The Development Of Learning Object Model: It’s Types and Metadata

Extension

Yazrina Yahya and Mohamed Yusoff

Faculty Technology and Information Science

National University Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor
Tel: 03-89216183 Fax: 03-89216184 Email: yaz@ftsm.ukm.my

Abstract

Learning object is not a new concept in the
world of reusable materials. The idea has
already emerged as early as in the nineties.
However due to the exponential growth of the
World Wide Web, the worldwide availability of
easily accessible learning materials has sparked
the re-emergence of these old concepts in the
late nineties and these concepts presently being
further developed to generate knowledge and
insights into storing and retrieving materials.
Though learning object had been an educational
agenda for several years now there remain a
vacuum in identifying the structure of a learning
object, the pedagogical elements in the learning
object metadata application profile and
reusability of a learning object. Hence the aim of
the study is to produce a classification for the
learning object based on it’s granularity, to
provide extension to the current learning object
metadata (LOM) standards in order to
incorporate pedagogical and instructional issues
and to develop a learning object repository that
uses dynamic metadata to search for the objects.
However, this paper will only provide the
conceptual work carried out in providing the
learning object types and the learning object
metadata extensions. In order to produce a
complete structure description of a learning
object, analysis on the learning object
characteristic and types are carried out.
Theories on instructional design, learning styles,
constructivism instructional design and design
potential approach were used to derive the
elements associated with pedagogical and
instructional aspect. Aspects on ontology and
rhetorical relations are also looked into in order
to develop the learning object repository. The
result of this study is in the form of an enhanced
learning object metadata standards tailored to
the users needs.
Keywords
Learning Object, LOM, Metadata, LOM
Application Profile
1 Introduction
The use of Internet had open end doors to
learning opportunities that does not exist a
decade ago. Currently the Internet represents the
latest restructuring technology expanding the
global village with instantaneous, two way
communication and a unique ability for anyone
to participate and contribute. Hence, online
courses, interaction with fellow students and
instructors through e-mail and access to research
libraries are just some of the emerging
capabilities. Whether it is the creation of learning
portals, learning management system, content
libraries or anything related to e-learning,
accredited standards will reduce the risk of
making large investments in learning
technologies because systems will be able to
work together like never before.
Standards for e-Learning refer to a system of
common rules for e-learning technology. This
rule is to provide the common language for e-
Learning courses and learning management
system to share data or talk to one another. It has
also beginning to set a standard language that
defines e-Learning counter parts which is known
as learning object.
Learning object is not a new concept in the world
of reusable learning materials. The idea of a

1
learning object has already emerged as early as
in the early nineties (Persico et al, 1992).
However, due to the exponential growth of the
World Wide Web, the worldwide availability of
easily accessible learning materials has sparked
the re-emergence of these old concepts and it is
presently being further developed to generate
knowledge and insights into storing and
retrieving learning materials.
Though learning object had been an educational
agenda for several years now, there remains a
vacuum in identifying the structure of learning
object, the pedagogical elements in the learning
object metadata application profile and
reusability of a learning object. Despite of
having a lot of written papers regarding learning
object a comprehensive definition is yet to be
produced (Wiley, 2001; IP et al, 2001; NLII,
2002; Friesen, 2001; Sorsteric, 2004; Mortimer,
2002; Longmire, 2000; Barron, 2000; Eduworks,
2002).
Apart from that various terms are also given to
learning object, where it is also known as
reusable learning object (Cisco, 2001), JAVA
applet (EOE, 2000) and educational learning
material (Friesen, 2001.
A learning object is associated with educational
material. Hence it needs to have context,
chronicle and affiliations and pedagogical
intentions. It’s main function is to help
enhancing the learning and teaching process
through the electronic medium. Therefore to
support learning through technology, these
objects needs to be discovered, accessed and
interoperable.
Armed with this simplistic perspective, the
definition of a learning object needs to entail the
above matters. Hence the working definition
introduced is:
A learning object is a digital file, which
can be searched, accessed, adapted,
interoperable, used and reused to enhance and
extend learning by including affiliation,
chronicle and suggestions on the relevant
context when using the object.
Other than issues regarding it’s definition, other
issues related to learning object can be
categorized into four main categories namely the
granularity of learning object (Quinn, 2000;
Eduworks; 2002; Ip, 2001; Wiley et al, 2000;
Oliver, 2001; Muzio, 2001), the types of learning
object (Mortimer, 2002), the learning object
metadata issues (Quinn, 2000; Friesen, 2001,
Forte et al, 1999; Hepburn, 2000; Earle, 2002,
Recker, 2000, Carey, 2002; Wiley, 2002) and the
search using metadata (Baca, 1998)
From the above-mentioned literature, it is
discovered that there is no consensus on the
definite size of the learning object or the ranges
of size available for the learning object. It is
crucial to know the size as it helps to identify the
potential for reuse of a learning object. Apart
from that by knowing the size of the learning
object, it will help in determining the possible
combinations between the objects.
Aside from that it is also encountered that there
is no indication on how a learning object looks
like. There is merely enough indication to
describe the structure of the learning object.
Nevertheless, there are also issues regarding the
metadata attached to the learning object, it is
mentioned in the literature that the metadata
needs to have context and pedagogy attached t o
it in order for learning to occur.
Based on the matters raised, current research is
carried out to derive a more comprehensive
definition of a learning object, to produce
classification based on the learning objects
granularity, to enhance the learning object
metadata standards by instilling the context,
pedagogical factors in the metadata and to
provide metadata for each types of the learning
object derived.
2 Research Organization
In conducting the research, a conceptual
methodology developed by Weick (1989) was
used to help in deriving the results. The
methodology described is mainly used in the
conceptual modeling development (Lewis, 1998)
where models are developed based on existing
literature. Hence in establishing the learning
object types and it’s extended metadata
literatures are looked at into detail. The
methodology framework can be seen in Figure 1.
2
 Figure 1: Methodology Used Phase 3: Iteration
Based on the conjecture the extended
Phase 1: Groundwork Phase II : Induction elements are derived.
- Define - Select the existing - Analyse element - Develop initial
theoretical LOM standards within standards conjectures
domain Phase 4: Conclusion
- skim the standards
-Develop and tabulate the elements - Analyse element - Compare conjectures The model is then evaluated against the
review
framework - Sample the standards
across standards to the elements
users to see its usefulness.

