You are here:

Evaluating the Use of Learning Objects for Secondary School Science
Article

, , University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), Canada

JCMST Volume 26, Number 4, ISSN 0731-9258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

A learning object is an interactive web-based tool that supports learning by enhancing, amplifying, and guiding the cognitive processes of a learner. To date, no formal research has been done on the use of learning objects in secondary school science classrooms. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of learning objects developed for high school students in areas of biology, chemistry, or physics. The evaluation metric used to assess the benefits and quality of learning objects was theoretically sound, reliable, and partially validated. Two thirds of the students stated they benefited from using the learning object. Teachers confirmed that learning objects were beneficial to student learning and that they would use them again. Students benefited more if they were comfortable with computers, the content was perceived as being useful, instructions were clear, and the theme was fun or motivating. Students appreciated the motivating, hands-on, and visual qualities of the learning objects most. Computer comfort and learning object type, but not gender, were significantly related to learning object quality and benefit.

Citation

Kay, R. & Knaack, L. (2007). Evaluating the Use of Learning Objects for Secondary School Science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 261-289. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 10, 2024 from .

© 2007 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Agostinho, S., Bennett, S., Lockyear, L., & Harper, B. (2004). Developing a learning object metadata application profi le based on LOM suitable for the Australian higher education market. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 191-208.
  2. Akpan, J. (2002). Which comes fi rst: Computer simulation of dissection or a traditional laboratory practical method of dissection. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(4). Retrieved July, 1, 2006, from http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/akpan2.pdf
  3. Albanese, M.A., & Mitchell, S.A. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52-81.
  4. Andaloro, G., & Bellomonte, L. (1998). Student knowledge and learning skills modeling in the learning environment “forces.” Computers and Education, 30(3-4), 209-217.
  5. Azvedo, R., Winters, F.I., & Moos, D.C. (2004). Can students collaboratively use hypermedia to learn science? The dynamics of self-and other-regulatory processes in an ecology classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 215-245.
  6. Baker, E.L., Gearhart, M., & Herman, J.L. (1994). Evaluating the Apple classrooms of tomorrow(SM). In E.L. Baker& H.F.O’Neil, Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 173-198). Hillsdale, NJ:
  7. Bartlett, A. (2002). Preparing preservice teachers to implement performance assessment and technology through electronic portfolios. Action in Teacher Evaluating the Use of Learning Objects for Secondary School Science 281
  8. Bodzin, A. (1997). Incorporating the worldwide web in the science classroom. The Electronic Journal of Science Education, 1(3).
  9. Bradley, C., & Boyle, T. (2004). The design, development, and use of multimedia learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 371-389.
  10. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duiguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
  11. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K , Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M.,
  12. Stock, L., & Sutton, J. (2003). Integrating technology in a fi eld-based teacher training program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51(1), 57-73.
  13. Bullock, D. (2004). Moving from theory to practice: An examination of the factors that preservice teachers encounter as the attempt to gain experience teaching with technology during fi eld placement experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 211-237.
  14. Carroll, J.B. (1990). The Nurnberg funnel. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  15. Cepni, S., Tay, E., & Kase, S. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted material on students’ cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes towards science. Computers and Education, 46(2), 192-205.
  16. Chang, C.Y. (2004). Could a laptop computer plus the liquid crystal display projector amount to improved multimedia geoscience instruction? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(1), 4-10.
  17. Chang, K.E., Sung, Y.T., & Chen, S.F. (2001). Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 21-33.
  18. ChanLin, L. (2001). Formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computerbased lesson. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 409-419.
  19. Chen, A., Mashhadi, A., Ang, D., & Harkrider, N. (1999). Cultural issues in the design of technology-enhanced learning systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 217-230.
  20. Chiu, C.H. (2002). The effects of collaborative teamwork on secondary science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 262-271.
  21. Christensen, R.W., & Knezek, G.A. (2000). Internal consistency reliabilities for 14 computer attitude scales. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 327-336.
  22. Cochrane, T. (2005). Interactive QuickTime: Developing and evaluating multimedia learning objects to enhance both face-to-face and distance e-learning environments. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 33-54. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://ijklo.org/Volume1/V1p033-054Cochrane.pdf
  23. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  24. Compton, V., & Harwood, C. (2003). Enhancing technological practice: An assessment framework for technology education in New Zealand. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(1), 1-26.
  25. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  26. Denis, B., & Hubert, S. (2001). Collaborative learning in an educational robotics environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(5-6), 465-480.
  27. Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 342-361.
  28. Downes, S. (2001). Learning objects: Resources for distance education worldwide. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/ Article/view/32/81
  29. Durndell, A., & Haag, Z. (2002). Computer self effi cacy, computer anxiety, attitude towards the internet and reported experience with the internet, by gender, in an east European sample. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18(5), 521-535.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. Germann, P., & Sasse, C. (1997). Variations in concerns and attitudes of science teachers in an educational technology development program. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(2), 405-423.
  33. Hanna, L., Risden, K., Czerwinski, M., & Alexander, K.J. (1999). The role of usability in designing children’s computer products. In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children’s technology. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
  34. Hennessy, S. (2000). Graphing investigations using portable (palmtop) technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(3), 243-258.
  35. Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: A case study on students’ understanding of trajectory motion. Computers and Education, 36(2), 183-204.
  36. Kay, R.H. (1992). An analysis of methods used to examine gender differences in computer-related behaviour. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(3), 323-336.
  37. Kay, R.H. (2006). Addressing gender differences in computer ability, attitudes, and use: The laptop effect. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 187-211.
  38. Kay, R.H., & Knaack, L. (2005). Developing learning objects for secondary school students: A multi-component model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 229-254. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p229-254Kay_Knaack.pdf Kay, R.H. & Knaack, L. (2007). Evaluating the learning in learning objects. Open Learning, 22(1), 5-28.
  39. Kennedy, D.M., & McNaught, C. (1997). Design elements for interactive multimedia. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 1-22.
  40. 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 refl ective decision-making of preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(1), 13-31.
  41. Kiboss, K.L., Ndirangu, M., & Wekesa, E.W. (2004). Effectiveness of a computer-mediated simulations program in school biology on pupils’ learning outcomes in cell theory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 207-213.
  42. Kozma, R.B. (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change. A global perspective. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
  43. Kulik, J.A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of fi ndings on computer-based instruction. In E.L. Baker& H.F.O’Neile, Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  44. Larkin, J.H. (1989). What kind of knowledge transfers? In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 283-305). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  45. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Liu, M., Hsieh, P., Cho, Y. & Schallert, D. (2006). Middle school students’ selfeffi cacy, attitudes, and achievement in a computer-enhanced problem-based learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(3), 225284 Kay and Knaack
  47. Looi, C.K., & Ang, D. (2000). A multimedia-enhanced collaborative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(1), 2-14.
  48. MacKinnon, G., & Forsythe, T. (2002). The tension between hypertext environments and science learning. The Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(3). Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/Mackinnonetal.pdf
  49. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A.W., & Jong, T. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative scientifi c inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 87-98.
  50. Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., & Kottkamp, R. (1999). West Virginia’s basic skills/computer education program: An analysis of student achievement. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
  51. Mesarch, M.A., Meyer, S.J., & Gosselin, D.C. (2000). A fl exible K-12 weather data collection and education program. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5(1). Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/mesarchetal.html
  52. McGreal, R. (2004). Learning objects: A practical defi nition. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(9). Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_04/article02.htm
  53. McRobbie, C.J., Ginns, I.S., & Stein, S.J. (2000). Preservice primary teachers’ thinking about technology and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(1), 81-101.
  54. Metros, S.E. (2005). Visualizing knowledge in new educational environments: A course on learning objects. Open Learning, 20(1), 93-102.
  55. Muir-Herzig, R.G. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers and Education, 42(2), 111-131.
  56. Parrish, P.E. (2004). The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology Research& Development, 52(1), 49-67.
  57. Penuel, W.R., Tatar, D.G., & Roschelle, J. (2004). The role of research on contexts of teaching practice in informing the design of handheld learning technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 353-370.
  58. Plante, J., & Beattie, D. (2004). Education, skills and learning—Research papers connectivity and ICT integration in Canadian elementary and secondary schools: First results from the 5nformation and communications technologies in schools survey, 2003-2004. Statistics Canada. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/81-595-MIE/81-595MIE2004017.pdf
  59. Poland, R., Baggott LaVelle, L., & Nichol, J. (2003). The virtual fi eld station (VFS): Using a virtual reality environment for ecological fi eldwork in A-level biological studies– case study 3. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), Evaluating the Use of Learning Objects for Secondary School Science 285
  60. Polsani, P.R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital Information, 3(4). Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/jodi-105/88
  61. Robertson, H. (2003). Toward a theory of negativity: Teacher education and information and communications technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 280-296.
  62. Rodrigues, S. (2006). Pedagogic practice integrating primary science and elearning: The need for relevance, recognition, resource, refl ection, readiness and risk. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(2), 175-189.
  63. Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation—A bridge between theory and reality: The case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(1), 14-26.
  64. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.
  65. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge building communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  66. Sedig, K., & Liang, H (2006). Interactivity of visual mathematical representations: Factors affecting learning and cognitive processes. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 179-212.
  67. Shapka, J.D., & Ferrari, M. (2003). Computer-related attitudes and actions of teacher candidates. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19(3), 319-334.
  68. Sivin-Kachala, J. (1998). Report on the effectiveness of technology in school, 1990-1997. Washington, DC: Software Publisher’s Association.
  69. Solomonidou, C., & Stavridou, H. (2001). Design and development of a computer learning environment on the basis of students’ initial conceptions and learning diffi culties about chemical equilibrium. Education and Information Technologies, 6(1), 5-27.
  70. Solvberg, A. (2002). Gender differences in computer-related control beliefs and home computer use. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(4), 410-426.
  71. Sternberg, R.J. (1989). Domain-generality versus domain-specifi city: The life and impending death of a false dichotomy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35(1), 115-130.
  72. Stolarchuk, E., & Fisher, D. (2001). An investigation of teacher-student interpersonal behavior in science classrooms using laptop computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1), 41-55.
  73. Strudler, N., Archambault, L., Bendixen, L., Anderson, D., & Weiss, R. (2003). Project THREAD: Technology helping restructure educational access and delivery. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 39-54.
  74. Tatar, D., & Robinson, M. (2003). Use of digital camera to increase student interest and learning in high school biology. Journal of Science Education 286 Kay and Knaack
  75. Thomas, G., & McRobbie, C. (2000). Epistemological and contextual issues in the use of microcomputer-based laboratories in a year 11 chemistry classroom. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19(2), 137160.
  76. Thomas, G.P., Man-Wai, P.F., & Po-keung, E.T. (2004). Students’ perceptions of early experiences with microcomputer-based laboratories (MBL). British Journal of Educational Technology, 35 of Educational Technology, 35 of Educational Technology (5), 669-671.
  77. Thompson, A.D., Schmidt, D.A., & Davis, N.E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 73-89.
  78. Trumper, R. (1997). Learning kinematics with a v-scope: A case study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(1), 91-110.
  79. Tsai, C.C., Lin, S.S.J., & Yuan, S.M. (2001). Students’ use of web-based concept map testing and strategies for learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 72-84.
  80. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  81. Waxman, H.C., Connell, M.L., & Gray, J. (2002). A quantitative synthesis of recent research on the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Laboratory.
  82. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  83. Wepner, S.B., Ziomek, N., & Tao L. (2003). Three teacher educators’ perspectives about the shifting responsibilities of infusing technology into the curriculum. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 53-63.
  84. Whitley, B.E., Jr. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(1), 1-22.
  85. Wiley, D.A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A defi nition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects: Online version. Retrieved July, 1, 2006, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc Wiley, D., Wayers, S., Dawson, D., Lambert, B., Barclay, M., & Wade, D. (2004). Overcoming the limitations of learning objects. Journal of Educa DASHDASH
  86. Wishart, J., & Blease, D. (1999). Theories underlying perceived changes in teaching and learning after installing a computer network in a secondary school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30 Journal of Educational Technology, 30 Journal of Educational Technology (1), 25-41.
  87. Woodrow, J.E.J., Mayer-Smith, J., & Pedretti, E.G. (2000). Assessing technology enhanced instruction: A case study in secondary science. Journal of Educa-288 Kay and Knaack

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

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