Elizabeth Murphy

Assistant professor

Faculty of Education
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF, Canada A1B 3X8

Tel: (709) 737-7634

Fax: (709) 737-2345

Email emurphy@mun.ca

This paper describes the design of a web-based learningmodule. The aim in the design was to operationalize the concepts of granularity,reusability, scalability, and interoperability as they relate to learningobjects. The prototypical module was designed for contexts where identifying andsolving ill-structured problems is relevant. The module consists of anaggregation of learning objects including video segments, a bibliography anddiscussion forum activities. The module specifies an instructional sequencethrough reliance on a problem-solving model. Two rounds of module testing usingWebCT^TM were conducted. The module represents one perspective onoperationalizing concepts related to learning objects.

Keywords: instructional design; learning objects;computer-mediated communication; architectures for educational technologysystems.

While the imperative to provide e-learning opportunities maywell loom large, the process of designing online content remains cost- and time-intensive. For example, in relation to course development at the post-secondarylevel, Boettcher (1999) estimates that about 18 hours of faculty time are neededto create one hour of web instruction. Schrum (1998) claims that online coursecreation takes two to three times as long as creating a face-to-face course.Bates' (2000) estimation of costs for the creation of an entire course is of30 days for the content expert's time with additional time required forinterface design. The development of digital repositories of granular, reusable,scalable and interoperable learning objects aims to address some of thechallenges associated with e-learning such as cost, infrastructure and quality(South & Monson, 2000). These objects will have the capacity to function onmany operating systems or in many disciplines with any number of learners in anylearning contexts with a minimal degree of increased requirement for temporal,human or financial resources.

Learning objects are any digital resource that can be reusedto support learning or "instructional components that can be reused anumber of times in different learning contexts" (Wiley, 2000a, p.3).Chitwood, May, Bunnow and Langan (2000) refer to learning objects as"self-contained, reusable, high-quality learning chunks that can becombined and recombined in courses, learning activities and experiences, andassessments that meet a learner's immediate needs" (p.1). Objects can be"small bits of text … animations, and smaller web-delivered applications,like a Java calculator" as well as larger resources such as "entireweb pages that combine text, images and other media or applications to delivercomplete experiences, such as a complete instructional event" (Wiley,2000a, p.7).

Numerous attributes of learning objects have been discussedin the literature including "durability, interoperability, accessibility,reusability, discoverability, extensibility, affordability, andmanageability" (South & Monson, 2000). Williams (2000) identified fromthe literature what he refers to as "criteria for learning objects"(p.19) such as reusability, repurposability, granularity, and the "abilityto adjust to the needs of the context in which they are being used"(Ibid.). Wiley (2000a) refers to objects as having the potential forreusability, generativity, adaptability and scalability.

Wiley (1999) argues that reusability and granularityrepresent "the two most important properties of learning objects"(p.2). The concept of granularity is evoked frequently in the literature toemphasize a conception of objects as fine units or 'grains' than can be combinedor aggregated in varying ways. The concept reminds us that while an object canserve a purpose on its own, it also has the capacity to be aggregated with otherobjects. South and Monson (2000) argue that reusability is largely a function ofthe degree of granularity of the objects. The more granular an object is, themore it becomes reusable. Reusability is at the core of the objet concept since,as Wiley (2000a) argues, all the "ivities such as generativity andadaptivity, are "facilitated by the property of reuse" (p.12).Scalability and interoperability are also key attributes of objects. An objectthat is scalable and interoperable allows for an increase in the capacity tofunction in many disciplines with any number of learners in any learningcontexts on many operating systems with a minimal degree of increasedrequirement for resources.

In theory, the concept of learning objects as well as theattributes of granularity, reusability, scalability, and interoperability appearwell defined. However, from the perspective of practice and the design oflearning objects, it is less clear how the concept and these attributes actuallytranslate into courses or modules that can be used for instructional purposes.As Wiley (2000b) argues, there appears to be "little conversation aroundthe instructional design implications of learning objects" (p.9). Yet,information about how the objects should be instructionally sequenced isextremely important for their effective use (Hodgins, 2000) and instructionalstrategies "must play a role in the application of learning objects if theyare to succeed in facilitating learning" (Wiley, 2000b, p.9).