Review literature Select Cases Analyse Case Data Shape Conjectures

The work mentioned in this paper only involves
phase one to phase three. As mentioned phase
four where the model is evaluated against the
user hence it involves the development of the
Phase III : Iteration
learning object repository, which is not being
- Extend the elements
mentioned here.
Refine Model - Development of the model

- Development of the
repository
3 Results

Phase IV : Conclusion Based on the literature review, Wiley (2000) had

- Evaluate the model produced the learning object taxonomy, which
Conclude
- Suggest future consists of single type, combined intact,
research directions
combined modifiable, generative presentation,
and generative instructional learning objects.
However based on the research conducted, the
The research is conducted according to the types of learning object may be reduced into
phases of the methodology. The phases involved three types of learning object mainly the single
are: type, combined modifiable and generative
instructional. The reason for having only three
types of learning objects is due to the fact that
Phase 1: Groundwork
combined intact may be classified under single
type object. From the analysis, it is discovered
This phase defines the theoretical
that the purpose of single type objects are similar
domain where the technology literature
to those in combined intact objects. Apart from
in the area of educational technology,
that, the combined intact object may be
standards organization, education,
considered as single file as the components in the
information retrieval and system
particular object may not be separated. For
development are explored. The
example, a pdf file of an article or an image file
conceptual framework is developed and
is considered to be single object, as the content
existing LOM standards such as IEEE
in the files may not be separated.
(2004), CanCore (2003), CANDLE
(2003), Dublincore (2005),
In the same way, the generative presentation
UKLOMCore ( 2003), The Learning
object may be classified under combined
Federation (2003) and Curriculum
modifiable object. This is due to the fact that
Online(2003) are looked at. The
generative presentation has similar purposes as
standards are then skimmed and
to combined modifiable object. The format for
tabulated in the form of tables.
both objects are also found of be the same which
are mainly in the form of web application
Phase 2: Induction
format. Based on the objects derived, for each
The metadata elements in each standard
types of the object, it has it’s own genre and it’s
are looked into in terms of definition,
educational application. The types of learning
vocabulary recommended, data type and
object obtained are as follow (Table 1):
others. Comparison is being made in
terms of usage. Once this is completed
initial conjectures are developed.

3
 Table 1: Types Of Learning Object
Other than learning styles, it is also believed that
Types Of Genre Educational another element is needed to counter the issue on
Learning Application reusability. Hence history element is constructed
Object
Single Audio Audio Book
in this research. The concept behind this element
Digital Text Web Cast is about relation that exists in the learning object.
Object Image Lecture With the history metadata, a user may know how
Music the object has been used and it’s relation to
Oral History
Radio Broadcast
another object. To construct the element, details
Story on ontology and topic maps are looked into.
Ambient Ontology and topic maps (Pepper, 1999, 2002;
Effect Garshol, 2002, 2004) are used to identify the
Speech
subject related to the referenced learning object.
Combined Text & Example
Modifiable Image Feedback Hence it will provide the results for the related
Object Audio, text Guide subjects to the learning objects. This will help
& image or Illustration the user in obtaining information regarding
Text & audio Introduction
which subject the object had been used and other
Audio& Practice
image Scenario related objects that maybe of use. As these
Case study theories are used as the foundation to develop the
Presentation element, it is realized that in order for the
Field activity
element to be constructed it has to be dynamic.
Journal article
Demonstration The dynamic element allows the user to search
Simulation the learning objects through their subject
Problem solving classification and allow the users to look at other
Best practice
learning objects related to the subject searched.
Generative Text, audio Story problem solving
Instructional & image & Trouble shooting Hence the dynamic history metadata is
Object algorithm Logical Problem composed of topic name/ subject name;
Decision making topic/subject occurrences; topic/subject
Diagnosis Solution associations.
Case analysis

As much as history element is important, the

As mentioned, literature had raised issues on the
relation category described in the learning object
learning metadata object standards, where there
metadata standard (IEEE, 2004) plays an
is a need to instill context and pedagogical
important role in providing information about the
factors into the metadata (Jonassen, 2004; Forte
relationship between the learning objects with
et al, 1999; Hepburn, 2000). Realizing this
other learning objects. However the vocabulary
necessity, the first extension to the metadata is
defined is merely enough, as it should provide
by having an extra element, which is learning
more options to the users of the metadata. To
styles. This particular element is important as it
extend the relation metadata literature based on
explicitly informed that the learning object is
rhetorical relation (Seeberg et al, 1999; Mann,
reliable as it embeds the instructional strategy in
1987) are looked. Rhetorical relation describes
it. It is believed that the learning styles elements
the association between the objects and provides
are able to provide information regarding the
didactic relation between the objects. This will
thinking process supported by the object and
help the user in procuring information on how
how it helps in the learning process. The element
the object had been used whether as an
constructed is based on the learning styles model
introduction to a bigger topic, an example to
developed by Felder and Silverman (1988); and
another topic and analogy or others. The
Dunn and Dunn, (1978, 1989). Both work were
extended vocabulary derived is as below (Table
used as the models were based on the
2):
instructional preference and it focuses more on
the learner’s preferences. The suggested
vocabulary for the learning styles element are
auditory/verbal, visual, sensory, intuitive, active,
reflective, sequential, global, tactile kinesthetic,
internal kinesthetic, impulsive, team interaction,
authority and variety.

4
Table 2: Extended Vocabulary For Relation
Element
Name Of Explanation
Name Of Explanation Relation
Relation
11. is based on The object A is derived in
1. is version of The object A is a version, whole or in part from the
edition, or adaptation of 12. is basis for object B.
the referenced object (B).
2. has version 13. is an The object A is derived in
The object A has a introduction whole or in part from the
version, edition or to object B.
3. is required by adaptation namely the
reference object (B) 14. is an The object A is an
explanation introduction to the object B
4. requires The object A is required
by the referenced object 15. is an
(B) either physically or example The object A is an
5. is part of logically explanation to the object B
16. is an
The object A requires the illustration The object A is an example
6. has part object B to support in to the object B
function, delivery or 17. is an
7. is referenced coherence in content alternative The object A is an
by illustration to the object B
The object A is a physical 18. is an
or logical part of the analogy The object A is an
8. references object B alternative to the object B
19. is the
continuation The object A is an analogy
9. is format of The object A includes the to the object B
object B either physically 20. is the
or logically opposition The object A is the
10. has format continuation of the object B
The object A is 21. is the
referenced, cited or precondition The object A is the
otherwise pointed to by opposition of the object B
the object B 22. addresses
The object A is the
The object A referenced, 23. uses precondition of the object B
cites or otherwise points
to the object B 24. refutes The object A addresses the
concept of the object B
The object A has the same 25. is the
intellectual content of the sequence The object A used the object
object B, but presented in B
another format 26. confirms
The object A refutes the
The object A pre-existed object B
the object B, which is
essentially has the same The object A is the
intellectual content succession of the object B
presented in another
format The object A confirms the
object B

