe

prerequisite

sequenceneededto

determinethe

instructionalsequencesthatwould

leadtomeaningfullearning

LODDma

kesavailablethe

prerequisiteknowledgeto

learnersa

nd

also

makes

known

the

related

secondary

topic

Learning

object

metadata


29/43

NL.

ULUM

.

WWW

:

42:

2009

-

July

7thYear:I

29

Media

selection

anddeliver

y

system

is

made

known

Instructionaldesigninsistsonthe

appropriate

mediaselection

and

delivery

system

to

maximise

a

learnerslearningcapacity

LODD

mak

esavailablethe

informationofmedianeeded,

technical

equipment

and

otherstoexe

cutethelearning

object

Learning

object

metadata

Information

Retrieval

Search

mechanism

used

t

o

obtainth

e

information

required.

Informationretrievalhighlightsthe

needstohaveasearch

mechanism

to

retrieve

required

information

through

the

content

based

or

metadatabasedmethod

LODD

allows

metadata

association

with

learning

objectto

providelearning

object

de

scription

and

enhancethesourceprocess

Learning

object

metadata

Metadata

elements

used

t

o

detail

information

Informationretrievalun

derlinesthe

usageofmetadatabasedretrieval

foraccessingdigitaldocumentson

the

network

throug

h

specific

metadataelementsthatdetailsthe

LODDincorporatesmetadata

withthelearningobjectand

specificme

tadata

elements

accordingto

learningobject

domain

are

identified

inLearning

object

metadata


30/43

NL.

ULUM

.

WWW

:

42:

2009

-

July

7thYear:I

30

documentparticulars

which

learning

object

metadata(LOM)standardis

used

todescribe

learning

object

Semantic

web

concept

Knowledge

representation

highlightstheprocessingconcept

inaninformationsystem

where

problem

representation

is

simplified

through

the

use

of

semanticweb

LODD

includes

semantic

web

concept

and

its

technology

toobtainbetter

searchresults

Learnin

g

object

relation

Learnin

g

object

metadata

Knowledge

Representation

Ontology

technique

Knowledge

representation

highlightsthe

use

ofontology

technology

in

an

information

system

to

furtherimprove

the

searchqualityofsearc

hresultsand

to

describe

other

areas

of

knowledge

related

to

the

information

stored

in

the

informationsystem

LODD

ena

blestheuseof

ontology

technology

to

provide

additional

information

related

to

the

learningobjectastoenhance

the

reu

sability

and

retrievabilityofthelearning

object

Learnin

g

object

relation

Learnin

g

object

metadata

Learnin

g

object

history


31/43

NL.

ULUM

.

WWW

:

42:

2009

-

July

7thYear:I

31

Topicmaps

Knowledge

representation

promotestheuseoftopicmapsto

allow

discoverability

of

new

topicalknowledgeandtoprovide

greater

understandin

g

of

the

learningdomain

LODDallow

stheassociation

oftopicma

pswithlearning

objectto

create

browsing

awareness

Learnin

g

object

relation

Learnin

g

object

history

Rhetorical

relation

Knowledge

representation

emphasizes

on

the

instruction

coherence

LODD

enablesinstruction

coherencethroughtheuseof

relationidentified

between

relatedobjects

Learnin

g

object

relation


32/43


Table 3: Influences of LODD fundamental principles in learning object

design process

Learning Object Design and

Development Fundamental

Principles

Influences on the Learning Object

Design and Development Process

(Necessary Actions To Be Taken)

LODD equips a mechanism thatallows constructive feedback and

prompt replies to stimulate alearners action

Learning object should provide amechanism to offer prompt andconstructive feedback to learners

LODD enables an evaluationmechanism embedded in the learningobject content to determine alearners level of understanding

Learning object should incorporatean evaluation mechanism such as testitems or quiz into the content

LODD includes the goals, objectivesand the learning object purpose intothe learning object and allows theseto be viewed by learners forquantification purposes uponcompletion.

Learning object goals, objective andits purpose must be clearly definedand made available to learners

LODD permits the incorporation ofsome form of strategies during thedesign process to ensure appropriate

amount of information is transferredfrom the senses to the sensory store.

