LEARNING OBJECTS, PEDAGOGY AND MOTIVATION
Dr Bill Tait
Associate Teaching Fellow
COLMSCT
The Open University
wht4@tutor.open.ac.uk
Abstract
Learning objects are widely available on the Internet
and easily discoverable in web searches. They are
designed to be reusable in different contexts, with
consequent advantages for teaching and learning,
but there are a number of problems associated with
their reuse. These are mainly regarded as being due
to pedagogical issues but it may be that motivation
is also involved. The paper develops a theory of
object pedagogy and adapts a motivational teaching
model to the software learning environment. It
describes how these principles were applied to the
design of tutorial learning objects for an
undergraduate course on programming.
The
tutorials were made available online to tutors and
students and the resulting feedback was evaluated
in terms of the pedagogy and the motivational
factors.
Keywords
Learning, objects, pedagogy, motivation.
Learning Objects
Learning objects (IEEE, 2002. Wiley, 2002) are
nowadays mainly defined as online learning
resources. They are widely available in a large
number of searchable repositories (e.g. CAREO,
2007, MERLOT, 2007, MIT, 2007, Intute, 2007,
Connexions, 2007) and, if they are designed to be
reusable, they offer a number of advantages for
teaching and learning. Of these, the most frequently
quoted is that existing resources tend to cost less to
develop than the expensive alternative
of custom designed courseware. And there are
other advantages. They can speed up the process
of course development. They are often multimedia
objects that are motivating to learners and difficult to
obtain from other sources. And, perhaps the most
important advantage is that they produce a modular
programme that is easily updated.
However, there appear to be some problems
associated with the reuse of learning objects and a
number of authors have expressed concerns in this
respect (e.g. Jones, 2004, Friesen, 2004, Hedberg,
2006). The main issue seems to be with pedagogy
but preliminary work on the present project has
indicated that motivation may also be a problem.
Reusability
It is the need for reusability that determines the
pedagogies of learning objects. In general, it
requires that three criteria are met. One is that the
object should represent a well defined topic or
learning objective so that it is clear what it covers
and, therefore, replaces in the context to which it is
imported. This is often described as high internal
cohesion (Boyle, 2003), or abstraction, since it
abstracts a specific learning objective.
Another requirement is that the object must have a
minimal dependence on its context so that replacing
it has no repercussions in other parts of the course.
This is sometimes described as loose coupling, or
encapsulation, since it effectively encapsulates the
object from its surroundings.
The third criterion relates to the implementation of
the object, that is, how it actually delivers the
learning objective. This includes a learning activity,
such as those defined by the IMS consortium (IMS,
2003), the learning content and the presentation,
which all contribute to the reusability of the object in
any given context.
The aim of this study was to design tutorial learning
objects for use within a particular course context in
such a way that they would be fully reusable by all
the tutors in the course. Hopefully the outcome
should also inform the design of objects for more
general deployment in repositories. In particular, the
objective was to examine the possibility of using
XML technology for this purpose by allowing tutors
to adapt the learning activity to their own needs.
Abstraction
The most obvious property that affects the
pedagogy of an object is abstraction. This defines
the topic to be covered and is usually expressed in
terms of its learning objective. The object may
range from a complete course unit to a discussion
topic or just a single illustration, so its size and
complexity are quite variable. However, an even
more important and related property is its entry
requirements. As illustrated in Figure 1, these are
determined by the learning outcomes that are
assumed to have been achieved in earlier stages of
the course. If the size and entry requirements of an
imported object are not similar to those of the
material that is being replaced, its own objective is
unlikely to be met and the cohesion of the treatment
will be impaired. In pedagogical terms, the imported
object may not match the planned sequence of
knowledge construction.
to the final stages where an advanced and therefore
fully authentic application can be developed.
Encapsulation disallows this strategy and so limits
the extent to which the constructivist principle of
authenticity (Brown, 1989) can be met. Objects have
to redevelop the entire application from first
principles. Whether good or bad, this is
characteristic object pedagogy. The alternative is to
add internal content links to the object metadata
along with its entry requirements, but this, of course,
greatly reduces its reusability.
Figure 2. The effects of encapsulation on object
pedagogy. The example application to Calculators
started in the Decisions object cannot be extended
in the Loops or later objects.
Implementation
Figure 1. The effects of abstraction on object
pedagogy. In this example, the Loops object cannot
be studied until the learning objective of the
Decisions object has been achieved and must in
turn, provide the entry requirements for Arrays.
A solution to this problem might be to allow the
learner to follow up built-in links to any additional
prerequisites of the object (Jones, 2004) or to use
an object for revision purposes at a later stage when
all the prerequisites have been covered, although
not necessarily in the planned order.
Encapsulation
Another property that affects pedagogy is
encapsulation. As illustrated in Figure 2, this
prevents the content of one object using, and
therefore building on the internal contents of other
course components. It can “see” the learning
outcomes of these components but not how they
were achieved.
In many courses and, in fact, textbooks too,
examples and applications may be introduced in
early units and extended as the subject progresses
Abstraction and encapsulation together define the
pedagogy of the context. Objects discovered on the
Internet they may present a pedagogical mismatch.
But if, as in this case, the objects are designed
specifically for one course, there should be no
problems with these two properties.
Implementation may also be designed to match the
course context. It is conventional wisdom in the
design of course materials, and software in general,
that presentational style should be consistent across
the entire package. In learning objects, the other
two aspects of implementation are also important.
That is, the type of content used and the learning
activity involved should be appropriate for the
context in which they are deployed.
An implementation is illustrated in Figure 3. It
shows a typical structure of a tutorial object with text
on one side that describes the learning activity, and
learning content on the other side, which is often a
multimedia object in its own right. These are
presented in a container, usually implemented in an
advanced technology, that incorporates the house
style, the navigation and, if required, an interface to
the learning environment.
synchronous or asynchronous conferences
or in the currently popular formats of blogs
and wikis (Wikipedia, 2007).

The learning climate should encourage
positive motivational beliefs. The software
should be designed to interest learners and
provide a comfortable learning environment
such as that created by a good teacher.
Tutorials
Figure 3. An implementation of a tutorial learning
object showing the text-defined learning activity and
the learning content in a presentation container.
However, there remains a reuse problem with the
implementation. Tutors have their own preferred
teaching styles and their tutor groups may have
quite specific needs that are not satisfied by the
default learning activity provided. So it might be
useful to devise a format for publishable learning
objects whose learning activities can be chosen or
adapted by tutors for use with the same “high tech”
content. This would extend the pedagogical reach
and might also be a motivating factor foe the tutor.
Motivation
It is clear that constructivist learning requires some
effort on the part of the learner and it is most likely
that this is generated by motivation of some kind.
Normally the aim of a tutor would be to increase the
motivational factors but this may be a limited view of
the situation. A more open minded approach might
be to consider a balance between motivation and
effort. This might state that learning will take place if
motivation is sufficiently large and/or the effort
required is sufficiently small.
The effect of motivation on constructivist-informed
teaching has been summarised in a very
comprehensive study by Palmer (2005) who lists
three components of good teaching. In the present
case, the teacher is represented by the tutorial
software so the conclusions have to be adapted
slightly, to produce the following principles:
In this work, learning objects were developed for use
in an Open University course on introductory
JavaScript programming. This is a distance learning
course. Materials are published centrally but
students are allocated local tutors who mark
assignments and provide some face-to-face
tutorials. However, the conclusions reached here
should also apply to campus based tutors using
online tutorials to enhance their students’ learning
experience.
The objects were designed to be online tutorials for
optional and additional study. This strategy has two
advantages. It avoids interfering with the normal
course delivery process and it excludes a number of
external motivating factors, such as assessment,
allowing the project to concentrate on the internal
factors that relate to the software design.
The objects were made adaptable by the use of
eXtensible Markup Language (XML) technology.
This separates the text component into a different
document from the rest of the tutorial object. The
document defines the learning activity and is easily
edited with a simple text editor. It recombines with
the more technically complex container when the
web page is downloaded into a browser, thereby
delivering a user-adaptable learning object. Thus,
tutors can edit the learning activity to suit their own
pedagogical preferences.
So the tutorials were delivered by default for
independent learning but could be adapted for use
with online discussions or any other type of activity.
In fact, the specification exceeds this capability in
allowing any activity to be fine tuned to the tutor’s
own style. The idea was that this would allow full
adaptation of the local pedagogy and at the same
time allow for the introduction of the discussion
element required by the motivational factors.

Concepts should be selected that represent
appropriate challenge. In this case the
software should cope with different abilities
and aptitudes either in a progressive
treatment or a programmed one.
The resulting format is illustrated in Figure 4. It
follows the pattern introduced above, with narrative
text on the left to define the learning activity and a
simulated browser object on the right, both wrapped
in a Flash container that deals with the presentation
and the navigation.

Dual-purpose teaching techniques should
be employed. These include explanations,
hands-on activities, computer simulations
and real-life applications along with online
discussions, which may be implemented as
To meet the motivational requirements, the tutorials
were designed to be progressive, starting with
relatively easy problems and extending through a
series of more difficult ones to an authentic
conclusion in the form of a useful real-life program.
They also included explanations, practical work and
computer simulations. They were presented in an
appropriate and, hopefully, a learning-conducive
style. The only motivation ingredient omitted from
the default package was the discussion element. It
was left to the tutors to adapt the software for use
with their own online conferences.
Over the two month period during which these topics
were being studied, there were 183 recorded visits
to the first tutorial and 65 visits to the second one.
Of these, 112 were of sufficient duration to have
worked through one of the tutorials. There were no
contributions to the blog.
During this time 10 feedback forms were returned, 8
from students and 2 from tutors. All liked the default
independent learning activity but were less
enthusiastic about an online discussion version. In
terms of other motivational factors, they were
generally happy with the quality, duration and
difficulty of the tutorials and would recommend them
to other students.