It was in consideration of these issues that a research anddevelopment project was undertaken to design a learning experience that wouldillustrate how the attributes of granularity, reusability, interoperability andscalability might be operationalized. The experience would also illustrate a wayin which objects could be instructionally sequenced. The remainder of this paperdescribes this project, the theoretical framework on which the design was based,the design results, and the results of two rounds of testing and one iterationof redesign. The following section illustrates the framework related to the fourattributes that informed the design of the learning experience.

This section presents the theoretical framework that informedthe design. It outlins the concepts or attributes of learning objects asfollows: granularity, reusability, scalability and interoperability. The purposeof the section is to consider how the attributes have been characterized in theliterature on learning objects. The paper subsequently illustrates how theseattributes were operationalized in the design of a web-based learningexperience.

Granularity

Granularity in the context of learning objects is often used to refer to the size of an object (see Wiley, Gibbons & Recker, 2000; IEEE, 1998). The term can also refer to the level of aggregation of an object with the smallest level being that of a picture and the largest being a "set of courses that lead to a certificate" (IEEE, 2002). Wiley et al. (2000) relate the concept to the need to "'pre-deconstruct' instructional media in order to increase the efficiency of instructional design" (p.2). Deconstructing occurs by creating units of fine granularity that could subsequently be combined with other units of similar although not necessarily identical levels of granularity. According to the authors, in the "course hierarchy", a full course would be the largest grain size contrasted with an image that would constitute the smallest grain size.

Quinn (2000) argues in favor of promoting a finer level ofgranularity than that of a course in order to ensure a "greater potentialfor reuse of objects". Porter (2001) describes the notion of modules ormodularity as key to providing flexibility for learners in the use of objects.We can use South and Monson's (2000) description to characterize a learningmodule as "granular enough to be useful in a variety of contexts, butaggregated enough to provide a robust exploration of multiple facets of a singleconcept" (p.1). Designing learning around a module concept as opposed to acourse concept allows us to move from the "traditional course-buildingapproach" to that of "building blocks concept" (Ibid.). Merkel,Seeberg and Steinmetz (2002) argue that "modularization of courses andcourse building elements as objects are essential for reusability" (p.1).

Cisco Systems,Inc. (2000) adopts use of the term ReusableInformation Object or RIO, which they describe as a "granular, resuablechunk of information that is media independent … [and] can be developed once,and delivered in multiple delivery mediums" (p.2) such as via the web, onCD-ROM or in instructor-led training materials. It can be "combined to forma larger structure called a Reusable Learning Object (RLO)" (p.2.) or alesson. Socrates Learning Systems (2002) defines three types of reuse: to share,meaning "to use again, with little or no special treatment", tomultipurpose, meaning "to use again, especially after special treatment orprocessing permitting reuse across mediums" and to repurpose meaning"to use again, especially after special treatment or processing permittingreuse across mediums and audiences" (p.1).

This last reference to the concept of reusability highlightssome of the distinctions that might be made in relation to the reuse of anobject. As Wiley (1999) indicates, "…one of the major interests inlearning objects is their ability to be used more than once" (p.2).However, there is a distinction to be drawn between the reusability andrepurposability of learning objects. Reusability can be described as"the ability to take a learning object as is and reuse it wholesale"whereas repurposability refers to "the ability to extract portions of alearning object and adapt them to new learning contexts" (Ibid.). A furtherexplanation of the importance of and distinctions between these concepts isprovided by the Broadband Enabled Lifelong Learning Project (2003):

Typically, an educational object is created for the use of the creator and is not always extensible beyond the context for which it was produced. For example, a CD-ROM on geophysics may be designed for use in a specific course, but only parts of it will be useful elsewhere (…) Content repurposing allows learning objects to become customizable and thereby promotes their reuse. Designing and developing educational material in a manner that allows the customization, editing and adaptability to learner needs is key to providing cost effective, sustainable, and high quality educational materials. (BELLE, 2003.,p.1)

 

In many cases, in order for a learning object to be usable bydifferent types of audiences in different contexts, it should function across awide variety of hardware, operating systems and web browsers. Porter, Curry,Muirhead and Galan (2002) refer to interoperability in relation to objects beingusable across provinces and internationally. Porter (2001) describesinteroperability as follows:

Interoperability is a requirement for systems that manage granular learning objects. It is the retrieval and transfer of the media assets from within the systems to new delivery environments and to learners and customers that adds value to them. Learners and other education clients are in a better position to use an education provider’s products when they observe platform-independent standards and can be confident that the learning materials that they acquire will work with their own systems. Content can be delivered for different client groups through open source delivery environments such as Linux, or be transformed electronically to proprietary systems such as WebCT or PLATO. (p.50)

 

In the case of a learning module designed to beinteroperable, as Porter indicates, it will operate on different learningmanagement systems such as WebCT^TM , Blackboard Learning System^TM, TopClass^TM. All objects within the module should as well beinteroperable. For example, if the module contains video segments, they willideally be viewable with a variety of plugins such as RealOne Player^TM,Windows Media Player^TM or Quicktime Player^TM.

Gibbons, Nelson and Richards (2000) describe scalability asthe "…production of quantity at specified levels of quality withinspecified time and resource constraints. It also requires an increase inproductivity without a proportional increase in production cost" (p.49). Incomputer terms, scalability is described as "…[t]he capacity to serveadditional users or transactions without fundamentally altering theapplication's architecture or program design"(InfoWorld Media Group, Inc.,2001). Scalability refers to the ability of a system to maintain, if notimprove, its average performance as the number of clients grows (Espisito,2001).Scalability can also be described as "the property of reducing orincreasing the scope of methods, processes, and management according to theproblem size" (Laitinen, Fayad &Ward, 2000, p.107).

A scalable module is described for the purposes of this paperas one that could be easily adapted for use with different sizes of groups. Inthe case of a learning experience designed for practitioners, we can imagine itable to be used with a group of 10 users or a group of 30. The more scalable theproduct, the wider the range of users with whom it might be used.

The goal of the project was to operationalize conceptsrelated to learning objects through the design of a web-based learningexperience for practitioners. In this sense, the attributes become features thatthe designer will aim to highlight in the design. The features aimed for in thedesign were:

Granularity facilitating aggregation with other modules or inclusion in other learning experiences such as a course.

Reusability with a different group of learners and/or with learners in varying disciplines.

Scalability allowing use with large or small groups of learners

Interoperability in a wide variety of technical contexts i.e. with different operating systems, browsers, plugins, connection speeds.

The objective was to create a granular learning module thatconstitutes a self-contained learning object but that can also be integratedwith other objects. To ensure that the final product was interoperable requireda selection of tools commonly found in learning management systems. Reuserequired designing an experience that is sufficiently contextualized to berelevant and meaningful and yet sufficiently broad that it can be adapted foruse in other contexts. Scalability required designing activities to accommodatea range of size of users or groups.

A modular- as opposed to a course- approach was adopted forthe design of the learning experience. The module can be defined in temporalterms representing the equivalent of approximately 12 hours of classroominstruction. The module was named Solving Problems in CollaborativeEnvironments (SPICE) and is designed for a context of use whereill-structured problem-solving is the focus of learning. This type of focusmight be relevant with teachers, nurses, social workers or, as well, in acontext of organizational learning where individuals are being trained to solveworkplace or management problems.

The module consists of an instructional sequence ofactivities structured around a problem-solving model to guide users through thelearning experience. The module represents an aggregation of seven objects inHTML format, one object in JPG format that can be embedded in one of the HTMLpages and a set of thirty video segments. The description of the problem itselfconstitutes an object in HTML format. The problem-solving model constitutesanother object and prescribes the instructional sequence through a series ofphases. The model consists of three phases of Consult, Gather and Act. Each ofthese phases is represented by one object in HTML format. In between each ofthese phases is a Reflection. The latter phase is represented in an HTML pagethat links to an online asynchronous discussion forum. The ACT phase relies on alink to a shared workspace that supports learners' upload of documents. The 30video objects are accessed from the Consult Phase, HTML page. These areavailable in RealPlayer^TM format requiring a real media player and in.avi format on a CD-ROM. The module is summarized as follows:

The last three items are separated from the others in thetable because, unlike the other objects in the module, these objects requirecustomization to match the problem chosen for the module. The bibliography,problem description, and video segments must be recreated each time a differentproblem is chosen. For example, in one context, the module could be used with agroup of French teachers in training. In this case, the problem set in advancein the module might be the problem of using the target language duringinstruction. The description of the problem would identify and introduce thisproblem as the focal point for the learning experience. The bibliography ofreadings would then be designed to match this problem by presenting links toresearch on this topic. Finally, the video segments might feature Frenchteachers in practice talking about how the problem manifests itself in theircontext. In another case, assuming the module were to be used with a group ofnurses undergoing a professional development experience, the problem chosenmight be ethical issues related to the confidentiality between patient andnurse. Again, the description, bibliography and video segments would becustomized to match the problem.

The 12-hour module is designed to be completed independentlyby the learner. In this regard, an instructor or moderator is not required toguide learners through the modules phases and activities. The module does notpresent or prescribe any evaluation or assessment techniques. Th intent of thedesign is to accommodate multiple contexts for learning. This perspectiverecognizes that learners in a professional development context may provideself-assessment of learning. Use of the module in the context of universitycourse could be accomplished by submission of the learners' output in the moduleto the course instructor.

Testing of the first iteration of the design required choiceof a context of use and subsequent customization of three of the module'sobjects: the problem description, bibliography and the set of video segments.The context of use was that of French teachers in training. The problem chosenwas the one described in the previous section of this paper and which involvedusing French as the language of instruction in the French as a second orforeign-language classroom. A group of eleven teachers in training agreed toparticipate in the testing of the module. These teachers were enrolled in aFrench as a second-language methods' course in an undergraduate universitydegree program. Prior arrangements were made between the course instructor andthe researcher so that the module could be incorporated into the course as aunit that could be used by those who volunteered for the testing. Participantscompleted the learning experience on their own and submitted to the instructorall work and contributions completed during the experience. The instructor thenevaluated this work as part of the students' evaluation for the course. Those inthe course who did not opt to volunteer to participate completed a differentevaluation exercise designed by the instructor and which counted for anequivalent percentage of the total course evaluation.

WebCT^TM learning management system was used forthe testing as the university where the teachers were enrolled held a license tothis system. The testing process included online monitoring of participation inthe experience by the researcher and her assistant, ongoing response to problemsor questions that arose during the experience and follow-up, semi-structuredinterviews with the participants. The purpose was to determine the usability andfeasibility of the design and to reveal any potential problems or flaws.

The testing of the module revealed that, overall,participants described the learning experience in positive terms. However,viewing the videos presented significant technical problems and frustrations.Comments concerning the use of the video segments related to technical problemswith use of the video plugin required for their viewing. The video was streamedfrom a server on which there was only a license RealPlayer^TM.Participants could not opt to use other players. Comments related to the videoincluded: "I wasted a lot of time trying to figure it out, especially withRealPlayer", "It wasn’t accessible enough. I don't understand whyRealTime (sic) had to be used. I thought any video program would do such asWindows Video", "I tried to download it at the lab but I was notallowed. I have a dial-up account at home so it took about ½ hour to finallydownload it there".

Participants' comments revealed a problem withinteroperability in the design. However, it was not possible to provide accessto the streamed video in a variety of formats to accommodate different technicalcontexts because the university in which the testing was being conducted held alicense to only one streamable format. Participants also experienced technicaldifficulties in the use of the shared workspace linked to the Act phase whichrequired them to load up a document representing a concrete solution to theproblem featured in the module. The shared spaced dictated that the document hadto be in HTML format and had to be titled in a specific way in order to beviewable by other learners in the module. In spite of explicit instructions,participants sometimes inadvertently saved their file in .HTM (as opposed to.HTML) format or, in other cases, in wpd.htm format etc. The result was thattheir document was not viewable.

Following this first round of testing, the module wasredesigned. In this second design, the video was made available to users in twoformats: streamable and on CD-ROM. Additional instructions and support wereprovided for the Act phase to make it easier for users to upload documents tothe shared space. The second round of testing was with a group of 30 users.Scaling use of the module in this way did not require any change to the moduleitself. However, the discussion forum used in conjunction with the module wasstructured in advance (unlike with the group of ten in the first round oftesting) so that the learners were placed into discussion groups of ten learnerseach. This strategy was adopted to ensure that the discussion was manageable forthe learners in terms of the amount or number of postings that they would berequired to read. Each learner was required by the module to make nine postingsin a 12 hour period spread over four weeks. With ten learners per group, thetotal number of postings was a minimum of 90 whereas it would have been aminimum of 270 had the 30 participants not been grouped. All other features ofthe module remained the same.

Results of the testing revealed that that participantsencountered few or no problems with accessing the video. The grouping ofstudents in the discussion forum generated positive reactions from participants.One participant commented as follows: " I liked the discussion forum,itself. It was just small enough that I could read what everyone else said. Ifit were any larger, though, it would have been too big." Another individualremarked as follows:

I think the size was really good – not too big and not too small. We got a lot of feedback, but it wasn’t too much. I found it was good that at least one person would respond to what you said. If it were any bigger, I think there would have been too much repetition and people would have started saying the same things.

 

The use of the shared space on the other hand generated somenegative comments in spite of changes in the design such as the additionalsupport and instructions. One participant remarked as follows: "The onlything I would say about organization would be the attaching of the activities. Ihad so much trouble figuring out that simple procedure. I should have asked forhelp earlier, I realize." Another individual noted regarding the sharedspace: "That was tricky. I kept adding ".doc" to the file name,along with the ".html". Such a simple thing, but I couldn’t getit."

The discussion of the design is structured around the fourattributes of granularity, reusability, scalability and interoperability. Thefeatures of the design as well as the results of the testing and redesign arediscussed in order to gain insight into how the attributes of learning objectswere operationalized in the learning experience.

The module represents an object that is sufficiently smallthat it could be used in the context of a course or aggregated with othermodules to form a course on its own. The testing of the module in the context ofa course verifies its capacity to be successfully aggregated with other learningelements. The module represents the equivalent of approximately 12 hours ofclassroom instruction with the assumption that a post-secondary course at agiven institution might, for crediting purposes, represent 36 hours of classroomtime spread over a 12-week period. According to this assumption, potentially, anindividual could select a module as a learning object and combine it with twoothers to form the equivalent of one course. However, the module could have beendesigned on the basis of a different amount of time such as 18 hours with theaggregation of two modules constituting the equivalent of a course. Given a bankor repository of a large number and variety of modules, a user might choose tocombine varying modules in order to form the equivalent of a course or thesmallest crediting unit of the institution or organization. The module couldalso be used independently as a professional development learning experience.

The module was used in this case with a group of Frenchteachers in training. The problem presented in the module was designed to beusable with teachers in practice as well. Use of the module in a differentcontext for different purpose such as with nurses or social workers requirescustomization only of certain aspects of the module. The instructional sequenceand the way in which the objects are aggregated remain the same. Aninstructional designer responsible for the preparation of course or coursemodules in a variety of disciplines such as education, nursing, social work andbusiness could reuse the module for a different purpose by customizing thediscipline specific aspects such as the problem, the bibliography and the video.To save effort and costs, audio segments could be substituted for the videosegments.

Testing was conducted with two groups - one being three timeslarger than the other. The module itself did not require any changes toaccommodate a larger group although it was necessary to impose a structure onthe discussion forum in order to accommodate a larger group. If the user of themodule e.g. the instructor of a course wanted to add more groups, there would beno effect on the module's design nor would there result any difference in theexperience of the learners. Grouping learners in the forum means that a privatediscussion takes place only between those who have been assigned as members tothat group. If the shared workspace of the learning environment e.g. WebCT didnot support grouping (WebCT does support it), learners could be directed insteadto present their products of the ACT phase as an attachment to a message whichthey could post in their group in the discussion forum. As long as the learningenvironment in which the module is being used features a discussion forum andshared workspace that allows grouping and private members, the module could bescaled to any number of users.

As the first testing of the module showed, interoperabilityof the video segments was low since these could only be used with one type ofsoftware i.e. RealPlayer^TM. The second round of testing showed, onthe other hand, that provision of the video in CDROM format met the needs of allthirty users. In this case then, interoperability was met by relying on theconcept of redundancy or by providing a choice to users. In the second round oftesting, some learners made use of the streamed video while the majoritypreferred the CDROM format. However, both formats were available to users thusfacilitating operability in varying technical contexts with different computers.Where the level of interoperability might be considered lower is in the module'sreliance on a discussion forum. The learning environment in which the module isused requires a discussion forum. However, given that the more commonly usedlearning environments in education today do include a discussion forum, thisrequirement is unlikely to be an issue. Furthermore, discussion forums such asthose found at Google and Yahoo could support a private discussion.

The module's requirement for use of a learning environmentsupporting a shared space still requires redesign. The difficulty with use ofthe shared space is specifically a problem with the module per se. However, themodule does rely on this shared workspace or a mechanism to upload documents. Asubsequent redesign of the module could place reliance for the uploading offiles on the discussion forum instead of on a shared workspace.

Moving from theory to practice demands operationalization ofconcepts that normally reside in an abstract realm. Transposing the abstractinto the concrete has the benefit not only of practical use but also ofclarifying and further defining concepts and principles. The growing body ofliterature related to learning objects continues to grapple with defining andclarifying its premises and concepts. However, these concepts remain little morethan reifications unless they can be defined through instances or examplesderived from actual application and usage in real contexts. Such was the goal ofthe project described in this paper: to operationalize concepts such asgranularity, reusability, scalability, and interoperability. The projectprovides only one contribution to presenting instances or examples of theoperationalization of the concepts and principles. It is possible that theseterms could take on somewhat of a different meaning when used to design alearning experience different from the one described in this paper. The moreexamples we can provide of instances of the use of the concepts and attributes,the closer we will come to understanding what they can actually mean inpractical terms for teaching and learning. Ultimately, it is the practicalcontext of use that counts.

The design of the module represents a preliminary attempt atmoving from theory to practice in the use of learning object approach. Furthertesting of the attributes of learning objects in a variety of contexts wouldcontribute to our understanding of notions of interoperability, reusability,granularity and scalability. Research into learning objects is contributing toour capacity to keep pace with demands for e-learning in particular.Nonetheless, the challenges and imperatives remain to put into practice theresults of our thinking and theorizing in order to make good on the promise oftruly advancing the practice of teaching and learning.

This study was funded in part by a grant from InukshukInternet Inc. Thank you to Project Manager Carol Cantwell as well as theGraphics' and Web Designer Stephen Keats and research assistant Jill Bonnell.Thank you as well to Anne Marie Vaughan, Nancy Parson-Heath and Dr. AliceCollins who provided comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Bates, A. (2000). Managing Technological Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Retrieved January 08, 2003, from: http://mlg-gam.ic.gc.ca/sites/acol-ccael/en/report.html

Boettcher, J. (1999). How Much Does It Cost to Develop a Distance Learning Course? It all Depends.... Corporation for Research and Educational Networking (CREN). Retrieved November 08,2002, from: http://www.cren.net/~jboettch/dlmay.htm

Broadband Enabled Lifelong Learning Project. (2003). Content repurposing. Retrieved December 22, 2003, from:

http://belle.netera.ca/info_repurp.htm

Chitwood, K., May, C., Bunnow, D., & Langan, T. (2000). Battle stories from the field: Wisconsin online resource center learning objects project. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved November 23,2003, from:

http://reusability.org/read/chapters/chitwood.doc

Cisco Systems, Inc. (2000). Reusable Learning Object Strategy: Definition, creation process and guidelines for building. Version 3.1. Retrieved June 06,2003, from:

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/elearning/implement/rlo_strategy_v3-1.pdf

Espisito, D. (2001). Scalability, Sweet Scalability. Retrieved January 2,2003 from:

http://www.msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/ dndive/html/data03082001.asp

Gibbons, A., 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 November 06,2003, from: http://reusability.org/read/chapters/gibbons.doc

Hodgins, W. (2000). Into the Future: A Vision Paper. Commission on Technology and Adult Learning. Retrieved November 06,2003, from http://www.learnativity.com/into_the_future2000.html

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (1990). IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York, NY.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (1998). IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) Learning Object Metadata Dictionary v2.1. Retrieved October 25, 2003 from:

http://ltsc.ieee.org/doc/wg12/LOMdict2_1.html

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (2002). IEEE learning Draft Metadata version. Retrieved October 25, 2003 from:

http://jtc1sc36.org/doc/36N0255.pdf.

InfoWorld Media Group, Inc., (2001). Designing High-Performance Scalable Web Applications: What is Scalability? Retrieved January 2,2003 from: http://www.infoworld.com/suppsad/loudcloud3/t_lc1.html

Laitinen,M., Fayad, M., Ward, R. (2000). The Problem with Scalability. Communications of the ACM. Vol. 43, No. 9.

Merkel, O., Seeberg, C. & Steinmetz, R. (2002). Choosing an Online Learning Platform focusing on Reusability of Learning Objects and its Implications for Comparison Schemata Design. In Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Porter, D., Curry, J., Muirhead, B., Galan, N. (2002). A report on learning object repositories: Review and recommendations for a Pan-Canadian Approach to repository Implementation in Canada. Canarie and Industry Canada and the TeleLearning NCE.

Porter, D. (2001).Object lessons from the web: Implications for Instructional development. In G. Farrell (ed.). The Commonwealth of Learning: The Changing Faces of Virtual Education.( pp. 47-63).The commonwealth of learning: Vancouver,BC.

Quinn, C. (2000). Learning Objects and Instruction Components. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society: Formal Discussion Initiation. Retrieved October 20, 2003, from:

http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss_feb2000.html

Schrum, L. (1998). Online education: A study of emerging pedagogy. In B. Cahoo (Ed.), Adult learning and the Internet (pp. 53-61). New directions for adult and continuing education, No. 78. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Socrates Learning Systems. (2002). Content Repurposing with Layered Learning Objects: Breaking down LEGO. Retrieved December 10, 2003, from: http://www.socrateslearning.com/media/LLO.pdf

South, J. & Monson, D. (2000). A university-wide system for creating, capturing, and delivering learning objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved November 08,2003: http://reusability.org/read/chapters/south.doc

Wiley, D. (1999). So what do I do with a learning object?. Retrieved October 20, 2003 from: http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/instruct-arch.pdf

Wiley, D. (2000a). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved November 08,2003, from: http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

Wiley, D. (2000b). Learning object design and sequencing theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University. Retrieved November 08,2003, from:

http://davidwiley.com/papers/dissertation/dissertation.pdf

Wiley, D., Gibbons, A. & Recker, M. (2000). A reformulation of learning object granularity. Retrieved November 23, 2003 from:

http://reusability.org/granularity.pdf.

Williams, D.(2000). Evaluation of learning objects and instruction using learning objects. In D. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved December 15, 2003, from:

http://reusability.org/read/chapters/williams.doc

 

Elizabeth Murphy, is Assistant professor of EducationalTechnology and second-language learning at Memorial University in Newfoundland,Canada. She holds a Ph.D. in Educational Technology from Université Laval inQuébec, Canada. Her main work focuses on the design of web-based learning forpractitioners and in higher-learning. She is particularly interested inweb-based learning supported by broadband and relying on use of streamed video.Current funded projects include a study of collaborative learning supported byonline asynchronous communication in university-based courses and an evaluationof the MusicGrid project which pioneers large-scale broadband music education inthree Canadian provinces.