Produced with Scholar

Work 1: Educational Theory Analysis - Literature Review

Project Overview

Project Description

Topic: Take one of the theories or theoretical concepts introduced in this course. Look ahead into the course learning module to get a sense of upcoming ideas—don’t feel constrained to explore concepts introduced early in the course. Or explore a related theory or concept of your own choosing that is relevant to the course themes. 

Convey in your introduction how your topic aligns with the course themes and your experience and interests.  Outline the theory or define the concept referring to the theoretical and research literature and illustrate the significance of the theory using examples of this concept at work in pedagogical practice, supported by scholarly sources.

For Doctoral Students: Theoretical and Empirical Literature Review: Work 1 must be in the genre of a literature review with at least 10 scholarly sources. For specific details, refer to the Literature Review Guidelines provided later in this document. 

Word length: at least 2000 words

Media: Include images, diagrams, infographics, tables, embedded videos, (either uploaded into CGScholar, or embedded from other sites), web links, PDFs, datasets or other digital media. Be sure to caption media sources and connect them explicitly with the text, with an introduction before and discussion afterwards.

References: Include a References “element” or section with at least ten scholarly articles or books that you have used and referred to in the text, plus any other necessary or relevant references, including websites and media.

Rubric: Use the ‘Knowledge Process Rubric’ against which others will review your work, and against which you will do your self-review at the completion of your final draft.

Icon for Learning Objects

Learning Objects

Introduction

Media embedded November 29, 2019
Media embedded November 29, 2019

Learning Objects - YouTube. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a_VZVOEQDc

Since the early days of online learning, instructional designers and instructors have sought ways to make the process of instructional design and development quicker, repeatable, and capable of integrating and reusing content in multiple settings and courses. Towards the beginning of the 2000s, instructional designers started to publish articles and dissertations about "learning objects", or content that can be reused, or placed inside of a learning scenario like an online course or a self-help guide. Put another way, just about anything that can be used in online course development could be considered a learning object such as a video embed, a block of text or chapter from a textbook, and an activity like a discussion prompt. In addition to multimedia and text, learning objects can also take the form of a conceptual object instead of a literal object. These conceptual objects can be prompts, rules, or procedures that are built into a course or program and they help to define strategy and spark engagement with the learners. Examples of these types of objects are rules of engagement for students in a discussion board as well as the board itself. The objects, in this case, are meant to be repeatable and agnostic regarding the content itself. (Reigeluth 2009).

Media embedded November 29, 2019

Creating Digital Tools: Defining Learning Objects (Updated) - YouTube. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bXv-nSV4yU

This literature review critically analyzes and synthesizes several of the articles, dissertations, and scholarly publications that exist about learning objects and their value. While there are several useful articles available, there still exist many gaps in the literature and opportunities for future researchers to consider. As the field of education moves further into the digital world via online and hybrid learning, our collective understanding of learning objects must evolve along emerging technologies and pedagogical approaches.

Media embedded November 29, 2019

Evaluating and Downloading Learning Objects (2/6) - YouTube. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIzGC7BR-SM

Current Body of Knowledge

What You Should Know about “Learning Object” – Part II – Classroom Aid. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2019, from https://classroom-aid.com/2013/05/25/what-you-should-know-about-learning-object-part-ii/

The current body of scholarly reviewed academic literature relating to learning objects is relatively robust, yet in some ways out-of-date. The most useful and applicable information discovered in the process of writing this literature review is roughly 10-15 years old. While facts and empirical findings are generally assumed to be unchanging, the technologies and collective attitudes toward online learning and hybrid course development have evolved and changed immensely in the past few decades. As described in thorough detail in the 2012 edition of Cope and Kalantzis' book, "New Learning", the future of online learning may rely heavily on a shift from didactic instruction to a more reflexive and active pedagogy that affords students increased agency in their learning and their demonstration of having learned.

I have searched academic journals periodically for information related to learning objects and their efficacy because I lead teams of instructional designers and instructional technologists at a major university and we've leveraged learning objects in many of our design projects for courses and programs across campus. Most recently, we researched ways in which some forms of instructional design work could be repeated or designed as templates to allow for quickly deployment and increased consistency across multiple courses within a program. In our research, we discovered that the majority of scholarly articles available fall into two distinct categories:

  1. The Development and Creation of Learning Objects Themselves
  2. Assessment and Evaluation of Learning Objects in Highly Specific Cases

While general information and research related to what a learning object is or perhaps, should be, is important and valuable, the application and measurement of learning objects' impact on learning is even more critical for current and future researchers and instructional designers. Each of the categories above will be discussed in the next sections of this literature review.