Learning object content must be wellsequenced, arranged and designedwhereby it should incorporate

images, audio and video if possibleto attract a learners attention

LODD equips learning object withwell-design and effective content toenhance learners concentration level

Learning object appearance needs to be designed in such a way thatcolours, text arrangement, figures,graphics, images and others are wellarranged


33/43


LODD enables various size oflearning object as to maximize theuse of working memory during thelearning proces

Learning object needs to be invarious forms in which it could be animage or the combination of animage with texts

LODD enables the incorporation ofrelevant prerequisite knowledge andskills pertinent to learning object soas to allow a learner to comprehendthe content and assist in the self-guided learning

Learning object should include therequired knowledge and skillsneeded before using the learningobject, as such, this is made possiblethrough the use of metadata

LODD enables some form of relationbetween the learning object designedwith related knowledge orinformation to present contextualrelationship between the objects thuscreating learning awareness among

learners

Learning object should incorporaterelations between the object withother related objects in the same

parent field or semantically related

LODD enables sufficient activities to be included in the learning objectcontent to allow a learner to processand digest the information given(activities such as question andanswer, simulation, problem solvingneed to be included to allow a learnerto understand the learning objectcontent)

Learning object should incorporateactivities such as test items, quiz,simple question and answer,exercises, simulation or other typesof activities into the content

LODD enables a learners activeinteraction with learning objectcontent, supports collaborationconstruction among learners and hasvarious types of activities to supportdifferent learning modalities

Learning object should allow alearner to modify the content and

provide a mechanism for the learnerto communicate with other learnerswho are using the same learningobject


34/43


LODD allows content associationwith a learners level of expertise and

prerequisite knowledge needed

Learning object should make theeducational level and the prerequisiterequirements required before usingthe object available to learners

LODD entitles a learner to access anduse the learning object repeatedly untilthe learning concept is understood bythe learner

Learning object should be kept in arepository and be accessible tolearners at all times through thenetwork

LODD incorporates metadata with thelearning object and specific metadataelements according to learning objectdomain identified in which learning

object metadata (LOM) standard isused to describe learning object

Learning object should use thelearning object metadata standard

by IEEE LTSC as its point ofreference

LODD includes semantic web conceptand its technology to obtain bettersearch results

Learning object must incorporatesemantic vocabularies into therelation element

LODD enables the use of ontologytechnology to provide additionalinformation related to the learningobject as to enhance the reusabilityand retrievability of the learning object

Learning object must have anothertype of metadata element todescribe other types of relation

between the object

LODD allows the association of topicmaps with learning object to create

browsing awareness

Learning object must have extendedelement to incorporate the topicmaps concept

LODD enables instruction coherence Learning object design must extend


35/43


through the use of relation identifiedbetween related objects

the relation vocabularies toincorporate the use of new type ofrelation

ReferencesAgostinho, S., Bennet, S., Lockyer, L., & Harper, B. (2004). Developing a Learning

Object Metadata Application Profile Based on LOM suitable for the Australian

Higher Education Context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(4):

191-208.

Akpnar, Y., & imek, H. (2005). Development of a Learning Content Management

System Based on Interactive Learning Object Approach. Proceedings of 6th

International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and

Training ITHET 2005 July 7-9, 2005 Santa Domingo, Dominican Republic, T3A-5-

T3A-10.

Allert, H., Dhraief, H., & Nejdl, W. (2001). Intelligent Online-Knowledge-Resources for

Intentional Learning. In P. Kommers. & G. Richards, (Eds.), Proceedings of World

Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2001

(pp. 29-30). Chesapeake,VA: AACE.

Ally, M. (2004). Designing Effective Learning Objects. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online

Education Using Learning Objects (Open and Flexible Learning, (pp. 87-97).

London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Arajo, M., & Ferreira, M. A. G. V. (2004). Semantic Web and Ontological Modelling of

Learning Materials and Objects for Evolutionary e-Learning Systems. Workshop on

Ontologies and Their Applications. Sao Luis, Maranhao, Brazil, 28 September 2004.

Retrieved May 16, 2006, from. http://www.ws.onto.ufal.br/

Bannan-Ritland, B., Dabbagh, N., & Murphy, K. (2002). Learning Object Systems asConstructivist Learning Environments: Related Assumptions, Theories and

Applications. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects (pp. 61-

98). Bloomington, IN: Agency for instructional technology and association foreducational communications and technology.

