JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

REVUE DE LDUCATION DISTANCE

FALL/AUTOMNE 2006
VOL. 21, No 2, 44-57

Learners Use of Learning Objects

Mohamed Ally, Martha Cleveland-Innes,
Natasha Boskic, and Sandra Larwill
Abstract

This article reports findings from a study exploring the generativity (Gibbons,
Nelson, & Richards, 2000; Parrish, 2004) and discoverability (Friesen, 2001) of
learning objects in the hands of the learner. Through the convergence of two
separate pilot projectsthe Canadian EduSource initiative through Athabasca
University, and the researchers ongoing study of affective learning in online
learning environments (Cleveland-Innes & Ally, 2004)learner perspectives of
learning object use and value was evaluated. Participants in the study of affective
outcomes in the workplace worked independently with learning objects and out-
lined the interaction with learning object repositories and individual learning
objects. Analysis of learners activity and response indicates that selection of learn-
ing object repositories and objects is based on personal needs and expectations for
satisfying desired learning outcomes. Data analysis found pedagogical and contex-
tual implications of learning object technology from the point of view of the
learner. Results suggest that there is opportunity to combine learning object tech-
nology with consideration for learner engagement in designs that support lifelong
learning principles and focus on learner development rather than the content or
the technology.

Rsum

Cet article nous fait part des rsultats dune tude explorant la gnrativit (Gib-
bons, Nelson, & Richards, 2000; Parrish, 2004) et la facilit trouver (Friesen, 2001)
des objets dapprentissage entre les mains des apprenants. Grce la convergence
de deux projets pilotes distinctslinitiative EduSource de lUniversit Athabasca,
et ltude en cours des auteurs de lapprentissage affectif dans des environnements
dapprentissage en ligne (Cleveland-Innes & Ally, 2004)la perspective des ap-
prenants propos de lutilisation et de la valeur des objets dapprentissage a t
value. Les participants ltude sur les consquences affectives en milieu de
travail ont utilis des objets dapprentissage de manire indpendante et ont souli-
gn linteraction entre les dpts dobjets et les objets dapprentissage individuels.
Lanalyse de lactivit et de la rponse des apprenants indique que le choix des
dpts dobjets dapprentissage et des objets eux-mmes est bas sur les besoins
personnels et les attentes de lapprenant sur les capacits des objets satisfaire les
besoins dapprentissage. Lanalyse des donnes a permis didentifier des cons-
quences pdagogiques et contextuelles de la technologie derrire les objets dap-
 LEARNERS USE OF LEARNING OBJECTS 45

prentissage, du point de vue de lapprenant. Les rsultats suggrent quil y a une

opportunit de combiner la technologie soutenant les objets dapprentissage et une
proccupation pour lengagement de lapprenant grce des designs qui soutien-
nent les principes de lapprentissage vie et se centrent sur le dveloppement de
lapprenant plutt que sur le contenu de la technologie.

Introduction
Consideration of pedagogical use of learning objects follows closely on
significant efforts to identify and metatag information items that could be
applied in learning settings (Wiley, 2001). Many possibilities exist for
human growth and development through learning objects, which gives
rise to questions about the role of the learner in learning object develop-
ment, storage, and application. Supporting active, self-directed, and con-
tinual learning for individuals using learning objects will add significant
value to the outcomes of learning object use.
The opportunity to evaluate individual use of learning objects emerged
in the convergence of two separate projects: the Canadian EduSource
initiative through Athabasca University and our ongoing study of affec-
tive learning in online learning environments (Cleveland-Innes & Ally,
2004). A team of researchers at Athabasca University worked to create a
network of accessible, interoperable learning object repositories
(Cleveland-Innes et al., 2005). According to Ally (2004), learning objects
must be designed with the learner in focus and be tagged for easy retrieval
if they are to add value to the learning process. To test this premise, the
retrieval and application of learning objects was evaluated by learners
engaged in a study of affective learning outcomes in the workplace.
As part of this study, participants in a customer-service course in the
workplace worked independently with learning objects and outlined their
process in applying the object to the course objectives. Three general
research questions guided the collection of these experiences: (a) For what
reason(s) do learners choose learning objects? (b) How do learners
respond to and use learning objects? (c) What is the likelihood that
learners will access further learning objects after initial engagement with
objects/repository?

Literature Review
Learning objects offer a new level of functionality and efficiency to instruc-
tional design and delivery through technologically mediated learning en-
vironments. Learning objects offer instructional designers the opportunity
to create instructional elements (content segments, process instructions,
and affective exercises) in small parts that are reusable, scalable, and
adaptable in multiple and varied learning contexts (Wiley, 2001). A critical
design objective of learning objects is that the learner can generate per-
46 MOHAMED ALLY, MARTHA CLEVELAND-INNES, NATASHA BOSKIC,
and SANDRA LARWILL

sonalized meaning, apply the information in a real-life setting, and

achieve desired learning outcomes. In addition, learning outcomes should
be enhanced when learning objects are tied to the learning outcomes and
incorporated into the instructional design process overall (Ally, 2004).
Recent evidence supports improved outcomes in the form of retention and
pass rates when learning objects are integrated into higher education
curricula (Bradley & Boyle, 2004).
The generative character of learning objects is the focus of this research
(Gibbons, Nelson, & Richards, 2000; Parrish, 2004). Generativity refers to
the objects ability to present itself dynamically at the time of use.
Reusability rests on generativity: the flexible, adaptable application of
learning objects, which provides opportunity to accommodate varying
learners readability levels, language levels, and learning styles. An object
that has high generativity will probably be more adaptable because alter-
nate objects needed by learners in varied contexts can be changed more
easily.
At the same time as learning objects become more valuable through
increased flexibility and dynamism, learners can increase their inde-
pendent learning skills by using learning objects for their own purposes.
This opportunity is reflected in the call for change in education to support
lifelong learning.
The needs of an information- and technology-based global economy, the
complexities of modern life, the accelerated pace of change and the growing
demands for competent, high-skill performance in the workplace require
that we produce much higher numbers of individualswhether high
school, community college or four-year graduatesprepared to learn their
way through life. (Wingspread Group on Higher Education, 1993)

The development of continual learning occurs when learners become cog-

nizant, or explicitly aware, of their learning processes and the direct man-
agement of these processes. Learning object repositories appropriately
designed for varying delivery and accessibility modes (e.g., downloadable
for offline use, transferable to other electronic media for convenient access,
learners able to find the appropriate learning object with ease) can provide
this new level of learning engagement. This presumes that both
repositories and the learning objects themselves engage learners as active
agents (Evans, 2004), with opportunity to reflect on and manage their own
learning. Just as patrons browse a librarys collection of books, someone
looking for information, new knowledge, and solutions to problems
should be able to browse and access learning objects, contextualize the
information for personal meaning, and apply their new knowledge in real
life (Ally, 2004).
 LEARNERS USE OF LEARNING OBJECTS 47

This enhancement of learning objects to foster meta-learning for in-

dividuals who use them is readily available in multimedia-rich materials
(Laurillard, Stratfold, Luckin, Plowman, & Taylor, 2000). The opportunity
for self-directed search, retrieval, use, and reuse of learning objects can be
enhanced by embedding explicit direction in relation to learning within
and around the repositories and objects. Learning objects will go beyond
content dissemination wherever the learning process itself is made explicit
through learning object use.
It is the process of learning, not the technology, that enables and con-
strains what can and will be done with learning objects (Collis & Strijker,
2004). Simultaneous to the development of learning objects is the reinven-
tion of the role of learner. Learning objects, then, must embody instruc-
tional elements to foster understanding, facilitate the opportunity for self-
reflection, and support individual use of each object. Thus maximum
access and benefit of learning objects will be realized.

Method
How, then, would learning objects have to be created and tagged to
maximize self-directed use for individual learners? To begin to answer this
question, we collected learners accounts of their use of learning objects.
Learners were asked to work independently with learning objects and
outline their process of application of the object to the course objectives.
Three questions guided data collection and analysis: (a) For what reason(s)
do learners choose learning objects? (b) How do learners respond to and
use learning objects? (c) What is the likelihood that learners will return to
use learning objects and/or repositories again to sustain learning?

Participants
Participants in the course entitled Meeting Customer Needs in Online
Service Environments were employees at call centers and help desks in
organizations. Findings from Human Resource and Skill Development
Canada (HRSDC) confirmed that these employees must not only be able to
handle the technological aspects of their job, but also respond appropri-
ately to a variety of customers queries using good soft skills (MacLeod,
2000). Further training on soft skills was recommended for help desk
employees. However, traditional classroom-based workshops were not
convenient and efficient for all organizations. Two sections of an online
course were offered, one in fall 2003 and the second in winter 2004.
Forty-three people participated in the fall section and 57 in the winter
section. Participants had similar background experiences with technology
because they worked as technology support personnel, but the online
learning experience was new to all of them.
48 MOHAMED ALLY, MARTHA CLEVELAND-INNES, NATASHA BOSKIC,
and SANDRA LARWILL

Content
Content that had been developed by one of us for classroom use was
adapted for an online environment and modularized to promote flexibility
in learning and just-in-time training. The course addressed the following
topics:
Reviewing Customer-Service Agent Relationships;
Customer Service in Online Environments;
Relationship Building in Online Environments;
Customer Service in the Call Process.

Research Instruments
Survey of fixed-choice learning objects. Participants from both sections in both
pilots of this course were invited to participate in research on soft-skill
development and learner use of learning objects. Over the duration of the
course, they were directed to supplementary learning material in the form
of learning objects housed in the Digital Reading Room (DRR) at Athabas-
ca University. The learning object description included title, media type,
and overview of content. Participants were asked to choose material they
thought would interest them in relation to the course material and objec-
tives.
A pop-up survey with seven questions on reasons for choosing the
learning object appeared when participants clicked on a learning object. In
order to proceed to the learning object, they had to fill out and submit the
survey. Similarly, a pop-up questionnaire with three questions about the
extent to which expectations were met appeared when the interaction with
the learning object was completed. A total of 120 interactions between a
learner and a chosen learning object were catalogued during this phase of
the research process. Frequency results from each survey are summarized
and reported below.
Survey of free-choice learning objects. Additional data were collected in
the second pilot study. Learners were directed to other online repositories
that housed material appropriate to a customer-service course. Par-
ticipants were required to go to at least one of three repositories and
identify material of value in the development of a professional practice
model for customer service. They then completed an assessment of the
value of the repository and the object(s) chosen, one assessment for each
object.
The following questions structured the assessment:
1. Describe which Learning Object Repository you went to and what
you observed.
2. How useful was the repository for your purposes?
 LEARNERS USE OF LEARNING OBJECTS 49

3. Which learning objects did you choose?

4. What did you do with the learning object? (e.g., read, copy, print,
save, discuss, etc.)
5. What did you gain from the learning object?
6. Would you go back to this repository to look for learning objects?
Why or why not?
This assessment was made by participants in each of two sections of a
continuing education course on customer service in the second pilot run of
the course. Assessment forms were posted to the courses sites or e-mailed
to instructors. The assessment was not part of the course evaluation pro-
cess and was voluntary.
Data analysis for the study was conducted by two research assistants,
who were not directly involved in the delivery of the course. Qualitative
data analysis of the open-ended survey assessments was undertaken by
the two research assistants who used a process of open coding to identify
three themes: ease of use in terms of Web site navigation, relevance of
content to users needs, and learning activities that elicited transfer of
knowledge. These categories were further refined with a second coding
using an inductive approach to analyze the data more openly from the
learners perspective and experience. Coding proceeded with a constant
comparison method. Interrater reliability was calculated at 94%. Sub-
sequently, the findings were combined and are reported in relation to the
studys three research questions.

Findings
Data collected and summarized from two pilot studies are reported here.
We collected quantitative data from pre- and post-surveys about learning
objects in the Athabasca University DRR. Results identify learners reasons
for choice and reactions to the learning objects that had been chosen by
instructional design to be housed in the DRR. In the second pilot study, we
had participants also examine learning objects from open-access
repositories. Through qualitative data analysis, we identified the search
process and value placed on repositories and individual learning objects.
Findings from each pilot are presented separately under each of the three
research questions.

Use of Learning Objects from the DRR

The purpose of the pre- and post-surveys of learning objects from the DRR
was to identify why these learners chose particular learning objects and
how they responded to them. Participants were asked to go to the DRR, fill
out a pre-survey, use the learning object, and then provide an assessment
of how it met their expectations. To access a learning object, the par-
ticipants had to fill in a pre-survey. In all, 34 participants (13 in pilot 1 and
50 MOHAMED ALLY, MARTHA CLEVELAND-INNES, NATASHA BOSKIC,
and SANDRA LARWILL

21 in pilot 2) filled in pre-surveys. They ranged from those who reviewed

only one learning object to one participant who examined more than 10
objects. In total, 115 pre-surveys were completed. Their mean responses
are provided in Table 1.
Learners Search and Selection of Learning Objects
As is evident from Table 1, participants accessed the learning objects
because they were asked to do so. They expected the objects to increase
their knowledge and skill level, and the title and description of the object
influenced their choice of object only a small amount. Responses from
participants were not uniform across learning objects, suggesting in-
dividual attention was paid to each object and responses were made based
on their experience with the individual objects.
Learners Response and Use of Learning Objects
Only 24 participants chose to fill in the post-surveys. In pilot 2, the 14
participants completed 39 surveys for 13 of the 18 learning objects in the
inventory. The results are shown in Table 2. The means for Pilot 2 par-
ticipants were higher than those in Pilot 1, but overall the sense is that they
found the objects only somewhat beneficial to their learning.

Table 1
Pre-Survey Results

Pilot 1 Pilot 2

1. I chose this learning object because of the type of object, e.g., a Web 2.2 2.3
site, a document, an audio clip, etc.
2. I chose this learning object because of the title. 2.9 2.9
3. I chose this learning object because of the author. 0.9 1
4. I chose this learning object because of the description. 2.6 2.6
5. I chose this learning object for reasons other than the above. Please - -
specify:
6. I chose this learning object because I expect to increase my 3.3 3.3
knowledge on the topic indicated.
7. I chose this learning object because I expect to increase my skill level 3.1 3.2
in the area indicated.
Total number of participants 13 21
Total number of surveys 42 73
Number of learning objects evaluated 12 17

Responses scaled 1-4: (1) Not at all; (2) Only a small amount; (3) To some extent; (4) Definitely yes.
 LEARNERS USE OF LEARNING OBJECTS 51

Table 2
Post-Survey Results

Pilot 1 Pilot 2

1. I learned what I expected to learn from this learning object. 2.5 2.85
2. I found this resource beneficial to my learning. 2.4 2.7
3. This learning object was beneficial to this course. 2.5 2.9
Total number of participants 10 14
Total number of surveys 31 39
Number of learning objects evaluated 10 13

Likelihood of Return to Use Learning Objects Again

Data collected from participants use of learning objects in the DRR pro-
vide evidence that learners did engage with more than one learning object.
Most participants went beyond the minimal expectation and looked at a
number of learning objects. This suggests an interest in either the process
or the outcome of working with the learning object. Seven (20%) of the 34
participants evaluated only one learning object. However, 62% evaluated
two to five objects, and 18% evaluated six to 10 learning objects. Most were
willing without requirement to examine a number of the learning objects
offered.

Open Learning Object Repository Evaluation

The purpose of the open learning object repository evaluation was: (a) to
explore learners motivations for searching through a repository and
selecting learning objects, and (b) to identify learners perceptions of a
quality repository.
Participants were invited to select and evaluate learning objects from at
least one of three learning object repositories for customer-service-related
learning objects. In all, 16 participants completed this task. Two chose to
review Edusplash, three chose CanLOM Knowledge Agora, and 11 inves-
tigated the Wisconsin Online Resource Center.
Learners Search and Selection of Learning Objects
Meeting learning objectives. Learners chose a repository of objects based on
how well the repository appeared to meet their immediate learning needs.
Participants responses varied from not meeting their purposes at all to
providing the learner with a better understanding of relationships and
encounters with their customers. For a few participants, external require-
ments were cited as the main reason, as identified in the following
participants responses.
52 MOHAMED ALLY, MARTHA CLEVELAND-INNES, NATASHA BOSKIC,
and SANDRA LARWILL

As I was doing this at work between calls (shhh!) and had limited time, I
browsed through only the first page, which left me with three potentially
viable results

Because I was told than it will help me learn.

