Developing interactive learning objects for a Computing Mathematics module.

Based on a case study of the online component of a Computing Mathematics module at a local polytechnic in Singapore, this article provides a descriptive account of the development and employment of interactive learning objects to enhance the learning experiences of the students in the course. The experimented learning objects were branded as interactive learning objects to reflect the key pedagogical factor for effective learning object that is interactivity. The main findings of the study from the questionnaire survey and interviews with students point to the importance of content being meaningfully chunked by the learning objects, types of learners, level of interactivity and learner control. Moreover, the study suggests the importance of designing online modules according to a blended e-learning plan and that teachers also ensure students are e-learning ready. [abstract ends]

**********

In the last decade, the idea of developing online courses using the learning object approach has evolved based on its two practical functions: reusability and adaptability. Reusability is the fundamental idea behind learning objects where small instructional web-based components are reused in different learning contexts. Adaptability refers to the individualization of instruction where the online learning system makes decisions about the nature of the subsequent events (linking to instructional objects) to be used in the student's learning based on a set of response-dependent rules (Gibbons, Nelson, & Richards, 2000).

Although many researchers have studied the reusability and adaptability of learning objects (Longmire, 2000; Mortimer, 2002), few have looked into the interactivity of learning objects. Based on a case study of the online component of a Computing Mathematics module at a local polytechnic in Singapore, this article provides a descriptive account of the development and employment of interactive learning objects to enhance the learning experiences of the students in the course. The term "interactive" emphasizes the process of empowering students with control over their learning environment; where interactivity in learning is a necessary and fundamental mechanism for knowledge acquisition and the development of both cognitive and physical skills (Barker, 1990).

The Computing Mathematics module is a part-time diploma course that is targeted at working adults. 60% of the 75-hour module is delivered online while the rest of the 30 hours is face-to-face sessions. The development of the interactive learning objects in this study is based on the questionnaire survey findings of a previous study on students' perceptions of the effectiveness of using learning objects for online learning in the Principle of Computing module. The main findings suggest that online learning can be made more effective if there is enhanced interactivity (including animated presentations, activities, learner's guidance and feedback). This article therefore investigates the requirements and possibilities of designing learning objects for interactivity.

Learning Objects and Interactivity

For the purpose of this article, learning objects are defined as any digital resources that can be reused to mediate learning. In a surprisingly visionary statement early in the history of computer-based instruction, Gerard (1969) describes how "curricular units can be made smaller and combined, like standardized Meccano [mechanical building set] parts, into a great variety of particular programs custom-made for each learner" (p. 29-30). Thirty years later, the value and practicality of this idea in the online learning environment is becoming apparent, and the use of learning objects in such an environment is common.

The rationale for the use of learning objects in online courses is well justified by tracing the process of instructors preparing lessons (face-to-face or online). When instructors first gain access to instructional materials, they often break the materials down into their constituent parts. They then reassemble these parts in ways that support their individual instructional goals (Reigeluth & Nelson, 1997). If teachers received instructional resources as individual components, this initial step of decomposition could be bypassed, potentially shortening course development time and encouraging collaboration among teachers. Moreover, learning objects offer prescriptive, dynamic learning for students within their time frame for learning.

With this increasing use of learning objects in online courses, interactivity becomes an important issue that all instructional designers, course coordinators and instructors have to address. The interactions between students and instructors or students and content cannot be assumed to be an automatic facility of the web-based medium. Rather, considerable design effort must continue to be placed on the ways in which students will both adopt and adapt to the exchange of ideas and engagement with content in the online learning environment (Sims, 2000).

Instructional designers have associated the concept of interactivity with the user's ability to watch, find, do, use, construct and create (Sims, 1997; Aldrich, Rogers, & Scaife, 1998). In the online learning environment, interactivity can be perceived as the "activity between two organisms" where the online application engages the user in a true dialogue that provides responses consistent with the user's information needs. That is, "the quality of the interaction in microcomputer courseware is a function of the nature of the learner's response and the computer feedback. If the response is consistent with the learner's information processing needs, then it is meaningful" (Jonassen, 1988, p. 101).

Sims (1997) identifies ten different levels of interactivity: (1) object interactivity (proactive inquiry), (2) linear interactivity, (3) hierarchical interactivity (reactive navigation), (4) support interactivity (reactive inquiry), (5) update interactivity, (6) construct interactivity, (7) reflective interactivity (proactive elaboration), (8) hyperlinked interactivity (proactive navigation), (9) non-immersive contextual interactivity (proactive inquiry) and (10) immersive virtual interactivity (mutual elaboration). For the development of the learning objects in the Computing Mathematics module, only the first six levels of interactivity that have been identified by Sims (1997) are applied. The last four levels are excluded from the study because they require advanced computer skills such as database, artificial intelligence and networking knowledge. The following provide a more detailed write-up of the first six levels of interactivity:</p> <pre> 1. Object interactivity (proactive inquiry) includes interactive multimedia in the form of objects (buttons, people, things, or other metaphors) that are activated by using a mouse or other pointing devices. This type of interactivity technique is commonly used for branching to different chunk of content for learning, revising or recalling, and/or activating a small- scale activity after certain interval of content presentation which help to reinforce understanding of concepts. 2. Linear interactivity (reactive pacing) refers to functions that allow users to move forward or backward through a predetermined linear sequence of the content. It is often called "electronic page-turning." This technique can be used to link chunks of content that allows learner to maneuver  forward and backward usually through the use of buttons. 3. Hierarchical interactivity (reactive navigation) provides users with a predefined set of options that the user can select a specific path or structure of accessing the content. This type of interactivity is commonly used in designing the main menu design interface enabling learners to navigate to any parts of the content or creating a specific learning path to scaffold learners. 4. Support interactivity (reactive inquiry) provides the user with a range of help options and messages, ranging from simple to complex information. This interactivity technique can be applied when providing guided practice questions, giving guide notes, recalling formula or concepts, assisting the learner in his/her learning process. 5. Update interactivity refers to components of program that initiate a dialogue between the user and the computer-

generated content. The program generates questions or problems

to which the user must respond. Applying this technique to

self-assessment questions or practice questions, creating

opportunities to elicit learners' understanding of the

concept. 6. Construct interactivity is an extension of update interactivity. It creates an environment that requires users to manipulate component objects to achieve specific goals. This technique can be used to design simple learning game or activities to reinforce learning (Sims, 1997). </pre> <p>Context of Study

The context of study is the Computing Mathematics module in a part-time diploma program at a local polytechnic. It is one of the five polytechnics in Singapore offering part-time and full-time diplomas. The part-time students in the study were working adults. 10% of them have attained diploma or higher education qualifications and while the rest either attained General Certificate of Education (GCE) Ordinary Level (O Level) or Institute of Technology Education (ITE) certificates passes. Most of them who had registered for this course aimed to re-align or retrained themselves in information technologies related field. There were a total of 95 students with 86% males and 14% females. The age ranged from 19 to 52-years old with 68% of them below 30 years old.

Sixty percent of the 75-hour module is delivered online while the rest of the 30 hours is face-to-face sessions. Based on the evaluation of another module in the program about the online component, the students stated that they would like to have more interactivity and better navigation of the learning objects. The learning objects in the Computing Mathematics module were developed to meet the students' learning needs of better interactivity and navigation. Drawing upon the six levels of interactivity by Sims (1997), the following section outlines the development of one such learning object.

Development of a Mathematics Module Learning Object

One of the difficulties encountered in the learning of Logic in this module is that students are often unable to chunk logical expressions correctly (that is apply the concept of logic order of precedence) and apply the truth table technique to determine the truth value of the expression. Thus, this focus represents the common element and objective of the three learning objects from this module that are compared in the discussion below. The convergent objective is that students should be able to apply the logic order of precedence and determine the truth value of the statement via the truth table.

To ascertain the extent of interactions that are perceived desirable for the targeted students for effective online learning, three different versions of learning objects with varied level of interactions and design interfaces were developed. Version 3 has a higher level of interactivity than Version 2, and Version 2 has a higher level of interactivity than Version 1.

Learning Object Version 1

Its aims are to achieve the objectives of the learning object and provide a quick understanding of the concept for students who have some basic understanding on logic. The main design considerations for interactivity include:

* giving students control over when to start off a different chuck of content for learning (object interactivity).

* applying the sequential presentation approach (linear interactivity).

* allowing a predefined set of options for students to select from (hierarchical interactivity).

* providing guided examples with solutions systematically chunked in steps (support interactivity).

The figures below capture the design interface of learning object version 1. Figure 1 is the title page, which is followed by the objectives of the learning object. Students are presented then with a list of sub-concepts to be revised where control is given over which sub-concept to revise first (Figure 2). Learning guide note is provided via mouse over technique. Students are also given the freedom to exit or proceed with learning by examples without going through the other sub-concepts.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Within each concept, students are also given a list of examples to choose from. Figure 3 shows the list of examples that involve a combination of different logic operations. Figure 4 presents an interface of Example 2. Object interactivity is being applied and students are given control over when to start the solution presentation. Students have the option to view the guide note before starting the solution presentation.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Figures 5 and 6 show how the solution presentation of Example 2 is achieved by applying combination of the different levels of interactivity, namely linear and support interactivity. Students are able to click for guide notes in Order of Precedence and during each solution step presentation, hints are provided to them. The conclusion of the truth value from the truth table is then presented to students to sum up the learning process. Hierarchical interactivity is ensured by making navigation buttons and links available to repeat the solution step or back to other examples.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

Learning Object Version 2

Similar content is encapsulated in version 2 except that version 2 has infused more interactions in the design of the learning object. The aims are to:

* Achieve the objective for learning object version 1;

* Provide students with certain degree of control on learning the intended concept encapsulated in the learning object; and

* Target at learners who do not have any basic prior knowledge on logic.

The main design considerations above that of version 1 are allowing students to verify answers to practicing examples and providing correct answers after two failed attempts (update interactivity), and requiring students to manipulate component objects to achieve specific goals (construct interactivity). The following figures capture the design interface of version 2 with an emphasis on update and construct interactivity. Figure 7 is the title page, stating the objectives. Students are given more control as compared to version 1; they are able to skip examples in the Lesson section and go straight to the Practice section.

The pages for the lesson section are very similar to version 1. The major difference between the two versions of learning objects is the update interactivity in the later version. Figure 8 shows the instructions for the Practice section. Students are required to use drag and drop to complete the practice exercises. Figures 9 to 11 apply the update interactivity concept in the practice activity. Students are required to drag the correct logic expression chunk (step 1), or logic truth value chunk (step 2) or enter value into (end of step 2) the white text boxes. At the same time, students have the control to mouse over for hint and or guide notes, to retry each step or retrieve answer for each step.

Learning Object Version 3

The designs strategies apply for version 3 are very similar to that of version 2 except that the level of interactivity is raised to a higher level. The aims of version 3 are to:

* Achieve the objective for the learning object;

* Provide the students with greater degree of interactivity as compared to version 2; and

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

* Target at experienced or novice learners who do not have any prior basic knowledge on logic and/or are weak in their foundation on elementary algebra.

The main design consideration above that of version 2 is the greater flexibility in the learning process in the sense that students are able to decide when to start content presentation, revisit other sections or end the learning section. They are unable to do so in some design interfaces of version 2. The following figures capture the design interface of learning object version 3. Figure 12 is the title page to version 3 where students are able to select any of the sections on the left navigation buttons panel or read the objective of the learning object. The other pages are basically similar to version2.

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 11 OMITTED]

Figures 13 and 14 show the presentation of an example in the lesson section, which is similar to version 2 except that the navigation buttons panel is displayed on the left of all pages, and the students are provided with more flexibility in their learning process.

From the literature review and the account of the development of the learning object, the following research question is generated: "How can interactive learning objects be designed to facilitate online learning in the Computing Mathematics module?" To address the question, qualitative and quantitative methods were employed--questionnaire survey, face-to-face interviews with the students, informal observations and chats with the students and information retrieved from the Student Information Management System database.

[FIGURE 12 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 13 OMITTED]

METHODS

A questionnaire survey was administered to all 95 students at the end of the module. The purpose of the questionnaire survey was to evaluate the interactivity of the different versions of the learning object in facilitating online learning in the Computing Mathematics module. Most of the questions examined the extent of interactivity in the design of the learning objects that was preferred by the students, and also how the interactivity facilitated their learning in the module. The students were also asked about their online learning strategies and whether the design of the learning objects matched their strategies.

[FIGURE 14 OMITTED]

Following the questionnaire survey, interviews were conducted with eight students. The students were selected based on their willingness and availability to be interviewed. The aim of the interviews was to allow the students to elaborate upon their responses in the questionnaire and share their learning experiences in the module.

RESULTS

34% of the 95 respondents agreed that version 1 found that the amount of interactivity was "just right," and more than double of them felt the same for version 2 and 3 with 63% and 64% respectively. Slightly more than half of them (56%) indicated that the interactivity extent was "not enough" in version 1, and about 20% of the respondents felt that version 3 comprised of "too much" interactivity. Version 3 had applied the most interactivity, and this finding suggested that not all students preferred learning objects with high level of interactivity. The latter finding is consistent with some earlier research studies findings (Goetzfried & Hannafin, 1985; Shyu & Brown, 1992; Sims, 1997). However, more respondents (63%) agreed that version 3 gave them control over the learning sequence, as compared to version 2 (24%) and version 1 (12%). This suggests that the higher the interactivity, the more control students have over the learning sequence.

Table 1 summarizes the percentages of respondents with respect to the most preferred online strategies. Slightly more than one-third (36%) indicated that their most preferred online learning strategy was "self-assessment questions". The second highest preferred online learning strategy was making "guides/hint available". The findings suggest the importance of providing opportunities for students to self-assess their understanding of the content. At the same time, there is a need to integrate cues, hints or guide notes to scaffold their learning process.

An attempt was sought to find out what design feature works from learner point of view. Table 2 summarized the five given options regarding Preferred Learning Object key features in descending order. Almost 30% of the respondents had indicated that they preferred structured activities to mere "play." This finding supported previous findings that they preferred learning through doing. About one quarter expressed the "audio explanation" as their Preferred Learning Object Key Feature. A possible reason to support this finding was that the respondents still had the mindset of conventional teaching and learning method that is "talk-listen". The implication for this situation was that they were not really ready for e-learning! Other possible reasons might be that these respondents were auditory learners themselves and thus preferred audio explanation or audio explanation which could help them to concentrate better as it helped to alleviate fatigue and boredom.

A sample worksheet for the learning object was presented together with this survey and 88% agreed that they could learn the concept well via learning object(s) if there was a worksheet provided during the e-learning session. The findings further ascertain the fact that enhancing e-learning of Computing Mathematics through the use of learning objects alone is not adequate. This is because the worksheet scaffolds the learning process by providing a purpose for the learning task (learning through learning objects) and thus helps to enhance the learning.

Two key learning object design considerations were mentioned--interface design and pedagogical elements. For interface design, one particular student commented that "animations should appear on pop up screen and be controlled by learners." His comment suggests that a high level of interactivity should provide instant feedback for actions taken by learners. Two other students expressed the need to infuse more learner control in learning object design. One recommended that the design "slow down the presentation pace or add control buttons." Another student said, "Improve the navigation so that learners can determine their learning path."

With regard to pedagogical considerations, two other students expressed the need to provide more learning guidance via providing "clear instructions on activity" and "more worked examples." These two students who might be auditory learners indicated that the need to integrate audio presentation for content as well as environment setting with one of them saying, "to include background music to motivate and arouse learners' interest" and the other student expressed the need "to include audio explanation."

More feedback suggested that the design of the learning objects should: (1) meet the diverse learning needs of the different learning style learners, and (2) provide learners with interactions and increased learner control on content (not just fro and back) and learning sequence.

An equal number of respondents preferred both version 2 and 3 learning objects. When they were interviewed on why the version was being chosen, most of the explanations point to two aspects of design considerations: availability of learning guidance and easy accessibility of content (navigation). To them a "good" learning object design should comprise of "... examples with guidance throughout the learning process," "... important points were highlighted and there are guide notes provided," and, "the layout is neat and you are able to navigate to desired path." A particular interviewee had mentioned an interesting point to support the selection of version 3 as his most preferred version, he said, "... version 3 is the best, especially the navigation buttons on the left panel that light up when I mouse over indicating that content is linked. It helps me to identify which content I am learning ...". Basically, all the reasons given were based on the students' learning experience and the feel of the design interface of the learning objects.

When interviewees were prompted to give the reason(s) for indicating "not enough" interactivity for version 1 learning object, the majority of them pointed to three aspects on the design regarding learner control (navigation), insufficient content and information and lack of interactions (learning guidance and practice activities). One interviewee cited the reason, "There are not many practice activities, the interactions are just 'showing' and not much 'doing'." Another said that "The design is very plain, like reading a book and the navigation design needs to improve." Two interviewees expressed that version 1 learning object design was lacking in "learning guidance especially for some parts,... clear and direct instructions," and, "animations, the content presentation is short with click and click design strategy."

Two other interviewees (both male students) were asked for the reasons for associating version 3 with "too much" interactivity. They provided interesting reasons to support their preference. One interviewee pointed out to the fact that they did not prefer learning object designs with a high level of interactivity and learner control. He said, "Version 3 requires the learner to do a lot of things in order to understand a concept." A similar reason was given by the other interviewee: "Version 3 is too rich in content with many activities to complete, thus [it is] difficult to decide how much learning is sufficient to achieve the learning objective."

Interviewees were requested to indicate in which version they were able to control the learning sequence. One student particularly felt that version 1 gave him greater control over the learning sequence, the reason cited by him was that the design strategies used in version 1 presented content and concepts in a sequential manner and thus helping him to learn the topic in a structured order. Another student who had responded positively to version 1 on being able to control the learning sequence indicated that the version 1 design interface allowed him to link back to main menu page and thus it was easy to access other examples. Only one student had expressed that version 2 was easier to control the learning sequence as compared to version 3. The key reason provided by this student was that "the interactivity design in version 2 is better than version 3, especially in the practice section; version 3 uses a more 'click and show' presentation approach than version 2." The three unexpected answers supported the earlier findings from the survey that not all learners would prefer high level of learner control and interactivity in learning object design.

The interview results support the earlier survey findings that self-assessment and guides/hints were the two most preferred design elements in learning objects. Navigation buttons and the ability to retrieve learning objects many times were the other two factors that should not be dismissed in learning object design. The latter two elements suggested that greater effort was needed in the interface design on navigation and hypertext structure, allowing learners to retrieve required content easily. The technical aspect of learning object design should also be considered, the file size of learning object should be kept small so that it was easier to download from the institute's learning management system--Course Management System (CMS), via Internet for self-directed learning.

All interviewees expressed that the given worksheet was a good way to help them reinforce their learning. They further indicated that such a worksheet should be given at the end of the e-learning session. Moreover, they expressed that the given questions should not be too difficult and there should be worked example. Only one interviewee had requested that the worksheet include higher order thinking questions.

The comments and suggestions of interviewees echoed the same implications on learning object design from questionnaire survey. One of them commented that "the design approach should be concise that is 'short and sharp'" as "too much animation sometimes can be confusing. It is better not to have too many activities within one learning object". Others suggested the following: "... integrated audio effects help to make the design more interesting so that it will catch attention and arouse learning interest;" "... have more interactions, less text and more practice opportunities;" and, "... the function of buttons should be clearly stated."

Other Supporting Findings

(1) None of the eight interviewees expressed negative perception about e-learning though one of them did express that he preferred face-to-face lessons.

(2) There was no major technical problem of CMS reported during the period of e-learning implementation. Learning object versions 1 to 3 were uploaded to CMS for e-learning implementation of computing mathematics.

(3) The targeted population for this project study comprises 118 part-time students with 18 (15%) female and 100 (85%) male. There is a wide age gap of 33 years with the youngest students at 20 years old and the oldest student at 53 years old. About 59% of them (70 students) are below 30 years old, 30% between 31 to 40 years old and the rest 11% (13 students) are more than 40 years old.

(4) Information retrieved from the Student Information Management System database shows that among the batch of 118 students, 15 (12.5%) were diploma holders, 58 (49.5%) of them have gone through GCE O Level examinations and the rest are from Institute of Technical Education or Vocational Institute (38%). This information provides possible explanation on why some of them have weak foundation in basic algebra.

(5) The overall performance from this batch of students implied that the use of learning objects was an effective approach to certain extent in enhancing e-learning of computing mathematics. For those students who had failed the module, they attributed their poor performance to the fact that they did not follow the weekly online study guides and study the e-content thoroughly.

DISCUSSION

It is clear by now that areas that the requirements for the effective design of learning objects (and hence e-learning effectiveness) include relevant design strategies, blended solution for e-learning and e-learning readiness.

Design strategies

Sampling survey results suggest that more than half of targeted population prefer a design interface with more activities where they able to engage with the content. The design interface should be consistent and neat, presenting an interface that was not cluttered with text, as the respondents felt that then they were able to better focus on information to solving problems. Infusing interactivity in a learning object by integrating it with self-assessment questions at appropriate intervals or at the end of the learning process helps the learner to recap what is being learnt, an important factor indicated by respondents in the survey. Providing guides/ hints and concise instructions are equally important factors in learning object design, findings from interview.

The other two factors that were commented on constantly in the questionnaire survey were the navigation design of the learning object and the ease of retrieving the learning object content whether on campus or off campus. The first issue was tied to the technical aspect of the learning object design which is the file size. File size should not be too large for ease of downloading content via Internet from the institute's CMS.

The investigation also revealed that students preferred an expository approach rather than inquisitory approach. This might be because of the nature of the subject--mathematics. Some students did not appreciate those designs that allowed them to explore (more learner control) and /or with many activities (higher level of interactivity), while other cited the essence of providing clear instructions on how to learn activities (learning objects). A possible reason contributing to this result was that the students might still have a school mindset, expecting to be spoon-fed by a tutor rather than independently interacting with the e-learning content. Another key design issue was associated with linear versus hierarchical interactivity of the learning object. A mere click and show design approach (linear) might not arouse much learning interest even though the learner was ready for e-learning. Hierarchical interactivity should be applied to those complex concepts that required a systematic chunking. Decomposing the complex concept into manageable bits made learning easy. Apply linear interactivity only on snippet chunk of the concept within the learning object. Integrating audio explanation that synchronized with the content presentation would be helpful to auditory learners. One philosophy proposed by Lao Tze in the 6th century perhaps can be used to sum up this point about learning object design strategy: "If you tell me, I will listen. If you show me, I will see. If you let me experience, I will learn."

Blended Solution for E-learning

There are many factors that contributed to the success of e-learning implementation as in the case of computing mathematics. To adopt learning objects as an approach for e-learning, e-learning effectiveness should not rely solely on learning object design. Integrating offline activities such as completing a worksheet after the e-learning (submission to tutor is required) via learning object(s), and summarization of key points, are equally important and essential. This blended approach in e-learning helps not only to reinforce learning but also create a purpose for learning. Creating a purpose for learning is critical for students as procrastination is one of the major factors that hinder their learning progress. This is especially so for mathematics. Learning mathematics is like the flow of a stream--if the upper stretch of the stream is blocked, the water will not flow to the lower stretch. Or even if it does flow, the amount water may reduce (route or surface learning) or detour (misconceptions). Thus the design of learning objects that deal with analytical subjects such as mathematics should constantly be aware of providing avenues for learners to revise or to recap the previous concepts or necessary prior knowledge. The implications then lie on the navigation design and chunking of content, requiring learning object designers to have a carefully thought-out planning and design layout.

One other factor that helps to enhance learning via learning objects and hence e-learning is the design of context wrappers. A context wrapper helps to bridge the learning gap by providing the learner with examples that requir higher-order thinking skills or examples that are specific to the course of study. External links that are relevant to the topic of learning can be integrated in the context wrapper, helping learner to gain a better understanding of the concept. Another important element that may not be applicable for some institutes is the used of a learning management system to support e-learning implementation. Using the built-in e-communication functions in the learning management system scaffolds learners in their learning processes (Jonassen & Kwon, 2001).

E-learning Readiness

According to research studies (Mitra, 2002), the predispositions play an important role in the perception of the effectiveness of computer aided instructions, in our case, the use of learning objects to enhance e-learning. There are four perceptual categories being discussed, namely climate of interaction, communication effectiveness, abstract expectations and pragmatic expectations. Under climate of interaction, students who perceive positively on the use of computers to enhance interactions will be more ready for e-learning. For communication effectiveness, it is important to integrate communication channels for people involved in the course as part of the blended solution for e-learning. Positive perception on communication effectiveness helps learners to accept new mode of learning and teaching (e-learning).

There are many facets about abstract expectation which include expectation about the level of computers usage in learning, apprehensions about the loss of privacy and concerns about the increases in power inequity between the tutor and the student. People with different expectations on this aspect could easily have different assessments of the effectiveness of the computer in teaching and learning.

The last factor, pragmatic expectation, deals with specific ways in which students anticipate using the computer in the process of learning. If students are positive about the perception on using computers to enhance learning, that is, computers can do to transform their comprehension of the materials being taught, then they are ready for e-learning and to adapt to e-learning strategies that are designed for them. To sum up, the perception on the effectiveness of computers is linked to e-learning readiness and in turn, it influences the perception on effectiveness of using learning objects to enhance e-learning of computing mathematics.

Limitations of the Study

Different Tutors

Not all groups were under the same tutor. As such, there is certain degree of differences on the learning supports provided to students in terms of teaching them how to use the Course Management System to optimize their learning, providing face-to-face learning guidance to scaffold learning and the effort on cultivating group dynamics and rapport for sharing that will foster more communication among students which has been seem as an helpful element for effective e-learning. Though Learning Object Evaluator (and also the Module Coordinator) had made an effort to gather informal formative feedback from various tutors regarding e-learning implementation, none of them was able to give a full account of their groups' learning progress. The fact was that there is always a handful of students who were having a physical access problem arising from network bandwidth, prohibited Internet access due to organization security such as the Singapore Armed Force (SAF) and Navy, or no Internet access at working site. To alleviate such possibility of biasness, a deadline was set for each topic and questionnaire survey and interviews were conducted after the given period that students had completed those topics whose learning objects were under evaluation. Tutors were able to use the built-in features of Course Management System to monitor their students' learning progress, checking whether they had studied the online materials (including learning objects) and completing the review questions.

An e-learning strategy that was used to help learners progress in their e-learning, and hence learning via learning objects, was through the use of synchronized discussion forums. To answer questions (marks were awarded for participation) posted by tutors, students were "forced" to study or examine the solution of worked examples, therefore their learning via learning objects was reinforced at least at the meta-learning level, that is, learning how to learn (problem solving strategies). Unfortunately not all tutors had truthfully followed this e-learning implementation plan that adopts the blended solution approach. This is either due to the tutors' own discomfort with discussion forum implementation (possible reasons mentioned in the E-learning Readiness section) or there was no follow-up on the part of tutors for the given low participation cases and these intended activities just subsided as time passed.

Different Access Level

The perception on e-learning held by tutors and their respective IT ability affected the e-learning implementation of computing mathematics. Tutors who were not IT savvy tended to rely more on teaching the concepts during face-to-face sessions than encouraging students to explore and learn from the learning objects, which is the intended e-learning implementation plan. Students under such tutors would tend to treat learning via learning objects as optional and only complete the review questions sections in CMS as they were mandatory. Review questions sections were used as part of the overall strategies to create a purpose for learning; each student was expected to complete previous week review questions section before attending the face-to-face lessons.

Future Research and Recommendations

Flexibility in Module Implementation

To address the physical accessibility problem, a few recommendations are cited. One of them is the use of a CD to provide an alternative for accessing the content in CMS via the Internet. An option is to archive the content (including learning objects) onto CD and distribute to students who have bandwidth access problems or prohibited access to the Internet in the workplace. This strategy also helps to reduce the drop-rate caused by network disruptions and students will be able to closely follow the planned e-learning schedule.

Mobile E-learning Development

Recently the team has embarked on an extended area of learning object development--developing learning objects for displaying on mobile devices such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), cellular phones or notebook computers. For the purpose of experimentation, PDA is selected as the platform for mobile e-learning development and those learning objects that are catered for PDAs are re-named as Mobile e-Learning Objects (mLOs).

The scope of trial experimentation covers developing content on PDA as a standalone and in a wireless access environment. Whether it is as a stand-alone or for wireless environment development work, we can notice the potential of flexibility in learning as well as solving the accessibility issue. Many of the learning object design strategies applied and experiences can be modified for mLO developments.

Competency in Modularizing Content

The effectiveness of learning objects as we have seen depends closely on the ability to modularizing or chunking the content into meaningfully and manageable content bits. There is a high chance that learning objects that are meaningfully chunked can be used to address individual competency gaps in learning. This point is supported by Reigeluth and Nelson (1997) who found that "... reusable instructional components, or learning objects, may provide instructional benefits: If instructors received individual resources as individual components, this initial step of decomposition could be bypassed, potentially increasing the speed and efficiency of instructional development." Both view that chunking content from a bigger piece to smaller pieces and understanding the smaller pieces that constitute the entire concept helps in the understanding of the overall concept. It is thus recommended that the institute should channel manpower into various subject matters to train staff in their specialized field, especially on content and hence support future learning object development works.

Learning Object Design Template to Speed-up Development

Wiley (2000) suggests that to speed up the development of learning object, creating a "template-based design" can be applied, meaning developing a reusable design format for content to be chunked into smaller chunks. This idea is a practical one but it may not be workable for polytechnic context which deals with adolescents that are hyperactive and easier get bored with standard presentation mode. However, this approach can be a useful start-up strategy for academic staff who are not IT savvy but want to develop e-content within a short span of time.

Building a Knowledge-based System 

With the learning management system becoming more and more sophisticated, it is possible that in the near future, learning objects can poise to become the instructional technology of the institute e-learning implementation. Students and staff are able to individualize their learning through matching learning with a list of learning objects that meets their learning needs. This is possible as all learning objects are meta-data tagged in the system.

CONCLUSION

All in all, the use of learning objects to enhance the e-learning of computing mathematics is feasible provided that the learning object design has taken into considerations the content being meaningfully chunked, learner types of targeted population, level of interactivity and learner control. It is important that module tutors implement online modules according to a blended e-learning plan and also ensure that students are e-learning ready. It is hoped that this article serves as a reference to those people who are keen to develop learning objects in the near future.

Moving to an online environment, with the perceived benefits of human-to-human communications, may be perceived to diminish the importance of overt human-to-computer interactions. However, we maintain that it is the engagement and learning that interactivity can enhance that is the critical component of any computer facilitated learning artifact and that this interactivity needs constant maintenance regardless of the medium of delivery.

References

Aldrich, F., Rogers, Y., & Scaife, M. (1998). Getting to grips with interactivity: Helping teachers assess the educational value of CD-ROMs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4), 321-332.

Barker, P. (1990). Designing interactive learning systems. Education & Training Technology International, 27(2), 125-145.

Gerard, R. W. (1969). Shaping the mind: Computers in education. In R.C. Atkinson, & H.A. Wilson (Eds.), Computer-Assisted Instruction: A Book of Readings. New York: Academic Press.

Gibbons, A. S., Nelson, J., & Richards, R. (2000). The nature and origin of instructional objects. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.) The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Bloomington (IN): Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Goetzfried, L., & Hannafin, M. J. (1985). The effect of locus of CAI control strategies on the learning of mathematics rules. American Education Research Journal, 22(2), 273-278.

Jonassen, D. (1988). Instructional Designs for Microcomputer Courseware. NJ, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated vs. face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 49(10), 35-52.

Longmire, W. (2000). A primer on learning objects. ASTD's Online Magazine All About E-learning. Retrieved February 12, 2002, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/mar2000/primer.html

Mortimer, L. (2002). (Learning) objects of desire: Promise and practicality, In ASTD's Online Magazine All About E-learning, April. Retrieved May, 18, 2002 from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/apr2002/mortimer.html

Reigeluth, C. M., & Nelson, L. M. (1997). A new paradigm of ISD? In R.C. Branch & B.B. Minor (Eds.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 22 (pp. 24-35). Englewood (CO): Libraries Unlimited.

Shyu, H. Y., & Brown, S. W. (1992). Learner control versus program control in interactive videodisc instruction: What are the effects in procedural learning? International Journal of Instructional Media, 19(2), 85-96.

Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art? Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 157-180.

Sims, R. (2000). An interactive conundrum: Constructs of interactivity and learning theory. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 45-57.

Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.) The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Bloomington (IN): Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

CHER PING LIM

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

[e-mail]

SIEW LIE LEE

Nanyang Polytechnic, Singapore

[e-mail]

CAMERON RICHARDS

University of Western Australia, Australia

[e-mail]

Table 1 Preferred Online Strategies

Preferred Online Learning Strategy           Percentage

Self-assessment questions                    36%
Guides/hint available                        31%
Retrieve learning object content many times  14%
Navigation buttons                           12%
Feedback on responses                         8%

Table 2 Summary Data on Preferred Learning Object Key Feature

Preferred Learning Object Key feature          Percentage

Activities that I can play                     29%
Audio explanation                              24%
Control buttons to determine my learning path  17%
Animations                                     15%
Control buttons to determine my learning pace  15%