Developing Object-Based

Learning Environment to
Promote Learners Motivation
for Learning Digital Systems
LAU SIONG HOE,1 PETER C. WOODS2
1
Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Multimedia University, Melaka 75450, Malaysia
2
Knowledge Management Center, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya 63100, Malaysia

Received 29 August 2007; accepted 9 July 2008

ABSTRACT: This article aims at sharing the authors experiences with object-based learning environment. The
purpose of this study is to assess the learners perceptions and usage of learning objects in Digital Systems
course. Overall, learning objects are good alternative learning strategy, which enables learners to take more
control over their own learning. 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Comput Appl Eng Educ 18: 640
650, 2010; View this
article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com; DOI 10.1002/cae.20268

Keywords: digital systems; learning object; object-based learning; engineering education

INTRODUCTION
Information technology (IT) has been widely implemented into
many fields and has the potential to improve many aspects of
organizational operations [1]. This is especially true in the edu-
cation field, where educators and administrators worldwide have
integrated and utilized IT into education to complement the
traditional face-to-face teaching and learning at all levels of
education [2,3]. In recent years, there have been drastic changes
in engineering education in terms of instructional content (what is
taught) and delivery medium (how it is taught) to complement the
traditional face-to-face teaching and learning [4,5].
In an attempt to make instructional resources more efficient
and promote learners intrinsic motivation for learning, many
organizations, corporations, and institutes of higher education
around the world have been contributing a great deal of effort and
investing considerable amount of financial resources for the
integration and utilization of learning objects into their e-learning
systems [6]. Nowadays, many learning object repositories, such
as Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online
Teaching (http://www.merlot.org/), Connexions (http://cnx.org/),
Campus Alberta Repository of Educational Objects (http://careo.
netera.ca/), Educational Object Economy (http://www.eoe.org),
Wisconsin Online Resource Centre (http://www.wisc-online.
Correspondence to L. Siong Hoe (lau.siong.hoe@mmu.edu.my).
2010 Wiley Periodicals Inc.
com), and others have been developed to cater for a variety of
knowledge domains. Polsani [7] suggested that educators can
effectively employ object-based learning approach to course
design by using learning objects from a variety of repositories to
produce a sound curriculum. Thus, the exponential growth of
learning objects in many knowledge domains available through
Internet is creating opportunities for educators to instantly access
the learning objects in their course development and delivery.
The Digital Systems course at our institution is a core
subject for first year students who come from a variety of
background with different levels of learning experience. The
students have very little conceptual understanding of logic circuit
and often misunderstand the fundamental concepts, which leads
to hours of wasted time spent on understanding and applying
them incorrectly. They are reluctant to seek clarification about
a concept instantly because most of them do not have adequate
knowledge to compose the questions during and after the
lecture sessions. In addition, the textbooks are hardly referred,
because majority of the students in this course are not capable of
retrieving relevant content that makes sense to them.
Thus, it is crucial for the instructors who teaching this
course to provide accurate, relevant, and just enough content at
the right time to bring all students to a common understanding of
the fundamental concepts. In order to achieve this goal in a short
period of time, an effective learning approach is important to
assist the students to gain the correct concepts and apply them
correctly in the early stage. We believe that we can address some
of these issues by creating object-based learning environment to

640

facilitate the process of knowledge transfer between the
instructors and the students. The purpose of this study is to
assess the learners perceptions and usage of learning objects as
supplementary learning resources in Digital Systems course. This
study is designed to answer the following questions:
1. How do learners use and perceive the usefulness and
benefits of learning objects?
2. How do learners perceive the quality of learning object?
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In recent years there has been an increased in the use of e-
learning, and in investigating the effectiveness and efficiency of
various instructional design strategies. Some of the most impor-
tant breakthroughs in this regard have come from the reusable
object-based learning approach, referred to as learning objects Survey Instrument Design
[8]. According to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE), Learning Technology Standard Committee
(LTSC), learning objects are defined as any entity, digital or
non-digital, which can be used, reused or referenced during
technology supported learning. . . [8]. A learning object is seen
as a discrete, reusable, and context-free learning chunk [9,10]. It
is an idea to decompose existing course materials into smaller
(relative to the size of an entire course) instructional components
that can be reused in a number of times in different learning
contexts. Additionally, they can be combined to form larger
educational interactions to meet the learners needs. Now, this
concept has gained such broad acceptance and has filtered into
the fields of education [11]. Commercial companies like Cisco
Systems Inc. and National Education Training Group Inc. (NETg)
have also introduced the concept of learning object in their Web-
based training strategies [12].
An open and accessible learning object repositories are
essential for the development of an open architecture environ-
ment for greater customization and flexibility in online learning
that will allow teaching and learning to be centered on the needs
and interests of the learners [13,14]. Course design by using
learning objects assembly approach increased the efficiency of
learning content design, development and delivery [15], and
offers potential cost saving for educators [16]. Shepherd [17]
suggested three types of learning objects that can be used in the
course structure: (1) mini-tutorials, mini case studies and
simulations, (2) overview/summaries, descriptions/definitions,
and worked examples, and (3) drill-and-practice exercises, review
exercises, and tests/assessments.
While there are potential benefits, it is also important to
determine whether students perceive the same levels of usage,
usefulness, and ease of use while utilizing learning objects. It has
been emphasized that the value of an IT innovation lies not so
much in the technology itself, but in its effective and efficient
usage [18]. To this point, the majority of literature related to
learning objects have focused primarily on technical issues such
as standardization [7,10,19], reusability [10,20] and the effect use
of metadata [19,21,22]. Little empirical study exits to support the
claim that using learning objects improves the student learning.
Chapuis [23] conducted a study to investigate the effectiveness of
different pedagogical perspective to integrate learning objects
into classroom practice revealed that teachers and students were
keen to use any learning objects that are relevant to the units of
work being taught. Boyle et al. [24] conducted a project on
OBJECT-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 641
pedagogical issues in the design, development and deployment of
learning objects for introductory programming subject indicated
that students found the learning objects useful and extensively
used them and they can be easily fitted into the development and
delivery processes in the educational context. Kay and Knaack
[25] in a study to examine the quality of learning objects designed
for secondary school students using a multi-component model
revealed that collaborative team approach, understanding the
learner, a focus on clear instruction and organization, and using
comprehensive, theoretically supported evaluation metric exam-
ining the quality of learning objects (p. 249) were important
steps in the development learning object process.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study utilized Web-based surveys to collect data for
quantitative and qualitative testing of the research questions. A
review of the literature was used to identify existing measures for
variables and they were rewritten as necessary to fit the context of
this study. The measurement items for learning object use [26],
perceived usefulness of different learning aids [24,26], perceived
benefit of learning object [25,27], actual use of learning objects
[28,29], and open-ended question [25,30] to collect the experi-
ences and views of learners were adapted from previous literature
studies.
Participants
The target population for the study consists of undergraduate IT
students who were enrolled in Faculty of Information Science and
Technology. This study sought experience online learning users
who are familiar with web technologies in general sense and
had the basic ability using online learning system so that they
could evaluate the learning objects based on their current online
learning experience with Multimedia Learning System (MMLS).
All first year students enrolled in Digital Systems course were
agreed to participate in this study.
The Learning Objects
The Digital Systems course is a core subject for the first year IT
students. It introduces the students to the field of digital techn-
ology elements such as logic gates, combination logic circuits,
memory devices, and digital signal processing. In this study,
relevant learning objects that corresponded to our courses
pedagogical objectives were retrieved from various general
repositories (e.g., Connexionshttp://cnx.org/, Multimedia Edu-
cational Resource for Learninghttp://www.merlot.org/, and
Online Teaching and Wisconsin Online Resource Centerhttp://
www.wisc-online.com), which provide higher education level
learning objects. These repositories where selected for being
among the few learning objects repositories that permits public
access, which made the study possible. Some of the learning
objects were authored in Macromedia Flash that uses animations
and interactive simulations to provide visual examples of digital
systems concept. Others were text-based objects authored as
webpage. In order to produce cohesive and pedagogically sound
learning materials and to effectively search for relevant learning
642 SIONG HOE AND WOODS
Figure 1 Learning object assembly process. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is
available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
objects, the researcher designed a generic structure of the Digital
Systems course consisting of a series of electronic folders, similar
to traditional course hierarchy (chapters, lessons, and topics) to
hold the retrieved learning objects (Fig. 1).
Since learning objects are not implemented in the
participating university, the lecturers opted to use PowerPoint
as the main lecture presentation. Relevant learning objects were
linked into the lecture notes with the aim of helping students to
understand the more abstract and complex aspects of learning
content. The learning objects were used in a number of ways.
They were presented as optional learning aids, for students to use
as they needed. Student can use the objects in their lab sessions to
help them complete their weekly practical exercise and they can
revisit them at a later time to consolidate their learning and
understanding or for revision. Instructors incorporated some of
the learning objects into lectures to demonstrate key concepts and
provide visual examples.
Procedure
Participation in the study was voluntary. At the beginning of the
semester, e-mails were sent to the instructors to seek permission,
and to arrange time for their class students to participate in the
study. First, respondents were told the purpose of the study, and
followed a brief in-class introduction of learning objects to the
respondents, describing the nature and benefits of learning objects
and its relevance to their curriculum. Then the instructor guided
them through some of the learning objects related to the logic
gates. Having the opportunity to explore the learning objects,
respondents could feel the use of learning objects, and appreciate
the functionality attributes available at the study learning objects
before they shaped their perceptions towards the learning objects.
Data collection took place over one semester (14 weeks).
Students completed demographic questionnaire at the beginning
of the semester and completed survey questionnaires at the end of
the semester.
Data Analysis Techniques
Responses collected from the surveys were matched to create a
single record for each respondent. Descriptive statistics such as
frequency distributions, means, standard deviations, and percen-
tages were used to describe data using SPSS 11.0. In addition, the
responses to open-ended question were collected, coded, and
interpreted to support the quantitative data analysis findings.
STUDY RESULTS
Demographics Data
The population of interest was learners enrolled in Digital
Systems course and who used learning objects as supplementary
learning resources in their face-to-face class. The sample
consisted of 312 undergraduate students, who had prior experi-
ence with the use of the computer and Internet. Majority of the
subjects have 2
4 years of computer experiences and spent about
2
4 h everyday on the Internet.
Learning Object Usage and Perceptions
This section looks at how students interact with and engage with
learning objects as supplementary learning resources for the
Digital Systems course. First, students were asked about their use
of the learning objects as shown in Table 1. We found that 228
(73.1%) students were using the learning objects for revision and
187 (59.9%) students used learning objects for the test or exam
preparation. About 167 (53%) students said they skimmed
through learning objects and returned to use the ones needed to
help them in their learning. Finally, 63 (20.2%) students also used
them as replacement for consultation hours.
Second, we asked students how useful have they found each
of the learning aids used in their learning as shown in Table 2.
The results indicated that students rated the learning objects
 OBJECT-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 643

Table 1 How Students Used the Learning Objects

Measurement items Frequency %

How did you use the learning objects? (Please tick all that apply)
1. Skimmed through learning object and returned to the ones needed later when had more time 167 53.5
2. Used the ones needed to help with learning 168 53.8
3. Used learning objects for revision 228 73.1
4. Used learning objects in the test/exam preparation 187 59.9
5. Replacement for consultation hours 63 20.2

Table 2 Comparing the Usefulness of Different Learning Aids

Measurement items Very useful Useful Neutral Not very useful Useless

How useful are:

1. Lectures? 64 (20.5%) 136 (43.6%) 49 (15.7%) 50 (16.0%) 13 (4.2%)
2. Lab exercises? 36 (11.5%) 127 (40.7%) 99 (31.7%) 48 (15.4%) 2 (0.6%)
3. Textbooks? 32 (10.3%) 92 (29.5%) 71 (22.8%) 100 (32.1%) 17 (5.4%)
4. E-learning aids from MMLS? 39 (12.5%) 127 (40.7%) 96 (30.8%) 45 (14.4%) 5 (1.6%)
5. Learning objects? 64 (20.5%) 157 (50.3%) 55 (17.6%) 33 (10.6%) 3 (1.0%)

comparably with the other learning aids and demonstrated a
preference for the learning objects. The learning objects had the
highest rating in the useful category. The combined usefulness
rating was very-high 70.8% (221). The textbooks had a notice-
ably lower rating in the useful category (124, 39.8%). The
comparison with traditional techniques such as lectures (200,
64.1%) and lab exercises (163, 52.2%), learning object is much
preferred. As one would expect, e-learning aids (166, 53.2%)
from MMLS system continue to be rated highly as this is where
the students get their learning materials for lecture and lab session
activities.
Third, the students were also asked to rate the perceived
benefits of learning objects to their learning experience as shown
in Table 3. Overall, respondents strongly agreed that the learning
objects are beneficial learning strategies, which provided as much
details as in the lecture session as indicated by item-1 (M 4.15,
SD 0.963) and item-5 (M 4.19, SD 0.968). The respondents
also strongly agreed that the learning objects have helped them to
understand the subject matters concept better at their own pace as
shown by item-2 (M 4.05, SD 0.984) and item-4 (M 4.09,
SD 0.973). They were interested in using the learning object in
their learning again (item-3 with M 4.07, SD 0.971).
Lastly, after 3-month interval since initial exposure, at
the end of the semester, all 312 respondents had hand-on experi-
ence on the learning objects as shown in Table 4. On average, the
respondents spent about 3
5 h on learning objects weekly and
used about 10
20 learning objects per week.
Quality of Learning Objects
The questionnaire also contains one open-ended question, which
is related to the learning object characteristics. Respondents were
asked to suggest in writing, what they liked and disliked about the
learning objects. As suggested by Tesch [31], the researcher read
through the data items, thought about the substance of the
information and its underlying meaning, made a list of all topics,
clustered together similar topics, found the most descriptive
wording for the topics and grouped them into categories. At the
end of the process, the responses seemed to fall naturally into
three themes of learning object characteristics: (1) technical
quality, (2) content quality, and (3) pedagogical quality. As for the
items that did not fall within the three categories, they were
analyzed and depicted as emergent themes.
Technical Quality. Technical quality refers to quality mainly in
the sense of learning objects technical attributes, such as ease of
use, presentation design, accessibility, and flexibility. In this
study, five categories: turnaround time, convenience of access,
feeling of control, flexibility, and interoperability were found to
relate to the technical quality of learning objects in their written
responses as shown in Table 5.
The importance of turnaround time was indicated by 26
items in three topics: (1) learning object responses, (2) presen-
tation for various types of content, and (3) network connections
and supports. In general, the learning object responses well up to
their expectations. The objects didnt take too long to display and
the waiting time was reasonable. However, some learning objects
with too many multimedia elements can hinder the learning
progress because it could take some time to be executed. It was
suggested that, in order to increase the turnaround time of the
learning objects, appropriate multimedia elements should be used
when needed to enhance the learning process. In addition,
network bandwidth was similarly important to support learning
objects usage among learners, especially home users. Appropriate

Table 3 Perceived Benefits of Learning Objects

Measurement items Mean SD

1. The learning objects has some benefit in term of providing me another learning strategy 4.15 0.963
2. I feel the learning object did benefit my understanding of the subject matters concept 4.05 0.984
3. I am interested in using the learning object again 4.07 0.971
4. Learning objects helped me learn the subject matters concept at my own pace 4.09 0.973
5. I gained as much details from learning objects as I would from a lecture explanation of the same concept 4.19 0.968
644 SIONG HOE AND WOODS

Table 4 Actual Use of Learning Objects

Measure Items Frequency %

On average, how much time do you spend on the learning objects weekly? None 0 0.0
Less than 1 h 12 2.5
2
3 h 116 24.1
3
4 h 123 25.6
4
5 h 156 32.4
More than 5 h 74 15.4
On average, how often do you use learning objects? Not at all 0 0.0
About once a week 19 4.0
2
3 times a week 81 16.8
4
6 times a week 115 23.9
About once a day 183 38.0
More than once a day 83 17.3
On average, how many learning objects do you use every week? None 0 0.0
Less than 5 learning objects a week 16 3.3
5
10 learning objects a week 102 21.2
10
15 learning objects a week 154 32.0
15
20 learning objects a week 126 26.2
More than 20 learning objects a week 83 17.3

Internet bandwidth, such as Streamyx connection was
important to ease the access of the learning objects outside the
campus.
Thirty-four items suggested the importance of convenience
of access. They were divided into three topics: (1) consistency
of the learning interface, (2) accessibility, and (3) learning
resources. It was suggested that the learning interface of the
learning objects should be consistent in terms of physical
appearance and content layout and format to ease the access.
All links must be clearly identified and content must be presented
in a logical sequence in order to overcome the issues of incon-
sistency of the learning interface from different sources. Overall,
the learning objects were convenient to use and easy to access.
Feeling of control was considered important as indicated by
20 items in 2 topics; learning at their own pace and the degree of
interactivity. In general, the interactivity of the learning objects
facilitated their learning. They enjoyed working through the
learning objects. Learning objects allowed them to control
the learning process and learn at their own pace. However
some respondents felt confused with the navigation and felt that
the content progressed too fast, out of their control.
Flexibility was also seen as important indicator by 16 items
in three topics: (1) assembly and sequencing, (2) utilization and
integration, and (3) independent and standalone. Many respond-
ents stated that flexibility of learning objects allowed them to
choose and combine content in a meaningful ways. Learning
objects also provided standalone, just enough content for various
learning experiences. In terms of utilization and integration,
learning objects can be applied and integrated into other learning
contexts.
Finally, the importance of interoperability was indicated by
12 items in 2 topics: across platforms and work well with general
plug-in and browsers. The learning objects can be used on
multiple platforms and systems. No specific softwares were
needed, the general plug-in and browser worked well with the
learning objects.
Content Quality. Content quality is related to how well the
learning object is tailored to the genre of the resources, to the
technology in which it will be used, to the needs of the intended
learner, and to the pedagogies that the learning object is aiming to
support. Five categories: volume of content, accuracy, timeliness,
completeness, and understanding were identified to measure the
content quality of learning objects as shown in Table 6. All of
these attributes were mentioned by respondents in their written
replies when asked about their likes and dislikes about the
learning objects.
Understanding was indicated by 30 items in 3 topics:
(1) clarity of content, (2) the role of multimedia elements, and
(3) terms and definitions. It was suggested that the learning object
content was clear and helped them to understand the concept.
They emphasized that the learning objects contents need to be
simple, not too heavy but support the intended competency.
Respondents also mentioned that multimedia elements such as
animation and graphics helped them to understand the content
better. In addition, learning objects must use common terminol-
ogies and terms in helping the students understanding of learning
materials.
Timeliness was also seen as important indicator by nine
items in two topics: (1) currency and up-to-datedness and
(2) regular review and revise. The students emphasized that the
learning objects content should be up-to-dated and revised
periodically. In addition, some students commented that, learning
objects are better than existing learning materials, such as
textbook, in term of the currency of the content.
Ten items suggested the important of volume of content.
They were divided into two topics; the scope and size of the
learning object content. It is another important indicator to
content quality. Content overload and coverage were seen as
problems in some of the learning objects. Restricted content
with appropriate size and level were sought by some of the
respondents. Learning objects with just enough content allowed
respondents to learn within the time frame.
The importance of completeness was indicated by 11 items
in 2 topics: (1) the comprehensiveness of the content and (2) types
of learning objects available. The students preferred various types
of learning objects available to use, wider subject coverage,
complete content, and solution. In addition, each learning object
should be able to standalone and provide complete details for the
learning process.
Finally accuracy was considered important as indicated
by 15 items in 2 topics: (1) the correctness of the content and
 OBJECT-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 645

Table 5 Responses Related to the Technical Quality

Category Topics Examples of Students Responses

Turnaround time Learning object Overall, the learning objects respond quite fast, except if with heavy
responses multimedia elements
Waiting time to display the content is reasonable
Presentation for various It took some times to see the content if too much multimedia elements
types of content Use multimedia elements when needed, otherwise slow down
the process
Dont use too many animations, it would delay the presentation
Network connections Increase network bandwidth so that dynamic contents can
and supports be delivered quickly
More reliable network with sufficient bandwidth to ease the access
Streamyx Internet connection is suitable to access learning object from
home
Convenience of access Consistency of the The content are designed and ordered consistently
learning interface Screen interface show different appearance in different learning objects
All links from different sources must clearly identify and show
Accessibility Convenience to use, as individual learning aid or combine
to form full lesson
The learning objects are easy to use
Learning resources The online hub provides student access to the appropriate content
It is easy to find just what Im looking for
I can easily to find useful content
Feeling of control The degree of The interactivity built into the learning object facilitated my
interactivity learning
No keyboard access for some of the menu, controls and buttons
Sometimes we didnt know where/what to click
Learn at own pace I can easily move from one stage to another stage and reverse
back within the learning object
I could go at my own pace, step by step
I can proceed at a pace that is appropriate for me
Flexibility Assembly and It can be organized a few learning objects together in a
sequencing meaningful way
It allows me to explore the content in my own way
Learning objects can be grouped into larger collections of content
Independent and Each object provides just enough info and
standalone independently
Utilization and Can learn the concept from one object to another object
integration Learning objects can be used as references for other subjects
Learning objects can be applied to courses in different subject areas
Interoperability Across platforms It is better the learning objects able to use on multiple systems
It can be used on multiple systems
Object can be used with multiple operating systems
Work well with general The plug-in and browser work well with the learning objects
plug-in and browsers Not need specific software to operate the learning objects
Learning objects are ready to use with any kind of browsers

(2) deliver right and relevant content. The content accuracy
should focus not only on the correctness of content, but also on
the content integrity, and deliver right and relevant content to the
intended users.
Pedagogical Quality. Pedagogical quality is related to the
learning strategies that are designed and integrated into learning
objects in order to create a complete instructional experience. The
principle of quality is the learning object potential effectiveness
as a teaching and learning tool, fit the context(s) in which it will
be used, and support the pedagogies such as learning objectives
that it claims. Four categories were identified in assessing the
pedagogical quality as shown in Table 7.
The importance of coherence was indicated by six items in a
single topic. Students expressed strong preference of learning
objects that to be pedagogically coherent and consistent in the
way the learning components, such as the objectives, content,
learning activity and assessment, match to each other to promote
the use of learning objects for various learning experiences.
Learning context was also seen as important by 18 items in
terms of the fitness of learning object for individual learning and
support for various learning activities. In general, students felt
comfortable with the learning objects and found learning objects
fit in their learning. They used learning objects for various
learning activities, such as exam preparation, supplement for
textbook, and lab practice.
The pedagogy richness was highlighted by 23 items in
5 topics: (1) learning objective, (2) instructions, (3) feedback,
(4) help facilities, and (5) overview and summaries. Clear
statements of objectives being made known explicitly to the
learners were important to show the conditions under which the
learner must perform to be judged adequately. In addition, clear
646 SIONG HOE AND WOODS

Table 6 Responses Related to the Content Quality

Category Topics Examples of students responses

Understanding Clarity of content The content is presented clearly and precisely

Learning objects make me easy to comprehend and understand the
concept
Enjoy learning more because learning objects make it easy for me to
understand the concepts
The role of Animation and simulation explain the complex concept better
multimedia than traditional learning approach
elements Graphics are clearly visible and help me to understand the
subject matter better
Multimedia elements in the learning objects enhancing individual
learning
Terms and definitions Use more consistent and general terms to explain the learning content
Frequently use terminology should be standardized
More commonality of terms and definitions should be used
Timeliness Currency and They learning objects content are more up-to-date than any
up-to-datedness textbook
Receive up-to-date, accurate content to assist in learning
Learning objects are better than textbook in term of currency
of the content
Regular review and Learning activities should be updated frequently
revise Learning objects content need to regular reviews and updates, so that the
Volume of content
The scope of the contents are accurate and current
learning object Some aspect of subject matter did not cover deep enough
content Able to process the information within the limited time
The content of the learning object was presented at the appropriate level
The overload of content forces me to learn stuff that I didnt need
The size of the learning The information/content in the learning objects are appropriate and just
object content enough
Not too many pages of content need to be browsed
A large body of content, try to avoid information overload
Completeness The comprehensiveness of The organization of the content is appropriate cover the subject
the content matter
Learning objects provide complete information and immediate solutions
Learning object provides complete info for learning
Types of learning objects Sufficient learning objects are available for me to learn by
available myself
Different format of learning object available to assist in my learning
Many learning objects are available for use
Accuracy The correctness of the The learning content is precise and accurate, meet my needs
content The texts and graphics explained the concept well
The material is accurate, current and related to the course content
Deliver right and relevant Learning objects able to deliver the relevant and appropriate
content content
Learning objects are relevant to the subject matter
The learning objects content relevant to my coursework

and concise instructions were also important to support and
motivate students thinking and learning. However learning
objects with long instructions could hinder the learning process.
Some respondents suggested that learning objects ought to
provide valuable feedback to enhance their learning and help
facilities to support the usage of learning objects. Some
respondents also suggested overview and summaries to start
and conclude the lesson.
Finally, the importance of the feeling of participation was
indicated by 16 items in 2 topics; learner engagement and
perceived benefits. Generally feeling of participation refers to the
students willingness, desire, and compulsion to participate and
be successful in the learning process. The majority of the students
was motivated and engaged to use learning objects. It was
suggested that, learning objects were useful in their learning and
even better than other learning aids.
The Emergent Themes
As for the items that did not fall within the three themes of
learning object characteristics, they were analyzed and depicted
as emergent themes. Four themes emerged from the analysis of
open-ended question responses.
Exposure and Training. Students requested for more exposure
and training on how to utilize and integrate the learning objects,
and also how to search and retrieve learning objects from online
repositories. The purposes were to create the awareness of the
importance of learning objects and its capabilities for teaching
and learning. It was suggested that training sessions should be
provided to users especially new users and should be conducted
frequently and continuously in formal or informal ways. Some of
the students responses were as below:
 OBJECT-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 647

Table 7 Responses Related to the Pedagogical Quality

Category Topics Examples of students responses

Coherence The internal coherence The variety of learning objects should easily match with each other
and consistency of the The learning activities are consistent with the learning objectives
various learning The objectives, learning activity and assessment match to each other
components The learning objects content matches the instructional objectives
Learning Fit for individual I feel comfortable when use learning objects
context learning I like it, it fit in my learning, especially for test or exam preparations
Learning objects are fit in my learning context
Support for various I like to use learning object for exam preparation
learning activities I used learning objects as supplement for textbook because they provide
many learning activities
Learning objects can be used as supplemental materials for lab practice
Pedagogy Learning objective There are clear learning objectives before the lesson start
richness Learning objectives are clear for learning purposes
The learning objects meets the stated learning objectives
Instructions The instructions are sometimes too long and confusing
Clear and concise instructions are important to guide the learning process
Feedback The learning object provide good feedback
Help facilities Immediate feedbacks based on various inputs are helpful
More technical support should be providing to increase the use of learning objects
I got more help from the teacher than from the learning objects
Overview and summaries Learning object does not provides overviews and summaries at key points
Summaries are not provided throughout the materials
Feeling of Learner engagement Using learning objects improve traditional class atmosphere for learning
participation Learning objects arouse my curiosity about the topic being studied
Perceived benefits Learning objects are better than notes in term of explain complex concept
Learning objects are beneficial in my learning experience
I really liked learning objects, they really useful

1. More exposure through training to leverage the utility of
the learning objects.
2. Instructors should introduce more learning object repo-
sitories.
3. More training on methods to search and retrieve learning
objects.
4. Informal and continuous exposure is needed to encourage
learning object use.
Incorporating Game Elements. Students made a number of
valuable suggestions about how learning objects might be made
more interesting and accessible by incorporating game elements.
A number of students wanted to incorporate various levels of
difficulty into the learning objects. The incorporation of different
levels of difficulty enables learning objects to be used by students
of differing academic and linguistic ability in the same class.
Students expressed a strong preference for learning objects that
provide them with choices and control over elements within the
learning object environment. They liked to see immediate
feedback on their input and appreciated learning objects that
gauged their success or progress. Some of the students responses
were as below:
1. Incorporate different difficulty levels to cater for various
users needs.
2. Game-like objects to provide more challenge learning
materials.
3. Add game elements into learning objects because they
give more controls over learning process.
4. Learning objects with immediate feedbacks based on
various inputs are helpful.
Text Should be Available Aurally. Many students stated that the
multimedia attributes of learning objects, particularly sound and
animations, linked to interactivity were strong factors in this
engagement. Unfortunately, sound availability was not as
widespread in the learning objects studied as students required.
Students did not like reading large sections of text and were less
inclined to make appropriate use of learning objects containing
text heavy content. Students generally preferred to skip content
and experiment straight with the learning object. Some were
unable to read the content and became confused by them,
struggling with the text than the concepts. Students with weak
literacy skills were sometimes better able to engage in learning
because some learning object provided non-textual ways of
interacting with the concepts. Students expressed a preference for
various form of audio support as an alternative or supplement
to text, or ways in which sound could be used to enhance
engagement with the learning objects. Some of the students
responses were as below:
1. Lack of audio in learning object to support learning.
2. The lesser we read the better.
3. With sound, Id pay more attention to the learning
content.
4. Audios support is useful, but should be possible to turn
off.
5. The use of audio will be enhanced my understanding in
the subject matter.
Avoid Heavy Text-Based Content. Some students highlighted
the issue of heavy text-based content used in the learning objects.
They felt that too much reading was required, especially for those
648 SIONG HOE AND WOODS
who lacked literacy skills. They would prefer less reading
material and to spend more learning time on other learning
activities. It was suggested that alternative approach should be
used to present the text-based content. For example, heavy text of
content should be broken into different paragraphs at differently
pages in point form. Additionally, multimedia elements should be
used to reduce the amount of text that explains a concept. Some of
the students responses were as below:
1. Learning objects page too long, difficult to read, need to
scroll up and down.
2. I dont want just reading the long content without doing
anything.
3. Break the long content into different paragraphs at
different page in point form.
4. Reduce the amount of text; use more graphics to explain
the concept.
5. Animation is very good to replace text description.
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS
In this study, respondents evaluated the learning objects and rated
their perceptions and usage after being introduced and experi-
enced them. Overall, the learning objects incorporated in the
Digital Systems course were well received and extensively used
by the students. Feedback from students was generally very
positive and indicated that they felt that they were able to learn
from the learning objects as the students are able to regulate the
pace of their learning to investigate concepts they found difficult
in class or to repeat activities as they like. Majority of the students
were using the learning objects for revision, test, or exam
preparation. In addition, some students even used them as
replacement for consultation hours by skimming through learning
objects and used the ones needed to help with learning. In
comparison with other traditional techniques such as lectures and
textbooks, learning object is preferred. The study has demon-
strated that learning object is applicable in the Digital systems
course.
The qualitative side of this study sought responses to
questions related to the learning object characteristics. Thought
should be given to the functionality of the learning objects in
terms of technical quality, content quality, and pedagogical
quality in order to meet learners needs. Barker [32] suggested
that interactivity is a necessary and fundamental mechanism for
knowledge acquisition, and Mesher [33] claimed interactivity is
the key to successful online learning. Thus, any interactions to
be used should be carefully designed as the interactivity is
influenced by the degree of the availability of learners control
[34,35] as well as the availability of the functional features that
encourage users to actively learn [36,37]. Several recommenda-
tions serve as useful guidelines for the design of learning objects
which stem from the research literature and studies cited above,
supplemented by the personal experience of the researcher are
described below.
1. The interaction between the learners with the learning
objects is one of the significant factors that affect how the
learners progress in their learning. The learner interface
should be consistent throughout with screen elements
sharing similar appearance, location, and behavior. The
learning objects should be independent for both the
delivery media and operating systems. Frequently used
terminologies and terms should also be standardized.
2. Learners control plays an important part in creating a
learning environment to fulfill students needs. By giving
learners greater control over various aspects of instruction,
such as pacing and sequencing, they can tailor the instruc-
tions to their own style of learning, thereby enhancing the
efficacy and efficiency of learning.
3. Students are particularly receptive to non-textual elements
such as graphics and animations because these can moti-
vate them to focus, prompt their perception, and help recall
information to assist in the development of the learning
concept. Text-intensive content should be avoided, espe-
cially on initial screens of the learning object.
4. Audio may be more motivating than print alone, and
together with print, sound may form a powerful alternative
and aid to reading alone. Sound can be used for both effects
and information. In addition, transcripts should always be
used together with audio. Sound makes learning content
accessible to many students whose literacy levels do not
allow them to read the information on the screen easily.
5. Learning objects designed as games, with a clear goal and
structured learning activities were also seen by students
to be valuable, and have the ability to accommodate their
learning activities. Learning objects can exploit the
entertainment potential of computer games and provide
structured learning activities that offer different levels of
difficulty and enable manipulation of variables to accom-
modate students with a variety of skills, knowledge, and
learning styles.
6. Learning object with appropriate feedback design will
improve the skills needed for the achievement of learning
objectives by providing students with information that
confirms what they already know or that changes their
existing knowledge and beliefs.
The importance of the learning objects characteristics and
users beliefs in influencing the actual use of learning objects
have several implications for practitioners and researchers. First,
it highlights the importance of attending to learning objects
characteristics, especially in usefulness and ease of use when
learning objects are designed and developed. Thus, educators and
instructional designers of learning objects should carefully
consider the needs and values of learning object users, and
ensure that the suggested learning objects characteristics in this
study are present prior to implementation. For example, learners
who perceived that the learning objects have better turna-
round time and flexibility in which it allows for a better feeling
of control over course content would indicate that the learning
objects are easier to use. Moreover, learners who indicated that
the learning objects that fit their learning contexts with com-
prehensive, up-to-date, easy to comprehend contents together
with appropriate pedagogy features to support their learning goals
have truly helped them to become committed towards learning.
Such compatibility between learning objects and user needs has
been found to enhance IT adoption in other contexts [38,39].
Second, results of this study revealed that properly managed
introduction and demonstration sessions may be used to change
learners perceptions towards working with learning objects.
Learners will have more time to consider the positive con-
sequences of the learning object and become familiar with the
learning object. According to the Innovation Diffusion Process

theory outlined by Rogers [40], the adoption is not a momentary,
one-time decision, but rather a stage-based process that can be
studied, facilitated and supported [40,41]. Potential adopters must
first learn about the innovation and be persuaded to try it out
before deciding to adopt or reject the innovation. Persuasion has
been shown to be one of the most important strategies to influence
beliefs and behavior [42]. In addition, empirical IS study suggests
that training provides users with conceptual and procedural
knowledge, which in turn influences perceived ease of use [43],
attitudes [44], and usage [45,46]. As such, when it is feasible,
educators should introduce and describe the benefits of learning
objects and its relevance in their curriculum. Additionally, they
must demonstrate the use of learning objects more frequently to
help learners to form the initial positive beliefs, which in turn will
positively influence their actual use of learning objects.
Although the findings provide meaningful insights for
learning objects context, however the study has some limitations.
The sample was fairly homogeneous in term of their age, com-
puter and Internet experience, but as different ethnic and culture
groups are moving toward learning objects use, further general-
ization could be achieved by examining more diverse users from
different background in other degree program, and at other
universities. Secondly, this study was conducted with a snapshot
research approach focused on public free learning object
repositories, but a longitudinal approach at further interval with
learning objects from more specific institutional or disciplinary
learning object repositories should be considered.
CONCLUSION
The learning objects incorporated in the Digital Systems course
were well received and extensively used by the students.
Feedbacks from students were generally very positive and
indicated that they felt they were able to learn from the learning
objects. Although there are many learning object repositories
cater for wide-range of knowledge domain where educators can
search and retrieve course relevant materials, yet, our experience
demonstrated that this development approach can presently only
succeed on a very limited scale due to the low availability of topic
specific learning objects. In this study the freely available
learning objects on the Internet were in fact not fully available to
create a complete Digital Systems course with a series of lessons.
Nevertheless, with exponential growth in the collection of
learning objects available through the Internet and assuming that
enough course relevant learning objects can be found in the
future, the learning object approach may some day become useful
in designing pedagogically and economically efficient online
courses.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Thach and R. W. Woodman, Organizational change and
information technology: Managing on the edge of cyberspace,
Organ Dyn 23 (1994), 30
47.
[2] C. P. Ho, W. Savenye, and N. Haas, The effects of orienting
objectives and review on learning from interactive video, J Comput
Based Instr 13 (1986), 126
129.
[3] S. Bagui, Reasons for increased learning using multimedia, J Educ
Multimedia Hypermedia 7 (1998), 3
18.
OBJECT-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 649
[4] L. Carley, P. Khosla, and R. Unetich, Teaching introduction to
electrical and computer engineering in context, Proc IEEE 88
(2000), 8
22.
[5] R. L. Taylor, D. Heer, and T. S. Fiez, Using and integrated platform
for learning to reinvent engineering education, IEEE Trans Educ 46
(2003), 409
419.
[6] T. A. Urden and C. C. Weggen, Corporate e-learning: Exploring a
new frontier, WR Hambrecht and Company Equity Research
Report, 2000.
[7] P. R. Polsani, Use and abuse of reusable learning objects, J Digit Inf
3 (2003), 3.
[8] Learning Technology Standards Committee. Draft standard for
learning object metadata, Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc., New York, USA, 2002.
[9] L. Baruque and R. Melo, Learning theory and instructional design
using learning objects, J Educ Multimedia Hypermedia 13 (2004),
343
370.
[10] S. Downes, Design and reusability of learning objects in an
academic context: A new economy of education? J US Distance
Learn Assoc 17 (2003), 3
22.
[11] T. A. Bratina, D. Hayes, and S. L. Blumsack, Preparing teachers
to use learning objects, Nov/Dec 2002, The Technology Source,
2002.
[12] C. Barritt, Reusable learning object strategy. Designing information
and learning objects through concept, fact, procedure, process, and
principle templates, 2001.
[13] S. Downes, Design principles for a distributed learning object
repository network, 2002.
[14] B. C. Hardgrave and R. A. Johnson, Toward an information systems
development acceptance model: The case of object-oriented
systems development, IEEE Trans Eng Manag 50 (2003), 322.
[15] W. Hodgins and D. Wiley, The future of learning objects, 2002.
