TRANSFORMATION OF TRADITIONAL CLASSROOM

LEARNING ACTIVITIES INTO LEARNING OBJECTS

OSMAN GANY SADECK

An e-Learning Research and Development Project submitted in

part fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Education in the Faculty of Education,

University of Technology Sydney

Supervisor: Doctor Jacquie Widin

November 2006

i

TRANSFORMATION OF TRADITIONAL CLASSROOM

LEARNING ACTIVITIES INTO LEARNING OBJECTS

Osman Gany Sadeck

KEY WORDS

Learning object

Learning activity

e-Learning

Transformation

Learning object identity

Design

Design principles

ii

Design elements

ABSTRACT

Progressing school education in the information age

presents a challenge of how curricula may be repurposed for

e-learning. This study focuses on a learning object

approach to teaching and learning. The aim of the study was

to develop an instrument that could be used to evaluate

traditional classroom learning activities for

transformation into learning objects. It was conducted as a

qualitative case study that investigated Learning

Activities and Design in the Design & Technology

iii

curriculum. The study highlighted that design principles

appear universal and design elements could be used across

context areas. It was found that learning activities could

be deconstructed into categories that could inform their

transformation to learning objects. An instrument has been

developed that can be used to analyse classroom activities,

and to inform learning object design decisions, as the

instrument allows for analysis on two levels.

DECLARATION

iv

I declare that TRANSFORMATION OF TRADITIONAL CLASSROOM

LEARNING ACTIVITIES INTO LEARNING OBJECTS is my own work,

that it has not been submitted before any degree or

examination at any other university, and that all the

sources I have used or quoted have been indicated and

acknowledged as complete references.

OSMAN GANY SADECK

Signed:…………………………

November 2006

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the guidance, assistance and

expertise of my supervisor, Dr. J. Widin.

I also want to thank my family, friends and fellow

international students for their encouragement and support,

particularly my wife Melanie and my sons, Shahid, Tariq and

Ameer.

Finally I need to acknowledge the Management, the Design &

Technology teacher and the Computing teacher at the public

school in Sydney, for making it possible for me to

undertake this study and using their school as my research

site.

This Masters of Education was made possible through an

Australian Development Scholarship (ADS) awarded by the

Australia Agency for International Development (AusAID)

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page i

Key Words ii

Abstract iii

Declaration iv

Acknowledgements v

Table of Contents vi

Tables; Figures; Acronyms vii

Chapter 1 Introduction / Background 1

Chapter 2 Literature Review 5

vii

Chapter 3 Methodology 10

Chapter 4 Findings / Descriptions 14

Chapter 5 Discussions 18

Chapter 6 Conclusions / Recommendations 33

References 35

Appendices 40

TABLES

Table 1: Learning Object Identity 30

Instrument 28

FIGURES

Figures: 1a & b Body 29

2a & b Hand 29

viii

3 Head 29

4 Movement 29

ACRONYMS

CLOE Collaborative Learning Object Exchange

LORI Learning Object Review Instrument

Wisc-ORC Wisc-Online Resource Center

MERLOT Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning

and Online Teaching

ix

Chapter 1

Introduction

E-learning is exponentially becoming an increasing presence

in higher education and to a lesser degree at school level.

The increased availability of information in digital format

through electronic means, forces us to consider how these

can be accessed and used in school education. Traditional

face to face (f2f) practices are institutionalised at

schools and teachers and students are socialised into

particular practices and modes. The pervasion of

technologies in education challenges us to reconceptualise

our perceptions and practices of teaching beyond reception

and transmission. (Laurillard & McAndrew 2003, p. 82). For

schools to rise to this challenge they must possess the

ability to make critical decisions about how curricula may

be approached through e-learning and understand the scope

and extent of digital tools. This implies an ongoing

development of a digital culture which factors in new

didactic positions and curricular structures as e-learning

proposes a different medium (Mustaro, et al 2006, p. 697;

Burgess 2003, p. 6).

Higher education uses and continues to transform courses to

be delivered through e-learning. This study sought to look

at how schools could conceive of repurposing their

offerings to include e-learning. The uniqueness of this

study lies parallel to existing applications of e-learning

as an approach to teaching and learning. It address a gap1

in research into e-learning at school level, [especially

practical subjects] and specifically a means by which

existing traditional classroom activities may be evaluated

and transformed into learning objects.

The significance of this study is that it possesses the

potential to inform schools on possible means to progress

towards e-learning. The scope of the study was confined to

determining the learning activities used to teach design

and the development of an instrument, based on the data and

literature review.

The aims of the study:

To develop an instrument that could be used to

evaluate learning activities for transformation into

learning objects, and

To determine what is used, done and considered vital

at schools in the teaching of design.

Given that learning objects “represent a completely new

conceptual model for the mass of content used in the

context of learning” (Hodgins 2000, p. 1), this study

investigated, in an exploratory manner, the practices

related to design in the Year 7-10 subject Design &

Technology, and used these to design and develop an

instrument to evaluate learning activities for possible

transformation into learning objects. Drawing from a

variety of terms which permeate the literature in e-

learning: asset; content object; educational object;

information object; learning activity; knowledge object;

unit of learning and unit of study, I have adopted2

‘learning activity’ to represent the actual ‘learning

instances’ which comprise the ‘classroom activities’. It

includes all aspects, from the micro learning instance of a

single activity to a complete set of lessons on sections

according to syllabus requirements.

Literature on the design and evaluation of learning

objects, and learning object theories was reviewed to

inform the development of the instrument, and data was

collected to contextualise the learning activities to which

the instrument would be applied. The study was conducted as

a case study at an inner-city co-educational school

situated on two campuses, with an enrolment of 405 students

from Kindergarten (K)-12. The student population is fully

multi-cultural with most students from low socio-economic

backgrounds. The school has an established middle school

structure Y5-Y8, opportunity classes for academically

gifted and talented children in Y5 and Y6, as well as

selective classes for academically gifted and talented

children in Y7. The school receives funding under the

Priority School Funding Program.

The data represents the interviews, design portfolios and

learning activities, and are presented in summarised form

(chapter four). Learning activities emerged from a

negotiated and agreed conversation between the researcher

and the Design & Technology teacher. The instrument drew on

the literature on learning objects, and its development is

discussed in detail alongside an example of the application

of the instrument to a learning activity. Data analysis3

related to design and e-learning supplement the

aforementioned discussions in chapter five.

The instrument showed that learning activities could be

evaluated on two levels; what they represent in their

present form and their possible identity as learning

objects. It has become apparent that transforming a

learning activity into a learning object does not imply a

simple transformation of a traditional activity directly

into a digital one. It requires careful analysis to

determine how it may be transformed to enhance learning.

The instrument further shows potential to be used for other

school subjects and course offerings. The methodology used

in this study may be adopted and/or adapted to different

context that are considering transformation to a learning

object approach to e-learning.

Background

Current perceptions and approaches to technology education

globally has resulted in research being fragmented to an

extent there appears to be “no unifying research

problem(s)” (Zuga 2004, p. 79). Research into a learning

object approach to teaching design; how students assimilate

and accommodate design principles and to what extent they

use them to design appear absent from the research agenda.

As the curriculum of New South Wales (NSW) and various

countries encourage the use of ICT’s in this subject, ways

4

to incorporate e-learning are an area worthy of

consideration.

The NSW curriculum for Design & Technology expects students

to develop functional and aesthetic design solutions

through a “knowledge and understanding of design concepts

and processes”, by engaging with Information Communication

Technology (ICT) and the use of Mathematical ideas and

techniques (Design and Technology, Years 7–10 Syllabus

2003, pp. 8, 12 & 17). The traditional instructional

approach used in Design & Technology is a whole task

approach, where students engage with a context area

(structures, systems, textiles, hospitality), by following

processes (investigate, design, make, evaluate) which span

over weeks or months. Because of the subjects’ historical

roots (technical, craft, visual arts and applied science),

the focus tends to be more practical and less academic.

This study builds on the South African Association of

Science & Technology Educators (SAASTE) Skills Development

Project (Jaftha, et al 2005, pp. 39-49) which found that

teachers possess the capabilities to design small (single

concept) units of study that could be combined with others

to create lessons in line with curriculum expectations.

Although these were available digitally as single type (PDF

text / graphic), their use was confined to f2f engagements.

A subsequent survey to evaluate the use of these activities

showed that teachers used the activities in different ways

notably that they sequenced them according to their own

context and students needs. In addition some teachers5

maintained that they themselves gained insights from the

activities. These findings prompted taking learning

activities to the next level, i.e. as digital entities for

e-learning.

Participants

The computing teacher (CT) began his career as a

software developer. Although he experienced job

satisfaction as a developer he felt that he could make

a wider impact and thus elected to become a computing

teacher to try to make a difference in education. He

has undergone retraining (specifically computer

teaching), and also trained as a Technology and

Applied Studies (TAS) teacher (exposure to areas

outside computing at school level). His primary role

is that of co-ordinating technology related teaching

and learning at the school.

The Design & Technology teacher (DT) was an aircraft

engineer before deciding to become a teacher. He

teaches Design & Technology (K-12), Science and

Technology and has also taught Industrial Technology,

and construction in Vocational Education and Training

(VET). Experiences and personal interest

(technological and technical) are the richness that he

brings to the teaching situation. His experiences span

teaching in rural and inner city setting as well as in

a single sex (girl) school. Much of his retraining6

takes place at school (on the job) especially in

context areas that are outside of his initial

training.

The researcher as participant brings to the study

experiences as a Design & Technology teacher, having

previous experiences in the technical, craft and

visual arts subjects. His active involvement in

developing the curriculum for Technology Education and

Engineering Graphics and Design for the South African

National Curriculum and subsequent designing of

training in these subjects allow an insight into

curricula and training expectations. The researcher

has also written school text books on the subject and

presented papers at various conferences.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

In order to develop an instrument to evaluate learning

activities it was necessary to review the literature on

learning objects, and the thinking on design in Design &

Technology. This chapter looks at the understandings of

learning objects in terms of what they are; their types,

function and what they should do. Design & Technology

focuses only on the process of design. Additional

7

Literature relevant to the design of learning object will

be discussed in chapter five.

Learning Objects

The term learning object is the result of a search to

concretise an understanding of the essence of what might be

necessary to hedge the chances of success in an e-learning

environment. It is thus not surprising that there appears

to be no single definition for learning objects, but as

many understandings as there are learning objects. The many

definitions may be grouped according to the proponents’

perspective on what they are or might do.

The concept of a small unit of study is not alien as its

earliest known references date back to the 1960’s with the

emergence of the concept of microteaching by Dr. Dwight

Allen of Stanford University. Its essence is an explicit

goal, focused on one particular skill or technique, to be

engaged with within a five to fifteen-minute lesson, with

the possibility of some learning at the end of the session

(Wikipedia; Derek Bok Center; Harriet W. Sheridan Center;

Teaching and Learning Centre).

The Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC, 2002)

defines learning objects as “any entity, digital or non-

digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during

technology supported learning” (in McGreal 2004). Such an

encompassing definition, although safe is not useful to

practitioners as its implications are that anything and8

everything is a learning object. Many scholars and

organisations have rather opted to associate learning

objects by linking it to the e-learning environment in

which they operate. A more refined understanding is that

they are essentially digital entities. Wiley1 (2002, p. 3)

settles on “any digital resource…”, while McGreal (2004)

proposes “learning objects as digital media…”and the Wisc-

Online Resource Center (Wisc-ORC) speak of it's potential

to be “stored in a database”

Synthesizing the ‘anything and everything’ with the

‘digital’ does little to further users’ understanding of

the scope of learning objects particularly what they are

and what their purpose is. The ‘non-digital’ references in

various literatures appear to be more useful in fulfilling

this need.

They refer to learning objects as:

The smallest media-independent, self-standing chunk of

knowledge (single concept), generic learning unit /

activity, or structured instructional experiences /

events that;

focuses on an objective with an assessment that;

is predisposed to be used, reused or referenced during

technology supported learning in multiple

instructional contexts;

as modular building blocks to support learning.

(Wisc-ORC; L'Allier 1997 in Polsani 2003; Polsani 2003;

Reigeluth & Nelson 1997, in Wiley1 2002, p. 2; McGreal

9

2004, Millar; Koper in Laurillard & McAndrew 2003, p. 87;

Rehak & Mason in Laurillard & McAndrew 2003, p. 88)

It is important to note that detractors of the learning

object approach, as reported by Mason, et al (2005) say

that this approach trivializes knowledge and that it is not

possible to atomize learning into small, neat chunks or

units. Learning according to them occurs over a period of

time and the learning object approach disrupts the flow of

learning.

In practice one or more learning objects can be and

sometimes are aggregated (combined) and sequenced to

support purposeful learning focused on predetermined

learning objectives (Learning in McGreal 2004). As such

they need to possess certain identifiable functional

requirements given the understanding that they cannot be

further atomised without losing their internal coherence

and integrity (Koper in Laurillard & McAndrew 2003, p. 87).

The theorical position on this evolves around:

A learning object being focused on activities that

support learning objectives and scaffolding learning.

Students being aware of its educational purpose, with

coherent feedback mechanisms to inform progress built

in.

10

A well defined learning object being focused on

smaller portions of domain specific knowledge and

skills. These should be self contained, stand alone

and independent of other learning objects.

Their use being facilitated through clear instructions

for interaction that could promote student

independence.

Interoperability of learning objects, in that they

should not be dependant on specific media, knowledge

management systems or learning management systems.

Reusability; this refers to its reuse in different

instructional contexts.

Their size, type and functions ideally allowing for

aggregation in use.

Their being tagged with metadata, i.e. they should be

labelled and described so that they can be accessed,

used as well as repurposed. Two types of data are

usually described; factual data such as “physical

attributes, date, author, operational requirements,

costs, identification numbers, ownership”, and,

information relating to its possible application

(Hodgins 2000, pp. 15-17).

In addition the literature cautions that, although sound

pedagogical principles inform learning objects, metadata

should not stipulate any intended use or measuring

mechanism that is “coded by any specific teaching

methodology or instructional theory” Such referencing it is

believed, would restrict the learning objects’ reusability,

as intention and assessment should be determined by the11

instructional situation and used in a way as seen fit and

not driven by the learning object itself (L'Allier in

Polsani 2003).

However a learning entity having most or all of the

functional requirements may not be considered by many

purists as learning objects. Downes (2003, in McGreal

2004) notes that what counts as a learning object “can only

be determined by its use, not by its nature”, and use

according to Olson & Bruner (1974, in Bates 2003, p. 97)

evolves around knowledge and skills.”

Following the debate around the pedagogical robustness of

learning objects, through its functional requirements are

the characteristics by which they are known i.e. how they

appear, what they do and how they do it.

Learning objects function in three primary ways, i.e. they

may be guiding, problem based or complimentary (Busetti, et

al 2005, p. 2).

Guiding learning objects; are used through mentorship,

apprenticeship and teacher guidance primarily

employing instructional strategies.

Problem based learning objects; provide students with

opportunities to construct, create, innovate and

scaffold according to their levels and abilities.

Complimentary learning objects; contain supportive

material such as presentations, guidelines,

glossaries, templates, tutorials, etc. The12

complementary function could be confined to a single

context to traverse a range of contexts

The types of learning objects identified by Wiley (2000, p.

77) assist us to understand learning objects as digital

entities. The first three describe the form in which they

may be available and the latter two how they function.

A Single-type could be an image, text, video clip, etc;

The Combined-intact type could be a video clip with audio;

text with animation; etc. and,

The Combined-modifiable type could be an interactive web

page that combines the ‘single’ and ‘combined-intact

type’ with functionalities that permit users to choose

if and when to introduce any additional material. It

provides the option to activate audio to accompany a

video, or text to supplement animation, etc.

A Generative-presentation instructional type is an example of a

problem based learning object where a combination of

types dynamically presents a problem to be solved and,

The Generative-instructional type is of the guiding

type where functions could provide for both

instruction and practice.

Design & Technology

Given the history of Design & Technology and its relative

newness as a discipline on its own, the manner in which it13

is approached still resembles technical, craft and the

natural sciences. Zuga (2004, p. 83) notes that “Children

make and test bridges…and get tested not on technological

concepts, but mathematical and scientific concepts.” This

focus of the evaluation is also prevalent in the products

that are realized through the design processes, where

assessment focuses on craft skills and graphical

competencies and not on the design and its inherent

cognitive processes.

Although the tangible result of this subject through its

many processes is usually a product, the product comes

about as a result of creative processes, knowledge and

skills, and a range of aspects that include design

principles; understanding of materials and their

properties; and manufacturing techniques; through the

application of a mix of functionality, ergonomics,

aesthetics, economics, constraints and sustainability

(Gotzsch, et al 2006, p. 467). Based on what appears an

imperative in the area of design, Warner & Morford (2004,

p. 40) study into course preferences in teacher training

turned up a distinct preference for “Computer Aided

Drafting (CAD), or some variation associated with the use

of computers in drafting and design.” The course contents

themselves focus on the communication of design and not on

the cognitive rigor of design but are more “technique-

based…and focused on variations on Graphic Communication,

and Technical Drafting.”

14

Design is a creative process and it is questionable if

creativity can be taught or learnt. Design according to

Hennessey & McCormick (1994 in Williams, P. 2000, p. 48)

resides in the procedural domain, while Schmidt & Luczak

(2005, p. 191) maintain that design tasks are “mainly

knowledge-intensive cognitive actions.” The subtle

implication of some sort of design literacy is reinforced

in Project 2061 which states that all students “should have

an understanding of what kind of thought goes into design”

(Cajas 2000, p. 63). Additionally there appears to be no

set method that could characterise design. It has been

argued by Williams, P. (2000, p. 49), that “neither

students nor designers naturally utilize a predetermined

process in their work; they invent a process as they

proceed toward task completion.” Approaches to design will

be discussed from the case study data in chapter five.

Chapter 3

Methodology

The scope of this study was confined to determining in

collaboration with the Design & Technology teacher which

activities were used to teach design and through which

approaches. The data from the interviews, and learning

object design, evaluation and theories, were used to

develop an instrument to examine which of the learning

activities could be transformed into learning objects. The

study progressed by simultaneously collecting data and

developing the instrument. When the learning activities15

were determined they were used to test and refine the

instrument. The final stages included applying the

instrument to a random selection of learning activities.

One learning activity was subsequently analysed in detail

and recommendations on learning object identity were made.

Information from the interviews helped progress the

development of the instrument which is the primary focus of

the study.

As particular questions cannot be adequately or reliably

answered within certain traditions, a blend of the

empirical and interpretive traditions informed the paradigm

for this case study. Yates (1997, p. 491) and Usher (1996,

p. 2) maintain that appropriate methods that yield the most

trustworthy findings should be considered.

The case study method was selected as an appropriate

approach because of the specific feature that they are

enquiries applied to singularities, usually in natural

settings, and usually bound to a particular group, setting,

program, location or time, thus providing for inquiry into

the research question in a focused manner (Bassey 1999, p.

47). Of the basic types of case studies: narratives,

experimentation, analysis / evaluating of issues or cause

and effect, this study chose to analyse, evaluate and

produce narratives.

While most literature cautions against generalizations from

case studies, the research focus and other variables in the

study might provide a case for fuzzy generalizations or16

even speculations that may be applied to other similar

context, situations or samples (Yin 2003, p. 15; Bassey

1999, p. 46 & 72; Stake 1995, p. 85).

Data

Semi-structured interviews with open and semi-directed

questions were conducted and supplemented with an analysis

of a selection of design portfolios. A semi-structured

conversation session was used to negotiate and agree on

learning activities for design.

Data was gathered from the following sources:

Teachers (DT and CT)

Design Portfolios (supplied by the school)

Information synthesized from the following was used to

inform the development of the instrument:

Literature on designing learning objects

Literature on evaluating learning objects

Literature on learning object theories

Interviews were preferred to elicit information through

direct verbal interaction as it made it possible to find

out what a person knows (knowledge or information), prefers17

(preferences and values), thinks, and believes (opinion,

beliefs) (Tuckman 1972, in Cohen, et al 2000, p. 268). As

an exploratory device it assisted in identifying variables

and relationships, and permitted probing deeper responses

to revealed more about aspects being discussed (Kerlinger

1970, in Cohen, et al 2000, p. 268). As participant

researcher I could ask the ‘devil’s advocate’ questions and

probe deeper aspects related to design based on my

understanding of previous research and projects. I was also

able to assume the crucial role as listener to get into the

world of the participants to attempt to understand the

realities of teachers at grassroots level.

The interviews were captured by audio recordings and stored

on a computer as MP3 files. They were transcribed and the

interviewees were asked to verify the raw data for

accuracy. The semi-structured interviews (Appendix 1&2),

consisted of broad questions / prompts that were formulated

according to categories of questions and their

characteristics (Bogdan & Biklen 1992 in Cohen, et al 2000,

pp. 270 - 273 ; Merriam 1988, pp. 78 & 79 ; Spradley 1979,

Patton 1980 in Cohen, et al 2000, p. 276; Bassey 1999, pp.

81 & 82; Yin 2003, pp. 87-90). Each was coded using

letters to represent type and category. These were later

grouped into broad headings.

Categories:

E - Experience / behaviour - eliciting descriptions of

experiences, behaviors;18

O - Opinion/value - finding out what people think,

method;

K - Knowledge - what people consider factual

information, what they believe as fact / knowledge

about the subject;

B - Background/demographic - locating people in

relation to time and space.

Type:

H - Hypothetical - what if or suppose, what a person

might do or what it might be like;

C - Devil’s advocate - challenge person to consider an

opposing view;

P - Ideal position- person to describe an ideal /

preferred situation;

I - Interpretive - use tentative interpretations of

what person says and ask for a reaction;

R - Reflective- reflection on experiences that informs

decisions.

Headings:

CT: ICT integration, ICT possibilities, ICT school

context;

DT: Biographical/background, insights into design in

the curriculum, emerging terminology in e-education,

LO possibilities, initial design training

contributions.

19

Data Analysis

Design portfolios were evaluated using only one criterion,

i.e. to determine how design was approached by students.

The interviews and design portfolios required initial

interpretation to determine the issues that were emerging

before the final themes for reporting were decided. Design

examples were only analysed after the themes were finalized

(Cohen, et al 2000, p. 272). The data was analysed

qualitatively within a structure that included:

Source / lead / prompt (asked or offered);

Analytical statement / interpretation and discussion.

From the analysis of the data the following four themes

emerged:

TU: Teacher user - self development needs;

professional needs and imperatives (inclusive of

changes in education, curriculum expectations); design

needs (inclusive of access to repository, sequencing

and scaffolding.)

D: Design - ergonomics (anthropometrics and

aesthetics); safety and environment; sequencing of

design elements; complexity levels; knowledge and

skills.

SU: Student user - (it was decided not to report on this theme as it

did not add any significant value to the findings, or the development of

the instrument.)

20

E: e-learning - literacy implications; e-learning as a

tool; emerging computer literacy; interactivity /

interactional possibilities; learning object approach.

The instrument to evaluate learning activities was

developed through two stages. The first iteration of the

instrument contained six categories. In the review of the

literature learning objects were analysed in terms of type;

use and function to inform their possible learning object

identity. Three learning activities were analysed and

mapped into the instrument to test the categories, clarify

criteria and check suitability of the instrument. Based on

the results of these tests it was subsequently refined to

include more details. Each learning activity was analysed

on two levels; first to determine its current status in

learning, and second to hypothesize its possible learning

object identity (chapter five).

Owing to the vastness of the data collected, only summaries

are presented in chapter four.

Chapter 4

Findings / Descriptions

This chapter reports on the data that furthers the aims of

this study. They represent the interviews, design portfolio21

analysis and the learning activities. These findings have

been summarised and are presented as dot point statements.

They will be discussed in detail in chapter five.

Learning Activities

The learning activities are a negotiated and agreed list

between the researcher and DT. They represent a selection

of learning activities used in teaching design for

consideration as learning objects. Learning activities at

school level are taken to include everything from the micro

learning instance of a single activity to a complete set of

lessons on sections according to syllabus requirements. The

numbers allocated to some learning activities indicate

which ones were analysed using the instrument in chapter

five.

Design principles: Anthropometrics, Aesthetics, Ergonomics,

Safety, Environment.

Design Elements: Shape, Form, Colour, Proportion, Texture.

LA 1: Anthropometrics lesson on measuring the whole

and parts (including natural movement such as sitting,

bending, crawling, reaching, etc.) of human form.

Knowledge and use of measuring instruments and related

tools and equipment.

LA 2: Application exercises to determine dimensions of

products that people use.

Measuring existing products (wheelchairs, crutches,

scooters, skateboards, shoes, pencils, cell phones,22

cups, watches, spoons, tools, etc.) for redesigning

purposes, and/or extending design tasks.