Berger, J. (2000). The Importance of Theory. Retrieved December 12, 2003, from

http://www.suite101/article.cfm/8806/54817

Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The Semantic Web. ScientificAmerican.com. Retrieved May 16, 2006, from

http://www.scientificamerican.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00048144-10D2-

1C70-84A9809EC588EF21


36/43


Biezunski, M. (1999). Topic Maps at a Glance. Proceedings of XML Europe 1999, 16-30

April, Palicio de Exposiciones Congresos, Granada Spain, 22-30.

Biezunski, M., Bryan, M., & NewComb, S. R. (Eds.). (1999).ISO/IEC 13250:2000 Topic

Maps: Information Technology Document Description and Markup Language.

International Organization for Standardization.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989, January-February). Situated cognition and

the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 32-42.

Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward A Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Bruner, J.S. (1971). The Relevance Of Education. Oxford, UK: W. W. Norton.

Chowdhury, G. G. (2004).Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. (2nd ed.). New

York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

Cohen, E. B., & Nyez, M. 2006. Learning Objects and E-Learning: an Informing Science

Perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects,2, 23-34.

Available at http://www.ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p217-228Nash.pdf

Cook, J., & Boyle, T. (2005). e-Learning and Repositories: The Power To Transform.

Proceeding Eduserv Foundation Symposium. Many for Many: Collaborative e-

Resource Development and Use, 107-134. London: EduServ.

Cowley, L., & Wesson, J. (2000). Design Patterns for Web-based Instruction.

Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and

Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA). Montreal, June 24th

- July 1st

.2000, 2000(1), 250-255.

de Marchi, A. C. B., de Miranda, R. M,. & Costa, A. C. R. (2005). A Learning Objects

Repository Management System for Museum Education. Proceedings of Museums

and the Web 2005,April 13-16, 2005, Canada. Retrieved May 17, 2006, fromhttp://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/rocha/rocha.html

Dembo, M.H. (1994). Applying Educational Psychology. (5th ed.). London: PearsonEducation.

Dichev C., Dicheva D., & Aroyo L. (2004). Using Topic Maps for Web-based Education,

International Journal of Advanced Technology for Learning,1(1), 1-7.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J.O. (2001). The Systematic Design of Instruction. (5th

ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Dillon, M. (2000). Metadata for Web Resources: How Metadata Works on the Web. Proceedings of Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New

Millennium. Confronting the Challenges of Networked Resources and the WebNovember 15-17, 2000. Washington, DC, 1-16.


37/43


Doolittle, P. E., McNeill, A., Terry, K. P., & Scheer, S. B. (2004). Multimedia, CognitiveLoad and Pedagogy. In S. Mishra & R. C. Sharma (Eds.), Interactive Multimedia in

Education and Training(pp. 184-212). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Doolittle, P.E. (2001). The pedagogy of cognitive psychology. National Lilly Conferenceon College Teaching, West, Lake Arrowhead, CA. Keynote Speaker, March 2001.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design

and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.). Educational Communications

and Technology (pp. 170-199). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Duval, E., & Hodgins, W. (2004). Learning Objects Revisited. In R. McGreal (Ed.),Online Education Using Learning Objects (Open and Flexible Learning) (pp. 71-82).London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Earle, A. (2002). Designing for pedagogical flexibility: Experiences from the CANDLE

project. Journal of Interactive Media In Education. 4: 1-39.

El Saddik, A., Fischer, S., & Steinmetz, R. (2001a, July-September). Reusable

Multimedia Content in Web-based Learning Systems.IEEE Multimedia, 30-38.

El Saddik, A., Fischer, S., & Steinmetz, R. (2001b). Reusability and Adaptability of

Interactive Resources in Web-based Educational Systems. ACM Journal ofEducational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 1(1), 18-38.

El Saddik, A., Ghavam, A., Fischer, S., & Steinmetz, R. (2000). Metadata for Smart

Multimedia Learning Objects. Proceedings of the fourth Australasian Computing

Education Conference. ACM-CSE, Melbourne, Australia, December 2000, 87-94.

Fernandez, A. P., Moura, A. M. de C., & Porto, F. (2005). Using Topic Maps to

Represent Learning Objects in a Learning Content Management System. Proceeding

of Semantic Web for Web-based Learning: Implications in the area of information

systems in education. SW-WL 05 13-17 June 2005, Porto, Portugal, 701-718.

