Towards a Useful Classification of

Learning Objects
Daniel Churchill
The University of Hong Kong
Abstract
The learning object remains an ill-defined concept, despite numerous and
extensive discussion in the literature. This paper attempts to address this
problem by providing a classification that potentially brings together various
perspectives of what a learning object may be. Six unique types of learning
objects are proposed and discussed: presentation, practice, simulation,
conceptual models, information and contextual representation objects. The
common characteristics of each are synthesized in a proposal that a learning
object is best described as a mediated representation designed to afford uses in
different educational contexts. The classification of learning objects proposed
could be useful as a framework for designers of digital resources and for those
engaged in reuse of these resources in educational contexts.

Problem with Learning Objects

In the last few years, the concept of the learning object has received considerable
attention in education communities. Initially, the idea appears to have emerged from
traditional, direct instruction courseware design approaches issuing from professionals
attempting to articulate more effective and economical strategies for management and
reuse of resources in computer-based networked environments. The immediate
understanding was that curriculum content can be broken down into small, reusable
instructional components that address specific learning objectives and that could be
tagged with metadata descriptors and deposited in digital libraries for subsequent
machine-defined reuse (see Cisco Systems, 2001; E-learning Competency Center, 2003;
IMS Global Learning Consortium, 2002; LAllier, 1998; Wiley, 2000). Another idea was
that a learning object might be anything with an application in technology-supported
learning (e.g. IEEE, 2001). As the idea of the learning object spread through education
communities, it began to attract the attention of teachers and other professionals with an
interest in educational reforms and contemporary pedagogies (which promote learnercenteredness, inquiries, experimentation and transformation of material, knowledge
construction, conceptual change, authentic activities, problem solving and collaboration).
This resulted in growing recognition that initial ideas may be incomplete and of limited
use, and a call for reconsideration of what a learning object may be (e.g., Jonassen &
Churchill, 2004; Lukasiak, et. al, 2005; McGreal, 2004, Wiley, 2002). A situation was
created where education professionals, aware of the notion of the learning object,
constructed diverging interpretations of what it may be based on their views about
learning, students, teacher roles and technology (see Churchill, 2005a).
Recently, most relevant research effort concentrated on defining learning objects. Lack
of a generally accepted definition appears to have resulted in researchers focusing their
effort in this direction, rather than engaging in more productive activity such as - for
example - exploring and developing strategies for design and reuse of better

educationally-effective digital resources. Currently, it appears difficult to arrive at a single

definition of a learning object that would align communities with diverse perspectives. In
this paper, I suggest that an acceptable classification accompanying a definition is a
solution to this problem. Such classification should synthesize different interpretations
and allow learning objects to be labelled, described, investigated and understood in ways
that make the simplicity, compatibility and advantages claimed for them readily apparent
to teachers, trainers and other practitioners (Friesen, 2003).
Proposed Classification
I propose a classification that contains the following types of learning objects:
presentation, practice, simulation, conceptual models, information and contextual
representation objects (see Table 1).
Table 1:
Types of learning objects
LO Type
Explanation
Presentation
object

Practice
object

Simulation
object
Conceptual
model

Direct instruction and

presentation resources
designed with the intention to
transmit specific subject
matter
Drill and practice with
feedback, educational game
or representation that allows
practice and learning of
certain procedures
Representation of some reallife system or process
Representation of a key
concept or related concepts
of subject matter

Information
object

Display of information
organized and represented
with modalities

Contextual
representation

Data displayed as it emerges

from represented authentic
scenario

Simple Example
A presentation or an instruction on
classification of triangles

Quiz question requiring a learner to use

representation of a protractor to measure
angles and answer a question regarding ration
between base and height of the right-angled
triangle
Simulation of a compass allowing learner to
draw a geometric shape (e.g. equilateral triangle)
Representation that allows manipulation of
parameters of a triangle, which in turn changes
displayed modalities such as visual
representation of a triangle, and numerical
values of sizes of its angles and sides, and
displays a graph showing changes in
relationship between sides or angles
Representation that allows learners to change
angles and sizes of a triangle and, based on
configuration, to obtain information such as
the type of triangle illustrated, a picture
showing it in real-life and a short description of
its properties
Representation of a showing real-life examples
of triangle (e.g. roof of a building) and allowing
a learner to use representation of a tool (e.g.
tape measure) to collect data about dimensions
of these triangles.