Conclusion
Figure 4. An example of an online tutorial used in
the present study. The text on the left describes the
learning activity and the object on the right is a
simulated browser running a JavaScript program.
Evaluation
Two tutorials were deployed on a website and tutors
were invited to have a look at them. This was done
through a personal presentation that was attended
by a number of tutors from one region. Most of the
local tutors involved in the current course turned up
for the presentation and several expressed an
interest in using the software.
Two versions were offered – one the default
independent study version and one that could be
easily adapted for use with a concurrent online
tutorial. This appeared to be a very popular option
but the evidence of subsequent personal
correspondence and examination of the site log files
was that all the people who used the software opted
for the independent study.
A second trial was carried out on a larger scale. This
was a nationwide exercise where about 100 tutors
were invited to use the software with their students.
The tutorials were published in hidden directories on
a website, so access was limited to tutors and tutees
who had been informed of their availability. On this
occasion, only the default independent learning
version was offered to keep things simple but
opinions were sought regarding interest in an
editable version with a concurrent online discussion.
Evaluation data were obtained via the recorded
statistics for visits to the website and an online
feedback form for each tutorial. These were
designed to obtain both tutor and student opinions.
In addition a blog was provided for optional online
discussion.
The study has shown that it is technically feasible to
use the XML approach to produce and deploy
learning objects that are fully reusable right down to
the pedagogical needs of small tutor groups. They
can be adapted by tutors with no expertise in
software authoring beyond the ability to edit a text
document.
Another finding was that those who returned
feedback forms generally preferred the independent
learning activity to a group discussion approach.
Along with the lack of any interest in the blog, this
suggests that, contrary to expectation, the students
prefer self paced independent learning to online
discussion. This is a surprising result but, although
this is a large course, the statistical evidence is quite
weak so it may not be significant. However it does
point up the need for further research.
The attitude of tutors towards the same option is not
really determinable from the feedback or the access
statistics. However, all of the informal meetings and
the reactions to other presentations seem to indicate
that although interested in the adaptable option they
prefer to direct their students to the independent
learning version. Throughout the study, involving
personal discussions with at least 30 tutors, none
have actually taken up the option to edit their own
version of the tutorials for use with online
discussions.
So it seems that learning objects can successfully
employ XML technology to allow full pedagogical
adaptation of learning objects. However, they may
have to be designed or perhaps deployed in such a
way as to motivate tutors or, perhaps, to reduce the
effort required to make use of this feature. Finally,
the possibility that some students do prefer
independent learning without an online discussion
might be an interesting subject for further study. If
true, it would certainly inform the design of learning
objects.
References
1. Boyle, T. "Design principles for authoring
dynamic, reusable learning objects".
Australian Journal of Educational
Technology, 19 (1), 46-58 (2003).
2. Brown J.S, Collins A, Duguid P “Situated
cognition and the culture of learning”
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42
(1989).
3. CAREO, “Campus Alberta Repository of
Educational Objects”,
http://careo.netera.ca, (2007).
4. Connexions, “The Connexions Project at
Rice University”, http://cnx.rice.edu, (2007)
5. Duffy T.M. and Jonassen D.H.
“Constructivism: New implications for
instructional technology?”, Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning 8(2) 104-107
(1991)
6. Friesen N, “Three Objections to Learning
Objects and E-learning Standards”. In
McGreal, ed. Online Education Using
Learning Objects, Routledge (2004).
7. Gunn C, Woodgate S, O’Grady W
“Repurposing learning objects: a
sustainable alternative?” ALT-J, Research in
Learning Technology Vol13, No 3, 189-200
(2005).
8. Hedberg J G. “E-learning futures?
Speculations for a time yet to come”
Continuing Education, Vol. 28, No 2, 171183 (2006).
9. IEEE Learning Technology Standards
Committee (2002) “Learning Object
Metadata, Final Draft Standard”, IEEE
1484.13.1 (2002).
10. IMS Learning Design Best Practice and
Implementation Guide, IMS Global Learning
Consortium Inc. (2003).
11. Intute, JISC.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/services/ser
vices_mimas/services_intute.aspx (2007).
12. Jones, R “Designing Adaptable Learning
Resources with Learning Object Patterns”
Journal of Digital Information, Vol 6, Issue1,
Article No 305 (2004).
13. MERLOT, “A free repository for higher
education”, http://www.merlot.org/Home.po,
(2007).
14. MIT OpenCourseWare, “to provide free,
searchable, access to MIT’s course
materials for educators, students, and
learners around the world.”
http://ocw.mit.edu, (2007).
15. Palmer, D. “A motivational view of
constructivist-informed teaching”
International Journal of Science Education,
Vol 27 No 15, 1853-1881 (2005).
16. Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog (2007).
17. Wiley, D.A. “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 (Bloomington, IN,
AIT/AECT), 3_23 (2002).