5
4 Conclusion
The research carried out had focused on the
issues raised in the literature regarding the
definition of learning object, it’s structure, and
it’s metadata element and vocabulary. It is hoped
that the results obtained will provide a
References:
1. Baca, M. (1998). Introduction to metadata
pathways to digital information. Los
Angeles: JPaul Getty Trust. USA.
2. Barron, T. (2000). Learning Object
Pioneers. Learning Circuits. March 2000.
http://www.learningcircuits.org/ (14/1/2005)
3. Cancore (2003). Cancore Learning Resource
Metadata Application Profile. Ver. 2.0.
Athabasca University. Canada.
4. CANDLE. (2003). The CANDLE project -
collaborative and network distributed
learning environment.
http://www,candle.eu.org (14/1/2005)
5. Carey, T; Swallow, J.; Oldfield, W. (2002).
Educational Rationale Metadata For
Learning Objects. Canadian Journal of
Learning and Technology. Volume 28(3)
Fall. ICAAP. Canada.
6. http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.3
(14/1/2005)
7. Cisco (2001). Cisco Systems Reusable
Learning Object Strategy: Designing
Information and Learning Objects through
Concept, Fact, Procedure, Process and
Principle Templates. Cisco Systems Inc.
http://business.cisco.com/servletwl3/FileDo
wnloader/iqprd/86575/86575_kbns.pdf
(14/1/2005)
8. Curriculum Online (2003). Metadata Guide
For Tagging.
http://www.curriculumonline.gov.uk/NR/
(14/1/2005)
9. Downes, S. (2000). Learning Objects.
http://www.downes.ca/files/Learning_Objec
ts.htm (11/9/2004)
10. Dublincore (2005). DCMI Metadata Terms.
Dublincore Metadata Initiative.
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi_terms
(14/1/2005)
11. Earle, A. (2002). Designing for pedagogical
flexibility: Experiences from the CANDLE
project. Journal Of Interactive Media In
Education. Vol. 4.
12. Dunn, K. and Dunn, R. (1978). Teaching
Students Through Their Individual Learning
Styles. Englewood Cliffs. NJ:Prentice Hall.
comprehensive description of what a learning
object is. Apart from that ameliorate structure
had been provided and new metadata elements
had been included in order to address the
reusability, pedagogical and context issues.
13. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., and Price , G.E. (1989).
Learning Styles Inventory. Lawrence, KS:
Price Systems.
14. Eduworks. (2002). Making Standards.
http://eduworks.com/Tutorials/LearningObje
cts/index.html (11/9/2004)
15. EOE (2000). Educational Object Economy.
http://www.eoe.org/ (14/1/2005)
16. Felder,R.M. and Silverman, L.K. (1988)
Learning and Teaching Styles in
Engineering Education, Engineering
Education , Volume 78 Issue 7,1988. pp:
674-681
17. Forte E., Haenni, F., Warkentyne, K.,
Duval, E., Cardinaels, K., Vervaet, E.,
Hendrikx, K., Wentland, F., & Simillion, F.
(1999). Semantic and pedagogic
interoperability mechanisms in the
ARIADNE educational repository. ACM
SIGMOD Record Vol. 28. Issue 1. pp 20-25
18. Friesen, N. (2001). CanCore: Metadata for
learning object repositories. In Ellis, A.,
Hall, R., & Li, J. (eds). N.A. web 2001: The
web based learning conference. Proceedings
of the 7th International NA WEB
conference, October 13-16. Frederiction:
Intergrated Technology Services, University
Of Brunswick. Pp 19-30.
19. Garshol, L.M.(2002). What are Topic Maps.
http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/learn_mo
re.html (30/3/2005)
20. Garshol, L.M. (2004) Metadata? Thesauri?
Taxonomies? Topic Maps!. Journal Of
Information Science. Volume 30. Number 4.
CILIP pp 378-391.
21. Hepburn, g. & Place, G. (2000). Learning
objects: communicating the pedagogical
potential. In Bourdeau, L. & Heller, R.
(eds). Proceedings of ED MEDIA 2000.
World Conference On Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications. AACE Issue 1. pp
1365-1366.
22. IEEE, Learning Technology Standards
Committee (2004).
http://ltsc.ieee.org/index.html (11/9/2004)
23. Ip, A., Morrison, I. And Curie, M.(2001).
What is a learning object technically?.
6
 Proceedings of WebNet 2001 - World
Conference on the WWW and Internet,
Orlando, Florida, October 23-27, 2001.
