See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228884896

Generative learning objects (GLOs): design as the basis for reuse and
repurposing

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

10 452

1 author:

Tom Boyle
London Metropolitan University
63 PUBLICATIONS 1,788 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tom Boyle on 29 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Generative learning objects (GLOs): design as the basis for
reuse and repurposing

Tom Boyle

Director of the Learning Technology Research Institute (LTRI)

London Metropolitan University

Email: [email protected]
Abstract

There is considerable interest in the topic of reusable learning designs. These offer
the prospect of capturing effective designs for learning and making them available for
reuse and adaptation. Much of this work is focused at the level of lesson plans or
above. However, there are many layers on which learning design works. Below the
‘lesson plan’ level these need to focus on learning activities for understanding key
concepts and procedures. This paper, building on the work of the Centre for
Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) in Reusable Learning Objects, deals
with reusable learning designs at this basic level. The RLO CETL has produced
nearly 200 multimedia learning objects. It has recognised, however, that it needs to go
beyond producing specific learning objects. The idea of capturing successful learning
designs and making these the basis for reuse, rather than content, is at the core of the
concept of generative learning objects (GLOs). The authoring and adaptation of
generative learning objects is achieved through a specially developed authoring tool
called GLO-Maker. This approach leads to improvements in productivity and the
quality of the learning objects produced. Crucially, tutors can also use the tool to
adapt existing GLO based learning objects to suit the local needs of their students.
This paper will set out the need for GLOs, how these are developed using the GLO-
Maker tool, and the advantages of this approach over traditional approaches to
learning objects. Finally, it will point to ongoing and future work both in enhancing
the tool and linking this work as a service to other ‘higher’ layers of learning design.

Background: content and design-based approaches to learning

objects

The traditional approach to developing learning objects has focused on content, and
standards for packaging and describing this content (e.g. IMS 2009, IEEE 2002, ADL
SCORM 2009). Repositories of learning objects based on these standards are meant to
improve learning:

2
 “.. by making content more readily available, by reducing the cost and effort of
producing quality content, and by allowing content to be more easily shared”
(Duval et al. 2004)

This vision for learning objects has been to improve the quality of teaching and
learning through the widespread availability of “self-contained” learning resources.
Several national and international repositories have been developed. However, the
evidence points to limited impact in achieving this aim (e.g. Koppi et al. 2004). There
are several reasons why the learning object vision has failed so far to achieve its
potential. However, one central reason is the failure in this approach to consider the
central issue of the quality of learning. In the traditional, standards-oriented
approach, there is really no guidance as to how to develop high-quality learning
objects, either in terms of pedagogy or the design features that will facilitate reuse.

The traditional model for reuse has been to focus on content (IEEE 2002). However,
content on its own is of very limited pedagogical value. The RLO-CETL has focused
on a problem ignored in the main approach of standards-based learning objects – the
design of high quality learning objects. Rather then assume that quality in learning
would automatically arise out of availability for reuse Boyle (2008) argues that we
need to tackle the central issue of the design and development of high quality learning
objects in the first place:

“high quality design and development of learning objects is crucial before we get to
issues of metadata and software packaging. The primary message … is good
pedagogical design is at the heart of effective learning objects (Boyle 2008)”.

This approach and emphasis was adopted by the Centre for Teaching and Learning in
Reusable Learning Objects (RLO-CETL). This five-year project, funded by the
Higher Education funding Council for England focused from the beginning on high
quality design (RLO-CETL 2009). In the initial phase of development (2005-2007)
the RLO-CETL developed nearly 200 multimedia learning objects. These can be
accessed from the CETL website (RLO-List 2009). The development of these
learning objects used an ‘Agile approach’ (Boyle et al. 2006). The characteristics of
this approach are that tutors (and often learners) work in small, empowered teams

3
with multimedia developers to create learning objects. These projects begin with the
identification of real and significant educational problems. The projects were driven
by the need to design high-quality resources that would help students to overcome
these problems. Typically, an iterative prototyping development approach was used.
The developers constructed initial versions of what they believed the tutors/learners
wanted, which were then refined and improved until the final learning object was
produced. These learning objects were normally then evaluated with large samples of
students. This work has been extensively reported: see, for example, Boyle (2008).

There are three main problems with this approach:

 The process of developing learning objects in this way is very intensive, and is
difficult to scale-up;
 The learning objects thus developed cannot be repurposed/adapted by tutors to
meet their needs, without accessing the skills of a specialist multimedia
developer;
 Above all the primary emphasis in this approach is on design. However, the
designs are embedded in specific learning objects, and were not available for
independent reuse.

To tackle these problems, and produce a more powerful basis for reuse, the concept of
generative learning objects (GLOs) was developed. With GLOs the primary focus of
reuse is not the specific learning object but rather the pedagogical design that
underpins the object. This switch in emphasis raises two main challenges. The first is
the development of a clear conceptual model to capture and represent these designs.
This issue is tackled in the following section. The second challenge is to make these
designs accessible to tutors through a tool that permits the creation and adaptation of
learning objects. A special tool, called GLO-Maker, has been developed to enable
users to create and adapt generative learning objects. This is described in the central
section of the paper. The paper then considers how GLOs fit into the wider
framework of research into ‘design for learning’. The concept of layered learning
design is used to relate this work to design at the ‘lesson plan’ level and above.
Finally, the paper discusses current and future development work.

4
GLOs: a design-based approach to learning objects

GLOs are concerned with the pedagogical designs underlying (successful) learning
objects, and making these the primary focus for reuse. These underlying designs have
to be rendered explicit in a conceptual model. These designs have to be rendered
explicit in two distinct ways. The first form relates to human understanding. We need
to articulate the often implicit decisions involved in design for learning. Furthermore,
we need to render these decisions in a way that can be executed by computer software
to produce learning objects based on the design. These problems are tackled using a
form of representation borrowed and adapted from Generative Linguistics, in
particular Systemic Grammar (Halliday 1973, 1975).

Generative linguistics is used as the basis for the GLO approach for two main reasons.
First of all, it provide a generative form of representation, not a simply a descriptive
form. Generative linguistic models seek to capture the processes involved in
producing language (rather than simply describing the structures after they are
produced). This is an important point. The description of an object after it has been
finished can take a radically different form from a description of the processes
involved in producing that object. In the GLO approach, we seek to capture the
decisions made in producing learning objects in a way that can be inspected, adapted
and reused by teachers and learners. Generative linguistics, furthermore, provides a
basis for capturing these decisions in forms that are amenable to interpretation and
execution by a computer. It thus, importantly, provides the basis for a form of
representation that is both amenable to understanding by human users and executable
by formal computer software.

There are many forms of generative grammar. It is not a matter of which, in some
absolute sense, is the best. It is a question of choosing the representation that best
meets our needs. The particular approach adopted for representing GLO structure is
based on Systemic Grammar (Halliday 1973, 1975). Its approach of representing
‘deep structure’ as functional decisions, which are then mapped onto the forms of
language, proved to be particularly productive in capturing and formalising decision
processes involved in pedagogical design. This distinction between pedagogical
function (what you want to achieve pedagogically), and the forms that realise that

5
function (how you achieve it), is central to the architecture of the GLOs. The paper
will not provide a review of Systemic Grammar; rather it will show how these
concepts have influenced the conceptual structures developed to represent GLOs.

The process of developing a GLO involves extracting and representing the design
structure that underpins a series of learning objects. This is perhaps best illustrated by
showing how the first GLO design pattern was developed. This was based on a set of
learning objects that won a European Academic Software Award (EASA) in 2004.
These learning objects may be accessed online at EASA (2004).

The first step in the process was to extract a series of screen layouts, or templates. A
sequence of particular templates represented the ‘surface structure’ of the design.
Many representations of design stop at this level, i.e. as a series of screen templates
which can be ‘filled in’ with content added by the user. However, to develop a fuller
representation the extraction process went further. It extracted and represented
formally the pedagogical decisions underlying the generation of the learning object.
This second level of abstraction does not have to do with form – it is rather concerned
with pedagogical functions like ‘introduce’, ‘understand’, ‘test’ and how these are
organised to represent a particular pedagogical design. These decisions are captured in
a network that expands from left to right. The first level in the network represents the
top-level decisions. Each node is then progressively refined, as far as required by the
design. Figure 1 provides an example of one of these networks. This figure sets out
the underlying decision structure for the EASA design. These networks are a very
similar to the ‘design action potential’ (DAP) networks described in (Boyle 1997).

