You are here

A systematic evaluation of preservice teachers’ opinions on learning objects

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
The purpose of this study is to investigate preservice teachers’ opinions on Learning Objects (LO) in teaching and learning. ‘LOs Perception Questionnaire’ was developed and applied among preservice teachers. The survey consisted of four parts: “Merit of LOs’’, “Use of LOs”, “Accessing LOs”, and “Developing LOs”. The study included 336 preservice teachers from art, math, computer, and elementary education. Before the survey, participants took a three-hour learning module on LOs and repositories. The module included a one-hour teacher lecture, a one-hour web-quest, and a one-hour class discussion on LOs. Results indicated that instead of valuing, accessing, and using LOs to merely deliver content, it seemed more challenging for preservice teachers to know how to develop them for teaching and learning.



ADL. (2002). Advanced distributed learning sharable content object reference model.
Retrieved on May 1, 2009, from
Allert, H., Richter, C., & Nejdl, W. (2004). Lifelong learning and second-order learning
objects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 701–715.
Ally, M., & Cleveland-lnnes, M. (2006). Learners' use of LOs. Journal of Distance
Education, 21(2), 44-57.
Alonsoa, F., Lópeza, G., Manriquea, D., & Viñes, J. M. (2008). LOs, learning objectives and
learning design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 389-
Brinthaupt, T. M., Pilati, M. L., & King, B. R. (2008). Psychology teaching resources in the
MERLOT digital los catalog. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(3), 240-245.
Chrysostomou, C., & Papadopoulos, G. (2008). Towards an object-oriented model for the
design and development of LOs. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(2), 219-243.
Cramer, S. R. (2007). Update your classroom with LOs. The Clearing House, 80(3), 126-
Convertini, V. C., Albanese, D., Marengo, A., Marengo, V., & Scalera, M. (2006). The
OSEL taxonomy for the classification of LOs. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Knowledge and LOs, 2, 125-138.
Cope, C., & Ward, P. (2002). Integrating learning technology into classrooms: The
importance of teachers’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 67-74.
Sahin, S., Ocak, M.A., & Uluyol, C. (2009). A systematic evaluation of preservice teachers’ opinions on
learning objects . International Journal of Human Sciences [Online]. 6:2. Available:
Demiraslan, Y., & Koçak-Usluel, Y. (2005). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin öğrenmeöğretme
sürecine entegrasyonunda öğretmenlerin durumu. The Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, 4(3), 109-113.
Dolphin, I., & Miller, P. (2002). LOs and the Information Environment. Ariadne, 32.
Available at
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Pres: New
Gadanidis, G., & Schindler, K. (2006). LOs, Type II Applications, and embedded
pedagogical models. Computers in the Schools, 23, 19-32.
IEEE-LTSC. (2002). WG12, Working Group Information, Announcements & News,
Position Statement on 1484.12.1-2002 Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Standard
Jedeskog, G., & Nissen, J. (2004). ICT in the Classroom: Is Doing More Important than
Knowing? Education and Information Technologies, 9(1), 37-45.
Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007). Evaluating the learning in LOs. Open Learning, 22(1), 5–
Magenheim, J., & Scheel, O. (2004). Integrating LOs into an open learning environment:
evaluation of learning processes in an informatics learning lab. In Proceedings of
the 13th international World Wide Web Conference on Alternate Track Papers &
Amp; Posters (New York, NY, USA, May 19 - 21). WWW Alt. '04. ACM Press, New
York, NY, 450-451.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). Knowledge objects and mental-Models. In D. A. Wiley ed. The
Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version Washington DC: Agency
for Instructional Technololgy & Association for Educational Communications and
Technology. 261-280. (available at
Moisey, S. D., Ally M., & B. Spencer (2006). Factors Affecting the Development and Use of
Learning Objects. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(3), 143–161.
Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: results from a
worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37, 163–178.
Polsani, P. R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable LOs. Journal of Digital Information, 3, 64.
Available at:
Redeker, G. (2003). An educational taxonomy for LOs. IEEE International Conference on
Advanced Learning Technologies. Available at
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation (4th edition). The Free Press, New York.
Usluel, Y., Mumcu, F., & Demiraslan, Y. (2007). Öğrenme-Öğretme Sürecinde Bilgi ve
İletişim Teknolojileri: Öğretmenlerin Entegrasyon Süreci ve Engelleriyle İlgili
Görüşleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 164-178.
Van Zele, E., Vandaele, P., Botteldooren, D., & Lenaerts, J. (2003). Implementation and
evaluation of a course concept based on reusable LOs. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 28(4), 355-372.
Weller, M. (2004). LOs and the e-learning cost dilemma. Open Learning, 19(3), 293-302.
Wiley, D. (2000). Learning object design and sequencing theory. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation ,Brigham Young University. Available:
Wiley, D. (2001). Connecting LOs to Instructional Design Theory: A definition, a metaphor,
and a taxonomy: The Instructional Use of LOs. Wiley, D. (ed). http://www.
reusability. org/read/chapters/wiley.doc.

Thank you for copying data from