Metrics-based evaluation of learning object reusability

Software Quality Journal

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 121-140

  Sanz Rodriguez, Javier ^a   Dodero, Juan Manuel ^b   Sanchez Alonso, Salvador ^c  

^a UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CÁDIZ   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALCALÁ   (Spain)

Author keywords

Learning objects; Metadata; Metrics; Reusability

Indexed keywords

METADATA;

EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS; LEARNING OBJECTS; METRICS;

REUSABILITY;

EID: 78751650153     PISSN: 09639314     EISSN: 15731367     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11219-010-9108-5     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Barnard, J. (1998). A new reusability metric for object-oriented software. Software Quality Journal, 7, 35-50.
2. Barzilai, J. (1997). Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(12), 1226-1232.
3. Benneker, F. (2006). A quick scan on possibilities for automatic metadata generation. Technical report, Utrecht, The Netherlands: Stichting Digitale Universiteit. http://hdl.handle.net/1820/802. Accessed 14 May 2010.
4. Boyle, T. (2003). Design principles for authoring dynamic, reusable learning objects. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 46-58.
5. Cafolla, R. (2006). Project Merlot: Bringing Peer Review to Web-based Educational Resources. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 313-323.
6. Campbell, L. (2003). Engaging with the learning object economy. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing online resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning (pp. 35-45). London: Kogan Page.
7. Cervera, J. F., Lopez, M. G., Fernandez, C., & Sanchez-Alonso, S. (2009). Quality metrics in learning objects. In F. Sartori, M. A. Sicilia, & N. Manouselis (Eds.), Metadata and semantics research (pp. 135-141). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
8. Chang, K. (2006). Learning objects: Draft quality criteria and quality assurance approach for learnalberta.ca and the society of advancement of excellence in education, futured consulting education futurists. Inc. Technical report, http://www.futured.com/QualityStandardsforLearningObjects.pdf.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2010.
9. Conte, S. D., Dunsmore, H. E., & Shen, V. Y. (1989). Software engineering metrics and models. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings.
10. Cuadrado-Gallego, J. J., & Sicilia, M. A. (2005). Learning objects reusability metrics: Some ideas from software engineering, In Proceedings of the international conference on internet technologies and applications. Wreham, UK: North East Wales Institute.
11. Currier, S., & Campbell, L. (2002). Evaluating learning resources for reusability: The dner and learning objects study. In Proceeding of the Australasian society for computers in learning in tertiary education, Auckland, New Zeland.
12. Daniel, B., & Mohan, P. (2004). A model for evaluating learning objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 50-60).
13. Downes, S. (2001). Learning objects: Resources for distance education worldwide. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1).
14. Duval, E. (2004). Learning technology standardization: Making sense of it all. International Journal on Computer Science and Information Systems, 1(1), 33-43.
15. Duval, E., Warkentyne, K., Haenni, F., Forte, E., Cardinaels, K., Verhoeven, B., et al. (2001). The ariadne knowledge pool system. Communications of the ACM, 44(5), 72-78.
16. Etzkorn, L. H., Hughes, W. E., & Davis, C. G. (2001). Automated reusability quality analysis. Information and Software Technology, 43(5), 295-308.
17. Fenton, N. E., & Pfleeger, S. L. (1997). Software metrics (3rd ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: International Thompson Publishing.
18. Friesen, N. (2009). Open educational resources: New possibilities for change and sustainability. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5).
19. Garcia, E., & Sicilia, M. A. (2009). Preliminary explorations on the statistical profiles of highly-rated learning objects. In F. Sartori, M. A. Sicilia, & N. Manouselis (Eds.), Metadata and semantics research (pp. 108-117). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
20. Glass, R. L. (1995). A structure-based critique of contemporary computing research. Journal of Systems and Software, 28(1), 3-7.
21. Huddlestone, J., & Pike, J. (2005). Learning object reuse-A four tier model. In the IEE and MOD HFI DTC symposium on people and systems-who are we designing for, London.
22. IEEE. (1993). Std. 610.12-1990. Standard glossary of software engineering terminology. Los Alamitos,CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
23. IEEE learning technology standards committee. (2002). Standard for learning object metadata, http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12. Accessed 1 October 2009.
24. Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2007). Evaluating the learning in learning objects, open learning. The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 22(1), 5-28.
25. Kelty, C. M., Burrus, C. S., & Baraniuk, R. G. (2008). Peer review anew: Three principles and a case study in postpublication quality assurance. Proceedings of the IEEE Special Issue on Educational Technology, 96(6), 1000-1011.
26. Koper, R. (2003). Combining reusable learning resources and services to pedagogical purposeful units of learning. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing online resources: A sustainable approach to elearning (pp. 46-59). London: Kogan Page.
27. Kumar, V., Nesbit, J. C., & Han, K. (2005). Rating learning object quality with distributed bayesian belief networks: The why and the how. In Fifth IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 685-687).
28. Margaritopoulos, T., Margaritopoulos, M., Mavridis, I., & Manitsaris, A. (2009). A fine grained metric system for the completeness of metadata. In Proceedings of third international conference metadata and semantic research, MTSR (pp. 83-94). Milan, Italy.
29. Marichal, J. L. (2000). An axiomatic approach of the discrete choquet integral as a tool to aggregate interacting criteria. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 8(6), 800-807.
30. Massart, D. (2009). Adopting standards and specifications for educational content. Technical report, European Commission's eContentplus programme, http://aspect-project.org/.
31. Nesbit, J. C., & Belfer, K. (2004). Collaborative evaluation of learning objects. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online education using learning objects. London: Routledge/Falmer.
32. Nesbit, J. C., Li, J., & Leacock, T. (2006). Web-based tools for collaborative evaluation of learning resources. Journal on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 3(5), 102-112.
33. Ochoa, X., & Duval, E. (2007). Relevance ranking metrics for learning objects. In Proceedings of the second European conference on technology enhanced learning (Vol. 4753, pp. 262-276). Springer.
34. Ochoa, X., & Duval, E. (2008). Measuring learning object reuse, In Proceedings of the 3rd European conference on technology enhanced learning: Times of convergence, Springer-Verlag, Vol. 5192, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 322-325.
35. Ochoa, X., & Duval, E. (2009). Quantitative analysis of learning object repositories. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2(3), 226-238.
36. Omosule, S., Shoniregun, C., & Preston, D. (2008).A framework for culture influence virtual learning environments trust. Third international conference on digital information management, ICDIM (pp. 411-416). London, UK.
37. th international conference of the association for learning technology. Devon, England:University of Exeter.
38. Pitkanen, S. H., & Silander, P. (2004). Criteria for pedagogical reusability of learning objects enabling adaptation and individualised learning processes. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 246-250). Joensuu, Finland.
39. Polsani, P. R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital Information, 3(4).
40. Poulin, J. (1996). Measuring software reuse: Principles, practices, and economic models. Boston, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing.
41. Riaz, M., Mendes, E., & Tempero, E. D. (2009). A systematic review of software maintainability prediction and metrics. In Proceedings of the third international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement, ESEM (pp. 367-377). Florida, USA.
42. Richards, G. (2007). Writing to be read: Readability indices for open educational resources. In First international workshop on learning object discovery and exchange. http://fire.eun.org/lode2007/lode12.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2010.
43. Rodríguez-Ardura, I., Jiménez-Zarco, A. I., Ammetller-Montes, G., & Pacheco-Berna, M. C. (2009). Improving hypermedia teaching resources-new designs for e-learning environments. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(4), 286-296.
44. Sicilia, M. A. (2004). Reusability and reuse of learning objects, myths, realities and possibilities. In Proceedings of the first pluri-disciplinary symposium on design, evaluation and description of reusable learning contents.
45. Sicilia, M.A., & Garcia, E. (2003). On the concepts of usability and reusability of learning objects. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).
46. Sosteric, M., & Hesemeier, S. (2002). When is a learning object not an object. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(2).
47. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
48. Tzikopoulos, A., Manouselis, N., & Vuorikari, R. (2007). An overview of learning object repositories, in idea group publishing. Learning Objects for Instruction: Design and Evaluation, pp. 44-64.
49. Van Assche, F., Ayre, J., Baumgartner, P., Duval, E., Hartinger, S., Mesdom, F., et al. (2009). Melt final report. Technical report, eContentplus, http://info.melt-project.eu/shared/data/melt/MELT_1_3_Final_Project_Report.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2010.
50. Vargo, J., Nesbit J. C., Belfer, K., & Archambault, A. (2003). Learning object evaluation: Computermediated collaboration and inter-rater reliability. International Journal of Computers and Applications, 25(3).
51. Vinoski, S. (2005). Old measures for new services. IEEE Internet Computing, 9(6), 72-74.
52. Wiley, D. A. (2002). 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 (pp. 3-24). Bloomington, Indiana: Agency for Instructional Technology and Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
53. Yang, D., & Yang, Q. (2005). Customizable distance learning: Criteria for developing learning objects and learning model templates. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on electronic commerce, Xi'an (China) (pp. 765-770). ACM.
54. Zimmermann, B., Meyer, M., Rensing, C., & Steinmetz, R. (2007). Improving retrieval of reusable learning resources by estimating adaptation effort. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on learning object discovery and exchange, Vol. 311, pp. 46-53.