LA 3: Application exercises to modify physical shape

of products.

Application exercises to make modifications to colour.

LA 4: Capability exercises to suggest changes to

shape, colour and material for products.

LA 5: Analysing existing products in terms of

construction, materials, shape, form, proportion

(inclusive of setting up criteria for evaluation).

Follow through exercises to suggest alternatives and

improvements.

LA 6: Designing and implementing surveys, interviews,

questionnaires, etc.

LA 7: Discussing the importance and need for

recycling.

LA 8: Recycling a material or product.

Making a new product by recycling a material.

Working with data, information (includes using data-

tables to access information).

Accessing information on various aspects of Design &

Technology.

LA 9: Inputting data into tables, drawing graphs and

charts.

LA 10: Calculating averages, using formulae in

spreadsheets, completing basic geometrical and

arithmetical operations.

LA 11: Application exercise to write a process for

recycling.

Discussing sustainability locally and globally.23

LA 12: Discussing positive and negative aspects of

Design & Technology.

Design decision application of selecting materials

that minimise negative environmental impact.

LA 13: Safety - first aid, OHS act, tool, machine, and

equipment use, HIV/AIDS, hazardous substances, safety

in products (touch, smell, taste).

LA 14: Capability exercises to write safety manual

that discusses safety for a given context.

Graphical exercises focused on geometrical and free

from shapes, line, form (direction of lines,

impression of form/direction, optical illusions).

LA 15: Application exercises to design products using

graphical knowledge/skills.

Proportion lessons - top heavy, balance, centre of

gravity.

Lesson on proportion in terms of Fibonacci series and

golden mean, (relationship of size).

LA 16: spatial principles lesson - negative / positive

space (place photos in a frame, frames against a wall,

etc).

LA 17: lesson on colour - colour wheel, contrasting /

complimentary colours, mixing colours, colours

identity (warm/cool, calm/frustrated, etc).

Design & Technology teacher (DT)

The first design principle focused on in the lower

years is aesthetics and the design elements include

colour, shape, form, and texture. DT felt that at the24

reception stages students were essentially visual

learners, relating easily to visually elements. This

is later built on to focus on ergonomic and

anthropometrics.

The focus is more on skills, but in progressive years

knowledge features more prominently. Design principles

/ elements are scaffolded from basic to complex from

K-12.

Anthropometrics and ergonomics were considered to be

very closely related and should be taught in an

integrated manner. DT felt that it is sometimes

possible to teach knowledge separately from skills.

The basic principles of design, anthropometrics,

aesthetics, ergonomics including environment and

safety with sustainability, recycling and waste

management were considered vital in learning design.

Modelling as a means of designing was considered

useful especially as it allowed for physical

manipulation of materials. DT added that this was

extremely useful with the younger students as it

allowed designing in concrete terms. According to DT

older students possessed the experiences to design

without modelling first.

DT mentioned that, although the curriculum was phase

specific it had no stipulated order and it was up to

the discretion of teachers to plan sequencing

according to the needs and abilities of students.

DT’s opinion was that e-learning could be “valuable”

although, because of varying factors, should not be

used extensively. He initially felt that all design25

could not be taught through e-learning as there was a

need for physical interaction in the environment,

pegging its application to “about 70%” only.

The possibility of a resource bank [learning objects]

available to select from was regarded as an attractive

option as having to develop the resources from scratch

and sequence them would be an enormous task. It was

expressed that a good idea would be a repository, “in

chronological order, in sequence” similar to the

curriculum. DT welcomed the idea of flexibility saying

that the changes in education needed to allow for

flexibility of choice and that one could tailor

learning programs for individual or groups of students

with specific needs and allow for scaffolding

learning, “specifically to the client”.

Computing teacher (CT)

Students develop basic computer literacy through

learning how to use software such as word processing,

presentations and spreadsheets and by customising

personal website pages through guided activities by

their subject teachers. The English and Music

departments get students to write and act out scripts

which are captured and stored digitally. The

Mathematics teachers use spreadsheets as it is a

curriculum requirement. The Physical Education teacher

was also able to use the computer laboratory for

sports education.

26

CT’s role is primarily facilitator of e-learning,

where he assists teachers with development of their

ICT skills, and in setting up ICT learning

environments for students. According to CT both

teachers and student are in need of computer literacy

for different reasons.

Like DT, CT also saw a potential for a learning object

approach to e-learning, adding also that it was only a

tool. His opinion was that the need for ‘traditional’

teaching was still vital in areas that e-learning

could not add value to. CT expressed that a basic

understanding of navigation and basic software would

be beneficial to e-learning.

Design Portfolios

Selected aspects from three design portfolios will be

reported on only.

In designing a product (item of furniture);

investigations centred on ergonomics, size and shape,

existing products, materials, processes and techniques

and included product dimensions and of a person’s

reach in different positions.

The design of an item of jewellery drew investigations

on safety (ergonomics); strength (materials), ease of

use (ergonomics and mechanics), aesthetics (colour,

materials, shape, form and possibility to compliment a

range of garments were considered).

27

In a product design (item of furniture),

investigations focused on testing and ‘finding out’

first hand from people in the field.

Chapter 5

Discussion

Chapter five discusses the data findings, the instrument

and then the learning activities. The main aim of this

chapter is to analyse and synthesise the various

contributing factors to this study. The focal point is the

instrument, and its development and application to the

learning activities.

In order to establish relevance to the research question

and the aims of the study, it was necessary to establish

relationships among the themes to determine how they could

inform the feasibility of a learning object approach, and

to employ these together with learning object literature to

design and develop the instrument. This included critically

examining the suggested learning activities for their

possible transformation to learning objects by mapping them

into the instrument.

The learning activities being evaluated are technically not

learning objects, and in conceiving of an instrument for

evaluation, the researcher made an assumption that they

should withstand educational and operational scrutiny when

28

transformed into learning objects.

Data Discussions

The salient aspects that emerge from the data will be

discussed under these headings: Generic Applicability,

Approach to Teaching / Learning Design, Repository, and

Computer Literacy

Generic Applicability

A significant aspect that emerged from the combination of

data sources is that it highlighted that many aspects of

design are generic to all context areas. Design principles

were seen as a combination of knowledge and skills found in

all context areas and some aspects appeared to require

prerequisite knowledge and/or skills. From the data, it

seems that it would be possible to separate knowledge from

skills (although this was not desired), and that both

knowledge and skills could possibly be developed through e-

learning. An analysis of design elements in different

activities also indicated that some elements are reusable

across areas. Generic applicability and pre-requisites

were used in category 3 of the instrument for analyzing and

informing reusability and aggregation.

The learning activities and design portfolios suggests a

focus on “kinds of thought” (Cajas 2000, p. 63), i.e.29

cognitive skills, which could be seen in design approaches

and decisions, and in the tasks in the various activities.

Given this and the range of approaches taken in Design &

Technology it would appear that design resides in the

procedural domain as “knowledge-intensive cognitive

actions” (Schmidt & Luczak 2005, p. 191). The inclusion of

a criterion on ‘focus’ in the instrument, attends to the

loading of knowledge and skills.

Approach to Teaching / Learning design

The data appears to show that the approaches to design are

coherent with known learning perspectives (e.g. Vygotsky;

Gagne; Bruner; Dewey; Piaget; Erikson). These approaches

suggest that attention has been given to:

instructional design decision (including method and

teaching / learning strategies),

students’ cognitive developmental stages as activities

appear to be progressed sequentially,

scaffolding learning according to identified needs,

progression from simple/basic to complex/advanced and

that factors in pre-requisites.

Three categories in the instrument are devoted to aspects

drawn from the above and pedagogical considerations for

learning objects through various experiences such as:

“absorb (read, hear, feel), do (activity), interact

(socialize), reflection (Dewey)” (Wertenbroch & Nabeth 2000

30

in Clark 2004) and “discursive, adaptive, interactive,

reflective” (Laurillard 2002, p. 83).

From the approach taken in some of the subjects at the

site, it would appear that a learning object (on demand)

approach is preferred as opposed to complete, structured,

instructionist courses. This departure from traditional

planning and teaching methods in an e-environment would

align with McGreal (2004) who maintains that, “Online

courses should therefore be designed as a collection of

learning objects rather than as whole, inseparable, long

course.” However this could imply a fundamentally

different work practice in teaching, learning, and the

delivery of curricula (Jukes, et al 2000, in Abdullah &

Othman 2006, p. 727).

According to Williams, D. (2000, p. 48) there is no set or

agreed upon design process. This was evident in the design

portfolios, where context appeared to determine what needed

to be done. The approach taken suggest a natural process of

problem solving with a blend of knowledge and skills, and

what works best and feels right informing individualised

design decisions. The decisions themselves appear to reside

more in the headwork domain and appear to corroborate the

cognitive loading of design.

Repository

31

To effectively support learning, learning objects need to

be resourceful (to enable students access to information

and experiences), and facilitate scaffolding (through the

way in which the learning object is used to offer

conceptual understanding (Hannafin, et al 1999, p. 6-9;

Merrill 2000, p. 1). The data highlighted that a bank of

resources was considered useful (for teachers to repurpose

according to localized context). The appeal of learning

objects seems to be their availability ‘on demand’, their

resourcefulness, and their potential flexibility in use.

However highly a technically compliant learning object

repository rates from a theorical point; (containing

metadata that describes every piece of data about the

learning object, and correctly referenced to allow storage

and retrieval for instructional or referencing purposes);

teachers at grassroots levels find that the vast volume of

digital entities available makes selection an arduous task.

It may be conceivable that a repository for school use be

set out in a non-traditional format, i.e. a complete

listing (appropriately tagged with metadata) aligned with

curriculum levels and roughly sequenced under context

headings. This data provided useful indicators of criteria

for the instrument.

Computer Literacy

Indications in the data are that only a basic computer

literacy is required to engage with e-learning. Given this,

Ryan’s (2001 in Burgess 2003, p. 8) idea that a

“familiarity with computers and navigation of Web browsers32

could make engagements easier”, might be useful in

informing the design of learning objects.

Learning Activities Discussions

Having picked out some important aspects from the data I

turn my attention to the learning activities presented in

random order (chapter four, p. 14-15). The scope of the

activities appears to show that they include a range of

activities both cognitive and practical. They include

accessing, processing and using information; application of

knowledge and skills; enabling activities, capability

activities and collaborative activities. It also seems to

show that many of the learning activities are made up of

smaller activities clustered to form lessons of larger

units of work. This finding was significant to this study

as it implied granularity of learning activities which

could prove useful in considering transformation to

learning objects.

It was interesting to note in the analysis that none of the

activities specified any particular context area. This

further corroborates the data that many design elements are

generic to all context areas. Their wording or collection

like appearance seems to suggest an almost thematic

grouping. This is not to say that they are always presented

in this way, but it appears as if this was seen as the

natural way to set out how the design elements relate to

one another. On a closer analysis, it becomes apparent that33

some of the learning activities represent a series of

discreet activities that if isolated, could inform their

potential singularity; which in turn might inform us of

ways to examine them for transformation to learning

objects. Because of the nature of the learning activities

not being context dependant, none appear to suggest a

traditional whole task approach normally associated with

this subject. They appear to comprise multiple elements

that could “reinforce concepts as well as allows various

pathways to the concepts consistent with students’ needs

and learning preferences” (Polsani 2003, p. 6). Learning

activity (LA 1) was used in the instrument and will be

discussed in detail following the section on the

instrument.

Instrument Discussions

In setting about developing the instrument I had to re-

examine my assumptions of whether I was seeking a possible

route to ‘transform’ learning activities to learning

objects or was I merely ‘reconceptualising’ learning

activities for online use. I believe from my findings that

learning activities invariably consist of a series of

discreetly identifiable entities and that my efforts were

in effect to ‘transform’ them into usable entities in an e-

learning environment.

Because of the absence of an instrument, I had to draw on

the data discussed above, curriculum expectations, my own

experiences, existing evaluation criteria for learning34

objects and learning object theory to develop one. These

were synthetised to determine relevant categories and

criteria for an instrument that could be used to examine

the attributes of the learning activities. The major

recognisable categories follow those of evaluation of

learning object, learning object theory and what makes a

learning object drawn from the works of (Williams, D.;

Haughey & Muirhead; McGreal; Polsani; Vargo et al, Nielson,

LORI, CLOE, MERLOT; Wisc-ORC; Busetti, et al; Bates;

Hodgins; Wiley; Merrill; Orrill; Wertenbroch & Nabeth;

Laurillard & McAndrew).

The instrument is not just an analytical tool but one to

examine learning activities with the purpose of informing

their possible transformation. As such the learning

activities were evaluated on two levels; first to determine

their current status in learning, and second to hypothesize

their possible learning object identity. Many of the

categories represent bipolar ends of a present to future

continuum. The markings in the table are indications of

what aspects are inherent and possible in each learning

activity.

Testing the instrument with three learning activities

showed that the categories were too broadly defined, and it

was subsequently refined to include more details. Although

the categories may be considered atomised, the researcher

believes that this is especially beneficial to designers

and developers. Non-suitability should not be viewed as a

failing of any learning activity or the instrument, as35

suitability is dependant on the purpose and nature of the

use of the learning object. According to Williams D. (2000

pp. 3-5) “… use will vary by user…interests may or may not

overlap with the technical standards”, and “What an object

ought to be or do is clearly a matter of opinion that will

vary with the perspectives of different potential or actual

users of that object”.

Instrument Categories

Ten categories were identified and represent the first row

in the instrument. Each category contains sub-categories

which form the second row. Criteria within either

categories or sub-categories are found in the third row. To

contextualize the level at which each learning activity is

mapped onto the instrument I have used [F] to represent

future and [P] to represent present. Of the seventeen

criteria nine focused on [F] and two on [P] exclusively,

while seven focused on [FP].

1. Technical:

Technologies (TEC): asynchronous (AS), Wiki, blog,

forum - Synchronous (SS) chat, [F] - Tasks (T), quiz,

assignment, task [P]

To draw students into the learning arena certain technologies could be

employed. The present form of tasks in the learning activities could be

transformed to include engagements through digital technologies. As

those mentioned above could facilitate collaborative learning, it would

36

be useful to consider their incorporation into the functional design of

learning objects.

Media (M): audio (A), video (V), animation (AN), text

(T), graphic (G) [FP]

The way a student engages with a learning object is dependant on the

media through which it is presented. Examining its present form could

inform its potential transformation as a digital entity.

Type (TYP): single(S), combined intact (CI), combined

modifiable (CM), generative instructional (GI),

generative presentation instructional (GPI) [FP]

(Wiley 2000, p. 77).

The specific media and the learning object type are interrelated. As

media could to some extent determine certain types of learning objects,

it may be necessary to make decisions on type before media. Both media

and type relate to technologies, i.e. what they are, how they relate to one

another and how they can be used.

2. Collaborate:

In considering learning through a learning object approach is would be

useful to refer to two aspects, i.e. “form” and “relation” (Polsani 2003, p.

4). A single type object (e.g. graphic of a flag of a country) is just a

picture until it is turned into “an object of understanding”. When the flag

takes on relevance its form changes as “a media asset on the path to

becoming a learning object” (Polsani 2003, p. 4). A means to factor in

how the students interact with the digital information sets up a

37

relationship between the user and the learning object (graphic of the

flag).

Interactive (IVE): online (ON), offline (OF). [F]

Interaction (ION): collaboration with others (ICO),

collaboration with teacher (ICT). [FP]

Interactive and interactional strategies that facilitate relational aspects

pay attention to “interact” (socialize) (Wertenbroch & Nabeth 2000 in

Clark 2004) & Laurillard (2002, p. 83) “discursive, adaptive, interactive,

reflective” principles.

3. Reusability/Aggregation: in context (RCX), across

context (RAC), scaffold (SCF), build on to create

lessons, courses, then modules. [FP]

The size of a learning object can affect aggregation; it may be necessary

to re-examine large objects to check for the possibility of a main idea

and sub-ideas. From these one could determine which are stand alone

and could be reused in different contexts. Small enough learning objects

(granularity) are amenable to reuse and aggregation.

4. Prerequisites: pre-knowledge/skill needed (PR), is a

foundational pre-knowledge/skill next level (FP). [F]

Determining where a concept, knowledge or skills are situated will be

useful to facilitate scaffolding, inform sequencing and instructional

design.

38

5. Pedagogy:

Focus (FCS): knowledge (K), skills(S), knowledge /

skills (KS). [P]

Examining the present focus of the learning activities allows one to

design appropriate learning objects based on the focus identified or

desired..

Approach (APP): instructionist (I), constructivist(C),

self directed (SD), mentorship (M), apprentice (A).

[FP]

In looking at instructionist and constructivist the focus was not any

particular learning theory (as these should not drive any learning object),

but to highlight for designers and developers whether the resulting

learning objects could be guiding or problem based. The type and

function of a learning object may fit in with present approaches or future

interaction can be proposed based on instructional design decisions.

6. Access: use on own without teacher (AO), use with

teacher (AT). [F]

When considering the future of e-learning; independence and self paced

learning through a chosen mode needs to factor in how they are to be

used. Decisions on use have far reaching implications on how a learning

object approach progresses in the years to come.

Technology need- high end (H), normal (N). [F]

39

Downloadable (D). [F]

On demand (OD). [F]

Access to learning opportunities could present a barrier if the technology

required is too high end. In keeping with access to information and

experiences (Merrill 2000, p. 1), a learning object that is downloadable

for use offline or at any chosen time presents an attractive option for self

paced learning. Its availability on demand I believe is the most useful

attribute from a user perspective, as it addresses personalised needs,

and promotes empowerment through self determination.

7. Engagement: listen (L), observe (O), do (D), practice

(P), apply (A), simulate(S), introduce (I), follow on

(F). [FP]

In the architecture of pedagogical considerations: “absorb” (read, hear,

feel), “do” (activity), “reflection” (Wertenbroch & Nabeth 2000, in Clark

2004); and engagement (Merrill 2000, p. 1), facilitate scaffolding. Thus

engagement speaks directly to the learning that learning objects are

expected to support.

8. Usefulness: high (H), medium (M), low (L). [F]

Some learning objects, if considered in terms of functionality (guiding,

problem, complimentary (Busetti, et al 2005) may have varying utility

value. Depending on cost some institutions may not employ low

usefulness objects.

9. Mode: f2f (F2F), online (ON), blended f2f/online (B).

[FP] 40

To enable students’ access to information and experiences and to inform

instructional design decisions, the mode of delivery is a vital operational

consideration.

10.Expiry: Yes(Y), No (N). [F]

Learning objects may also be disposable, i.e. learning objects that are

content-dependent may expire after use or as new information or

knowledge affects its appropriateness. A learning object that is

disposable should ideally be one that can be changed or repurposed in

some way.

Should learning objects be developed context dependant,

driven specifically by content, tied into a specific

learning theory and specific assessment then the basic

building block may not be amenable to reuse. However should

they be focused on generic skills, they may be more useful.

The awe of a digital entity should not detract from its

intention as an object of understanding to progress

learning. A relationship must thus exist between a learning

object, interaction with it and results of the interaction.

This implies pedagogical reasoning, a reasoning that gives

serious attention to both “educational and operational

aspects” (Bates 2003, p 76). The use of technology is not

intended to replace sound pedagogical practices; instead it

is the pedagogies that drive the selection and use of

technologies. According to Kozma (1991, p. 205) “some

students will learn a particular task regardless of the

delivery device. Others will be able to take advantage of a41

particular medium’s characteristics to help construct

knowledge.”

Following this, learning objects should provide access to

new experiences [through acquisition and creation of

knowledge], allow for engagement, and incorporation of the

learned experiences into situations through participation.

Transformation should thus factor in:

Media selection (Bates 2003, p. 75; Laurillard 2002,

pp. 82-84),

Clarity of instructions for use to facilitate

accessibility through ease of navigation thus

progressing independence,

Clarity of learning objectives for student awareness

of the purpose of activities,

Purposeful engagement that allows scaffolding by

maneuvering within the environment,

Feedback that enables students to understand their

progress.

(Haughey& Muirhead 2005)

42

LA

TECHNICAL COLLABORATE REUSE

AGGRATE

P/REQ PEDAGOGY ACCESS ENGAGEMENT USE-FULLNESS

MODE EXP

TEC M TYP IVE ION FCS APP

AS

SS

T A V AN

T G S CI

CM

GI

GPI

ON

OF

ICO

ICT

RCX

RAC

SCF

PR

FP

FK

FS

KS

I C SD

M A AO

AT

H N D OD

L O F P A D S I H M L F2F

ON

B Y N

LA 1

LA 2

LA 3

LA 4

LA 5

LA 6

LA 7

LA 8

LA 9

LA 10

LA 11

LA 12

LA 13

LA 14

LA 15

LA 16

LA 17

Instrument

Categories / Criteria to evaluate Learning Activities for Learning Object development.

7. Technical:

Technologies (TEC): asynchronous (AS), Wiki,

blog, forum - Synchronous (SS) chat, [F] -

Tasks (T), quiz, assignment, task [P]

Media (M): audio (A), video (V), animation

(AN), text (T), graphic (G) [FP].

Type (TYP): single(S), combined intact (CI),

combined modifiable (CM), generative

instructional (GI), generative presentation

instructional (GPI) [FP] (Wiley 2000)

8. Collaborate:

Interactive (IVE): online (ON), offline (OF). [F]

1. Pedagogy:

Focus (FCS): knowledge (K), skills(S),

knowledge / skills (KS). [P]

Approach (APP): instructionist (I),

constructivist(C), self directed (SD),

mentorship (M), apprentice (A). [FP]

2. Access: use on own without teacher (AO), use

with teacher (AT). [F]

Technology need- high end (H), normal (N). [F]

Downloadable (D). [F]

On demand (OD). [F]

43

Discussion of learning activity – (LA 1 in the instrument)

In its present form LA 1 is a series of discreet activities

consisting of measuring the whole body, the head, feet,

hands and limbs. It includes calculating averages (which

assumes an understanding of addition and division), and the

knowledge and skills associated with measuring instruments

(includes different measuring instruments, skills of

manipulation, an understanding of how to read measurements

and an understanding of units of measurement).

It is unlikely, given my understanding and experiences,

that all this needs to be done at the same time as a lesson

on anthropometrics which could include aspects such as

those in figures 1 to 4. Such a lesson while focused on the

acquisition of knowledge and skills, does not assure any

application in authentic context. Ideally a learning

experience in Design & Technology should provide

opportunities to acquire and construct knowledge and

skills, practice and apply. A possible path forward would

be to deconstruct and create learning objects from each of

the figures 1 to 4 below.

44Fig 1a / 1b

BodyFig 2a /

2bHand

Fig 3

Head

Fig 4Movement

From this example some common aspects such as skills of

measuring (using measuring instruments), calculating

averages, measuring instruments, units of measurements are

identified. Having examined the learning activity (through

the smallest learning instances), the following learning

object possibilities emerged:

Learning Object Identity

Learning

Object

Description Possible IdentityMedia Type Function

LO 1 Measuring head AN, T, G CM, GI G, P, CLO 2 Measuring hand AN, T, G CM, GI G, P, CLO 3 Measuring body AN, T, G CM, GI G, P, CLO 4 Measuring body/ range of

natural positionsAN, T, G, V

CM, GI G, P, C

LO 5 Measuring instruments T, G, V CM, GI P, CLO 6 Reading measurements AN, T, G,

VCM, GPI, GI

G, P

LO 7 Units of measurement T, G CM, GI P, CLO 8 Calculating averages AN, T CM, GPI,

GIG, P

G-guiding; P-problem based; C-complimentaryTable 1

45

The learning objects in Table 1 could stand alone and be

accessed by anyone interested or needing only that learning

experience. LO’s 5 to 8 appear to be reusable across a

range of disciplines. At school level these learning

objects may not be useful as they stand without form or

relation. To use them to support learning a clear learning

objective must be identified and a relevant coherent

learning experience designed. This might necessitate using

other learning objects and incorporating design decisions

that draws on the categories and criteria from the

instrument.

The following aspects could form the basis for additional

learning objects:

LO 9 - Types of materials,

LO 10 - Properties of materials,

LO 11 - Use of materials,

LO 12 - Evaluating products,

LO 13 - Basic mathematical functions (adding,

dividing, multiplying)

LO 14 - Using formula in spreadsheets, etc.

Completed learning objects may now be placed in a

repository and categorised according to an easily

accessible and user-friendly system. From the repository a

teacher selects those learning object that could be used

and/or combined and sequenced with others to make up a

lesson; a lesson being an aggregation of learning objects

that are focused on the learning objective. Should there be46

a need for a single learning experience, then a learning

object can be accessed and used.

E.g. if the context was textiles, the purpose to design a

head covering, then, the relevant aspects should be

measuring of heads. Measurements need to be taken, recorded

and then averaged.

The following could be considered:

LO 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 may be selected for the

textiles context and task, and may be sequenced as LO 5, 7,

6, 1, 8, 9, 10, 11.

Should the context be hard materials, the task focused on

designing railings, then, the relevant aspect should be

measuring hands. Measurements need to be taken, recorded

and then averaged.

47

Fig 6Head

The following could be considered:

LO 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 may be selected

for the textiles context and task, and may be sequenced as

LO 5, 7, 6, 2, 4, 8, 13, 14, 9, 10, 11, 12.

The learning object possibilities presented in this section

may be drawn by other disciplines and used as desired.

While most of the learning activities appear suitable

(chapter four, p. 14-16), LA’s 3 and 8 appear less suitable

because they essentially require a more practical (hands

on) interaction. LA’s 13 and 17 although possible, appear

to favour engagements which are blended with practical

work.

48

Fig 7a /7b Hand

Chapter 6

Conclusion

In considering how school education progresses in the

information age I set about investigating the feasibility

of transforming existing institutionalized practices

through a learning object approach for e-learning. The

first step in this direction, articulated in this paper,

was to establish the principles that characterized learning

activities. Having examined various sources of data, I

developed an instrument. The focus of the instrument was to

49

address the aims of this study. Following this I note some

conclusions and offer recommendations on a possible way to

re-engineer learning activities for e-learning.

Many activities used in the context of Design & Technology,

whether as teaching, learning, or mutual engagement possess

the possibility to be transformed into learning objects and

thus useable through e-learning. As design principles

appear universal, the aspects that are generic make them

contenders for reusability across context, and owing to the

nature of some design elements, also reusable without

expiry.

This study has shown that classroom activities can be

deconstructed using specific categories to map them into

the instrument. The resulting matrix in turn assists in

identifying specific aspects in learning activities that

may be transformed to learning objects. This study

highlights, through the application of the instrument that

when considering transformation of learning activities into

learning objects, many aspects need to be analysed and

factored in. The transformation of a learning activity into

a learning object does not imply a simple transformation of

a traditional activity directly into a digital one.

Recommendations

Having identified learning activities for transformation

into learning objects using the instrument, institutions50

could consider these stages to realise the next step in the

instructional design process:

1. Identify the specific knowledge and/or skills in a

discipline.

2. Map these out across different disciplines.

3. Identify different levels and depths of the knowledge

and skills inclusive of pre-requisites for any of

them.

These three stages thus far hedge the chances of reusability.

4. Design learning objects such that they can be used

independently, are reusable and small.

This stage hedges aggregation and lesson / course development.

5. Use a table similar to table 1 (p. 30) and insert any

identifying features.

6. Write specifications for the development of the

learning objects that include the categories of:

technical, collaboration, access, engagement and mode.

7. Design coherent learning experiences for classroom

use.

These stages include design / development and will assist in determining

metadata for the repository

Based on the findings of this study a blended f2f / online

approach should be considered in school education as most

teachers and learners are socialised into this paradigm.

This implies a different work practice in an e-environment.

Well designed learning objects that factor in interactivity

in the e-environment; interaction among students and

teachers; and provides feedback, could hedge the chances of51

learning taking place. The design and development of

learning objects should be undertaken with practicing

teachers and be located within authentic context. As the

main user is the school, learning objects should ideally be

curriculum aligned and focussed on skills and knowledge.

Any repository for learning objects should be easily

accessible, appropriately tagged and user friendly.

The instrument presented in this paper shows potential to

be used for a range of school subjects and course offerings

in different context and situations.

References

Abdullah, M. N. L. Y. & Othman, R. 2006, ‘ICT in Education:

Information Literacy in Teaching and Learning Science’,

Proceedings of 12th IOSTE symposium, eds S. Yoong, et al,

International Organisation for Science and Technology

Education ,31st July – 5th August 2006, Penang, Malaysia,

pp. 726 - 733.

Bassey, M. 1999, Case Study Research In Educational Settings, Open

University Press, Buckingham.

52

Bates, A. W. & Poole, G. 2003, ‘A Framework for Selecting

and Using Technology’, in Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher

Education, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

State of New South Wales (NSW), Board of Studies, 2003,

Design and Technology Years 7–10 Syllabus, Sydney, Australia, viewed

12 August 2006, <http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/>

Burgess, L. A. 2003, WebCT as an E-Learning Tool: A Study

of Technology Students’ Perceptions, Journal of Technology

Education, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 6 - 15

Busetti, E., Dettori, G., Forcheri, P. & Ierardi, M. G.

2005, ‘A Pedagogical Approach to the Design of Learning

Objects’, Recent Research Developments in Learning Technologies,

Formatex, viewed 24 August 2006,

<http://www.formatex.org/micte2005/173.pdf>

Cajas, F. 2000, ‘Research in Technology Education: What Are

We Researching? A Response to Theodore Lewis’, Journal of

Technology Education, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 61 - 69

Clark, D. 2004, Warping with ISD, viewed 26 June 2006,

<http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/isdhistory.htm

l>

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. 2000, Research Methods in

Education, 5th edn, London, Routledge/Farmer.

53

Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning 2002, What Is

Microteaching?, viewed 14 October 2006,

<http://bokcenter.harvard.edu/docs/microteaching.html>

Francis, L. & Turner, T. 2001, Model Behaviour, viewed 24

August 2006, <http://www.Learningcircuits.org/>

Freese, J.; Khan, D. & Sadeck, O. G. 2006, Technology Grade 9,

Shuter & Shooter, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

Gotzsch, J., Chanaron, J-J. & Birchall, D. 2006, ‘Product

Development with a Focus on Attractive Product Expression:

An Analysis of Case Studies’, International Journal of Product

Development, vol. 3, nos. 3 / 4, pp. 467 - 476

Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R. & McCarthy, J. E. 2000,

Designing Resource-Based Learning and Performance Support

Systems, in D. A. Wiley (ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning

Objects: viewed 10 October 2006,

<http://reusability.org/read/chapters/hannafin.doc>

Haughey, M. & Muirhead, B. 2005, Evaluating Learning Objects for

Schools, viewed 11 September 2006

<http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/vol8_no1/fullpa

pers/eval_learnobjects_school.htm>

Hodgins, H. W. 2000, The Future of Learning Objects, in D.

A. Wiley (ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: viewed 10

September 2006,

<http://reusability.org/read/chapters/hodgins.doc> 54

Murtagh, Y., What are Learning Objects?, viewed 10 September 2006

<http://www.tsof.edu.au/resources/learningobjects/what.asp>

, last modified 11 March 2005

Jaftha, C., Khan, D., Mzizi, N., Nolly, A. & Sadeck, O.

2005, ‘The Time & Space Model: Educator Development’,

SAASTE Technology Education Journal, vol. 1, issue 1, pp. 39-49.

Available: www.wcape.school.za/sadeck/

Kozma, R. B. 1991, Learning With Media, Review of Educational

Research, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 179-211.

Laurillard, D. & McAndrew, P. 2003, ‘Reusable Educational

Software: a Basis for Generic Learning Activities’, in

Littlejohn, A. ed., Reusing Online Resources – a Sustainable

Approach to e-learning, London, Kogan Page

Laurillard, D. 2002, Re-thinking University Teaching: A Conversational

Framework for the Effective use of Learning Technologies, (2nd edn),

London, Routledge.

Mason, R., Pegler, C., Weller, M. 2005, ‘A Learning Object

Success Story’, Journal of Asynchronous learning networks, vol. 9,

issue 1, viewed 8 October 2006,

<http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v9n1/v9n1_mason.a

sp>

55

McGreal, R. 2004, Learning Objects: A Practical Definition, viewed 11

September 2006,

<http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_04/article02.htm>

Merriam, S. B. 1988, Case Study Research in Education A Qualitative

Approach, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.

Merrill, M. D. 2000, Knowledge Objects and Mental-Models,

in D. A. Wiley (ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects:

viewed 10 September 2006,

<http://reusability.org/read/chapters/merrill.doc>

Microteaching 2005, viewed 14 October 2006,

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/>

Millar, G., Learning Objects 101: A Primer for Neophytes, BCIT

Learning and Teaching Centre, viewed 10 September 2006,

<http://online.bcit.ca/sidebars/02november/inside-out-

1.htm>

Mortimer, L. 2002, The Devil is in the Details: Converting Classroom

Courses to E-Learning, viewed 24 August 2006,

<http://www.Learningcircuits.org/>

Mustaro, P. N., Stump, S. M. D. & Omar, N. 2006,

‘Methodology for Development and Application of Interactive

and Simulation Tools in Virtual Environments for Science

and Technology Education’, Proceedings of 12th IOSTE symposium, eds

56

S. Yoong, et al, International Organisation for Science and

Technology Education ,31st July – 5th August 2006, Penang,

Malaysia, pp 697 - 703.

Orrill, C. H. 2000, Learning Objects to Support Inquiry-

based Online Learning in D. A. Wiley (ed.), The Instructional

Use of Learning Objects: viewed 30 July 2006,

<http://reusability.org/read/chapters/orrill.doc >

Polsani, P. R. 2003, ‘Use and Abuse of Reusable Learning

Objects’, Journal of Digital Information, vol. 3, issue 4, article

no. 164, viewed 11 September 2006,

<http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i04/Polsani/>

Schmidt, L. & Luczak, H. 2005, Knowledge Representation for

Engineering Design, International Journal of Product Development

(IJPD), vol. 2, no. 3.

Stake, R. F. 1995, The Art of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks,

Sage Publications, California.

Teaching and Learning Centre (TLC) (1999), Using Micro-teaching

for Peer Review of Teaching, Lingnan College, viewed 14 October

2006, <http://www.ln.edu.hk/tlc/learning_matters/01-99-

0399.pdf>

The Harriet W. Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning,

Micro-Teaching Group Session Guidelines, Brown University, viewed

14 October 2006,

57

<http://brown.edu/Administration/Sheridan_Center/consulting

/Micro_teaching.pdf>

The Wisc-Online Resource Center, viewed 24 August 2006,

<http://www.wisc-online.com/Info/FIPSE%20-%20What%20is%20a

%20Learning%20Object.htm>

Usher, R. 1996, 'A Critique of the Neglected Epistemological

Assumptions of Education Research', in D Scott & R Usher, (eds),

Understanding Educational Research, Routledge, London, pp.

9-32.

Warner, S. A. & Morford, L. L. 2004, ‘The Status of Design

in Technology Teacher Education in the United States’,

Journal of Technology Education, vol. 15, no. 2, pp 33 - 45

Wiley, D. A. 2000, Learning Object Design and Sequencing Theory,

Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, Department of

Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young

University, viewed 24 August 2006,

<h ttp://davidwiley.com/papers/dissertation/dissertation.pdf

>

Wiley1, D. A. 2000, 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, viewed 26 August 2006,

<http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc>

Williams, D. D. 2000, Evaluation of Learning Objects and

Instruction Using Learning Objects, in D. A. Wiley (ed.), 58

The Instructional Use of Learning Objects, viewed 26 September 2006,

<http://reusability.org/read/chapters/williams.doc>

Williams, P. J. 2000, Design: The Only Methodology of

Technology? Journal of Technology Education, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 48

- 60

Yates, L. 1997, ‘Research Methodology, Education, and

Theoretical Fashions: Constructing A Methodology Course In

An Era Of Deconstruction’, Qualitative Studies in Education, vol.

10, issue 4, pp. 487-498.

Yin, R. K. 2003, Case Study Research – Design & Methods, (3rd edn),

Sage, Thousand Oaks, California

Zuga, K. F. 2004, Improving Technology Education Research

on Cognition, International Journal of Technology and Design Education,

no. 14, pp. 79–87, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands

Appendix 1

Design and Technology teacher interview schedule

Insights into design in the Design and Technology curriculum

1. (S-I-O): what is your perception of design in the

curriculum of D&T.

59

2. (S- I-O/K): what elements do you find vital to learn

design

3. (S/M-C-E): do you teach traditional aspects of

anthropometrics, aesthetics and ergonomics

4. (S/M-C-O/K): do you think modelling is a form of design –

some consider modelling a s a way of designing what do you

think?

5. (S-C-E/O): apart from traditional design principles what

other aspects do you consider necessary to learn in design

6. (S-R/H/I-E/O): do you think that learning design is more

skill bases or knowledge based

e-Learning

1. (G-I-K): what is your understanding of e-learning

2. (G-R/I-O/K): what is your opinion of e-learning as a mode

of learning in general + in our subject

3. (G-I-K): what is your understanding on LO

LO possibilities

1. (S-I- O/E): do you think that some activities (knowledge

objects) posses the potential to become LO’s – yes which

ones- no why not + which ones not

2. (S/M): Which activities – which elements do you suggest

for LO’s

3. (S/M): what do you suggest for sequencing f LO’s

Initial Design training contributions

1. (B-R/I-B/E): If you teach other subjects do you

incorporate it into D&T or visa versa

2. (B-R-E): what challenges do you face in doing your job –

learners + support+ other

60

3. (G-R-B): has your professional training trained you to

teach design specifically –

4. (R): how was this training done

Biographical / Background

1. (B-B): qualifications in D&T(background in subject

woodwork, technical drawing, metalwork, electronics,

mechanica, etc) + outside experience, what you bring to

subject apart from professional training as teacher (that

influences and adds value to teaching subjects at school,

any hobbies, etc. - (hobbies, etc)

2. (B-R-B): subjects you teach – is it out of choice –or

forced to – what is your workload

Appendix 2

ICT / Computing teacher interview schedule

ICT school context

1. (B-R-B/K): is school computer room networked –

internet – local host- computer room or in classrooms

– how many – working not…

2. (K-R-B): do all learners get computer classes – yes

how often- no why not

3. (K-I/R-E):- what happens in these classes mainly

(literacy, using software…) is this subject related or

as a skill in other context

ICT possibilities

1. (S-I/P-O/E): in your opinion do you think e-learning

is a mode that has potential - elaborate

61

2. (S-I/R-O/E): in your opinion how can Lo be used in

subjects – do you think it could be useful

3. (G-I-K): what is your understanding of how children

become computer literate?

4. (S/K-I/P/R-O/E): have you any experiences of

developing literacy over time. (do you think this

will help them ease into e-learning)

ICT integration

1. (S-P/I/R-E/K): do teachers ask you for it support for

subjects – what do they ask you for y/n if no why do

you think not-

2. (S-P/I/R-E/K): Are there any plans on your part is it

your vision to progress the school towards e-learning.

62

LA TECHNICAL COLLABORATE REUSE

AGGRATEP/REQ

PEDAGOGYACCESS ENGAGEMENT

USE-FULLNESS MODE EXP

TEC M TYP IVE ION FCS APP

AS

SS

OT

A V AN

T G S CI

CM

GI

GPI

ON

OF

ICO

ICT

RCX

RAC

SCF

PR

FP

FK

FS

KS

I C SD

M A AO

AT

H N D OD

L O F P A D S I H M L F2F

ON

B Y N

LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

Appendix 3

63

Instrument

Categories / Criteria to evaluate Learning Activities for Learning Object development.

64

Appendix 4

Instrument Categories and Criteria

1. Technical:

Technologies (TEC): asynchronous (AS), Wiki, blog, forum - Synchronous (SS) chat, [F] - Tasks (T), quiz, assignment, task [P]

Media (M): audio (A), video (V), animation (AN), text (T), graphic (G) [FP].

Type (TYP): single(S), combined intact (CI), combined modifiable (CM), generative instructional (GI), generative presentation instructional (GPI) [FP] (Wiley 2000)

2. Collaborate:

Interactive (IVE): online (ON), offline (OF). [F]

3. Reusability/Aggregation: in context (RCX), across context (RAC), scaffold (SCF), build on to create lessons, courses, then modules. [FP]

4. Prerequisites: pre-knowledge/skill needed (PR), is a foundational pre-knowledge/skill next level (FP). [F]

5. Pedagogy:

Focus (FCS): knowledge (K), skills(S), knowledge / skills (KS). [P] Approach (APP): instructionist (I), constructivist(C),self directed (SD), mentorship (M), apprentice (A). [FP]

6. Access: use on own without teacher (AO), use with teacher (AT). [F]

Technology need- high end (H), normal (N). [F]

Downloadable (D). [F]

On demand (OD). [F]

7. Engagement: listen (L), observe (O), do (D), practice (P), apply (A), simulate(S), introduce (I), follow on (F). [FP]

8. Usefulness: high (H), medium (M), low (L). [F]

9. Mode: f2f (F2F), online (ON), blended f2f/online (B).[FP]

10. Expiry: Yes(Y), No (N). [F]