British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004.

Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 35 No 6 2004

717727

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UKBJETBritish Journal of Educational Technology0007-1013British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004November 2004356717727Articles

E-portfolios: an
assessment tool for online coursesBritish Journal of Educational Technology

E-portfolios: an assessment tool for online courses

Robin Mason, Chris Pegler and Martin Weller

Robin Mason is Professor of Educational Technology, Chris Pegler is a lecturer and doctoral student, and
Martin Weller is a Senior Lecturer, all at the Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University.
They are researchers in the area of the pedagogy of learning objects. Address for correspondence: Professor
R. D. Mason, Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes,
MK7 6AA, UK. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

This article considers the various uses of e-portfolios in an educational context
and looks at the particular characteristics of the electronic version of portfolios.
It then focuses on the application of the e-portfolio as an assessment method.
A case is made for the use of the e-portfolio as an appropriate end of course
assessment process where learning objects are the basis of the course design.
Evaluation data from such a course is presented. This is a post-graduate online
course run by the Institute of Educational Technology at the Open University.
Conclusions are drawn from the evaluation about the appropriateness of e-
portfolios as an end of course assessment method.

E-portfolios in lifelong education

As with all terms that have acquired the prex e, e-portfolios are an adaptation of the
original concept, in this case portfolios, to the electronic domain. The e could and no
doubt will be dropped, but in the meantime, it is useful to highlight the specic features
that electronic access and digitisation provide to the portfolio process compared to the
paper-based versions of portfolios.
There are different uses of educational portfolios, prepared for different purposes and
using different kinds of resources producing a taxonomy of electronic portfolios in order
to discuss and classify examples:
those for

developmental

purposes;
those for

presentation

purposes;
those for

assessment

purposes.
LaGuardia College in New York has embraced the e-portfolio developmental approach
which they dene as:
718

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 35 No 6 2004

British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004.

A self-selected multimedia presentation of student work that offers a rich and textured view of a
students learning and development. In an ePortfolio, students collect and select materials from
their college careers to create a body of work that represents their learning over the course of
their education. Students then reect on this work making important connections around career,
community, personal and educational goals. The ePortfolio process at LaGuardia Community can
be summarized as collect, select, reect, and connect (http://www.eportfolio.lagcc.cuny.edu).

The European conference on e-portfolios in 2003 places a presentational emphasis on
the concept, with the conference web site emphasising the advantages of the electronic
portfolio: An e-portfolio is an extended, dynamic CV, establishing links to an online
database, which contains personal and professional achievements, team results, refer-
ences and all relevant evidence of competence obtained in the course of work and
learning. It provides an opportunity to reect on ones own professional practice and
to share the lessons learned with others (http://www.eife-l.org/portfolio).
California State University in Los Angeles, on the other hand, uses the term webfolios
and claims that their use for assessment will have a great impact on both the breadth
and depth of student learning, particularly in the context of distance education:

The webfolios may also be used as an authentic student outcomes assessment for the courses
offered through distance learning as students are able to share their ideas and feedback. Their
work-in-progress webfolios will be accessible to one another through the Web during the entire
course period in a learning community created by technology. The webfolios provide a new
perspective on student evaluation where students would learn to experience the synergy of
collaborative learning rather than competitiveness experienced during testing or examinations.
By sharing their resources obtained with one another, students become true partners in learn-
ing and develop their professional collegial relationships while they are in class. This also will
overcome the isolation often felt by the students in distance learning classes. (http://
www.ca.statela.edu/academic/webfolio/web1.htm).

So while some of the uses of e-portfolios are for short-term purposes, the basic concept
is one where learners contribute continually to their portfolio throughout their learn-
ing life and draw on it for assessment, for job interviews and for maintaining a record
of achievement.

Characteristics of e-portfolios

Looking at course specic applications only, a number of advantages of e-portfolios can
be identied for each of the stages (collection, selection, reection, projection, presen-
tation) associated with portfolio use in the literature (Barrett, 2003).
The process of

collecting

and

selecting

items for the e-portfolio is made easier because
users can hold, organise and reorder contents easily and quickly. Being able to go back
and re-work various components of the portfolio is a signicant advantage of elec-
tronic portfolios. As a method of end-of-course assessment, e-portfolios provide many
opportunities to integrate all of the students work on the course and to connect new
ideas with the students existing knowledge and context. Collections can be the work
of an individual, or assembled and shared by a group.
E-portfolios: an assessment tool for online courses

719

British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004.

A basic premise of portfolio learning is that

reection

over time increases a learners
ability to make sense of concrete experience. Realisation of competencies comes
through reection on activities and products that the student experiences and gener-
ates in a social context (Cambridge & Cambridge, 2003).
The process of

projection

(or direction) where students compare reections, standards
and performance indicators is particularly helped by an e-portfolio format. Such
comparisons are facilitated by the connected nature of the e-portfolio and adjust-
ments can be simply made to keep this live and responsive. The potential to create a
connected portfolio (Barrett, 2003) offers an interactive process, in which students
share their developing e-portfolios with teachers and other students. Being available
electronically, e-portfolios can form the basis for collaborative commenting, revising
and discussion.
The e-portfolio offers a multimedia palette of

presentation

possibilities. E-portfolios can
make use of audio and video les, graphics, references to external sources, photo-
graphs and other digital artefacts that add variety and interest to the portfolio. For
assessment, students ownership of their portfolio and their choice of items to submit
or present make this a truly learner centred activity.
In terms of assessment, the e-portfolio provides the student with authentic, reective,
interactive and individual features, and all of these attributes have advantages over
examinations and computer-assisted, multiple choice forms of assessment (Chang,
2001).

Standards and e-portfolios

What gives e-portfolios the edge over traditional portfolios is the considerable increase
in the number and quality of services that can be provided to individuals and the
community, the portability and adaptability of the output and the potential to create
central repositories (Ittleson, 2001). In order to realise these potential benets
e-portfolios must comply with interoperability standards such as document format
(eg, pdf, html, xml, etc.), accessibility (eg, WAI), data format (eg, learner prole),
authentication (eg, certicates), access right, etc. The IMS Global Learning Consor-
tium is a key developer of technical specications for e-portfolios and is currently pro-
ducing a specication based on use cases submitted by e-portfolio developers and users
working in all levels of education. IMS specications such as LIP (Learner Information
Prole) and content packaging, are some of the elements that could be included in
future e-portfolio standards.
E-portfolios are not dissimilar, in the technical sense, to a collection of learning objects.
That is, they assemble discrete pieces of electronically available material that can be
manipulated, stored and re-versioned to suit different audiences. Just as learning objects
can be stored in a learning object repository, students add new work to their e-portfolios
over the period of their study and select the most appropriate items from this repository
to present at the end of their course, or to an employer at the end of their degree.
Adhering to standards allows these repositories (e-portfolios) to be re-usable over time,
within different systems, conveniently accessible to different audiences as required.
720

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 35 No 6 2004

British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004.

An extract from a ctitious scenario about the use of e-portfolios illustrates the way in
which e-portfolios resemble learning object repositories:

I dont think an employer will take the time to look at my video from the play production. I have
to decide on another piece of evidence that will crystallize my ability as a team player. Maybe Ill
use two or three sequences from the transcript of a MOO session that my writing group had in
which we divided parts of a research project. Each short quote might show a different skill, for
example summarizing, persuading, and setting timelines for team results. Connecting to my
colleges portfolio community server, Ill look at the career e-portfolios of alumni from my school
who got great jobs and see what other strategies they used to show that they worked well in
teams. (Cambridge & Cambridge, 2003, p. 3)

This hypothetical student is re-versioning her electronic portfolio from a record of her
undergraduate achievements to a CV to submit to a prospective employer. She needs
both a range of different material to draw upon and way of seamlessly re-presenting it.

E-portfolio used with learning objects for end of course assessment (ECA)

The growth of interest in learning objects as a course design strategy parallels the
growth in the use of e-portfolios. Both involve the same fundamental technology and
both rely on the same components of re-use and selectivity. In this paper we present the
data and results of an application of e-portfolios as the nal assessment of a course
designed in learning objects. Called

Learning in the Connected Economy

(LCE), the course
represented one third of a Masters Degree in Online and Distance Education offered by
The Open University. The programme is run entirely online and each course lasts for
eight months. The pedagogical approach of the programme is constructivist and stu-
dent-centred, using asynchronous collaborative discussion and online activities as the
core learning modes. LCE had 45 students from 16 different countries.
What makes LCE different from the other courses on the programme, and indeed from
most higher education courses, is that it is written entirely in learning objects. The
learning object approach has generated a great deal of debate and much of it has
centred on its potential to radically transform the manner in which learning material
is produced, manipulated and experienced by the learner (Rehak & Mason, 2003). One
of the many issues raised by the use of learning objects is that of customising course
content to the individual learner. The use of learning objects does permit a level of
student choice and selectivity which traditional narrative courses cannot elegantly
provide. The granularity or size of learning objects is still very much open to different
interpretations. Our view of learning objects is that of a microcosm or condensed set of
components that give the learner an overview of the issue and ways of following up the
ideas in more detail. The instructional design principle underpinning the approach
taken to learning objects centres on the notion of the integrity and internal contextu-
alisation of each object. So instead of making up a learning unit from many self-
standing learning objects (eg, readings, pieces of interactive multimedia, an activity),
each learning object was designed as a holistic learning experience with internal integ-
rity as a unit of study. This results in a level of granularity somewhat larger than the
norm, though it is difcult to speak of a norm in an area as volatile and experimental
E-portfolios: an assessment tool for online courses

721

British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004.

as learning objects. What this approach does do, is place the notion of a learning object
and hence a course made from learning objects in a pedagogical framework that we call
holistic. (See Weller, Pegler & Mason (2003) for more details of the course design. Refer
to http://iet.open.ac.uk/coursesonline for details of the course content.)
LCE learning objects, in keeping with the essence of the concept, are stand alone and
do not refer to each other. The content of the course, the pedagogical approach and the
emphasis on learner choice in the presentation as learning objects all dictated the use
of an e-portfolio as the primary assessment method. This substituted for the more
traditional ECA as a project or extended essay and accounted for 50 per cent of the
overall markthe balance was based on performance on four continuous assessment
assignments, one at the end of each module. Passing the ECA was necessary to success-
fully complete the course.
Our intention in using this form of assessment was to design a course that offered
students an integrated learning experience in which they could work through a wide
range of activities and choose amongst these items of evidence for the ECA e-portfolio.
The course consisted of over 100 learning objects of which 55 we designated as possible
options to use in the ECA. Students were asked to select two activities from each of the
four modules, making eight pieces of work in total. They were also required to reect
on their choices in a 2,000 word overview commenting on how their chosen activities
supported their argument on the key statement: Increased connectivity is bringing
about a fundamental change in all aspects of learning.
As connectivity (eg, Weller, 2002) was a major concept on the course and was discussed
throughout the four modules, this overview question was intended as a vehicle for
students to summarise their view of the course content and processes. As one aspect of
connectivity, at least two of the pieces of evidence chosen for the e-portfolios had to
result from online collaborative activities, while the rest could be from a range of indi-
vidual online activities. Some of the activities involved writing; a few required Power-
point or spreadsheet outputs, some required exploration of unfamiliar technologies;
many involved searching on the web; others required online discussion or interaction
amongst students in small groups.
Most of the learning objects consisted of three elements:
1. An overview of the topic, highlighting the core issues, problems or ideas.
2. Links to further resources, web sites or journal articles for further reading. These
were carefully selected by the course team to provide opportunities for both corpo-
rate and higher education students to engage with the topic from a perspective with
which they would have some familiarity.
3. One or two activities, some individual, some collaborative that form the basic expe-
riential pedagogy of the course. Some of the activities involved writing; a few
required Powerpoint or spreadsheet outputs; many involved searching on the web;
others required online discussion or interaction amongst students in small groups.
722

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 35 No 6 2004

British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004.

To give an example of a collaborative LO, an extract is given below from the activity on
Instant Messaging (IM):
In this activity you take the role of a person who has been assigned the task of exploring
the possibilities of IM for use as a learning tool within your organisation (or one that
you are familiar with). This will require you to be able to install some software, and on
your own initiative explore its various functions. You will download an IM client and
use it to communicate with other students and course team members. Your experience
of using the client and the background reading above will then enable you to consider
the potential of IM as an educational tool.
Once you have explored the use of the client over a reasonable length of time (this will
vary depending on how successful you have been in communicating with others), you
should prepare a report that covers the following aspects:
backgroundbased on your reading give a brief overview of the use of IM;
your own experiencehow successful were you in using IM? What was your personal
experience of using the software?;
advantages and disadvantages of IM over other forms of communication;
type of learningsuggest the type of learning (in terms of learning styles or scenar-
ios) IM might support within the organisation;
your nal recommendation about its use.
One of the core principles of the course was that of choicegiving students opportuni-
ties to select which learning objects to complete, depending on their personal interests,
job relevance or time and inclination. The advice given to students about choosing
which learning objects to study in detail was that they should follow their personal or
professional interests. No advice was given about how to select LOs to submit in the
portfolio, but the marking criteria were given to students as part of the assignment
details.

Evaluation and results

The effectiveness of the e-portfolio approach was evaluated in a number of ways by the
team involved in the development and presentation of the course:
1. 31 of the 41 students who nished the course were interviewed by telephone and
their comments transcribed.
2. During the course, students were invited to complete a web questionnaire. This was
based on several open-ended questions covering their views of the course structure,
use of learning objects, and attitudes to making choices.
3. Statistics from students choice of submitted learning objects were analysed (see
Figure 1)
4. The e-portfolios were read, double-marked and analysed.
5. Messages to the ECA and other discussion forums were analysed.
6. Feedback from tutors was sought.
E-portfolios: an assessment tool for online courses

723

British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004.

In the web questionnaire and during the telephone interviews students were asked to
comment directly on how they worked through the course, how they made choices
about what to study and how they chose which learning objects to submit in their
portfolio. A third of students interviewed reported difculties with the necessity to make
choices: they worried that the learning objects they worked on during the course were
not the best ones to submit in their portfolio; they felt overwhelmed by the number of
topics; they felt guilty about not working through all the material provided.
Figure 1 presents an analysis of the eight choices students made in assembling their e-
portfolios. Modules 1, 3 and 4 had 12 to 13 LOs that could be used in the portfolio, but
Module 2 had 19. It is evident that a very high proportion of the usable learning objects
were in fact used53 of a possible 55. The data also shows that by the time students
reached the later modules in the course, they were much more strategic in their choices.
Almost half of the students submitted the same three activities in Module 3, though the
other half drew from learning objects spread relatively evenly across the other choices.
Figure 1 also shows that in Module 1, at the start of the course, there were no very clear
favourites amongst the ECA choices whereas in each of Modules 2, 3 and 4 three
activities were selected by 10 or more students. The three most popular activities in each
case included at least one of two collaborative activities in that module, and by Module
4 the collaborative activities accounted for the top two choices (indicating that some
students may by then have realised that they required additional collaborative activities
to full ECA requirements).

Figure 1: Relative popularity (frequency of selection) of learning objects across the four course modules
Frequency of LO choice in Mod 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
LOs ranked in popularity
N
o
.

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

c
h
o
o
s
i
n
g

L
O
Frequency of LO choice in Mod 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
LOs ranked in order of popularity
N
o
.

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

c
h
o
o
s
i
n
g

L
O
Frequency of LO choice in Mod 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
LOs ranked in order of popularity
N
o
.

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

c
h
o
o
s
i
n
g

L
O
Frequency of LO choice in Mod 4
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
LOs ranked in popularity
N
o
.

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

c
h
o
o
s
i
n
g

L
O
724

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 35 No 6 2004

British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004.

Evidence from the content of the e-portfolios submitted indicates that 90 per cent of the
students engaged very satisfactorily with the portfolio statement and the concept of
learning objects as supporting evidence. All of the e-portfolios achieved at least a pass
grade, using double marking and an external examiner.

