Comprehensive Evaluation of Learning Objects-Enriched Instructional Environments in Science Classes

Abstract

Although there are many studies focusing on usefulness of learning objects, only a few studies investigated possible effects of learning objects at the middle-school level. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the effects of learning objects-enriched instructional settings on 7th grade students’ achievements, retentions, attitudes, and motivations in the science class as well as their perceptions towards the course. Learning objects regarding the unit of structure and features of matter were placed into the Learning Management System, Moodle, which was accessible by science teachers of the participants. Almost all subjects pointed out that they preferred such teaching method hereafter because of its positive effects on their learning and remembering. The interactive and challenging learning objects, particularly the ones containing games, simulations, and questions, were identified as more beneficial by both teachers and students.

Keywords

• Attitudes, Learning objects, Learning objects-enriched instruction, Motivation, Retention

References

1. Akpinar, Y. & Simsek, H. (2007). Should K-12 teachers develop learning objects? Evidence from the field with K-12 students. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learnin, 4(3), 31-44.
2. Anglin, G. J., Vaez, H., & Cunningham, C. L. (2004). Visual representations in learning: The role of static and animated graphics. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. ATANESA (2011). Atatürk University Learning Object Repository. Retrieved on 20 March 2011 from http://www.atanesa.net.
4. Ayersman, D. (1996). Reviewing the research on hypermedia-based learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 500-526.
5. Bilgin, I. & Geban, O. (2002). Ogrencilerin grup calismalarindaki performanslari ile kimyasal denge konusu basarilari arasindaki iliskinin incelenmesi. Paper presented at 5th National Science and Mathematics Education Congress. Ankara.
6. Bonate, P. L. (2000). Analysis of pretest-posttest design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
7. Bradley C. & Boyle T. (2004) The design, development, and use of multimedia learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 13, 371–389.
8. Bratina, T. A., Hayes, D. & Blumsack, S. L. (2002). Preparing teachers to use learning objects. The Technology Source. Retrieved on 20 May 2010 from http://technologysource.org/ article/preparing_teachers_to_use_learning_objects/

