Five-Step Procedure for the Selection of Learning Objects


Keren Meister-Emerich, Ed. D.
Walden University
USA
k.meister@bresnan.net


Abstract: Instructional design concepts were applied to develop a five-step procedure to analyze
and evaluate the quality and usefulness of publisher supplied and/or publically available learning
objects. Instructional design theory and two specific evaluation techniques (Learning Object
Review Instrument and the Quality Matters Rubric) were combined to identify steps in the
procedure. The procedure is explained in the context of an online introductory statistics course.


Introduction

Wiley (2000), defines a learning object as “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning” (p.
7). For faculty course developers, learning objects may be used to provide remedial or pre-requisite content,
expanded content, and/or opportunities to supplement instruction. Many faculty developers do not have the
resources (time, money, or technical expertise) to create an extensive collection of support materials, but they can
incorporate, or reuse, existing learning objects in their courses.

Publishers try to enhance their offerings by including “a wide range of ancillaries – study guides, practice
books, enrichment supplements, test, transparencies, CDs, videos, workshops for teachers” (Reys & Reys, 2006, p.
381). For example, introductory statistics texts may include chapters or supplements on linear regression, non-
parametric statistics, quality control, use of TI-83 calculator, use of Excel, or experimental design in an attempt to
broaden the potential market. Publishers may provide instructors with content to support the course or even content
ready to load to a Learning Management System (LMS), such as Blackboard, Web-CT, or Angel. Text supplements
(web sites, CD_ROMs) and learning objects available from the MERLOT web site were analyzed and evaluated.
Many instructors rely on the ancillary content accompanying the selected text for the course and assume it is
valuable and relevant.

With all the publisher supplied content loaded, the instructor may feel the course has high quality.
However, a review of the publisher’s content may reveal poorly designed content, inaccurate content, or irrelevant
content. Some of the ancillary content, such as problem solution techniques, may be useful to students, but other
ancillary information, such as a list of professional organizations, may not be. Unfortunately, some of the available
content contains errors.

Need for Evaluation

In an interview, Carol Twigg, Executive Director of the Center for Academic Transformation at Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, noted “we need to be much more aggressive in evaluating learning materials” (Veronikas &
Shaughnessy, 2006, para. 12). Publishers may include comments about the quality and usefulness of ancillary
materials, but without access to the original data, or an independent evaluation, the comments may be little more
than advertizing hype. The learning objects available from the MERLOT web site include an evaluation of the
“Quality of Content, Potential Effectiveness as a Teaching-Learning Tool”, and “Ease of Use” (MERLOT, n. d.).
Although a learning object may be designated as a quality one, have potential for use in a course, and be easy to use,
it may not be appropriate for a specific course. The rating done by a repository may be too vague for use in selecting
learning objects for a specific course.

- 534 -