Endowing LOs with a Social Dimension

  • Giuliana Dettori
  • Paola Forcheri
  • Maria Grazia Ierardi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4181)


Repositories of learning objects have the potential to support teachers’ work and diffuse innovation in the school, nevertheless they did not arouse much interest from the teachers so far. We argue that this problem could be overcome by adding to repositories possibilities of focused interaction and collaboration among teachers, so as to foster reflection and value teachers’ experience. To this end, we modelled the re-use process as a constructive activity. We implemented this view by means of a collaborative environment explicitly oriented to work with learning objects. In this paper, we describe our pedagogical view of re-use and the environment we realized, highlighting the interplay between individual reflection and social dimension. We also summarise the outcomes of the first use of the environment in a teacher training course.


Learn Object Educational Material Social Dimension Collaborative Environment Professional Learning Community 
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.
    Quinn, C. (moderator), Hobbs, S. (Summarizer): Learning Objects and Instruction Components: Formal discussion summary. Educational Technology & Society 3(2) (2000),
  2. 2.
    Malcolm, M.: The exercise of the object: issues in resource reusability and reuse. BJET 36(1), 33–42 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neuven, F., Duval, E.: Reusable Learning Objects: a Survey of LOM-Based Repositories. In: Multimedia 2002, pp. 291–294 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ternier, S., Duval, E., Neven, F.: Using a P2P architecture to provide interoperability between LearningObjects. In: Proceedings of EdMedia 2003, AACE, USA, pp. 148–151 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Suthers, D., Johnson, S., Tillinghast, B.: Learning Object Meta-data for a Database of Primary and Secondary School Resources. Interactive Learning Environments 9(3), 273–289 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wiley, D. (ed.): The instructional use of learning objects (2000),
  7. 7.
    Busetti, E., Dettori, G., Forcheri, P., Ierardi, M.G.: Guideline towards effectively sharable LOs. In: Liu, W., Shi, Y., Li, Q. (eds.) ICWL 2004. LNCS, vol. 3143, pp. 416–423. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonassen, D., Churchill, D.: Is there a learning orientation in learning objects? Int. Journal of e-learning 3(2), 32–41 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Recker, M.M., Dorward, J., Miller Nelson, L.: Discovery and use of Online Resources: Case Study Findings. Educational Technology & Society 7(2), 10–93 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weller, M.J., Pegler, C.A., Mason, R.D.: Putting the pieces together: What working with learning objects means for the educator. Elearn International, Edinburgh (February 2003),
  11. 11.
    Wenger, E., Mc Dermott, R., Snyder, W.M.: Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, US (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Butler, D.L., Novak Lauscher, H., Jarvis-Selinger, S., Beckingham, B.: Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education 20(5), 435–455 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parr, J.M., Ward, L.: Creating Online Professional learning Communities: A Case of Cart before Horses. In: Lai, K.-W. (ed.) E-learning Communities – Teaching and learning with the Web, pp. 11–134. University of Otago Press, Dunedin NZ (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zimmerman, B.J.: Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: an analysis of exemplary instructional models. In: Schunk, D.H., Zimmerman, B.J. (eds.) Self-regulated learning, from teaching to Self-reflective practice, pp. 1–19. The Guilford Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vye, N.J., Schwartz, D.L., Brasford, J.D., Barron, B.J., Zech, L.: SMART Environments that support monitoring reflection and revision. In: Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J., Graesser, A.C. (eds.) Metacognition, in Educational Theory and Practice, Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Busetti, E., Forcheri, P., Ierardi, M.G., Molfino, M.T.: Repositories of learning objects as learning environments for teachers. In: Proceedings of ICALT 2004, pp. 450–454. IEEE Computer Society, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anido, L.E., Fernandez, M.J., Caeiro, M., Santos, J.M., Rodriguez, J.S., Llamas, M.: Educational metadata and brokerage for learning resources. Computers & Education 38, 351–374 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee: Learning Object Metadata, Final Draft Standard, IEEE 1484.12.1-2002 (2002),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuliana Dettori
    • 1
  • Paola Forcheri
    • 2
  • Maria Grazia Ierardi
    • 2
  1. 1.Istituto di Tecnologie Didattiche del CNRGenovaItaly
  2. 2.Istituto di Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche del CNRGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations