Increasing the Semantics of Learning Objects

Siqueira, Sean W. M.; Melo, Rubens N.; Braz, Maria Helena Lima Baptista

doi:10.1142/s0219427904000985

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The original "technology-focussed" pathway was founded on an object-oriented programming model. A learning object was seen as a discrete, reusable, context-free learning chunk (e.g., Baruque & Melo, 2004;Downes, 2003;Hamel & Ryan-Jones, 2002;Parrish, 2004;Siqueira, Melo, & Braz, 2004). In theory, this kind of definition leads to a cost-efficient, well-organized, searchable repository of learning objects that can be used for a variety of purposes.…”

Section: Definition Of Learning Objectmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kay¹,

Knaack²

2005

IJELL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Definition Of Learning Objectmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kay¹,

Knaack²

2005

IJELL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Original definitions focused on technological issues such accessibility, adaptability, the effective use of metadata, reusability, and standardization (e.g., Downes 2003;Littlejohn 2003;Koppi et al 2005;Muzio et al 2002;Nurmi and Jaakola 2006b;Parrish 2004;Siqueira et al 2004). More recently, researchers are emphasizing learning qualities such as interaction and the degree to which the learner actively constructs knowledge (Baruque and Melo 2004;Bennett and McGee 2005;Bradley and Boyle 2004;Caws et al 2006;Chenail 2004;Cochrane 2005;McGreal 2004;Kay and Knaack 2007a;Sosteric and Hesemeirer 2002;Wiley et al 2004).…”

Section: Definition Of Learning Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing learning, quality and engagement in learning objects: the Learning Object Evaluation Scale for Students (LOES-S)

Kay

Knaack

2008

Education Tech Research Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learning objects are interactive web-based tools that support the learning of specific concepts by enhancing, amplifying, and/or guiding the cognitive processes of learners. Research on the impact, effectiveness, and usefulness of learning objects is limited, partially because comprehensive, theoretically based, reliable, and valid evaluation tools are scarce, particularly in the K-12 environment. The purpose of the following study was to investigate a Learning Object Evaluation Scale for Students (LOES-S) based on three key constructs gleaned from 10 years of learning object research: learning, quality or instructional design, and engagement. Tested on over 1100 middle and secondary school students, the data generated using the LOES-S showed acceptable internal reliability, face validity, construct validity, convergent validity and predictive validity.

show abstract

“…We have been working with e-learning environments, defining and organizing their software components ( [7], [8], [9], [10]) and dealing with learning content and metadata ( [6], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) in the last years. Through this experience, we envisioned three levels of information that are related to e-learning content and should be considered in e-learning environments.…”

Section: Considering Three Levels Of E-learning Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then, we extended the Knowledge Manifold [16] and structured the content embedded in LOs as facts that can be concepts, stories or phenomena Concepts are ideas, stories are experiences, and phenomena are experiments. [14]. Concepts can be inward ideas (mentally expressed) or outward ideas (medially expressed).…”

Section: Using Existing Proposals In These Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An experiment involves components that are processed according to a specific methodology. Other possible approaches for structuring the lower level of information could be based on knowledge bases (such as Merrill et al proposal for representing learning content as entities, actions, processes and properties [4]), conceptual maps (such as presented at [17]), topic maps (such as proposed in [18] and [19]) and ontologies (such as the proposals presented in ( [14], [20], [21])). Other proposals for ontologies for e-learning consider metadata representation and not the content itself, such as in ( [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]) or document representation [27].…”

Section: Using Existing Proposals In These Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A 3-level information architecture for e-learning based on data warehousing

Siqueira

Braz²,

Melo

2007

Proceedings of the 2007 Euro American Conference on Telematics and Information Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developing high quality learning content material is expensive and time-consuming. Nowadays, in order to reduce costs and development time, there is an emphasis on reuse. The approach of object orientation has been used for promoting reuse. When this approach is applied to the development of learning content, it results in learning objects. However, there isn't a well-accepted and used methodology for the development of such objects and usually the reuse is based on the multimedia files that are referenced through metadata. In this paper we describe three levels of information that should be considered when dealing with e-learning content. An analogy to Data Warehouse architectures is proposed. Our approach allows keeping the already existing LO repositories and their autonomy, while the semantics of the content is structured to be reused in a personalized way. In addition, the mature of Data Warehousing technologies enhances the implementation of the 3-level information architecture for e-learning, which leads to a richer scenario for content reuse. Finally, the Data Warehouse idea of navigating (i.e., exploring content) can also stimulate students to go further on the quest for knowledge. We present how existing standard proposals can be used through the three levels and describe a case study.

show abstract

Increasing the Semantics of Learning Objects

Cited by 9 publications

References 4 publications

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

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

Assessing learning, quality and engagement in learning objects: the Learning Object Evaluation Scale for Students (LOES-S)

A 3-level information architecture for e-learning based on data warehousing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About