Discussion

A number of issues emerge from this qualitative and quantitative data and this is
already being used to rene the course and the e-portfolio approach for the second
presentation in 2004. The foremost of these is the question of choice and the extent to
which this beneted the learner. The second is the integrative function of the e-portfolio
both from the instructor and student points of view. Did the e-portfolio approach help
students to engage with the core ideas of the course? The third is the ownership issue
and the extent to which e-portfolios enabled students to take responsibility for their own
learning.

Choice as a teaching strategy

It became apparent from the evaluation responses that the amount of choice demanded
by the course required a relatively sophisticated, self-directed and condent learner to
really benet from this strategy. As the majority of students were graduate professionals
with clear aims in studying the course, this choice about what to study and what topics
to submit as polished pieces of work, really suited their learning needs very well. It
provided great exibility to adapt the course to their employment context and to t
around other commitments. The use of learning objects which generally consisted of
three to ve hours of work made it very easy to study in short evening sessions.
However, it was evident in the feedback from students that the course designers needed
to be much clearer in their instructions about making choices as many students had
tried to do all the activities, at least for the rst two modules. One unexpected difculty
with the choice strategy was that even students who understood the skill we were trying
to develop through the provision of a wide range of materials, found all of the topics
and activities so interesting and absorbing that they wanted to do all of it! One such
student who worked through all of the learning objects commented in the telephone
interview: I did [the course] to see the horizon; I got that overview and thats what I
wanted.
However, even with these patterns of increasingly strategic choice, students continued
to choose activities across the range. They clearly exercised their choice to select and
present evidence which their peers may not have usedin every module 35 students
chose activities which only they, or they and one other, selected. This ability to exercise
choice, extending to choosing unpopular activities, is one which is not normally sup-
ported in distance education.

E-portfolios as a course integrator

Two thirds of the student feedback was very positive about the integrating effect of the
e-portfolio. Comments like the following were typical: A great ideait assessed the
E-portfolios: an assessment tool for online courses

725

British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004.

whole course, it really brought the course together and it gave lots of elasticity to
choose. However, there were complaints that it was a lot of work and that there was a
tension between choosing activities from personal interest and having to support an
argument in the nal submission. One student found the portfolio approach bitty.
Feedback from one pedagogically aware student showed an understanding of the aim
of using e-portfolios:

The e-portfolio was a big step towards afrming what we had learnedit brought together some
of the work we had done during the course and forced us to reect and link these LOs together.
Pedagogically this is very sound. It allowed us to individualise our nal piece of work, which
considering the groups were made up of diverse interests (teachers, designers, managers, etc.)
was very important and very clever. It also allowed those of us who had not looked at every LO
to hand in a complete work. Those that had looked at more LOs than others would hopefully be
at an advantage.

Learner-centredness

In designing the course and specically in estimating possible learning object study
times we were aware thatdepending upon student interestthis could range from

>

1
hour to

<

10 hours to follow links, research sources and prepare as ECA evidence. In
the student interviews this view was supported by comments such as I tried about 60%
of the objects, read about 80% and completed about 30%. The strategy of learner
choice, specically selecting which objects to concentrate on or how to allocate time
and effort amongst objects, was a large part of the learner-centred approach of the
whole course. The pedagogical rationale was that in this age of information explosion,
we need to be able to quickly assess the value of information, particularly online infor-
mation; we need to be comfortable with non-linear approaches to reading and search-
ing for information and we need to be able to identify information relevant to our own
requirements, and be selective in applying it to the appropriate context. These are not
simple skills that are easily acquired. It takes practice, guidance and effort to develop
real expertise. The top 50 per cent of the portfolios show evidence that the student was
well on the way to acquiring this expertise and found the course did provide the practice
and guidance they sought.
In 2004 the course structure will make more explicit during the Induction stage that
there are different study strategies, and that students do not have to complete all the
activities or complete them all to the same depth/intensity. This follows from student
feedback that this was not initially apparent to 2003 students:

The course structure was ne, but needs to be made clearer at the outset that you dont need to
do every activityonce this was clear you could really tailor the course to your own needs. That
you were able to select what you studiedyes I was able to focus more on what I wanted to learn
in more depth, those which I could apply to my professional work and personal interest.

There is well researched evidence (Bolander, 2000; Macdonald, Heap & Mason, 2001)
that students need scaffolding and support to become independent learnersin short,
726

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 35 No 6 2004

British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004.

they need hand-holding to become hands-free! One of the students acknowledges this
in her portfolio evidence:

These hands-on, self-directed activities may at rst appear alien to learners, who are not used to
organising or directing their learning activities. It may raise issues of time management, as it is
more difcult to predict the time required for self-directed activity.

Another student without the normal undergraduate degree (but with years of relevant
work experience in lieu) said, The nal assessment was the hardest thing Ive ever
done!!! I couldnt see how it all linked together till the end... I wanted you to suggest a
path, but I knew that it was the point of the course to learn to choose myself . In fact
this students portfolio was very good, which is evidence that learner-centredness is less
an issue of course pedagogy and more one of learner condence and attitude.

Conclusion

Evidence from the e-portfolios, student feedback and course evaluation supports the
course teams aim of producing a holistic course in which the pedagogy, learning object
approach and assessment strategy were an integrated whole. It also met our require-
ments for authenticity in the assessment process which is intimately linked to the
content of the course, rather than being a punishment at the end of the learning
process.
The use of choice, in the study of the course and in the e-portfolio submission, needs
further reinforcement in future presentations through greater clarity of instructions
from the course team and through interventions by the tutors for students who need
more scaffolding. Our students are not initially prepared to make choices and some have
reported guilt in passing over material, although as the course progressed they clearly
appreciated and used their choices, recognising that it gave lots of elasticity to study
what was most appropriate. There will always be a spread of competencies amongst
any student cohort such that some students will need more support and condence
building than others. In our view this does not justify designing courses for the lowest
common denominator. The quality of work produced by at least half of the students and
their enthusiasm for both the content and approach of the course provide ample justi-
cation for the demanding and relatively novel structure of this course. It also, through
the provision of choice, met the demand for a exible assessment which would be
equally relevant to students from corporate and educational institutions.
Our initial approach of designating some of the learning objects as suitable for the
portfolio and some not, was clearly a mistake and added unnecessary complications for
students. We have now made all learning objects potentially suitable for the portfolio.
The evidence also supports our hypothesis that e-portfolios can be a tting assessment
model for courses designed in learning objects. E-portfolios consist of discrete pieces of
work and this mirrors the structure of learning objects, particularly those which are
activity based.
E-portfolios: an assessment tool for online courses

727

British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2004.

The e-portfolio as a form of multimedia, ever-developing CV has obvious benets for the
pursuit of lifelong learning. As a method of assessment, the e-portfolio builds indepen-
dence and learning-to-learn skills, which are necessary components for the lifelong
learner.

References

Barrett, H. C. (2003). Electronic portfolios. In A. Kovalchick & K. Dawson (Eds),

Educational
technology: an encyclopedia

. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Bolander, K. (2000).

Student centred learning report for the teaching and learning service

.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/tls/ProjectReports/whole/index.html
Cambridge, B. & Cambridge, D. (2003).

The future of electronic portfolio technology: supporting what
we know about learning ePortfolio 2003

. Poitiers, France. http://www.eife-l.org/portfolio
Chang, C. (2001). A study on the evaluation and effectiveness analysis of web-based learning
portfolio.

BJET

,

32

, 4, 435458.
Ittelson, J. C. (2001). Building an e-dentity for each student.

Educause Quarterly

, No. 4.
Macdonald, J., Heap, N. & Mason, R. (2001). Have I learnt it? Evaluating skills for resource-
based study using electronic resources.

BJET

,

32

, 4, 419433.
Rehak, D. & Mason, R. (2003). Keeping the learning in learning objects. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.),

Reusing educational resources for networked learning

. London: Kogan Page.
Weller, M. (2002).

Delivering learning on the net

. London: Kogan Page.
Weller, M., Pegler, C. & Mason, R. (2003).

Working with learning objectssome pedagogical sugges-
tions

. ALT-C, Shefeld, September. http://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/c.a.pegler/ukeu/altc.doc