Fischer, S. (2001). Course and Exercise Sequencing Using Metadata in Adaptive

Hypermedia Learning Systems. ACM Journal of Educational Resources in

Computing (JERIC), 1(1), 1-21.Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism: A Psychological theory of learning. In C. Fosnot

(Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice, 8-33. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Friesen, N. (2004). Some Objections to Learning Objects. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online

Education Using Learning Objects (Open and Flexible Learning) (pp. 59-70).

London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Friesen, N., Hesemeier, S., & Roberts, A. (2004). CanCore: Guidelines for Learning

Object Metadata. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online Education Using Learning Objects

(Open and Flexible Learning) (pp. 225-235). London: RoutledgeFalmer.


38/43


Gagn, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. (4th ed.). NewYork: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st

Century: A

shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in

Open and Distance Learning, 1(1), 1-17.

Garshol, L. M. (2004). Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic Maps!. Journal of

Information Science,s30(4), 378-391.

Glassersfeld, V.E. (1990). Environment and communication. In L. Steffe. & T. Wood

(Eds.), Transforming early childhood mathematics education: An internationalperspective. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Good, T.L and Brophy, J.E. (1990).Educational Psychology: A Realistic Approach. (4th

ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Hadjerrouit, S. (2007). Applying a System Development Approach to Translate

Educational Requirements into E-Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledgeand Learning Objects, 3, 107-134. Available at

http://www.ijklo.org/Volume3/IJKLOv3p107-134Hadj296.pdf

Hannafin, M. J., & Peck, K. L. (1988). The design, development and evaluation ofinstructional software. New York: Macmillan.

Harman, K., & Koohang, A. (2005). Discussion Board: A Learning Object.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learing Objects, 1, 67-77. Available at

http://www.ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p067-077Harman.pdf

IMS. (2005). IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. Retrieved December 14, 2005, from

http://www.imsglobal.org

Jonassen, D. H., & Churchill, D. (2004). Is There a Learning Orientation in LearningObjects?.International Journal of E-Learning,3(2), 32-41.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991a). Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new

philosophical paradigm?.Educational Technology Research and Development,39(3),

5-14.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991b). Evaluating Constructivist Learning. Educational Technology,36(9), 28-33.

Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Towards a constructivist design model.Educational Technology,

34(4): 34-37.

Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2002). Learning to Solve Problems

with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.


39/43


Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1998). Designing effective instruction. 2nd

edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Keogh, S., Johnson, K., & Henly, P. (2003). Realising reusability in learning/knowledge

objects. Proceedings of EdTech 2003, the Fourth Annual Irish Educational

Technology Users Conference, 22-23 May 2003, Waterford, Ireland. Retrieved May

15, 2006, from www.ilta.net/EdTech2003/papers/keogh_henley_johnson.doc

Koper, R. (2003). Combining Reusable Learning Resources and Services WithPedagogical Purposeful Units Of Learning. In A. LittleJohn (Ed.), Reusing Online

Resources: A Sustainable Approach To E-Learning(pp. 77-98). London: Kogan.Koppi, T., & Lavitt, N. (2003), Institutional Use of Learning Objects Three Years on:

Lessons Learned and Future Directions. In E. Duval, W. Hodgins, D. Rehak & R.

Robson (Eds.), ED-MEDIA 2003 World Conference Educational Multimedia,

Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Learning Objects 2003 symposium: LessonsLearned, Questions Asked. June 24, 2003; Honolulu, Hawaii, USA (pp. 39-43). VA:AACE.

Kraan, W., & Wilson, S. (2002). Dan Rehak: SCORM is not for everyone. The Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards. Retrieved May 13, 2006,

from http://www.cetis.ac.uk/content/20021002000737

Lin, F.O. (2004). Knowledge Modelling for Developing Course Design Agents. In R.McGreal (Ed.), Online Education Using Learning Objects (Open and Flexible

Learning) (pp. 314-330). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text

organization.Technical Report No. ISI/RS-87-190 NTIS Identifying Number ADA

183038. University of Southern California, Information Science Institute,.

Mann, W.C., & Thompson, S.A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward aFunctional Theory of Text Organization. TEXT,8(3), 243-281.

McGreal, R. (2004). Learning Objects: A Practical Definition. International Journal Of

Instructional Technology And Distance Learning, 1(9), 23-36.

McLean, N., & Lynch, C. (2003). Interoperability between Information and Learning

Environments Bridging the Gaps. A Joint White Paper on behalf of the IMS GlobalLearning Consortium and the Coalition for Networked Information. IMS Global

Learning Consortium, Florida, USA.

Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design.Educational Technology,May, 45-53.

Mohan, P., & Brooks, C. (2003). Engineering a Future for Web-based Learning Objects. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Web Engineering: International Conference,

ICWE 2003 Oviedo, Spain, July 14-18, 2003 Proceedings, 120-123.


40/43


Mortimer, L. (2002). Learning Objects of Desire: Promise and Practicality. Learning

Circuits. Retrieved September 11, 2004, from

http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/apr2002/mortimer.html

Muoz, L.S., & de Oliveira, J. P. M. (2004). Applying Semantic Web Technologies toImprove Personalization and Achieve Interoperability between Educational Adaptive

Hypermedia Systems. Proceeding of International Workshop on Applications of

Semantic Web Technologies for Adaptive Educational Hypermedia. SW-EL04, inconjunction with the International Conference on Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive

Web-Based Systems, August 23-26, 2004, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 348-353.

Murphy, E. (2004). Moving from theory to practice in the design of web-based learning

using a learning object approach.E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology,7(1). Retrieved May 13, 2006, from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/Vol7_No1/content.htm

Nash, S. S. (2005). Learning Objects, Learning Object Repositories and Learning Theory:Preliminary Best Practices for Online Courses. Interdiscplinary Journal of

Knowledge and Learning Objects 1, 229-254. Available athttp://www.ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p217-228Nash.pdf

Nichols, M. (2003). A theory for eLearning.Educational Technology & Society,6(2), 1-

10.Palmer, S. (2004). The Semantic Web and Metadata Decentralization. In R. McGreal

(Ed.), Online Education Using Learning Objects (Open and Flexible Learning) (pp.279-287). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Pavlov, I. P. (1928).Lectures on conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford University Press.

Pepper, S. (2002). The TAO Of Topic Maps Finding The Way in the Age of Infoglut.

Proceedings of XML Europe 2000 Le Palais des Congrs de Paris, Paris FranceGCA, 167-180.

Phillips, R. A., Rai, S., Sudweeks, F., Gururajan, R., Jones, M., Shiers, D., & O'Neil, R.(2005). Use and Usability of Learning Objects within the COLIS Demonstrator

Framework. In J. Dalziel, R. Philip & J. Clare (Eds.), The COLIS Project. Sydney:The Macquarie University E-Learning Centre of Excellence.

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: W W Norton &

Co Inc.

Rath, H. H. (2000). Making Topic Maps More Colourful. Proceedings of XML Europe

2000 Conference, GCA, Alexandria, VA, 1-19.

Ravenscroft, A. (2001). Designing E-Learning Interactions in the 21st

Century: revisitingand rethinking the role of theory.European Journal of Education, 36(2), 133-156.


41/43


Recker, M., & Walker, A. (2003). Supporting 'word-of-mouth' social networks viacollaborative information filtering. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(1),

79-98.

Recker, M., & Wiley, D. (2001). A non-authoritative educational metadata ontology forfiltering and recommending learning objects. Interactive Learning Environments:

Special issue on metadata, 1-17. The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Rehak, D., & Mason, R. (2003). Keeping the Learning in Learning Objects. In A. LittleJohn (Ed.),Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach To E-Learning, 30-

55. London: Kogan.Resnick, L. (1983). Toward a cognitive theory of instruction. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson,

& H. W. Stevenson (Eds.),Learning and motivation in the classroom. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Richards, G., Hatala, M., & McGreal, R. (2004). POOL, POND and SPLASH: Portals foronline objects for learning. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online Education Using Learning

Objects (Open and Flexible Learning) (pp. 236-243). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Robson, R. (2004). Learning Objects, Context and Standards. In R. McGreal (Ed.),Online Education Using Learning Objects (Open and Flexible Learning) (pp. 159-

167). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Sacks, L., Earle, A., Prnjat, O., Jarrett, W., & Mendes, M. (2002). Supporting Variable

Pedagogical Models in Network Based Learning Environments. Engineering

Education: Professional Engineering ScenariosIEEE, 1, 22/1-22/6. London, UK:IEEE.

Sampson, D. G., & Karampiperis, P. (2004). Reusable learning objects: Designingmetadata management systems supporting interoperable learning object repositories.

In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online Education Using Learning Objects (Open and FlexibleLearning) (pp.. 207-222). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Santally, M. I., & Senteni, A. (2005). A Learning Object Approach to Personalized Web-based Instruction.European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 1-16.

Saunders, W.L. (1992). The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching

strategies for science. School Science Mathematics, 92(3), 136-141.

Seeberg, C., Steinacker, A., Reichenberger, K., El Saddik, A., Fischer, S., & Steinmetz,

R. (2000). From the Users Needs to Adaptive Documents. Proceedings of

IDPDT2000, Texas, USA, 41-49.

Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains ofthe field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications andTechnology.


42/43


Shum, S. B., Motta, E.M., & Domingue, J. (2000). ScholOnto: An Ontology-BasedDigital Library Server for Research Documents and Discourse.International Journal

on Digital Libraries, 3(3), 237-248. Springer-Verlag.

Sicilia, M-A., & Garcia, E. (2003). On The Concepts of Usability and Reusability ofLearning Objects.International Review Of Research in Open and Distance Learning.

Retrieved July 17, 2005, from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v4.2/sicilia-garcia.html

Skinner, B. F. (1974).About Behaviourism. New York: Knopf.

Skinner, B.F. (1968). The Technology Of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.

Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional Design. Second Edition. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sosteric, M., & Hesemeier, S. (2002). When Is A Learning Object Not An Object: A FirstStep Towards A Theory of Learning Objects. International Review of Research in

Open and Distance Learning. October 2002,3(2).

South, J. B., & Monson, D. W. (2000). A University-wide system for creating, capturingand delivering learning objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of

Learning Objects (pp. 223-240). Bloomington: Agency for Instructional Technologies

and Association for Educational Communications & Technology.

Steffe, L. & Gale, J. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education.New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaum Associated, Inc.

Stojanovic, L., Staab, S., & Studer, R. (2001). eLearning based on the Semantic Web. Proceedings WebNet2001- World Conference on the WWW and Internet, Orlando,Florida, USA 2001, 1174-1183. Virginia: AACE.

Tannenbaum, A. (2001). Metadata Solutions: Using Metamodels, Repositories, XML and

Enterprise Portals to Generate Information on Demand. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional.

Thompson, K., & Yonekura, F. (2005). Practical Guidelines for Learning Object

Granularity from One Higher Education Setting. Interdisciplinary Journal of

Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1,163-179. Available athttp://www.ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p163-179Thompson.pdf

Thorndike, E. L. (1913).Educational Psychology1. New York: Teachers College Press.

Thorndike, E. L. (1914). Educational Psychology: Briefer Course. New York: Teachers

College, Columbia University.

Vicente, C. (2005). Learning Object Manipulation By Means of Shared Structured

Workspaces and Argumentative Discussion. In A. Mndez-Vilas, B. Gonzlez-

Pereira & J. M. Gonzlez (Eds.), A Recent Research Developments in LearningTechnologies (pp. 1278-1282). Spain: FORMATEX.


43/43


Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wiley, D. A. (2000).Learning Object Design and Sequencing Theory. Unpublished PhD

Thesis. Brigham Young University, June 2000.

Wiley, D A. (2002). Learning objects need instructional design theory. In A. Rossett(Ed.), The 2001/2002 ASTD Distance Learning Yearbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Retrieved September 11, 2004, from http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/astd.pdf

Wiley, D. A. (2003). Learning Objects: Difficulties and Opportunities. Utah State

University.Retrieved December 13, 2005, from

http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/lo_do.pdf

Wilson, B. G. (1997).Thoughts on Theory in Educational Technology. Educational

Technology, 37(1), 22-27.

Yahya, Y., & Yusoff, M. (2005a).Learning Object Types and Metadata Extension: From

Theoretical Perspectives. Submitted to World Conference on Educational

Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunication. USA. 27 June- 2 July. (Accepted).

Yahya, Y., & Yusoff, M. (2005b). The Perception of a Learning Object Model, Its

Characteristics and Metadata: From Theoretical Perspectives. Submitted to E-Learn

Conference. Vancouver, Canada. 24 28 October. (Accepted).

Yahya, Y. (2006). Learning Object Recognition: Model and Components Establishment.Unpublished PhD Thesis. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia December 2006.