Quality Rating and Recommendation of Learning Objects

  • Vivekanandan Kumar
  • John Nesbit
  • Philip Winne
  • Allyson Hadwin
  • Dianne Jamieson-Noel
  • Kate Han
Part of the Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing book series (AI&KP)


The unceasing growth of the Internet has led to new modes of learning in which learners routinely interact on-line with instructors, other students, and digital resources. Much recent research has focused on building infrastructure for these activities, especially to facilitate searching, filtering, and recommending on-line resources known as learning objects. Although newly defined standards for learning object metadata are expected to greatly improve searching and filtering capabilities, learners, instructors, and instructional developers may still be faced with choosing from many pages of object listings returned from a single learning object query. The listed objects tend to vary widely in quality. With current metadata and search methods, those who search for learning objects waste time and effort groping through overwhelming masses of information, often finding only poorly designed and developed instructional materials. Hence, there is a clear need for quality evaluations prior to making a recommendation that can be communicated in a coherent, standardized format to measure the quality of learning objects.


Quality Rating Learning Object Parent Node Bayesian Belief Network Quality Review 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    LTSC. (2000) Learning object. Learning technology standards committee Web site. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Learning Object Metadata, LOM. (2000) Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fenton, N. (2000) What is BBN?, Scholar
  4. 5.
    Johnson, L.F. (2003) Elusive Vision: Challenges Impeding the Learning Object Economy, New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Recker, M., Walker, A., Lawless, K. (2003) What do you recommend? Implementation and analyses of collaborative infonnation filtering of web resources for education, Instructional Science, 31(4/5).Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    Nesbit, J.C., Belfer, K., Leacock, T. (2003) Learning Object Review Instrument User Manual version 1.5, eLera and POOL projects.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Rosenberg, M.J. (2001) E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    Friesen, N. (2004) Three objections to learning objects. In: Online Education Using Learning Objects. London: Routledge/Falmer, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. 12. Scholar
  10. 13.
    Wiley, D.A. (2002) Instructional use of learning objects. Agency for Instructional Technology.Google Scholar
  11. 15.
    Cisco Systems. (2003) Reusable Learning Object Strategy: Designing and Developing Learning Objects for Multiple Learning Approaches.Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    Hodgins, W. (2000) Into the Future: A Vision Paper. Technology and Adult Learning of the American Society for Training & Development, white paper.Google Scholar
  13. 17.
    Downes, S. (2001) Learning Objects: Resources for Distance Education Worldwide, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1).Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    Wieseler, W. (1999) RIO: A standards-based approach for reusable information objects. Cisco Systems White Paper.Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    Longmire, W. (2000) Content and Context: Designing and Developing Learning Objects, Learning Without Limits, Volume 3: Emerging Strategies for e-Learning Solutions.Google Scholar
  16. 20.
    Downes, S. Learning object overview, Scholar
  17. 21.
    Marchionini, G. (1995) Information Seeking in Electronic Environments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 22.
    Manning C., Raghavan, P. Text information retrieval, mining, and exploitation. Scholar
  19. 23.
    Levene, M. (2003) Recommendation system and collaborative filtering, www.dcs.bbk. Scholar
  20. 24.
    Chesani, F. (2002) Recommendation systems, SI2/Relazioni/R ecSystems.pdf.Google Scholar
  21. 25.
    Goldberg, D., Nichols, D., Oki, B.M., Terry, D. (1992) Using collaborative filtering to weave an information tapestry. Communications of the ACM, 35(12):61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 26.
    Balabanovic, M., Shoham, Y. (1997) Fab: content-based collaborative recommendation. Communications of the ACM, 40(3):66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 27.
    Resnick, P., Lacovou, N., Suchak, M., Bergstrom, P., Riedl, J. (1994) GroupLens: an open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews. In: Proceedings of ACM CSCW’94 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 175–186.Google Scholar
  24. 28.
    Melville, P., Mooney, R.J., Nagarajan, R. (2001) Content-boosted collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR-2001 Workshop on Recommender Systems, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  25. 29.
    Pazzani, M.J. (1999) A framework for collaborative, content-based and demographic filtering. Artificial Intelligence Review, 13(5–6):393–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 30.
    Hill, J.R., Hannafin, J.R. (2001) Teaching and learning in digital environments: the resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3):37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 31.
    Nesbit, J.C., Belfer, K., Vargo, J. (2002) A convergent participation model for evaluation of learning objects. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(3).Google Scholar
  28. 32.
    Reiser, R.A., Kegelmann, H.W. (1994) Evaluating instructional software: a review and critique of current methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3).Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    Vargo, J., Nesbit, J.C., Belfer, K., Archambault, A. (2003) Learning object evaluation: computer-mediated collaboration and inter-rater reliability. International Journal of Computers and Applications. 25(3).Google Scholar
  30. 34.
    Hatala, M., Richards, G., Eap, T., Wulms, J. (2004) The interoperability of learning object repositories and services: standards, implementations and lessons. WWW Conference, ACM.Google Scholar
  31. 35.
    Berger, J.O. (2000) Bayesian Analysis: A Look at Today and Thoughts of Tomorrow. JASA.Google Scholar
  32. 36.
    Berry, DA. (1996) Statistics: A Bayesian Perspective. Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  33. 37.
    Technical Report. (2002) Basics of Bayesian networks, Scholar
  34. 38.
    Pearl, J. (1998) Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  35. 41.
    Walsh, W.B., Betz, N.E. (1995) Tests and Assessment. 4th ed., p. 49, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  36. 42.
    Walsh, W.B., Betz, N.E. (1990) Tests and Assessment. 4th ed., p. 58, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  37. 43.
    Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L. (1990) Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Newsbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. 44.
    Crocker, L., Algina, J. (1986) Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. 45.
    Buntine, W.L. (1994) Operations for learning with graphical models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2:159–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 46.
    Rabiner, L.R., Juang, B.H. (1986) An Introduction to Hidden Markov Models. IEEE ASSP Magazine, January.Google Scholar
  41. 47.
    Dempster, A., Laird, N., Rubin, D. (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 39(B).Google Scholar
  42. 48.
    Schatz, S. (2001) Paradigm Shifts and Challenges for Instructional Designers.Google Scholar
  43. 49.
    Longmire, W. (2000) A Primer on Learning Objects. Learning Circuits, March.Google Scholar
  44. 50.
    Dodier, R. (1999) Unified Prediction and Diagnosis in Engineering Systems by Means of Distributed Belief Networks. PhD Dissertation. Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  45. 52.
    Kumar V., Groeneboer C., Chu, S. (2005) Sustainable learning ecosystem. Tutorial, International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2005, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  46. 53.
    Hatala, M., Richards, G., Eap, T., Wulms, J. (2004) eduSource: Implementing Open Network for Learning Repositories and Services. Special Track on Engineering e-Learning Systems held at ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC).Google Scholar
  47. 55.
    CanCore. (2003) CanCore guidelines version 2.0: educational category, Scholar
  48. 56.
    Carey, T., Swallow, J., Oldfield, W. (2002) Educational rationale metadata for learning objects. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(3):55–71.Google Scholar
  49. 57.
    Mager, R. (1975) Preparing Instructional Objectives, 2nd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon.Google Scholar
  50. 58.
    Mwanza, D., Engestrom, Y. (2005) Managing content in e-learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36:453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 59.
    Greenberg, J. (ed.). (2000) Metadata and Organizing Educational Resources on the Internet. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.Google Scholar
  52. 60.
    IEEE-LTSC. (2002) IEEE Standard for Learning Object Metadata (1484.12.1-2002).Google Scholar
  53. 61.
    IMS Digital Repositories Interoperability: Core Functions Information Model, Version 1. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivekanandan Kumar
    • 1
  • John Nesbit
    • 2
  • Philip Winne
    • 2
  • Allyson Hadwin
    • 3
  • Dianne Jamieson-Noel
    • 4
  • Kate Han
    • 5
  1. 1.SIAT Simon Fraser University-Surrey CampusSurreyCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationSimon Fraser University—BurnabyBurnabyCanada
  3. 3.Educational Psychology & Leadership StudiesUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  4. 4.Center for Online and Distance EducationSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  5. 5.SIAT Simon Fraser University-SurreySurreyCanada

Personalised recommendations