[16] D. A. Wiley, The instructional use of learning objects, Agency for
Instructional Technology, Bloomington, IN, 2002.
[17] C. Shepherd, Objects of interest, 2000.
[18] M. Kremers and H. van Dissel, Erp system migrations, Commun
ACM 43 (2000), 53
56.
[19] A. Littlejohn, Issues in reusing online resources, Reusing online
resources: A sustainable approach to elearning, In: A. Littlejohn and
K. Page (Eds.), Vol. 1, J Int Med Educ, London, 2003.
[20] J. A. Muzio, T. Heins, and R. Mundell, Experiences with reusable e-
learning objects: From theory to practice, Internet Higher Educ 5
(2002), 21
34.
[21] T. Boyle, Design principles for authoring dynamic, reusable
learning objects, Aust J Educ Technol 19 (2003), 46
58.
[22] C. J. Hamel and D. Ryan-Jones, Designing instruc- tion with
learning objects, Int J Educ Technol 3 (2002).
[23] L. Chapuis, A pedagogical trial of learning objects in act schools,
ACT Dep Educ Train (2003).
[24] T. Boyle, C. Bradley, P. Chalk, R. Jones, R. Haynes, and P. Pickard,
Can learning objects contribute to pedagogical improvement in
higher education: Lessons from a case study? CAL 2003, 2003, p.
[25] R. Kay and L. Knaack, Developing learning objects for secondary
school students: A multi-component model, Interdiscip J Knowl
Learn Obj 1 (2005), 229
254.
[26] C. Bradley and T. Boyle, Students use of learning objects,
Interactive Multimedia Electron J Comput Enhanc Learn 6 (2004).
[27] C. Eckersley, C. Richards, and N. Schofield, Evaluation of a
learning object, Proceedings of World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004, AACE,
2004, pp. 2364
2370.
[28] T. A. Corwin, Prediction of and differences in computer use:
Universal adoption of notebook computers at three undergraduate
institutions (faculty), Iowa State University, Iowa, 1998.
[29] P. R. Wallace, Diffusion of Internet adoption: A study of the
relationship between innovativeness, the attitude of teachers toward
using the Internet, and Internet use, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, TN, 1998.
650 SIONG HOE AND WOODS
[30] D. Howard-Rose and K. Harrigan, Cloe learning impact studies:
Evaluating learning objects in nine ontario university courses,
Centre for Learning and Teaching Through Technology, University
of Waterloo, 2003.
[31] R. Tesch, Qualitative research analysis: Types and software tools,
Falmer Press, New York, 1990.
[32] P. Barker, editors. Designing interactive learning, Kluwer Aca-
demic, Dordrecht, 1994.
[33] D. Mesher, Designing interactivities for Internet learning, Syllabus
12 (1999), 16
20.
[34] J. Robertson, Paradise lost: Children multimedia and the myth of
interactivity, J Comput Assist Learn 14 (1998), 31
39.
[35] S. Stoney and M. Wild, Motivation and interface design: Max-
imizing learning opportunities, J Comput Assist Learn 14 (1998),
40
50.
[36] D. C. Ritchie and B. Hoffman, Using instructional design principles
to amplify learning on the world wide web, Technol Teach Educ
Annu 7 (1996), 813
815.
[37] P. Thibodeau, Design standards for visual elements and interactivity
for courseware, THE J 24 (1997), 84
86.
[38] F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw, User acceptance of
computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models,
Manage Sci 35 (1989), 982
1003.
BIOGRAPHIES
Lau Siong Hoe is a lecturer at the Faculty of
Information Science and Technology, Multi-
media University, Malaysia. His research
interests are in the field of Information
Science, Management Information Systems,
and e-Learning.
[39] A. D. Carswell and V. Venkatesh, Learner outcomes in an
asynchronous distance education environment, Int J Hum Comput
Stud 56 (2002), 475
494.
[40] E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations, The Free Press, New York,
1995.
[41] D. Leonard-Barton, Implementation characteristics of organisa-
tional innovations: Limits and opportunities for management
strategies, Commun Res 15 (1988), 603
631.
[42] I. Ajzen and M. Fishbein, Understanding attitudes and pre-
dicting social behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1980.
[43] V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, A model of the antecedents of
perceived ease of use: Development and test, Decis Sci 27 (1996),
451
481.
[44] L. Raymond, The impact of computer training on the attitudes and
usage behavior of small business managers, J Small Bus Manage 26
(1988), 8
13.
[45] M. Igbaria, F. Pavri, and S. Huff, Microcomputer application: An
empirical look at usage, Inf Manage 16 (1989), 187
196.
[46] L. Kraemer, J. N. Danziger, D. E. Dunkle, and J. L. King, The
usefulness of computer-based information to public managers, MIS
Q 17 (1993), 129
148.
Peter C. Woods is professor of Knowledge of
Management and Motorola Chair in Knowl-
edge Management at the Multimedia Univer-
sity, Malaysia. His current research interests
are in Knowledge Management, e-Learning
and Management-IT Alignment.