A qualitative study investigated processes employed by instructional designers as they utilized free, pre-designed interactive learning objects and reasons these objects were not used.
Although learning object repositories are available and filled with free, pre-designed interactive learning objects, the problem remains that the literature offers little guidance for instructional designers who wish to use these repositories to locate, select, implement, and evaluate the objects. Only recently has a guide been written suggesting methods for finding, choosing, and using interactive open educational resources (Shank, 2014).
The goal of this presentation is to present a basic qualitative study which provided an investigation of whether or not trained instructional designers at community colleges are tapping into these valuable repositories. Further, this study investigated the methods actually being employed by instructional designers during the location, selection, implementation, and evaluation of free, pre-designed interactive learning objects in an effort to provide guidance to those working in the field of instructional design who wish to utilize these instructional materials as well as those who are educating and training future instructional designers.
Eleven trained community college instructional designers who had been in the field of instructional design for at least one year were interviewed. Three participants were identified as users of free, pre-designed interactive learning objects while eight were identified as nonusers of the objects. This presentation will present the study findings which indicated five major themes relating to participant-identified concerns regarding free, pre-designed interactive learning objects: (a) time concerns, (b) faculty buy-in/acceptance concerns, (c) budget concerns, (d) quality concerns, and (e) a lack of knowledge concerning what is available. Two of the three users of the objects stated that they use a location process of searching and digging. Two of the three users of the objects referenced processes related to selecting objects based on course content and grade level of instruction. Two of the three users of the objects referenced implementation processes which considered course objectives and the use of links directing students from the LMS (learning management system) to the objects. Two of the three users of the objects commented that they typically conduct summative evaluations and one user commented that she also employed formative evaluations. Two of the three users identified MERLOT and Creative Commons as utilized repositories. In addition, participants identified desired qualities and features that would improve their use of learning object repositories including search filters, saved search features, RSS updates, appropriate tags and other identifiers pertaining to specific fields of information, and ranking systems to name a few.
The findings of this study are relevant to the field of instructional design as they offer potential value to current and future practitioners, to students and faculty within this field, and to managers and creators of learning object repositories. This information is important for current practitioners and those entering the field as it highlights a wider variety of instructional materials that might not have otherwise been realized or considered. For instructional design students, the findings of this study offer an overview of specific strategies being used by instructional designers in the field as they work to locate, select, implement, and evaluate free, pre-designed interactive learning objects. For faculty, the findings of this study offer a sense of current practices that could be taught to instructional design students in order to offer a wide view of instructional materials currently available within learning object repositories as well as methods for efficiently and effectively locating, selecting, implementing, and evaluating these instructional materials. For managers and creators of learning object repositories, the findings offer recommendations to both increase and improve the use of objects housed within the repositories.
Free, pre-designed interactive learning objects offer learners the potential of deeper learning. These objects provide a learner-centered solution increasing interactivity which, in turn, offers students the opportunity to be more engaged in their learning. Research has shown that student engagement leads to improved learner satisfaction and improved learning effectiveness (Lim, Lee, & Richards, 2006; Sims, 2000). Free, pre-designed interactive learning objects are instructional solutions that shift the paradigm from passive, static, text-based instructional materials to interactive and engaging content activities more appealing to the digital native learners of today. Hundreds of objects are available and ready for use. If the potential of these objects is to be realized, it is critical that instructional designers continue to work to create a system for locating, selecting, implementing, and evaluating these objects.
Lim, C. P., Lee, S. L., & Richards, C. (2006). Developing interactive learning objects for a computing mathematics module. International Journal on ELearning, 5(2), 221-244. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/5543
Sims, R. (2000). An interactive conundrum: Constructs of interactivity and learning theory. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 45-57. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/sims.html
Shank, J. D. (2014). Interactive open educational resources: A guide to finding, choosing, and using what's out there to transform college teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.