Development and Creation of Learning Objects

The first theme of the primary source articles about learning objects is that of developing effective objects. In most of the articles about learning object creation, there is an acknowledgement of the origin of learning objects being a result of a need to create reusable content in online courses that could be leveraged in repeat and adjacent courses. In Bradley and Boyle's 2004 article about developing learning objects for computer science courses that taught early career computer programmers how to learn the programming language Java, they also point out a notion of portability of the learning object content, specifically that they wanted to create content that another school could effectively use. However, as this article is one of the oldest ones considered in this review, their concept of micro-contexts may not be as aligned with more contemporary views of learning objects being as context non-specific as possible.

An excerpt showing students' opinions of the different types of learning objects introduced in the Java courses.(Bradley 2004)

Notably, the other sources that covered development and design of learning objects were all doctoral dissertations and each provided valuable, in some cases complementary, analyses of the methods and theories underpinning learning objects. Both Al-Shehri (2004) and Jessup (2007) crafted their own formal literature reviews to examine and expand upon the processes and methods used to create learning objects. In their dissertation, Al-Shehri focused specifically on developing objects for the Abha Teachers' College in Saudi Arabia and tested whether or not learning objects themselves could be effective in a reusable and portable way and they found that indeed, they can. Jessup's work focused on comparing the ways in which instructional design for learning objects are like course design for traditional instruction delivered in person and her work provided a much stronger background in the foundational theories of instructional design. Perhaps the most important finding in her research was that despite some differences in degree of similarity, the processes and models used in the development of online education learning objects are remarkably similar to those used in the creation of in person course content.

A chart demonstrating instructors' preferences for different measurable dimensions of learning objects. (Guthrie 2010)

Guthrie's (2010) research instead explored how K-12 instructors determined the attributes and features of learning objects for their courses. This information in useful for instructional designers and educational researchers alike in that theory is often best contextualized in practice, and her findings help to paint a clearer picture of what the end-user looks for when selecting reusable content and multimedia for their courses. She found that there were several dimensions of a learning object such as the detail of the topic, the types of metadata applied to it, and the content's ability to be generalized that are considered in almost all settings, though she also found that instructors often select different object types based on different student types. Put another way, some content types may be more effective when working with non-native speakers, students with learning differences, or other facets of student learning styles. This contrasts with most research about learning objects that suggests a content-first approach that places more emphasis on curriculum development than it does matching ideal content with different learning styles.

Assessment and Evaluation of Learning Objects

Assessment and evaluation of learning objects was an area that was not as well documented before the work of Robin Kay and her research partner Liesel Knaack. Kay (2007), and Kay and Knaack (2007, 2007, 2008, 2009), authored many articles that studied efficacy of learning objects, types of validating and formative feedback used during the development of learning objects, and more recently the impact of learning objects on learning itself. With regard to this aspect of learning objects Kay published much, if not most, of the research that is still referenced in the most recent articles and dissertations including Looser's (2009) research that confirmed many of Kay's positive findings about the efficacy of learning objects in secondary science education. In their first 2007 study, Kay and Knaack discovered that while most students agreed that using learning objects in their online science course was helpful, their self-described degree of comfort with using computers determined how likely they were to agree with the helpfulness of online learning objects. They then addressed the issue of generalization of these findings by conducting a larger assessment that involved a very large sample size from different domains and topics where the earlier research focused exclusively on secondary science education. They found that "while reusability, accessibility and adaptability are given heavy emphasis in the learning object literature, when it comes to the end-user, learning features appear to be more important" (2007). In their 2007 article titled "A Systematic Evaluation of Learning Objects for Secondary School Students", they elaborate on these findings by noting how younger students tended to have less positive experiences with learning objects and that the objects were most appealing to students when they were visually engaging, motivational, interactive.

A sample of the survey instrument given to students in the research study. (Kay & Knaack 2009)

Kay and Knaack took their examination of student opinions to a much finer level of detail in their 2009 article that gathered more feedback from students about the attributes and content types that they found most impactful, particularly how they improved their own perceptions of learning. Where early research about learning objects considered evaluation and assessment to be most valuable with regard to the creation and content of the object itself, Kay and Knaack have successfully shown how the end-user's expectations and preferences have a real impact on the overall efficacy of the object itself. In 2008, they looked at instructors' attitudes about learning objects and differences in how they prepared for instruction, both in-person and online. Their findings were that those dimensions also play a role in the efficacy of the objects, further suggesting that there are actually two different audiences for learning objects: the instructor and the student.

Gaps and Unanswered Questions

While this is by no means an exhaustive literature review of the entirety of what we know about learning objects, it is a review that covers many of the most referenced articles that cover creation and assessment at a broad scale. Articles were selected both for their topical content and their age with the reason being that as educational technologies have rapidly advanced over the past decade, articles older than fifteen years were not considered. That being said, earlier articles are not necessarily unreliable, but they tended to be more in line with period appropriate instructional design best practices and less nuanced with about what research has shown us about the importance of understanding the learner as much as we understand the content and delivery.

Kay and Knaack directly addressed one of the largest issues with the body of knowledge that exists between 2002-2007 being that sample sizes were very small and often the granularity of the research made the results so niche and domain-specific that useful generalization was not possible. However, many of the most recent articles related to any aspect of learning objects are upwards of ten to eight years old. I hypothesize that the reason is because modern online pedagogy has emphasized student involvement, agency, and contribution to learning over the perfection of one-way didactic delivery of instruction.

To that end, it is helpful to revisit Riegeluth's three category notion of learning objects with an emphasis on the strategy and discourse objects that facilitate and evoke student engagement in ways that pre-built learning objects cannot. Moreover, the research findings about what students found most appealing and useful in learning objects are in line with newer pedagogical approaches that emphasize student interest, interactivity of online learning activities, and formative and gamified feedback to entice the learner even when they are learning on their own. 

References

Evaluating and Downloading Learning Objects (2/6) - YouTube. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIzGC7BR-SM

01 Learning Objects - YouTube. (n.d.). Retrieved November 3, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j3l7398hPY&feature=youtu.be

What You Should Know about “Learning Object” – Part II – Classroom Aid. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2019, from https://classroom-aid.com/2013/05/25/what-you-should-know-about-learning-object-part-ii/

IEEE 1484.12.1-2002 - IEEE Standard for Learning Object Metadata. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2019, from https://standards.ieee.org/standard/1484_12_1-2002.html

Creating Digital Tools: Defining Learning Objects (Updated) - YouTube. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bXv-nSV4yU

Learning Objects - YouTube. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a_VZVOEQDc

Al-Shehri, A. M. (2004). The development of reusable online learning resources for instructional design students based on the principles of learning objects. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/docview/305175860/7BDB7503CD494EC0PQ/5?accountid=14784

Bradley, C., & Boyle, T. (2004). The Design, Development, and Use of Multimedia Learning Objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 371–389. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=b81c994e-dadd-4203-a0db-550712195464%40sessionmgr4007&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3D%3D#AN=507883597&db=eue

Guthrie, P. A. (2010). Learning Objects Which K-12 Teachers Determine Meet Their. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/docview/619971451/8C6A5497F47046FCPQ/1?accountid=14784

Jessup, S. A. (2007). Processes used by instructional designers to create e -learning and learning objects. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/docview/304699284/8C6A5497F47046FCPQ/5?accountid=14784

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). New learning: Elements of a science of education, second edition. In New Learning: Elements of a Science of Education, Second Edition. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139248532

Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2008). An examination of the impact of learning objects in secondary school. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00278.x

Kay, R. (2007). A Systematic Evaluation of Learning Objects for Secondary School Students. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(4), 411–448. https://doi.org/10.2190/m770-j104-v701-8n45

Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2009). Assessing learning, quality and engagement in learning objects: The Learning Object Evaluation Scale for Students (LOES-S). Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9094-5

Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007). Evaluating the learning in learning objects. Open Learning, 22(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510601100135

Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2007). Evaluating the Use of Learning Objects for Secondary School Science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 261–289. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=6963995c-8e73-4864-afe4-3c1d6c92cd76%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3D%3D#AN=507953293&db=eue

Looser, T. A. (2009). Fetch, plug, and play: How secondary science instructors use digital learning objects in their classrooms. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/docview/305163352/3F5F77DA0A50482APQ/2?accountid=14784

Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models. In Instructional-Design Theories and Models. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203872130