Developing Learning Objects for Secondary School Students: A Multi-Component Model

Abstract

Previous research on the development of learning objects have three notable characteristics: a focus on either technical or learning features, but not both, a target audience consisting exclusively of higher education students, and the absence of formal evaluation. This study provides a detailed description and formal evaluation of a multi-component model used to develop five learning objects for secondary school students. Overall, two thirds of the students reported that the learning objects were beneficial, citing a motivating theme, interactivity, and visual qualities as the most important features. However, almost 60% of all students were critical about the learning object quality. Clarity of instructions, help functions and organization/layout presented the most problems. While the development model used in the study emphasized both technical and learning components, the latter was far more important to teachers and students. Key steps that appeared to be beneficial in the development process included a collaborative team approach, understanding the learner, a focus on clear instruction and organization, and using a comprehensive, theoretically supported evaluation metric to examine the quality and benefits of learning objects.

Exploring Teachers Perceptions of Web-Based Learning Tools

“…Scale item six, referring to students " liking to interact" with the WBLT showed a high value for both learning and engagement constructs. Overall, the structure was consistent with previous research (Kay & Knaack, 2005, 2007b) and the proposed grouping of scale items listed in Appendix B.…”

“…Scale item six, referring to students " liking to interact" with the WBLT showed a high value for both learning and engagement constructs. Overall, the structure was consistent with previous research (Kay & Knaack, 2005, 2007b) and the proposed grouping of scale items listed in Appendix B.Correlations among the three LOES-T constructs (learning, usability, and engagement) were significant, but also small enough to support the assumption that each construct measured was distinct (T able 3). …”

“…The quantitative items of this 7-point Likert scale examined perceptions of student learning (learning construct), usability of the WBLT (usability construct), and student engagement with the WBLT (engagement construct). The selection of these constructs was based on a detailed review of the learning object literature over the past 10 years (Kay & Knaack, 2005, 2007b). Finally, teachers responded to four open-ended questions focussing on overall impact on learning, technical problems, and sugge stions for future use.…”

“…A WBLT evaluation tool for teachers was employed that was sensitive to key issues researched over the past ten years (Kay & Knaack, 2005, 2007b, in press). T his tool showed low to moderate reliability and good construct validity.…”

Investigating the Use of Learning Objects for Secondary School Mathematics

“…Increased use of learning objects in the K-12 domain (e.g., Brush & Saye, 2001;Clarke & Bowe, 2006a, 2006bKay & Knaack, 2005;Liu & Bera, 2005;Lopez-Morteo & Lopez, 2007;Nurmi & Jaakkola, 2006) demands that the focus of investigation shift, at least in part, to the needs of middle and secondary school students. The current literature review will focus on three key areas: the potential of learning objects as an effective educational tool in secondary school classrooms, the proposed pedagogical benefits of learning objects, and research on the use of learning objects in K-12 mathematics classrooms to date.…”