9. Churchill, D. (2007). Towards a useful classification of learning objects. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 479-497.
10. Ceken, R. (2010). Hydrological cycle through spiral curriculum model in science education: The United States versus Turkey. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2), 579-599.
11. Donovan, W. & Nakhleh, M. (2007). Student use of web-based tutorial materials and understanding of chemistry concepts. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 291-327.
12. Doymus, K., Dasdemir, I., Aksoy, G., & Simsek, U. (2006). Fen derslerinin ogretilmesinde animasyonlarin etkisi. Paper presented at the 7th National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, Ankara.
13. Glaser, B. G. & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2), Art. 4. Retrieved on 12 January 2011 from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040245.
14. Gungormus, G. (2007). The effect of games used in web based education on success and permanency (Unpublished master thesis). Ankara: Gazi University.
15. Gürbüz, R. (2007). Students’ and their teachers’ opinions about the instruction based on the materials on probability subject. Kastamonu Education Journal, 15(1), 259-270.
16. Halat, E., Jakubowski, E., & Aydin, N. (2008). Reform-based curriculum and motivation in geometry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(3), 285- 292.
17. Haughey, M. & Muirhead, B.(2005). Evaluating learning objects for schools. The e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology (e-JIST), 8(1).
18. Helmstadter, G. C. (1970). Research concepts in human behavior: Education, psychology, sociology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
19. Jaakkola, T. & Nurmi, S. (2004). Academic impact of learning objects: The case of electric circuits. Paper presented at the BERA (British Educational Research Association) 2004 Conference, Manchester, UK.
20. Jones R. (2004). Designing adaptable learning resources with learning object patterns. Journal of Digital Information, 6(1).
21. Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2005). Developing learning objects for secondary school students: A multi-component model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 229-254.
22. Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2007a). A systematic evaluation of learning objects for secondary school students. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(4), 411–448.
23. Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2007b). Evaluating the use of learning objects for secondary school science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 261-289.
24. Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2008a). An examination of the impact of learning objects in secondary school. Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 447-461.
25. Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2008b). A formative analysis of individual differences in the effectiveness of learning objects in secondary school. Computers and Education, 51(3), 1304-1320.
26. Kay, R. H. & Knaack L. (2009) Assessing learning, quality and engagement in learning objects: The learning object evaluation scale for students (LOES-S). Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 147-168.
27. Kaya, O. N. (2009). The nature of relationships among the components of pedagogical content knowledge of pre-service science teachers: ‘Ozone layer depletion’ as an example. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 961-988.
28. Keller, J. M. (1995). Motivation by design. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, College of Education.
29. Kong, S. C. & Kwok, L. F. (2005). A cognitive tool for teaching the addition/subtraction of common fractions: A model of affordances. Computers and Education, 45(2), 245-265.
30. Krämer, B. J. (2005). Reusable Learning Objects: Let's give it another trial. Fern Universität in Hagen, Forschungsberichte des Fachbereichs Elektrotechnik.
31. Lehman, R. M. & Conceicao, S. C. O. (2007). American sign language learning objects for instruction: A higher education perspective. In P. Northrup (Ed.) Learning objects for instruction. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
32. Leinonen T. (2005). Learning objects – Is the King naked? Retrieved on 19 March 2009 from http://flosse.dicole.org/?item=learning-objects-is-the-king-naked.
33. MacDonald, C.J., Stodel, E., Thompson, T.L., Muirhead, B., Hinton, C., Carson, B., & Banit, E. (2005). Addressing the eLearning contradiction: A collaborative approach for developing a conceptual framework learning object. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 181-196.
34. Mclean, N. & R. Iannella (2002). Digital rights management (drm) in education: The need for standardization. Briefing paper, Australian IMS Centre. Retrieved on 4 April 2007 from http:// xml.coverpages.org/IMS-Briefing-DRM-200202.pdf.
35. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.
36. MoNE (2011). New curriculum of science and technology education. Retrieved on 12 March 2011 from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/modules.php.
37. Namuth, D., Fritz, S., King, J., & Boren, A. (2005). Principles of sustainable learning object libraries. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 181-196.
38. Nurmi, S. & Jaakkola, T. (2005). Problems underlying the learning object approach. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 1(11).
39. Olkinuora, E., Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. & Nurmi, S. (2004). Evaluating the Pedagogical Value of Multimedia Learning Material: An Experimental Study in Primary School. In N. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.). Curriculum, plans, and processes in instructional design. International perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Parrish, P. E. (2004). The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 49-67.
41. Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (2008). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd Ed.). London: Sage.
42. Rehak, D. R. & Mason, R. (2003) Keeping the learning in learning objects. In Littlejohn, A. (Ed.) Reusing online resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning (pp.20-34). London: Kogan Page.
43. Salas K. & Ellis L. (2006). The development and implementation of learning objects in a higher education setting. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 1-22.
44. Sosteric M. & Hesemeier S. (2002). When is a learning object not an object: a first step towards a theory of learning objects. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 3, 1-16.
45. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46. Todd, Z., Nerlich, B., McKeown, S. & Clarke, D. D.(2004). Mixing methods in psychology: The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice. Psychology Press.
47. Varank, I. (2003). The effects of computer training on Turkish teachers' attitudes toward computers and the effects of computer-supported lessons on Turkish students’ reported motivation to lessons (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Florida.
48. Väljataga, T. (2005). Design and evaluation of problem-based learning objects for environmental education in Estonian secondary school. e-Learning in Higher Education: EUDORA Intensive programme ELHE during the summer school in Viljandi, Estonia, Linz, Austria: Trauner Verlag, (pp.214-231).
49. Wiley, D. (2002). Learning objects need instructional design theory. In E. Rossett (Ed.), The ASTD e-Learning Handbook. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
50. Yildirim, A. & Simsek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastırma yontemleri. Ankara: Seckin.
51. Correspondence: Yalin Kilic Turel, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Education and
52. Instructional Technologies, Faculty of Education, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey