You are here:

Principles of Sustainable Learning Object Libraries

, , , , University of Nebraska-Lincoln, United States

IJELLO Volume 1, Number 1, ISSN 1552-2237 Publisher: Informing Science Institute


As the effectiveness of learning objects in enhancing education becomes better understood, it will be critical to more fully develop the predictive characteristics of learning object usage by diverse instructors and their long-term sustainability in learning object repositories. Additionally, the ad- vancement of scholarship in these endeavors – a critical factor for faculty to consider – has frequently been overlooked. In this paper we explore these issues by examining the technical and human aspects of The Library of Crop Technology ( and other repository models. While studies have been conducted to research the impacts of animations on student learning, teacher perceptions of such learning objects have not been examined. An online survey instrument was created and sent to those who had downloaded animations from the Library of Crop Technology. Data collected indicated that educational, animated, learning objects are an effective and sustainable means of meeting a wide array of educator needs. This study identified a template of science content, organization, creation of interest in the topic, visual appeal, effectiveness for teaching a topic, and ease of use as being important to the overall teacher perception of the learning object’s quality. The very positive evaluation received from the users, coupled with their indication of returning to the site multiple times and recommending it to their colleagues, further suggests that the public repository is a model to continue pursuing. An important, but often overlooked, concept in the development of repositories is the dynamics of long term sustainability and scholarly contributions. A second study researched team development and institutional commitments which play a role in the long term stability of this learning object repository. A model integrating team development, institutional commitments, learning object development and scholarship recognition is proposed.


Namuth, D., Fritz, S., King, J. & Boren, A. (2005). Principles of Sustainable Learning Object Libraries. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 1(1), 181-196. Informing Science Institute. Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Armstrong, D., & Cole, P. (1995). Managing distance and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In S.E. Jackson& M.N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams. Washington, DC: APA.
  2. Burns, C. (1994). Innovative team building: Synergistic human resource development. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 22(1), 39-48.
  3. Deutsch, M. (1949). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group process. Human Relations, 11, 199-231.
  4. Dwyer, F.M. (1987). Enhancing visualized instruction– Recommendations for practitioners. State College, PA: Learning Services.
  5. Edwards, R. (1999). The academic department: How does it fit into the university reform agenda? Change, 31(5), 17-27.
  6. Feenstra, G., Ingels, C., Campbell, D., Chaney, D., George, M., & Bradford. (1997). What is sustainable agriculture? Retrieved Sept 13, 2005 from
  7. Frost, S.H., & Gillespie, T.W. (1998). Organizations, culture and teams: Links toward genuine change. New Directions for Institutional Research, 100, 5-15.
  8. Gammage, K.L., Carron, A.V., & Estabrooks, P.A. (2001). Team cohesion and individual productivity: The influence of the norm for productivity and the identifiably of individual effort. Small Group Research, 32(1), 3-18.
  9. Gersick, C.J.G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 274-309.
  10. Hart, R.K., & McLeod, P.L. (2003). Rethinking team building in geographically dispersed teams. Organizational Dynamics, 34(1), 352-361.
  11. Janz, B.D., Colquitt, J.A., & Noe, R.A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 877-904.
  12. Katzenbach, J.R., & Smith, D.K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  13. Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J.N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 57-80). Cambridge, MA:
  14. Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.
  15. Kozma, R. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 26(1), 1-14.
  16. Leholm, A., Hamm, L., Suvedi, M., Gray, I., & Poston, F. (1999). Area of expertise teams: The Michigan approach to applied research and extension. Journal of Extension, 37(3). Retrieved September 29, 2003, from
  17. Markwell, J., & Brooks, D. (2003) “Link rot” limits the usefulness of web-based educational materials in biochemistry and molecular biology. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 31(1), 69-72.
  18. Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87-99.
  20. McKenzie, R.B., & Lee, D.R. (1998). Managing through incentives: How to develop a more collaborative, productive and profitable organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
  21. Meyers, B., Meyers, J., & Gelzheiser, L. (2001). Observing leadership roles in shared decision making: A preliminary analysis of three teams. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(4), 277-312.
  22. Morgan, B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of General Psychology, 120(3), 277-291.
  23. Park, O., & Gittelman, S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 27-38.
  24. Park, O., & Gittelman, S.S. (1995). Dynamic characteristics of mental models and dynamic visual displays. Instructional Science, 23(5-6), 303-320.
  25. Proehl, R. (2000). Cross-functional teams: An innovation or just another committee? Higher Education Management, 11(3), 55-71.
  26. Schaffer, S.P., & Douglas, I. (2004). Integrating knowledge, performance, and learning objects. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 11-19.
  27. Spector, M. (2002). Knowledge management tools for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 37-46.
  28. Scholtes, P.R. (1991). The team handbook. Madison, WI: Joiner.
  29. Schrage, M. (1995). No more teams! Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration. New York: Currency Doubleday.
  30. Sicilia, M.A., & Garcia, E. (2003). On the concepts of usability and reusability of learning objects. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved September 13, 2005 from
  31. Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K.K., Huang, W.W., & Ng, G.N. (2000). A dialogue technique to enhance electronic communication in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication, 43(2), 153-165.
  32. Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.
  33. Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145180.
  34. Waxman, H., Lin, M., & Michko, G. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved July 22, 2004, from Or
  35. Younglove-Webb, J., Gray, B., Abdalla, C.W., & Thurow, A.P. (1999). The dynamics of multidisciplinary research teams in academia. The Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 425-440.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Learning from Online Modules in Diverse Instructional Contexts

    Gwen Nugent, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, United States; Amy Kohmetscher & Deana Namuth-Covert, Ohio State University, United States; John Guretzky, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, United States; Patrick Murphy, Agricultural Product Storage, United States; DoKyoung Lee, University of Illinois, United States

    E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2015 (Oct 19, 2015) pp. 872–877

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact