The Role of Learning Objects in Distance Learning

Abstract

In the past 10 years, a considerable amount of money and effort has been directed toward distance education, with growth estimated as high as 30%-40% annually (Harper, Chen, & Yen, 2004; Hurst, 2001; Newman, 2003). The popularity of distance learning appears to be founded on personal control over instruction (Burgess & Russell, 2003, Pierrakeas, 2003), the variety of multimedia formats available to students (Hayes & Jamrozik, 2001), and customized support (Harper et al., 2004). However, the success of distance education is anything but a foregone conclusion. Multiple obstacles have impeded acceptance including reluctance to use technology (Harper et al., 2004), time required to develop course resources (Harper et al., 2004; Hayes & Jamrozik, 2001) and to support students (Levine & Sun, 2002), lack of technology skills (Berge & Smith, 2000), and cost (Burgess & Russell, 2003; Levine & Sun, 2002). In addition the promise of interactivity and constructive learning in distance learning has not been realized. Most distance learning offerings resemble traditional classroom courses (Coates & Humpeys, 2003; Levine & Sun, 2002, Navaro, 2000). When interaction does take place, it is usually in the form of online discussion, however, a number of studies have reported that true social interaction leading to cognitive development is rare (e.g., Berge and Muilenburg, 2000; Bisenbach-Lucas, 2003; Garrison, Anderson, and Archer, 2001; Hara, Bonk and Angeli, 1998; Meyer, 2003; Wickstrom, 2003).

Full text

Encyclopedia of
Distance Learning
Second Edition
Patricia Rogers
Bemidji State, USA
Gary Berg
Chapman University, USA
Judith Boettcher
Designing for Learning, USA
Carole Howard
Touro University International, USA
Lorraine Justice
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
Karen Schenk
University of Redlands, USA & North Carolina State University, USA
Hershey • New York
InformatIon ScIence reference
Volume IV
Reu-Z

Director of Editorial Content: Kristin Klinger
Director of Production: Jennifer Neidig
Managing Editor: Jamie Snavely
Assistant Managing Editor: Carole Coulson
Typesetter: Sean Woznicki, Amanda Appicello, Larissa Vinci, Mike Brehm, Jen Henderson, Elizabeth Duke, Jamie Snavely,
Carole Coulson, Jeff Ash, Chris Hrobak
Cover Design: Lisa Tosheff
Printed at: Yurchak Printing Inc.
Published in the United States of America by
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com/reference
and in the United Kingdom by
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
3 Henrietta Street
Covent Garden
London WC2E 8LU
Tel: 44 20 7240 0856
Fax: 44 20 7379 0609
Web site: http://www.eurospanbookstore.com
Copyright © 2009 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identication purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate
a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Encyclopedia of distance learning / Patricia Rogers ... [et al.], editors. -- 2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: "This multiple volume publication provides comprehensive knowledge and literature on the topic of distance learning programs"--Provided
by publisher.
ISBN 978-1-60566-198-8 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-60566-199-5 (ebook)
1. Distance education--Encyclopedias. I. Rogers, Patricia.
LC5211.E516 2009
371.35'03--dc22
2008042438
British Cataloguing in Publication Data
A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this encyclopedia set is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this encyclopedia set are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
If a library purchased a print copy of this publication, please go to http://www.igi-global.com/agreement for information on activating
the library's complimentary electronic access to this publication.

1808
The Role of Learning Objects in Distance
Learning
Robin H. Kay
University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
OVERVIEW
In the past 10 years, a considerable amount of money
and effort has been directed toward distance education,
with growth estimated as high as 30%-40% annually
(Harper, Chen, & Yen, 2004; Hurst, 2001; Newman,
2003). The popularity of distance learning appears to
be founded on personal control over instruction (Bur-
gess & Russell, 2003, Pierrakeas, 2003), the variety
of multimedia formats available to students (Hayes &
Jamrozik, 2001), and customized support (Harper et al.,
2004). However, the success of distance education is
anything but a foregone conclusion. Multiple obstacles
have impeded acceptance including reluctance to use
technology (Harper et al., 2004), time required to
develop course resources (Harper et al., 2004; Hayes
& Jamrozik, 2001) and to support students (Levine &
Sun, 2002), lack of technology skills (Berge & Smith,
2000), and cost (Burgess & Russell, 2003; Levine &
Sun, 2002). In addition the promise of interactivity and
constructive learning in distance learning has not been
realized. Most distance learning offerings resemble
traditional classroom courses (Coates & Humpeys,
2003; Levine & Sun, 2002, Navaro, 2000). When
interaction does take place, it is usually in the form of
online discussion, however, a number of studies have
reported that true social interaction leading to cogni-
tive development is rare (e.g., Berge and Muilenburg,
2000; Bisenbach-Lucas, 2003; Garrison, Anderson, and
Archer, 2001; Hara, Bonk and Angeli, 1998; Meyer,
2003; Wickstrom, 2003).
Learning objects are promising tools that (a) ad-
dress a number of the barriers students and teachers
experience with distance education and (b) are based
on sound learning theory researched over the past 15
years. This chapter will examine the potential role of
learning objects in distance education, as well as the
challenges in using them effectively.
THE ROLE OF LEARNING OBJECTS IN
DISTANCE EDUCATION
Denition
In order to evaluate the use of learning objects in distance
education, a clear denition is necessary. Considerable
effort has been directed toward this goal (Agostinho,
Bennett, Lockyear, & Harper, 2004; Butson, 2003;
Friesen, 2001; Gibbons, Nelson, & Richards, 2002;
Littlejohn, 2003; Metros, 2005; McGreal , 2004; Muzio,
Heins, & Mundell, 2002; Parrish, 2004; Polsani, 2003;
Wiley, 2000; Wiley, et al. 2004); however there has been
no consensus on an acceptable denition. Originally,
a learning object was considered any re-usable digital
resource that supported learning (e.g., Wiley, 2000),
however, a number of researchers (Butson, 2003;
Littlejohn, 2003; Wiley et al., 2004) have argued that
denition is too broad. Specic qualities of learning
objects such as interactivity, instructional augmentation
(scaffolding), the presence of cause and effect systems
and problem solving are now considered essential in
an effective learning object. In this chapter, learning
objects are dened as “interactive web-based tools that
support learning by enhancing, amplifying, and guiding
the cognitive processes of learners”. The following are
examples of good quality learning objects:
• Fire and Probability at:
http://illuminations.nctm.org/ActivityDetail.
aspx?ID=143
• Physics Education Technology at:
http://phet.colorado.edu/new/simulations/sims.
php?sim=Circuit_Construction_Kit_DC_Only
• DNA from the beginning at:
http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/
• National Geographic Hurricanes at:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/forcesofna-
ture/interactive/index.html?section=h

1809
The Role of Learning Objects in Distance Learning
R
Addressing Barriers to Distance
Education
As stated earlier, a number of barriers have restricted
and reduced the effectiveness of distance education
including reluctance to use technology (Harper et
al., 2004), limited technology skills (Berge & Smith,
2000), time to support students (Levine & Sun, 2002)
and develop course resources (Harper et al., 2004;
Hayes & Jamrozik, 2001) and cost (Burgess & Russell,
2003; Levine & Sun, 2002). Learning objects partially
address these barriers.
With respect to resistance to using technology, each
learning object is small in size and focus, easy to learn,
and easy to use. While learning objects do not reduce
the time an instructor would have to spend with his/her
students, they are readily and freely available over the
Internet and thereby reduce the cost and time required
to create new resources. They are also designed to be
reusable and useful for a large audience, particularly
when the objects are placed in well organized, search-
able databases. Finally, many learning objects often
come with a set “instructional wrap,” so instructors
have a clear idea of how to use them.
Enhancing the Learning Benets of
Distance Education
With respect to enhancing learning, a number of learning
objects are interactive tools that support exploration,
investigation, constructing solutions, and manipulating
parameters instead of memorizing and retaining a series
of facts. The success of this constructivist based model
is well documented (e.g., Albanese & Mitchell, 1993;
Bruner, 1983, 1986; Carroll, 1990; Caroll & Mack,
1984; Collins, Bown, & Newman, 1989; Vygotsky,
1978). In addition, many learning objects have a
graphical component that helps make abstract concepts
more concrete (Gadanidis, Gadanidis, & Schindler,
2003). Furthermore, certain learning objects allow
students to explore higher level concepts by reducing
cognitive load. They act as perceptual and cognitive
supports, permitting students to examine more complex
and interesting relationships (Sedig & Liang, 2006).
Finally, learning objects are adaptive, allowing users
to have a certain degree of control over their learning
environments, particularly when they are learning and
for how long.
A majority of distance learning courses are based
on a more traditional lecture format, and the use of
learning objects can help shift the pedagogy to a more
interactive, problem solving environment.
Characteristics of Good Learning
Objects
Burgess & Russell (2003) note that the materials provid-
ed in distance learning courses are the most signicant
predictors of success. Simply using learning objects,
though, does not guarantee a high-quality learning
experience. One must be able to separate the proverbial
wheat from the chaff. Formal methods to evaluate the
quality of learning objects, though, are noticeably absent
in the literature. Recently, Kay & Knaack (2007b) have
developed and tested an evaluation metric based on key
principles of instructional design. The results of this
study suggested that students benet more if the learn-
ing object has a well organized layout, is interactive,
visual representations are provided that make abstract
concepts more concrete, instructions are clear, and the
theme is fun or motivating. It should be noted that it is
desirable to have all these characteristics and that any
single problem area can undermine the effectiveness
of the learning experience. This claim is also supported
by Harper et al. (2004) who noted that students who
perceive specic technological tools as ineffective will
be far less receptive to distance education.
Finding Learning Objects
While there are numerous collections of learning ob-
jects available, one collection stands out from the rest
– MERLOT. Located at www.merlot.org it is a “lead-
ing edge, user-centered, searchable collection of peer
reviewed, higher education, online learning materials”.
Key subject areas include arts, business, education,
humanities, mathematics and statistics, science and
technology, and social sciences. This database of over
16,000 learning objects is an ideal place to start for a
distance education instructor.
Evidence to Support the Use of Learning
Objects
In a recent review of 58 articles on learning objects (Kay
& Knaack, 2007a), only eight evaluated the actual use
of learning objects (Adams, Lubega, Walmsley, & Wil-

1810
The Role of Learning Objects in Distance Learning
liams, 2004; Bradley & Boyle, 2004; Cochrane, 2005;
Kenny, et al., 1999; Krauss & Ally, 2005; Macdonald
et al., 2005; Nesbit, Belfer, & Vargo, 2002; Van Zele,
Vandaele, Botteldooren, Lenaerts & 2003). Various
methods of evaluation were used including informal
or qualitative feedback (Adams et al., 2004; Bradley &
Boyle, 2004; Cochrane, 2005; Macdonald et al., 2005),
descriptive analysis (Krauss & Ally, 2005; Macdonald
et al., 2005), convergent participation (Nesbit et al.,
2002), formal surveys (Cochrane, 2005; Krauss & Ally,
2005), and learning outcomes (Adams et al., 2005;
Bradley & Boyle, 2004; Macdonald et al., 2005; Van
Zele et al., 2003).
In all eight studies, students and/or professors
reported that learning objects had a positive impact.
Learning objects that offered clear instructions, en-
gaging activities, and interactivity (Cochrane, 2005;
Krauss & Ally, 2005; Macdonald et al., 2005) were
rated as most successful. Clearly more research on
broader populations is needed (Duval, Hodgins, Rehak,
& Robson, 2004), however the preliminary results are
promising.
CHALLENGES
Finding What You Want
A big challenge for distance education instructors
will be nding learning objects that cover the desired
concepts. While MERLOT makes the search process
easier, testing and evaluating a series of possible
learning objects takes time. Therefore time saved in
not having to create learning objects is partially offset
by “search” time.
Instructional Wrap
One characteristic that has not been formally exam-
ined is “instructional wrap” or specic instructions
and strategies for teachers on how to use a particular
learning object effectively. It is speculated that this
guidance would be appreciated and perhaps essential
for integrating learning objects into distance education
courses. One cannot expect a typical learning object to
stand on its own – scaffolding and leading questions
are necessary for a student to investigate and construct
meaning. Developing effective “instructional” wrap
can take considerable time depending on the goal of
the instructor. A number of very good learning objects
in MERLOT, for example, do not provide this critical
guidance. However, one could argue that this kind of
course preparation would take no longer to develop than
a traditional lecture and that it could be used repeatedly
in future courses.
Evaluating Learning Objects in Distance
Education
A number of authors note that the “learning object”
revolution will never take place unless instructional
use and pedagogy is explored and evaluated (Maclaren,
2004; Muzio et al., 2002; Richards, 2002; Wiley,
2000). Agostinho et al. (2004) and Wiley (2000) add
that the learning object research agenda must begin to
investigate how learning objects can be used to create a
high quality instruction or “we will nd ourselves with
digital libraries full of easy to nd learning objects we
don’t know how to use” (p.2, Agostinho et al., 2004).
Finally, Duval et al., (2004) note that while many groups
seem to be grappling with issues that are related to the
pedagogy and learning objects, few papers include a
detailed analysis of specic learning object features that
affect learning. Clearly, there is a need for empirical
research that focuses on the pedagogical qualities of
learning objects. The evolution of learning objects in
distance education will be short indeed, unless educators
and researchers assess learning effectiveness.
CONCLUSION
Distance education, despite a list of real obstacles, has
grown rapidly over the past ten years. Nonetheless, the
pedagogy behind most distance education courses is
largely based on a traditional lecture format coupled
with online discussion. In order to address some of
the obstacles and to promote interactivity, problem
solving and constructivism, learning objects offer a
possible solution. Dened as “interactive web-based
tools that support learning by enhancing, amplifying,
and guiding the cognitive processes of learners”, they
are relatively easy to learn and use and are readily and
feely available. If a learning object is well organized,
interactive, provides visual representations that make
abstract concepts more concrete, and offers a clear “in-
structional wrap”, it is likely that students of distance
education course will benet. Finding effective learning

1811
The Role of Learning Objects in Distance Learning
R
objects with appropriate guidance for teachers is time
consuming, but potentially a worthwhile process.
REFERENCES
Adams, A., Lubega, J., Walmsley, S., & Williams,
S. (2004). The effectiveness of assessment learning
objects produced using pair programming. Electronic
Journal of e-Learning, 2(2). Retrieved July 28, 2005
from http://www.ejel.org/volume-2/vol2-issue2/v2-
i2-art1-adams.pdf
Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., Lockyear, L., & Harper, B.
(2004). Developing a learning object metadata applica-
tion prole based on LOM suitable for the Australian
higher education market. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 20(2), 191-208.
Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. A. (1993). Problem-
based learning: A review of the literature on its out-
comes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine,
68, 52-81.
Berge, Z. & Muilenburg, L. (2000). Designing discus-
sion questions for online, adult learning. Educational
Technology, Sept-Oct, 53-56.
Berge, Z.L. & Smith, D. (2000). Implementing corporate
distance training using change management, strategic
planning, and project management. In L. Lau (Ed.)
Distance learning technologies: Issues, trends and
opportunities. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
P 39-51.
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2003). Asynchronous discussion
groups in teacher training classes: Perceptions of na-
tive and non-native students. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(3), 24-46. Retrieved March 24,
2004 from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/
pdf/v7n3_biesenbach-lucas.pdf
Bradley, C., & Boyle, T. (2004). The design, develop-
ment, and use of multimedia learning objects. Journal
of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (4),
371-389.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk. Learning to use language,
Toronto, Canada: George J. McLeod Ltd.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burgess, J. R. D., & Russell, J. E. A. (2003). The effec-
tiveness of distance learning initiatives in organizations.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 289–303.
Butson, R. (2003). Learning objects: weapons of mass
instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology,
34 (5), 667-669.
Carroll, J. B. (1990). The Nurnberg funnel. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Carroll, J. M., & Mack, R. L. (1984). Learning to use a
word processor: By doing, by thinking, and by know-
ing. In J. C. Thomas and M. Schneider (eds.), Human
factors in computer systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Coates, D., & Humphreys, B. R. (2003). An inventory
of learning at a distance in economics. Social Science
Computer Review, 21(2), 196-207.
Cochrane, T. (2005). Interactive QuickTime: Devel-
oping and evaluating multimedia learning objects
to enhance both face-to-face and distance e-learning
environments. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge
and Learning Objects, 1. Retrieved August 3, 2005 from
http://ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p033-054Cochrane.pdf
Collins, A. Brown, J. S., Newman, S. E. (1989). Cog-
nitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading,
writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),
Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453-494).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Duval, E., Hodgins, W., Rehak, D., & Robson, R.
(2004). Learning objects symposium special issue
guest editorial. Journal of Educational Multimedia
and Hypermedia, 13 (4), 331-342.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001).
Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer
conferencing in distance education. American Journal
of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
Friesen, N. (2001). What are educational objects?
Interactive Learning Environments, 9(3).
Gadanidis, G., Gadanidis, J. & Schindler, K. (2003).
Factors mediating the use of online applets in the lesson
planning of pre-service mathematics teachers. Journal
of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
22(4), 323-344.
Gibbons, A. S., Nelson, J. & Richards, R. (2000). The
nature and origin of instructional objects. In D. A. Wiley

1812
The Role of Learning Objects in Distance Learning
(Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: On-
line Version. Retrieved July, 1 2005 http://reusability.
org/read/chapters/gibbons.doc
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C., (1998). Content
analysis of online discussion in an applied educational
psychology. Center for Research on Learning and
Technology, No. 2-98. [Online] Available: http://crlt.
indiana.edu/publications/techreport.pdf
Harper, K. C., Chen, K., & Yen, D. C. (2004). Distance
learning, virtual classrooms, and teaching pedagogy
in the Internet environment. Technology in Society,
26, 585–598.
Hayes, M. H., & Jamrozik, M. L. (2001). Internet dis-
tance learning: The problems, the pitfalls, and the future.
Journal of VLSI Signal Processing, 29, 63–69.
Hurst, F. (2001). The death of distance learning. Edu-
cause Quarterly, 3, 58-60.
Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007a). A systematic evalu-
ation of learning objects for secondary school students.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35 (4),
411-448.
Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2007b). Evaluating the learn-
ing in learning objects. Open Learning, 22(1), 5-28.
Kenny, R. F., Andrews, B. W., Vignola, M. V., Schilz,
M. A., & Covert, J. (1999). Towards guidelines for the
design of interactive multimedia instruction: Fostering
the reective decision-making of preservice teachers.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(1),
13-31.
Krauss, F., & Ally, M. (2005). A study of the design
and evaluation of a learning object and implications
for content development. Interdisciplinary Journal
of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1. Retrieved
August 4, 2005 from http://ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p001-
022Krauss.pdf
Levine, A., & Sun, J. C. (2002). Barriers to distance
education. ACE/EDUCAUSE series Distributed Edu-
cation: Challenges, Choices, and a New Environment.
[Online] Available: http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/
pdf/distributed-learning/distributed-learning-06.pdf
Littlejohn, A. (2003). Issues in Reusing Online Re-
sources. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1,
Special Issue on Reusing Online Resources. Retrieved
July 1, 2005 from www-jime.open.ac.uk/2003/1/
MacDonald, C. J., Stodel, E., Thompson, T. L., Muir-
head, B., Hinton, C., Carson, B., et al. (2005). Addressing
the eLearning contradiction: A collaborative approach
for developing a conceptual framework learning object.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning
Objects, 1. Retrieved August 2, 2005 from http://ijklo.
org/Volume1/v1p079-098McDonald.pdf
Maclaren, I. (2004). New trends in web-based learning:
objects, repositories and learner engagement. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 29 (1), 65-71.
McGreal, R. (2004). Learning objects: A practical deni-
tion. International Journal of Instructional Technology
and Distance Learning, 1(9). Retrieved August 5, 2005
from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_04/article02.
htm
Metros, S. E. (2005). Visualizing knowledge in new
educational environments: a course on learning objects.
Open Learning, 20(1), 93-102.
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded
discussions: The role of time and higher-order think-
ing. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7
(3), 55-65.
Muzio, J. A., Heins, T., & Mundell, R. (2002). Expe-
riences with reusable e-learning objects from theory
to practice. Internet and Higher Education, 2002 (5),
21-34.
Navarro, P. (2000). Economics in the cyberclassroom.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(2), 119-132.
Nesbit, J., Belfer, K., & Vargo, J. (2002). A convergent
participation model for evaluation of learning objects.
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28 (3)
Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/
vol28.3/nesbit_etal.html
Newman, A. (2003). Measuring success in web-based
distance learning. Educause Research Bulletin, 4, 1-
11.
Parrish, P. E. (2004). The trouble with learning objects.
Educational Technology Research & Development, 52
(1), 49-67.
Polsani, P. R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning
objects. Journal of Digital Information, 3(4), Retrieved
July 1, 2005 from http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/
v03/i04/Polsani/

1813
The Role of Learning Objects in Distance Learning
R
Pierrakeas, C., Xenos, M., & Pintelas, P. (2003). Evalu-
ating and improving material and tutoring aspects of
distance education learning. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 29, 335-349.
Richards, G. (2002). Editorial: the challenges of learn-
ing object paradigm. Canadian Journal of Learning
and Technology, 28 (3). Retrieved Jul 1, 2005 from
http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.3/editorial.html
Sedig, K & Liang, H (2006). Interactivity of visual
mathematical representations: Factors affecting learn-
ing and cognitive processes. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 17 (2), 179-212.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge,
M.A.: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, F. L., & Wallace, S. R. (2001). Electronic ofce
hours: A component of distance learning. Computers
& Education, 37, 195-209.
Wickstrom, C. D. (2003). A funny thing happened on
the way to the forum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 46 (5), 414-423.
Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to
instructional design theory: A denition, a metaphor,
and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional
Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved
July, 1, 2005, from http://reusability.org/read/chap-
ters/wiley.doc
Wiley, D., Wayers, S., Dawson, D., Lambert, B., Barclay,
M., & Wade, D. (2004). Overcoming the limitations of
learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia
and Hypermedia, 13 (4), 507-521.
Van Zele, E., Vandaele, P., Botteldooren, D., & Len-
aerts, J. (2003). Implementation and evaluation of a
course concept based on reusable learning objects.
Journal of Educational Computing and Research,
28(4), 355-372.
KEY TERMS
Constructivism: An approach to learning where
student is required to construct or develop meaning.
Typically, students work with tools and/or open end
problems. One could also think of this philosophy as
learning by doing or student-centered learning.
Instructional Wrap: Instructions or guiding ques-
tions that help a user effectively explore a learning
object.
Learning Object: An interactive web-based tool
that supports learning by enhancing, amplifying, and
guiding the cognitive processes of a learner
MERLOT: Multimedia Educational Resource for
Learning and Online Teaching
Pedagogy: The strategies, techniques, and ap-
proaches that teachers can use to facilitate learning.
Scaffolding: An approach to learning where students
are given hints, leading questions, or a basic cognitive
structure to guide their learning.