Others gave responses that indicated more internal personal motivators,

for example, to explore and search for knowledge that would help them in
their current or future workplace.
Learners Response and Use of Learning Objects
New knowledge. Participants demonstrated acquisition of new knowledge
through evaluation of the selected repositories, as evident in the following
participants comments.
I learned a new tool to use with the customer/clients I speak with.

I learned some of the differences between interactions and encounters

with customers, how they are different and some of the reasons why.

A new perspective of looking at others inside our own organization as

being internal customers.

Participants acknowledged the realization of differences between relation-

ships and encounters, new perspectives, insights, application to job con-
text, and value for service quality and positive customer relationships.
Knowledge transfer to memory: Making connections. Participants re-
sponses indicated evidence of enriching their existing knowledge base and
reinforcing current job tasks regarding customer service concepts. For
example, respondents commented:
Our services do not come cheap so we should be giving our best for our
customers regardless of any difficulties.

The most interesting part of this learning object was the fact that I recog-
nized most of the slang, and that I use some of it at work on work orders.

Reminders of how important the relationship is with the customer in every

detail of what we do as CSRs everyday.

Learning activity/actionActive, passive. Overall, participants were pas-

sive in their learning activity action. Twelve participants read through the
repository and/or learning object(s). One of the 12 participants read and
printed the learning object for further use. Three participants engaged in
active learning activity through discussions with colleagues, four com-
 LEARNERS USE OF LEARNING OBJECTS 53

pleted quizzes and exercises, and at least one applied the information to
tasks at work.
Likelihood of Return to Use Learning Objects and/or Repositories Again
Information. Extensive information is not of value if the content is not
relevant to the learner; some participant feedback indicates that an object
should be transparent in content, with specific information that is easy to
understand (lay terms), with hands-on examples and exercises, and is
user-friendly. For example,
I found that it was easy to follow and quite informative and user-friendly.

There are a lot of great resources for teachers, and I personally think a ton of
great resources for ESL teachers perhaps one day I would return for the
ESL purposes.

Most participants expressed willingness to return to the repositories

and explore more on their own if time and circumstances permitted. Some
participants also indicated that the repositories served as a reference point
to further discuss customer service topics with colleagues and serve as an
ongoing job aid in helping learners to transform their everyday tasks,
working relationships, and attitudes with customers as expressed by one
participant, Yes I would, because it made me think about things I do
every day, and as I have said above, how would I change my attitude.

Discussion
Analysis of learner activity and response indicates that selection of learn-
ing objects and learning object repositories is based on learners personal
needs and expectations for satisfying learning outcomes desired. The data
support the argument that learning object tags and intrinsic motivation are
important driving forces in the selection, use, and reuse of learning object
repositories and objects. To some extent, learners used the title of the
learning objects to decide whether to view and learn from a learning
object. This may be similar to the title of a book or article; this is the first
decision point when deciding to read it or not. Careful attention to the
relationship between title and the learning potential of the object may
result in more satisfactory searches for appropriate learning objects.
The type of learning object (print, audio, video, etc.) was not an impor-
tant criterion for deciding whether to select and work with learning ob-
jects. Learners were more interested in the content than the format.
Participants engaged in free choice of any learning objects that they felt
related to their work. This suggests the value of practical, application-
focused information as a characteristic of learning objects. In order to
develop learning objects that are learner-centered, self-directing, and pro-
54 MOHAMED ALLY, MARTHA CLEVELAND-INNES, NATASHA BOSKIC,
and SANDRA LARWILL

vide active, continual learning, the following design criteria are recom-
mended: (a) have clearly identified learning objectives for the specific
learning objects and represent these in the title; (b) take into consideration
learners engagement; and (c) design active learning activities that elicit
transfer of knowledge, knowledge construction, and the likelihood of
reusability.

Conclusion
The integration of existing research, data analysis and interpretation sug-
gest the following general conclusions. Learners require search informa-
tion that is easy to understand. Their engagement is the keystone of any
teaching-learning transaction; learning objects should provide active
learning through hands-on activities and examples. As with all adult
learning, learning objects should be relevant to applications that support
work-related or personal goals. Accessibility and learner engagement in
an object are important to learning. Identifying learning objectives in the
search mechanisms of the objects so that learners can easily see the
relevance of content to their needs will facilitate satisfaction with the
search process and the use of the object. This supports knowledge transfer
and the potential for reuse when knowledge transfer is incomplete.
These characteristics of the learning object search and the capacity for
engagement influence the following outcomes. Learners are more likely to
return to the repository and the object where these features exist and more
likely to assign value to the repository and the object. These features will
affect the extent to which the learner contextualizes and applies informa-
tion. There is potential for the generation of new knowledge under these
conditions.
Participants accessed the learning objects because they were asked to
do so. However, most participants looked at a number of learning objects,
not just one. This suggests an interest in either the process or the outcome
of working with the learning object.
Much research on learning objects has focused on tagging and design-
ing learning objects (Hamel & Ryan-Jones, 2002; Krauss & Ally, 2005;
Metros, 2005; Petrinjak & Graham, 2005; Quinn, 2000). This research
bridged the gap in the research by looking at learners experience with
learning objects and their behavior when accessing them. Results from this
study have many implications for educators who design and tag learning
objects.
Learning objects must be designed with the learner in focus so that
learners can access the objects easily and benefit from them. In course
development, learning objects must be tied to course learning outcomes so
that the learning experience relates back to the course (Ally, 2004). Also,
 LEARNERS USE OF LEARNING OBJECTS 55

learning objects must be designed for access as required and for im-
mediate application. As indicated in this study, learners select learning
objects that are related to the courses they are taking and to their current
job.
Learning objects must be tagged properly to facilitate ease of access by
learners and to provide learners with enough information to decide
whether to work through a learning object. For the learners in this study,
the title of the learning object was one criterion for deciding whether to
retrieve and complete it. The title must reflect the content of the learning
object and must be inviting.
The learners motivation level must be taken into consideration when
developing learning objects. Perhaps various types of learning objects
should be developed for varying motivation levels. For example, learners
who are not motivated in a subject area could be prescribed a learning
object to help them connect to the course content. This could motivate
them to access other learning objects that are related to a course.
This studys findings are limited to the group that participated in the
study: customer service agents in a call center environment. This group
has highly developed computer skills, and people in this occupation are
accustomed to working independently with customers. Given the higher
number of participants who completed pre- rather than post-surveys,
results may have been biased by the requirement to complete surveys
participants could neither reach the learning object nor close their browser
without responding to the survey. This may have resulted in rushed,
careless responses. Voluntary participation in the learning object assess-
ment means the most interested and motivated were engaged; the general
population might have found the repositories less engaging.
Research on learners use of learning objects is currently limited. This
study advanced current research and points toward more research needed
in the following areas.
1. How much do learners transfer from the experience with the learning
objects to practical, on the job situations?
2. Do learners with varying learning styles access varied learning ob-
jects, and what are their experiences with the learning objects?
3. How can learning objects be embedded with intelligence to adapt to
learners needs?

References
Ally, M. (2004). Designing effective learning objects for distance education. In R. McGreal
(Ed.), Online education using learning objects (pp. 87-97). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Bradley, C., & Boyle, T. (2004, December). Students use of learning objects. Interactive
Multimedia Electronic Journal of computer-Enhanced Learning, 6(2). Retrieved March 22,
2005, from: http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2004/2/01/index.asp
56 MOHAMED ALLY, MARTHA CLEVELAND-INNES, NATASHA BOSKIC,
and SANDRA LARWILL

Cleveland-Innes, M., & & Ally, M. (2004). Affective learning outcomes in workplace
training: A test of synchronous vs. asynchronous online learning environments.
Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education (CJUCE), 30(1), 15-35.
Cleveland-Innes, M., McGreal, R., Anderson, T., Friesen, N., Ally, M., Graham, R., Moisey,
S., et al. (2005). Athabasca University eduSource project: Building an accessible learning
object repository. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(5), 367-381
Collis, B., & Strijker, A. (2004, May). Technology and human issues in reusing learning
objects. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 4. Special Issue on the Educational
Semantic Web. Retrieved January 27, 2005, from:
http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2004/4/
Evans, T. (2004, May). Commentary on: Collis, B., & Strijker, A. (2004). Technology and
human issues in reusing learning objects. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 4.
Retrieved January 27, 2005, from:
http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2004/4/evans-2004-4.pdf
Friesen, N. (2001). What are educational objects? Retrieved January 4, 2005, from:
http://www.careo.org/documents/objects.html
Gibbons, A.S., Nelson, J., & Richards, R. (2000). The nature and origin of instructional objects.
Retrieved July 2005 from: http://www.reusability.org/read/chapters/gibbons.doc
Hamel, C., & Ryan-Jones, D. (2002). Designing instruction with learning objects.
International Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1).
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, 1-22.
Laurillard, D., Stratfold, M., Luckin, R., Plowman, L. & Taylor, J. (2000, August).
Affordances for learning in a non-linear narrative medium. Journal of Interactive Media in
Education, 2. Retrieved April 28, 2005, from:
http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/00/2/laurillard-00-2-t.html
Metros, S.E. (2005). Visualizing knowledge in new educational environments: A course on
learning objects. Open Learning, 2(1), 93-102.
MacLeod, A. (2000). The importance of soft skills in the current Canadian labour market. Ottawa:
Sectoral and Occupational Studies, HRDC.
Parrish, P.E. (2004). The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 52(1), 49-67.
Petrinjak, A., & Graham, R. (2005). Creating learning objects from pre-authored course
materials: Semantic structure of learning objectsDesign and technology. Canadian
Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(3), 33-46.
Quinn,C (2000). Learning objects and instructional components. Educational Technology and
Society, 3(2), 13-20.
Wiley, D.A. (2001). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition,
a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects:
Online version. Retrieved May 6, 2003, from:
http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc
Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American Imperative: Higher expectations
for higher education. Retrieved April 23, 2005, from:
http://www.johnsonfdn.org/AmericanImperative/members.html

Mohamed Ally is an associate professor in the Centre for Distance Education at Athabasca
University. He has published in many journals, written chapters in books, and presented
papers at national and international conferences. His current research interests are in the
 LEARNERS USE OF LEARNING OBJECTS 57

use of mobile technology in distance education, learning in the workplace, and providing
support to distance learners. He can be reached at [email protected].
Martha Cleveland-Innes is an associate professor in the Center for Distance Education at
Athabasca University and teaches in the Master of Distance Education Program. She has
received several awards for her work on the student experience in online environments and
holds a major research grant through the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council. Current research interests are in the area of leadership in distance
education, disciplinary differences in online higher education, and emotional presence in
online communities of inquiry. She can be reached at [email protected].
Natasha Boskic is an educational technology manager in the office of External Programs
and Learning Technologies (EPLT) in the Faculty of Education at the University of British
Columbia (UBC), Vancouver. Her main work is in instructional design and faculty training
in online learning. Her specific focus is on online collaborative and communication tools,
student engagement, and various delivery models. Natasha has managed various projects
in the area of e-learning in Canada and internationally. She received her undergraduate
degree in English language and literacy in the University of Novi Sad, Yugoslavia (now
Serbia), and her Masters in Distance Education from Athabasca University. She can be
reached at [email protected].
Sandra Larwill is an academic manager with Algonquin College, School of Part-Time
Studies, Ottawa. She oversees the development and management of the schools Distance
Education and Health Studies programs. Sandra is currently a graduate student of the
Masters in Distance Education (MDE) program, Athabasca University. Research interests
include the enrichment of learning through education technology, distance education
program management, and adult education fostering educational and social reform. She
can be reached at [email protected].