Abstract

In this research we aim to propose an advanced metric to evaluate the effectiveness of learning objects in order to be reused in new contexts. By the way learning objects reusability is achieving economic benefits from educational technology as it saving time and improving quality, but in case of choosing unsuitable learning object it may be less benefit than creating the learning object from scratch. Actually learning objects reusability can facilitate systems development and adaptation. By surveying the current evaluation metrics, we found that while they cover essential aspects, they enables all reviewers of learning objects to evaluate all criteria without paying attention to their roles in creating the learning object which affect their capability to evaluate specific criteria. Our proposed Approach (LOREM) is evaluating learning objects based on a group of Aspects which measure their level of effectiveness in order to be reused in other contexts. LOREM classifies reviewers into 3 categories; 1. Academic Group: (Subject Expert Matter “SME” and Instructor). 2. Technical Group: (Instructional Designer “ID”, LO Developer and LO Designer). 3. Students group. The authorization of reviewers in these several categories are differentiated according to reviewer's type, e.g., (Instructor, LO Developer) and their area of expert (their expertise subjects) for academic and students reviewers.

Keywords:

Evaluation metrics, learning objects, learning objects evaluation, reusability, reusability effectiveness,

References

1. Falc�o de Berredo, R. and A. Soeiro, 2007. A Proposal for Benchmarking Learning Objects. eLearning Papers, No. 3, ISSN: 1887-1542.
   Direct Link
2. Garci�a-Barriocanal, E., M. Sicilia and M. Lytras, 2006. Pedagogical clasification frameworks for learning objects: A case study. J. Comput. Hum. Behav., 23(2007): 2641-2655.
   CrossRef    
3. IEEE Review Committee, 2002. Draft Standard for Learning Object Metadata. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Inc. (Assessed on: July 12, 2002).
   Direct Link
4. Nash, S.S., 2005. Learning objects, learning object repositories and learning theory: Preliminary best practices for online courses. Interdi. J. Knowl. Learn. Objects, 1: 217.
   
5. Nesbit, J., K. Belfer and T. Leacock, 2004. Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI). User Manual, Version 1.5.
   Direct Link
6. Palmer, K. and P. Richardson, 2004. Learning object reusability-motivation, production and use. Proceeding of the 11th International Conference of the Association for Learning Technology (ALT), University of Exeter, Devon, England, September 14-16.
   
7. Paulsson, F. and A. Naeve, 2007. Establishing Technical Quality Criteria for Learning Objects. IOS Press, ISBN: 1-58603-682-3.
   
8. Rahman, S. and V.D. Tech, 2003. Digital library network for engineering and technology. Virginia Tech, Alexandria Research Institute.
   
9. Rodr�guez, J.S., J.M. Dodero and S. Snchez-Alonso, 2008. Aprioristic learning object reusability evaluation. Proceedings of the SIIE'2008.
   
10. Sampson, D.G. and C. Papanikou, 2009. A framework for learning objects reusability within learning activities. Proceeding of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.
    CrossRef    
11. Vargo, J., J.C. Nesbit, K. Belfer and A. Archambault, 2003. Learning object evaluation: Computer-mediated collaboration and inter-rated reliability. Int. J. Comput. Appl., 25(3).
    

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Open Access Policy

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Copyright

The authors have no competing interests.