You are here:

Educators’ Perceptions of Learning Object Brokerage.
PROCEEDINGS

, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom ; , StreamLearn, United States ; , , University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Vancouver, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-62-4 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

A learning object broker service aims to facilitate the easy purchasing and selling of learning objects, thus enabling the efficient creation of course content. Although the success of such a service ultimately depends on it being accepted by educators, no previous empirical work has systematically studied their opinions and perceptions. To explore this issue, a survey was conducted. 173 educators from a cross-section of subject areas in UK higher and further education institutions were interviewed. After being presented with a short description of an 'ideal' learning object broker service, approximately two thirds of the interviewees reported that they would consider using the service to support their teaching. However, the most striking finding of the survey was the limited current usage of e-learning resources and digital media. Although the use of video either recorded from the television or purchased was widespread, none of the interviewees used any kind of computer-based learning resource.

Citation

Maniar, N., Garrison, W., Simms, C. & Bennett, E. (2007). Educators’ Perceptions of Learning Object Brokerage. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2007--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 2900-2905). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 23, 2023 from .

© 2007 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Assche, F., & Massart, D. (2004). Federation and brokerage of learning objects and their metadata. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 316-320.
  2. Bodendorf, F., Schertler, M., & Cohen, E. (2005). Producing Reusable Web-Based Multimedia Presentations. Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 127-142.
  3. Collier, G., & Robson, R. (2004). Digital Rights Management for Research and Education. Macquarie E-learning Centre of Excellence White Paper. Macquarie University, Available on-line from: www.eduworks.com/Docs/Melcoe_DRM.pdf
  4. Di Iorio, A., Feliziani, A., Mirri, S., Salomoni, P., & Vitali, F. (2006). Automatically Producing Accessible Learning Objects. Educational Technology& Society, 9 (4), 3-16.
  5. Downes, S. (2001) Learning objects: Resources for distance education worldwide. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2 (1), 1-35.
  6. Duncan, C., Barker, E., Douglas, P., Morrey, M., & Waelde, C. (2004). JISC Digital Rights Management Study. Prepared by Intrallect Ltd on behalf of JISC. Available on-line from: http://www.intrallect.com/drm-study/Interim_Report.pdf
  7. Friesen, N. (2003). Three Objections to Learning Objects and E-learning Standards. Learning Objects and Metadata. In McGreal, R. (Ed.) Online Education Using Learning Objects. London: Routledge. 59-70.
  8. Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2005). Developing Learning Objects for Secondary School Students: A Multi-Component Model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 229-254.
  9. Koper, E. (2003). Combining reusable learning resources and services to pedagogical purposeful units of learning. In Littlejohn, A. (Ed.), Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to eLearning. London: Kogan Page. 46 – 59.
  10. Koppi, T., Bogle, L., & Bogle, M. (2005) Learning objects, repositories, sharing and reusability. Open Learning, 20 (1), 83-91.
  11. Liber, O. (2005). Learning objects: conditions for viability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21 (5) 366-373.
  12. MacDonald, C., Stodel, E., Thompson, T., Muirhead, B., Hinton, C., Carson, B., & Banit, E. (2005). Addressing the e-learning contradiction: A collaborative approach for developing a conceptual. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 79-98.
  13. Malcolm, M. (2005) The exercise of the object: issues in resource reusability and reuse. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (1), 33-41.
  14. Nurmi, S., & Jaakkola, T. (2006). Effectiveness of learning objects in various instructional settings. Learning, Media& Technology, 31 (3), 233 – 247.
  15. Nurmi, S., & Jaakkola, T. (2006). Promises and pitfalls of learning objects. Learning, Media& Technology, 31 (3), 269 – 285.
  16. Polsani, P. (2003). Use and Abuse of Reusable Learning Objects. Journal of Digital Information, 3(4).
  17. Retalis, S., Papasalouros, A., Avgeriou, P., & Siassiakos, K. (2004) e-Learning Resource Brokers. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 4(1), 41-54.
  18. Santos, J., Anido, L., & Llamas, M. (2005). Design of a Semantic Web-based Brokerage Architecture for the E-learning Domain. A Proposal for a Suitable Ontology. Proceedings of 35th IEEE Conference on Frontiers in Education FIE'05. 18-23.
  19. Santos, O., & Ramos, F. (2004). Proposal of a framework for Internet based licensing of learning objects. Computers and Education, 42(3), 227 – 242.
  20. Simon, B. (2003). Learning Object Brokerage: How to Make it Happen. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications-ED-MEDIA. 681-688.
  21. Simon, J., & Colin, J. (2005). A Digital Rights Management system for the exchange of Learning Objects. Sun Microsystems. Available on-line from: http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/edu/whitepapers/pdf/digital_rights_managementsystem.pdf
  22. Vargo, J., Nesbit, J., Belfer, K., & Archambault, A. (2003). Learning object evaluation: Computer mediated collaboration and inter-rater reliability. International Journal of Computers and Applications, 25(3), 198-205.
  23. Varlamis, I., Athens, G., & Apostolakis, I. (2006). The Present and Future of Standards forE-Learning Technologies. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 59-76.
  24. Wiley, D. (2001). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In Wiley, D. (Eds.) The Instructional Use of Learning Objects.
  25. Wilhelm, P., & Wilde, R. (2005). Developing a university course for online delivery based on learning objects: from ideals to compromises. Open Learning, 20 (1), 65-81.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References