6
Figure 1: Network representing of the pedagogical design decisions underpinning the
‘EASA’ learning objects

The first level represents the topmost, simplest division of the functions in the EASA
pedagogical design. These are labelled as ‘Orient’ (the user to the learning task),
‘Understand’ (facilitate the learner understanding), and ‘Use’ (getting the user to
apply their knowledge). At this level the EASA design is not very different from
many others. Each of these high-level decisions, however, is further refined. The
distinctive features of the EASA pattern are more obvious at the next level of
refinement. In particular, ‘Understand’ is typically refined into getting the learner to
‘Apprehend’ a concept (gain an overall appreciation) before ‘Comprehending’ the
components and relationships in the target domain. Finally, ‘Use’ is implemented
normally as a scaffolded construction exercise (in the original EASA learning objects
the learners assembled an example of the programming construct they had just
learned). Each of the use functional decisions can be further refined as required.

The decisions are not represented as one rigid path, but rather as a network of choices.
There is a main or default path through this network (represented by the highlighted
choices in the network shown in Figure 1). However, it was obvious from reviewing
the original learning objects that not all of the decisions were implemented in all of
the learning objects. The decision tree represents a default path with permitted

7
variations available in this design pattern. Not all of the learning objects based on this
design have to be structurally exactly the same. However, they all show key features
in common.

The underlying structure represents a selected and organised set of pedagogical

choices. This is captured as a decision structure – where each node represents a
pedagogical function which can then be further refined/expanded as required.

These pedagogical decisions have to be realised in a form that can be communicated

to a learner. This set of ‘deep structure’ pedagogical decisions is thus mapped onto a
‘surface structure’ which consists of a sequence of ‘page’ or screen layouts. Each of
these page layouts organises and co-ordinates a series of component ‘containers’ (text
boxes, media components). Content (e.g. text, pictures or animations) is then loaded
into these component holders to complete the creation for a concrete learning object
(e.g. See Figure 2 for examples of completed page layouts). The theoretical basis for
generative learning objects (GLOs) is described in more detail in Boyle (2006).

Figure 2: Examples of the ‘surface’ structure ‘pages’ of GLOs as seen by learners.

Clarifying the GLO conceptual architecture is only half the task. To achieve their
potential the concepts need to be made accessible in an attractive and easy to use
form. This problem was tackled by creating an authoring tool that would embed the
GLO patterns, and make them available both for creating new learning objects and
adapting existing learning objects.

8
GLO-Maker Authoring tool

The GLO-Maker tool can be used to create specific learning objects based on a
selected design. Each of these learning objects developed in this way can be re-
purposed by local tutors (or learners), using the same tool, to adapt the resources to
their local needs and preferences. All the learning objects so created, or adapted, run
as stand-alone Web based learning objects.

Version 1 of the authoring tool was released in July 2008. It is free to use and can be
downloaded from the website (GLO-Maker 2009). The authoring tool provides two
main interfaces. The first interface allows the user to access a pedagogical design
expressed as a structured set of pedagogical choices. The second interface then
expresses these choices as a sequence of screen layouts. These correspond broadly to
manipulating the ‘deep structure’ functional choices and ‘surface structure’ realisation
of these choices, as described in the previous section.

In the initial version of the authoring tool (GLO-Maker 0.5) the user could directly
access a network representing the underlying functional choices. This is illustrated in
Figure 3. The left hand panel represents the major choices made. The main panel then
displays a small network of choices for refining the ‘Orient’ option. Making the
choices explicit in this way means that they can be inspected, and the accuracy of the
representation improved. Thus refinements in later versions meant that the distinction
between ‘Quick’ and ‘Full’ orientation was removed, as it turned out to be redundant
with the choices already available in the network.

In the In GLO-Maker version 1 this interface was changed to a drag and drop
interface as illustrated in Figure 4. The main reason for this change was to make the
interface more flexible and attractive to users. The underlying conceptual structure
remains the same. However, its expression is modified in order to improve
accessibility and ease of use.

9
 Figure 3: Representation of functional choices in original version of GLO-Maker
(version 0.5)

The user selects a pedagogical design from the drop down box on the menu bar
‘EASA’ has been selected in this screen shot’. The user can use this plan as it is, or
modify it by dragging an option from the left hand panel, and inserting it at the chosen
position in the sequence. This represents the top-level ‘storyboard’ of the design. Each
design plan is represented by a core sequence plus a palette of choices which can be
used to extend or modify that plan.

The tool is constructed to be extendable, so that as more designs are elicited from
tutors they can be added to the ‘drop down’ box at the top. In the future, it is
anticipated that designs will be inserted that are non sequential in structure.

10
Figure 4: Top level plan of the ‘EASA’ design in the GLO-Maker authoring tool

When the top-level plan is completed the user can launch the second GLO maker
interface. The plan automatically produces a sequence of page layouts that can be
used to implement this ‘pedagogical plan’. This is illustrated in Figure 5a. The default
page layout for a particular function can be overridden by the user selecting one of the
alternatives illustrated in the bottom left hand panel. Crucially, attached to the page is
functional advice on how to unfold this page in order to achieve the desired function.
This is accessed through the ‘?’ on the title bar. The overlay screen shot in Figure 5a
illustrates how advice is provided.

The user can then add text and upload media, including still pictures, Flash
animations and videos, to create a concrete learning object. Figure 5b provides a
screenshot from one such completed learning object as seen by the learner.

11
 Figure 5a: Screen shots for realising the ‘Apprehend’ function in the EASA design
pattern

Each learning object is saved in a separate package in its own directory. This contains
all the resources needed for the learning object. The package consists of a ‘Player’, an
XML file which contains the ‘script’ for the learning object produced, and a
subdirectory which contains all the media assets used. The learning object can thus
be played from any location into which this package is moved – for example a
computer desktop, or a web server or embedded in a learning management system.

Crucially, all the learning objects developed in this way can be easily adapted. The
learning object is simply loaded back into the authoring system. The learning object
appears the same as in normal authoring mode. The user can then adapt the learning
object either in small ways by changing text or graphics, or in larger ways by adding,
deleting or modifying pages in the main sequence. This ability to modify the learning
object is considered a crucial feature of the GLO approach. It allows local tutors to

12
adapt the learning object to meet the learning needs and preferences of their students.
The modified learning object is simply saved out to its own named package, with the
modifications captured in a new XML file.

Figure 5b: Completed screen from the EASA pattern as seen by the learner

This approach provides a very powerful way of capturing designs in a way that is
accessible to tutors. However, the tool was constructed to be extendable, so that new
designs elicited from tutors can be plugged into the tool. The next section outlines,
through a case history, the addition of a new, exciting design.

Developing and evaluating new ‘plug-in’ designs

The EASA learning design was extracted from a series of successful learning objects.
The second example provides a more direct way of eliciting learning designs. The
RLO-CETL runs a series of hands-on workshops were tutors, and often learners, work
in groups to brainstorm and produce initial learning designs. The learning design
discussed in this section originated in this manner. A group associated with the UK
National Subject Centre for History, Classics and Archaeology produced an outline
design at one of these workshops. The particular focus of this design was to get

13
across to students the idea that there may be multiple interpretations of the same
artefact. Figure 6a shows the initial outline of the ideas together with a picture of the
group working together.

The workshop was followed by collaboration between this group and members of the
RLO-CETL to clarify and implement the GLO. This involved several rounds of
discussion, clarification and refinement. Over the course of these meetings
storyboards were drawn up and potential screen designs outlined and discussed.

Figure 6b shows a screenshot of one of the central screen layouts developed for this
design. The main structure of the pattern is outlined in the panel on the left. The
screen consists of three main components: there is a picture of the artefact to be
discussed (in this case the Altar of Pergamon from the Acropolis). Above this there is
a picture of various experts who comment on this design. To the right of the screen
there are a series of topics which the learner can select to ask questions of the experts.
The learner can thus choose a topic, ask a particular expert, and then compare with the
views of another expert. It is up to the learner which questions they want to ask and
in which order.

This design worked well to meet the initial needs of the development group (see eMi
GLO 2009). However, what makes it more interesting is that it is a generic design.
Using the GLO-Maker tool, a teacher may select a topic of their own choosing, enter
the questions they wish to be asked, and upload a series of pictures and audio files to
represent the views of the experts. The pattern is independent of the particular
content. In fact, some teachers have used this pattern to ask the students to create their
own learning resource. The GLO maker website provides a tutorial on this learning
design, together a zip file that contains all the resources necessary for recreating the
learning object illustrated here (GLO-Maker 2009).

The link between the active elicitation of new designs from teachers and learners in
workshops and the GLO-Maker tool is important. The tool has been constructed so
that more designs can be added. This extensibility is an important feature of the tool.
This is discussed further in the final section of the paper (on ongoing and future
developments).

14
Figure 6a: Initial sketch of the ideas for the eMI design arising from an RLO-CETL
workshop (picture from workshop inserted)

Figure 6b: Screen shot of the ‘Access Views’ page, from the full eMI design, as
implemented in GLO-Maker version 1

15
The wider picture: the strategic implications of the GLO approach

How do GLOs fit into the wider work on learning design and learning objects? At the
broader level the concept of GLOs contributes in two strategic ways. Firstly, it posits
a close relationship between learning designs and the learning objects. It views
learning objects as generated from underlying designs. However, work in these two
areas has largely proceeded in parallel. The work on GLOs suggests that they should
be treated in a more integrated manner, in which learning objects are generated from,
and represent particular instances of, learning designs. Secondly, it extends the focus
on learning design below the ‘lesson plan’ level at which most of the work is focused.
It thus raises the issues of different layers of learning design, and the relationship
between these layers.

Learning objects and learning designs are two of the fundamental entities of the
discipline of technology enhanced learning. Clarifying the relationship between these
areas produces significant benefits for advancing the subject area. The approach in
which learning objects are treated as instances of learning designs has been clarified
in the rest of the paper. This section will thus focus on the relationship between GLO
learning designs and designs which are focused on higher levels of teaching and
learning, e.g. lesson plans.

The learning objects discussed in this paper focused on one clear learning goal or
objective. Learning objects at this level are meant to represent basic units that can be
combined and arranged to form higher order teaching and learning structures. The
standard approach in learning object literature is to talk of ‘aggregation’. This
approach is essentially descriptive: it does not clarify the relationship between these
different layers of objects, other than to view higher order layers as combinations of
more basic units (e.g. Verbert et al. 2005a Verbert 2008b). It also does not deal with
the relationship between learning objects and the designs from which those objects are
generated.

There is a parallel, distinct area of research that is focused specifically on ‘Learning

Design’. This is a broad and vibrant area of work (e.g. Harper and Oliver 2002,
Dalziel 2003, Britain 2004, Lockyer et al. 2008). Of particular relevance is the fact

16
that an international specification has been produced in terms of IMS LD (IMS-LD
2003). It is not the purpose of this paper to provide a comprehensive review of IMS
LD. The purpose rather is to point to how IMS LD treats learning objects, and to
propose an alternative model. IMS LD focuses on ‘learning designs’ primarily at the
lesson plan level. Learning objects are treated as content which is loaded into these
lesson plans. The GLO approach, however, suggests that significant learning design
takes place at the basic learning object level. It thus immediately points to a separate
layer of learning design. Far from learning objects simply being ‘content’ loaded into
lesson plans, this perspective views design at the learning object level as crucial. The
GLO project thus raises the important issue of different layers of learning design and
how these layers relate to each other.

An initial representation of the conceptual space linking learning objects and learning
designs is set out in Figure 7. This conceptual space is structured on two key
dimensions. The first dimension, represented on the vertical axis, represents the
dimension of size or scale. The second dimension, on the horizontal axis, represents
the relationship between ‘object’ and ‘design’. These two dimensions, in turn, provide
the framework for two key relationships.

In relation to the first dimension, that of size or scale, the key relationships is one of
‘service’. Each lower layer should provide a service to the layer above. What is
more, there should not be confusion about the nature of the service provided. In IMS
LD, for example, the ‘learning designs’ operate mainly at the session level. The
relationship to the lower level is seen as one of loading learning object content.
However, this short-circuits an important part of the conceptual space. Lesson plans,
in themselves, are often too high-level to deal with specific learning problems, e.g. a
student may struggle to master the basic concepts in mathematics. Learning object
designs, or GLOs, provided potential solutions to these problems that may be
incorporated into higher-order lesson plans. Teachers often do not have the time to
think deeply about designing the solutions to all the learning problems of their
students. This points to the need for sharing in communities of practice, where
teachers may use the solutions developed by others, rather than trying to develop all
the solutions themselves. Learning object designs or GLOs can be reused and adapted
by tutors to fit the needs of their students.

17
 Artefacts Underlying
produced designs

Actual course Course plan

S
E
R
Session plan V
Actual Session I
C
E

Learning GLOs
objects

INSTANTIATON

Figure 7: Initial mapping of the conceptual space linking learning designs and
learning objects

The second key relationship is one of instantiation – turning designs into specific
learning objects or events. The GLO-Maker tool provides executable designs to make
this easy at the learning object level. Furthermore, the tutor is not stuck with a
particular fixed learning object. They can adapt the design and produce a new
instantiation, a new adapted learning object, to meet their particular needs.

This conceptual model is introduced briefly here. There is not the space here to
elucidate it in detail. However, that is not important at this stage. The important
point is to emphasise that apparently disparate areas of work in learning objects and
learning designs may be integrated in a unitary conceptual workspace. The
exploration of the relationships in this workspace provides a basis for ongoing and
future work. The present paper provides a detailed exploration of the instantiation

18
relationship at the learning object level (how objects are generated from learning
designs). Further papers explore the second central issue of the nature of the layers
and the relationship between them (Boyle 2009).

Ongoing and future work

The ongoing and future work concentrates on three main strands. The first strand
involves production of version 2 of the GLO-Maker authoring tool, due for release in
July 2009. This is being developed in Adobe Flex, a powerful application
development language (Adobe Flex 2009). GLO-Maker 2 is designed to have a
‘plug-in’ architecture. Developers may thus add their own components to expand the
system. The new version of the tool will be open source, free for educational use, and
available for download through the GLO-Maker website (GLO-Maker 2009).

The second strand links this technical development to ongoing creative work with
tutors through workshops and other means. The aim is to incorporate more designs
developed in these workshops into the tool. This link from the tool through to the
active participation of teachers and learners introducing new patterns is considered
crucial.

The third strand of work is more conceptual and theoretical. This concerns the topic
introduced in the penultimate section of the paper – integrating work on GLOs into
the broader research on learning designs and learning objects. The primary challenge
is to produce a conceptual representation that provides an integrated framework
linking learning object and learning design work. An initial focus of this work is to
delineate different layers of learning design and to clarify the relationship between
these layers. The primary focus in this work is to tackle conceptual integration at the
level of pedagogy. This is in parallel, and complementary to, the work which focuses
on technical standards. This work will be pursued partly through the major new LDSE
(Learning Design Support Environment) project which aims to produce an integrated
learning design support environment for teachers (LDSE 2009).

Acknowledgements: many people have contributed to the work described in this

paper. I would like to acknowledge the core team who have worked on the

19
development of the GLO-Maker tool, especially Dejan Ljubojevic, Martin Agombar
and Enzian Baur. This work has been carried out in the context of RLO-CETL. I
would like to acknowledge the input of all my colleagues in the RLO-CETL
especially Dawn Leeder from Cambridge University, who has actively supported and
contributed to GLO developments from the beginning. The eMI design described in
the paper was developed in conjunction with the UK Higher Education Academy
Centre for History Classics and Archaeology. Eleanor O’Kell and Cary MacMahon,
both originally based at the Centre, have played a central role in creating and
developing this design.

References

ADL SCORM (2009) http://www.adlnet.gov/Scorm/

Adobe Flex (2009) Adobe Flex website: http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/

AUTC Learning Designs (2002) Website for AUTC Learning Designs project
http://www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/

Boyle T. (1997) Design for multimedia learning. Prentice Hall.

Boyle, T. (2003) Design principles for authoring dynamic, reusable learning objects.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 46-58. Available online at:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/boyle.html

Boyle T. (2006) The design and development of second generation learning objects.
Invited talk at Ed Media. In E. Pearson & P. Bohman (Eds) Proceedings of Ed-Media
2006, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia &
Telecommunications, June 26-30 2006; Orlando, Florida.

Boyle T. (2008) The design of learning objects for pedagogical impact. In Lockyer, l.,
Bennett, S. Agostinho S. & Harper B. (Eds) The Handbook of Research on Learning
Design and Learning Objects: issues, applications and technologies. Information
Science Reference.

Boyle T. (2009) Layered learning design. Paper accepted for CAL 2009. March 2009,
Brighton, UK.

Boyle T, Windle R., Leeder, D., Wharrad H., Alton, R & Cook J. (2006) An Agile
method for developing learning objects. Proceedings of the 23rd annual ascilite
conference: Who’s learning? Whose technology? Available online at:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p64.pdf

20
Britain S. (2004) A Review of Learning Design: Concept, Specifications and Tools: A
report for the JISC E-learning Pedagogy Programme, May 2004. Available at:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/ACF83C.doc

Dalziel J. (2003) Implementing learning design: the learning Activity management

system (LAMS). Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian
Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). Available at:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide03/docs/pdf/593.pdf

Duval, E., Hodgins, W., Rehak, D. & Robson, R. (2004). Learning objects
symposium special issue guest editorial. Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia. 13, 4, 331-342. AACE.

EASA (2004). Learning Objects for Programming – winner of European Academic

Software Award: http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/ltri/learningobjects/index.htm

eMI GLO (2008) eMI GLO report at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/hca/themes/e-

learning/emi_glo

GLO-Maker (2009) Web site for the GLO-Maker authoring tool:

http://www.glomaker.org

Halliday M. A. K. (1973) Explorations in the functions of language. Edward Arnold.

Halliday M. A. K. (1975) Learning how to mean. In Lenneberg E.H. (Ed.)

Foundations of language development. UNESCO.

Harper B. and Oliver R (2002) Information and Communication Technologies in

Flexible Learning. Presentation of the outcomes of the AUTC project. Streamed audio
presentation available at: http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/autc/

IEEE (2002) Draft Standard for Learning Object Metadata.

http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf

IMS (2009) IMS Global Learning Consortium Web site: http://www.imsglobal.org/

IMS LD (2003). IMS Learning Design specification V1.0. Available at:

http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/index.html

Koppi, T., Bogle, L. & Lavitt, N. (2004) Institutional Use of Learning Objects:
Lessons Learned and Future Directions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia, 13, 4, 449-463. AACE.

LDSE (2009) LDSE (Learning Design Support Environment) web site:

http://www.tlrp.org/tel/ldse/

21
 Lockyer, L., Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Harper, B. (Eds.) (2008) Handbook of
Research on Learning Design and Learning Objects: Issues, Applications and
Technologies. Information Science Reference.

RLO-CETL (2009) Web site of the Centre for Excellence in Teaching Learning
(CETL) for Reusable Learning Objects: http://www.rlo-cetl.ac.uk/

RLO-List (2009) Online access to the learning objects developed by the RLO-CETL:
http://www.rlo-cetl.ac.uk/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=246&Itemid=297

Verbert K., Jovanovic J., Gaševic D. & Duval E. (2005 a) Repurposing Learning
Object Components, In R. Meersman, Z. Tari, P. Herrero (editors) On the Move to
Meaningful Internet Systems 2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 3762
/ 2005. Springer.

Verbert K., Jovanovic, J., Gaševic, D., Duval, E., & Meire, M. (2005 b) Towards a
global component architecture for learning objects: a slide presentation framework. In
Kommers, P., & Richards, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2005. AACE.

All Web references checked on 30 January 2009.

22

View publication stats