AACE. Pp 580-586
24. Jonassen, D. and Churchill, D. (2004). Is
There a Learning Orientation in Learning
Objects? International Journal Of E-
Learning. April-June 2004. Volume 3. Issue
2. Pp:32-41
25. Learning Federation (2003). Metadata
Application Profile. Ver. 1.3. Curriculum
Corporation. Australia
http://www.thelearningfederation.edu.au/tlf2
/sitefiles/ (14/1/2005)
26. Lewis, M.W. (1998). Iterative triangulation:
a theory development process using existing
case studies. Journal of operations
management. Volume 16. pp 455-469.
27. Longmire, W. (2000). A primer on learning
objects. Learning Circuits March 2000.
http://www.learningcircuits.org/mar2000/pri
mer.html (24/8/2001)
28. Mann, W.C. and Thomson S.A. (1987).
Rhetorical Structure Theory: A theory of
Text Organizations. Technical Report RS-
87-190, Information Science Institute, USC
ISI, USA.
29. Mortimer, L. (2002) (Learning) Objects of
Desire: Promise and Practicality. Learning
circuits. April 2002
http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/apr200
2/mortimer.html (11/9/2004)
30. Muzio, J., Heins, T. & Mundell, R., (2002).
Experiences with reusable eLearning
objects: from theory to practice. The
Internet and Higher Education Vol. 5. pp 21-
34.
31. NL11. (2002). Learning Objects (NLII
2002–2003 Key Theme.
http://www.educause.edu/nlii/keythemes/lea
rningObjects.asp (11/9/2004)
32. Oliver R. (2001) Learning objects:
supporting flexible delivery of flexible
learning. In Kennedy, G., Keppel, M.,
McNaught, C & Petrovic, T. (eds). Meeting
at crossroads: Proceedings of ASCILITE
2001. Melbourne: The University Of
Melbourne. Pp 453-460
33. Pepper, S. (1999). Navigating Haystacks
Discovering Needles. Markup Languages:
Theory And Practice. Volume 1. No. 4. MIT
Press.
34. Pepper, S. (2002). The TAO Of Topic Maps
Finding The Way in the Age of Infoglut.
http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/learn_mo
re.html (30/3/2005)
35. Persico D., Sarti L., Viarengo V. (1992)
Browsing a database of multimedia learning
material. Interactive Learning International.
Vol. 8. pp: 213 – 235
36. Quinn, C. and Hobbs, S. (2000). Learning
Objects and Instruction Components.
Educational Technology and Society.
Volume 3. Issue 2. pp 13-20
37. Recker, M.M. & Wiley, D. (2000). A non-
authoritative educational metadata ontology
for filtering and recommending learning
objects. Journal Of Interactive Learning
Environments. The Netherlands: Swets &
Zeitlinger. Special Issues On Metadata. pp
1-17.
38. Cornelia Seeberg, Abdulmotaleb El Saddik,
Achim Steinacker, Klaus Reichenberger,
Stephan Fisher and Ralf Steinmetz "From
The User’s Needs to Adaptive Documents"
in Proceeding of the conference on
Integrated Design & Process Technology
IDPT 1999, Kusadasi, Turkey, June 27-July
2 1999
39. Sosteric, M. , & Hesemeier, S. (2004).
When a learning object is not an object: A
first step towards a theory of learning
objects. In Online education using learning
objects. Mc Greal, R. (ed). London:
Routledge/Falmer.
40. UKLOM Core (2003). UK Learning Object
Metadata Framework
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/ (12/12/2003)
41. Weick, K.E. (1989). Theory Construction
As Disciplined Imagination. Academic
Management Review. 14(4). Pp 516-531.
42. Wiley, D.A. (2000). Learning Object Design
and Sequencing Theory. A Dissertation
Submitted To The Faculty Of Birgham
Young University For The Degree Of
Doctor Of Philosophy.
43. Wiley, D (2002) Learning objects need
instructional design theory. In A. Rossett
(Ed.) The 2001/2002 ASTD Distance
Learning Yearbook. New York: McGraw-
Hill . http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/astd.pdf
(11/9/2004)
44. Wiley, D. (2001). Connecting learning
objects to instructional design theory: A
definition, a metaphor and taxonomy. In
Wiley, D. (ed). The instructional use of
learning objects. Bloomington, IN:
Association for educational communications
and technology
45. Wiley, D. , Recker, M.M., & Gibbons, A.
(2000) A reformulation of learning object
granularity.
7
http://reusability.org/granularity.pdf
(11/9/2004)