Three types of learning objects - presentation, practice and conceptual models - emerged
from previewing definitions from the literature. The following interpretations of what a
learning object may be are noted:
i) Any digital or non-digital entity for technology-supported learning (IEEE, 2001).
ii) Any digital resource used to support learning (Wiley, 2000).
iii) Any digital resource used to mediate learning (Wiley & Edwards, 2002).
iv) A reusable digital resource built in a lesson (McGreal, 2004).
2

v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
ix)
x)
xi)
xii)

Interactive practice exercise (Dunning, 2002 in McGreal, 2004).

Small, stand-alone unit of instruction (E-learning Competency Center, 2003).
An instructional component that includes instruction that teaches a specific
learning objective and assessment that measures achievement (LAllier, 1998).
A collection of 72 components containing content, practice and assessment
parts (Cisco Systems, 2001).
A content object with a pedagogical component (Clifford, 2002).
Combined knowledge object and a strategic object representing a mental model
to be developed by a learner through incremental elaboration (Merrill, 2000).
Interactive digital resource illustrating one or more concepts (Cochrane, 2005).
Interactive visual representation (Churchill, 2005b).

Based on these interpretations, a learning object may be: (a) an instruction or

presentation object (vi, vii, viii, and ix refer); (b) a practice object (v refers); (c) a
conceptual model, (x, xi and xii refer); (d) anything digital (ii, iii and iv refer), or (e)
anything digital and non-digital (i refers)
McGreal (2004) writes that the reality lies in accepting the limitation that LOs must be
digital learning resources (p. 26), thus suggesting that the possibility that a learning
object might be non-digital should be excluded. However, confining learning objects in
general to digital form is also inappropriate because, as Merrill (2000) suggests, a learning
object must be something more specific. Anderson (2003) writes that many definitions of
a learning object do practically nothing to meaningfully discriminate one learning
resource from another (p.20) and this is not helpful to those in the profession actually
looking to develop reusable instructional resources (p.20). Three types of learning
objects emerge from these interpretations as candidates for classification: presentation
(instruction), practice and conceptual model objects.
Wiley (2000) previously proposed a classification of learning objects; however, it received
little attention in the literature and does not appear to have been of much use. Contrary
to his interpretation of learning objects as anything digital, in his classification he appears
to assert that learning objects are predominately instructional components. Wiley
classified learning objects according to parameters, such as types and quantity of
elements contained and whether these can be extracted and reused in other learning
objects (e.g., a single image, digital video, a web page, a machine-generated instructional
module that monitors learner performance on practices and tests). Wileys classification
appears to support the inclusion in the classification of two types of learning objects
instruction and practice objects - on the basis of common function (how learning
objects are used). Wileys taxonomy hints at another type of learning object: presentation
(including a single media display and exhibit). However, instruction and presentation
objects are similar in that they present certain material with the intention to transmit
messages; therefore, they may both be classified as presentation objects.
The fourth type, a simulation object, emerges from a relatively old classification of
computer-based educational material by Alessi and Trollip (1991). This classification
suggests computer-based instruction or tutorial packages, drill and practice, simulations
and games as possible types of computer-based educational resources. Although such
computer-based material is conceptually different from learning objects, their forms and
intended uses are similar. This classification hints at two additional types of computerbased resources besides presentation (computer-based instruction) and practice objects:
simulation and games. Although simulation is a clear candidate for inclusion in the

classification, many educational games I previewed appear to be in form of practice-type

learning objects. The educational intention behind them is that underlining the design of
practice objects; for example, a learner practises until a degree of competency or
understanding is achieved.
The remaining two types - information and contextual representation objects - emerged
from my reflection and experience in designing educationally useful material, and from
literature in relation to mediated representation, including ideas such as: external
multimedia representations (Schnotz and Lowe, 2003), dynamic visualization (Ploetzner
and Lowe, 2004), information visualization (Bederson and Shneiderman, 2003), visual
explanations and envisioning information (Tufte, 1990; Tufte, 1997; Tufte, 2001), visual
and multimedia displays (Mayer 2003), multiple representations (Van Someren, 1998),
modality and multimodality (De Jong et al. 1998; van Someren, Boshuizen, de Jong and
Reimann 1998) and interactive computer visualization (Fraser, 1999). These ideas also
influenced my thinking in relation to the design of other types of learning objects.
In concluding this part of the paper, I would like to suggest a definition of learning
objects that might serve as an umbrella for the six types proposed by the classification.
All types of learning objects appear to have these common characteristics: (a) they are
digital, utilizing different media (and often interactivity) to represent data, information
ideas, knowledge or reality, and (b) they are designed to afford educational reuse.
Accordingly, I propose a general definition: a learning object is a mediated representation
designed to afford uses in different educational contexts. This definition, to be clearly
understood, should be considered in the context of the proposed classification.
Discussion of the Types of Learning Objects in the Context of the Proposed
Classification
In this section of the paper, I discuss and illustrate each of the types of learning objects
in the proposed classification. The illustrations provided are products of my attempt to
validate the understanding of different types of learning objects by producing an example
for each of them.

Presentation Objects

Presentation objects include resources designed with a purpose to transmit a body of

subject matter or lead to achievement of a specific learning objective. A presentation
object attempts to transmit knowledge to learners by displaying messages representing
chunks of subject matter. These messages can be aided by modalities and usually, certain
principles are in place to ensure that learners are motivated and not overloaded. Content
of such objects is usually divided into screens and sections, with a learner going through
one section at a time. Other forms of a presentation object can be slide presentations
with or without talking heads, videoed or audio-recorded lecturers, demonstrations,
instructional video segments and animated instructions. Figure 1 shows an example of a
presentation object developed with a software tool that allows easy recording and
packaging of a presentation for on-line delivery.

This area presents content

of the presentation with
links to slides

This area presents visual

content of a slide
synchronized with a
presenters voice

These controls allow a

learner to move between
slides by using buttons or
a slider, and pause or play
the presentation

Figure 1: An example of a presentation object

Although presentation objects are mostly developed to support traditional pedagogical
approaches, they might also support more contemporary pedagogies and activities such
as problem solving. Davydov (1999) suggests that any resource might be used to mediate
learning activity if that resource is given an instrumental role in the activity. Learners do
not learn simply from reading and being exposed to instructional messages from
resources, but they may effectively use that information to inform their decisions and
actions in a learning activity.

Practice Objects

Practice objects allows learners, to practice certain procedures (e.g. dismantling a water
pump), complete crosswords, drag objects and carry on certain tasks (e.g. dragging a
protractor to measure an assigned angle), engage with an educational game or answer
quiz questions. They might be designed to:
i) Incorporate interactivity and modalities and require learners to engage in some
purposeful action and decisions before answering a question or executing an
action.
ii) Provide constructive feedback (which might utilize modalities) and encourage
learners to reflect on their action and further explore material, digital libraries, the
internet, post a question on-line, engage in discussion with classmates, etc.
iii) Facilitate extension of learners current levels of understanding (or
misunderstanding).
iv) Enable learners to build models of their own action and mistakes while executing
a procedure.
Educational games might also be considered as practice objects, because they can
promote persistent practice until a degree of competency or understanding is achieved.
In more contemporary approaches, practice objects can be considered as parts of a
learning activity process, rather than as some post-learning task that aims to strengthen
learners recall and understanding of subject matter presented by a teacher or resources.
Thus, a practice object might be given an instrumental role in an activity. Whatever

learners conceptualize from their involvement with a practice object can be utilized for
examples to inform their problem-solving decisions.
Figure 2 shows a screen from the Volume of a Pyramid practice object. The question
in the object requires a learner to approximate the volume of the pyramid presented in
the scenario. This pyramid is an interactive 3-dimensional representation that can be
rotated and visually examined by a learner. A learner rotates the pyramid and uses the
provided ruler to capture its dimensions. The scale on the ruler is randomised. This
means that different learners will have rulers of different lengths and that their answers
will be different. This opens a possibility for collaboration between the learners, while
removing the possibility of copying answers. Exchanging ideas on the solving of a
problem is an important part of the learners collaboration. Copying of a method and
copying of answers are two different things. Copying of a method opens the possibility
for learners to learn from each other.
The learner uses the ruler to
capture measurements needed
to answer the question. The
scale on the ruler is randomized.
This ensures that different
learners will obtain different
measurements when answering
the question.

The learner rotates this threedimensional model of a

pyramid to examine its sides

Constructive feedback is
provided for any response by the
learner. If incorrect, the learner is
informed of the reasons they are
incorrect and advised of steps
they might take towards correctly
answering the question. If the
answer is correct, the learner is
provided with additional
information to expand on
understanding.

Figure 2: Volume of a Pyramid practice object

Simulation Objects

Simulation objects represent some real system or process: e.g. a simulation of a

microscope or of electricity consumption in a household. They allow a learner to explore,
usually by trial and error, operational aspects of a system, carry on a task that the system
supports, and develop a mind model of that systems functionalities. Although fidelity is
often high in simulations, development of skills is hardly ever completed and learners
must usually move to a real system to complete their practice to genuine competency
level. However, by the time a learner shifts to the real system, he or she would already
have constructed a mind model of the systems functionalities and operational
possibilities. This is particularly effective when learning to use the real system requires an
understanding beyond being able to operate it (e.g. understanding how a system works)
and when the real system is expensive, unavailable or available in limited number, or
learning to operate it is costly and possibly dangerous. A simulation might also involve

dynamic processes such as manufacturing processes, financial flows and energy

consumptions. In this case, a learner might manipulate certain parameters as he or she
learns to manage that process.
Figure 3 shows an interface of a Digital Multimeter simulation object. This learning
object allows a learner to explore uses of a digital multimeter instrument by collecting
different measurements for Voltage, Current and Resistance. A learner also explores
correct positioning of probes in the circuit. Besides the main purpose of this simulation
object (learning how to use the instrument), a learner might also collect different
measurements of Voltage, Current and Resistance and explore relationships which exist
between these parameters in order to derive understanding of a relationship known as
Ohms Law.
This is the measurement read by
the instrument (Value of Resistance
in this case)

A learner manipulates circuit by

changing its perimeters

A learner positions probes for

correct capture of measurements

A learner can rotate this dial to

select measurements that he or
she wants to capture (Voltage,
Resistance and Current)

Figure 3: Digital Multimeter simulation object

Conceptual Models

A conceptual model is a type of a learning object that represents one or more related
concepts or ideas, usually in an interactive and visual way. It might be appropriate to
think of a conceptual model as a representation of a cognitive resource existing in the
mind of a subject matter expert, as useful conceptual knowledge that aids decisionmaking, disciplinary problem-solving and discipline-specific thinking. Psychologists use a
variety of terms such as schemas (Paivio, 1974), mental models (JohnsonLaird, 1983)
and concepts (Vygotsky, 1962) to more or less indicate the same idea that there are
constructs in the human mind that mediate higher psychological functioning. Sometimes
the term representation is used for constructs in the human mind. However, Von
Glasersfeld (1999) writes that this use of representation is misguided, because it entails
the belief that certain ideas we abstract from our experience correspond to a reality that lies
beyond experience. For von Glasersfeld, knowledge is never representation of the real
world, but a collection of conceptual structures adopted from experience. He suggests
that humans segment part of their experiences into raw elementary particles and
combine these into dynamic conceptual structures.

An example of a conceptual model, Exploring Trigonometry, is presented in Figure 4.

This learning object represents a key concept from trigonometry: a trigonometric circle.
A subject matter expert, a mathematics teacher in this case, identified this as one of the
key concepts in his mathematics knowledge which guides his thinking in problem-solving
involving trigonometry. Through design process and analysis of his own knowledge, the
learning object architect constructed this artifact. Learners can input different values for
angle x and observe changes in values of sine and cosine as they conduct an inquiry. The
changes in the values of sine and cosine are presented in multiple representation formats:
1. Numerically, as numbers between 0 and 1;
2. Visually, as projections of an arm of an angle along the x-axis (for value of
cosines) and along the y-ordinate (for value of sine x) of a trigonometric circle (a
circle with radius one unit long), and
3. As points along the sine and cosine line on the graph.

Learners can change values

of an angle as many times
as they choose
Output of numerical
values for sine and cosine
of the selected angle

Values for sine and cosine

of the selected angle
shown graphically on the
sine and cosine curves
Values for sine and
cosine of the selected
angle shown graphically
in the trigonometric circle

Figure 4: Exploring Trigonometry conceptual model

Previous research with visual educational material introduced a conceptual model (see
Mayer, 1989). Mayer suggests that these improve the ability of learners to transfer their
learning to solve new problems because learners have constructed useful mind models
that they are able to mentally manipulate when needed. Based on later studies involving
technology-based representations, Mayer (2003) suggests that multiple representations
facilitate learning because different modalities are encoded and organized in different
mind models which, when mentally connected, lead to deeper understanding. Limitations
of traditional non-interactive technologies and tools made these conceptual models not
much different from print-based diagrams, images, drawings and charts. Now we have
powerful technology-based tools that enable us to add critical dimensions to the design
of conceptual models - interactivity and modalities. For Fraser (1999), these capabilities
of contemporary technology provide unique opportunity for communication of concepts
to learners through representational pedagogical models. Fraser writes in the past, we
relied on words, diagrams, equations, and gesticulations to build those models piece by
piece in the minds of the students we now have a new tool - not one that replaces the
older ones, but one that greatly extends them: interactive computer visualization.
Models were also discussed by Gibbons (n.d.). Gibbon suggests that all instruction
should be based around three types of models representing instructional content: (a)
8

models of environment; (b) models of natural or manufactured systems, and (c) models
of human performance. However, these models appear to be representations of reality
and expert performance, rather than models of conceptual knowledge. Interactivity and
modalities allow the creation of conceptual models that potentially represent conceptual
knowledge and ideas (not a simulation or demonstration of a performance). My thinking
here is influenced by ideas of higher psychological functions, and models as effective
tools for sharing of socio-historical knowledge accumulated by humanity (Vygotsky,
1978; Wartofsky, 1979). However, I intend to call on further research in the future to
explore this idea of a conceptual model as a representation of conceptual knowledge and
ideas, and to investigate how supplying these models can bring learners to higher levels
of zone of proximity development.
To design a conceptual model, a learning object architect must primarily examine
knowledge in a head rather than information. The process can be informed by external
factors such as similar designs by other people, tools, reference material and discussion
with colleagues, but essentially, analysis of knowledge is central. This presents a difficulty
for traditional instructional designers who are not usually subject matter experts, but rely
upon documents, books, artifacts and other material to design instructional resources. To
design a conceptual model, a learning object architect must either experience and
construct knowledge by acquiring and applying it, or be able to effectively articulate such
models through interaction with a subject matter expert. The first option is difficult,
because no concept is an isolated cognitive resource, relating rather to many other
concepts held by the subject matter expert, and sometimes tacit and automated in ones
cognition. Focus on a single concept carries the risk of failing to note relevant knowledge
structures in a way that the subject matter expert may be able to do. Design is further
mediated by pedagogical knowledge, creativity and drive for innovation. Innovation is
important because every new conceptual model is most often an innovative artifact.

Information Objects

An information object utilizes information visualization capabilities of contemporary

technology to provide educationally useful information. This type of learning object
might be just a single representation (an image) or a multimodal display and a visual
interface providing information dynamically based on interaction. Information can be
represented in tables, matrixes, mind maps, illustrations, formulas, pictures, animations,
videos, diagrams, 3D models and by the way of other modalities (see van Someren,
Boshuizen, de Jong and Reimann, 1998). In a series of books, Edward Tufte (Tufte,
1990; Tufte, 1997; Tufte, 2001) discusses a range of visual techniques (e.g. graphs,
illustrations, icons, pictures) to represent information. For Tufte, representations can be
built to present complexity through visual clarity. He suggests that traditional
visualization is greatly expanded with new technologies which allow interactive, threedimensional and animated formats. Interactivity - e.g. buttons, clickable hot-spots, rollover area, sliders, text-entries and drag-and-drops - allow information space to be
organized in a way that enables learners to engage in exploring information, changing
modalities, manipulating certain parameters or configuring options and observing
changes in information, and otherwise manipulating the information they are accessing
through the interface (raw information might reside within an information object, or in a
database). Interactivity and modalities allow large quantities of information to be
represented and made available for display in a small screen space. The ways in which
technology makes this possible are best illustrated by a collection of articles edited by
Bederson and Shneiderman (2003). A single interface - that is, a single screen without a
change of page - might be designed to act as a point of access to a large amount of

information. This would allow learners not just to experience interaction and/or a lot of
information in mediated formats, but also to construct a mental space of information
from the learning object and understand how different pieces of information are related.
Figure 5 shows an example of an information object. This simple example of an
information object contains multimodal information about native and non-native animals
of Australia. Information about animals is accessed by rolling a mouse pointer over the
text comprising the name of an animal and through decisions that include the dragging of
the animals name into a corresponding area indicating its origin. The initial collection of
web pages with information about Australian native animals was converted through
content analysis into an information object that allows learners to explore this
information space and connect different pieces of information. The essence of the
information from web pages was preserved in the information object; however, long
lines of texts have been reduced to short, informationally sufficient statements that are
delivered to a learner randomly based on interaction. Different learners might discover
different facts about certain animals, and this can lead to activities such as, for example,
discussions and collaborative mind-mapping.
When a learner positions the
mouse pointer over the name of
an animal, a picture (visual
information) of the animal
appears in this box. Audio of a
sound made by the animal is also
triggered.
When a learner clicks on text
next to an animal name, a
random string of text providing
some information about that
animal will appear automatically.
This allows a learner to construct
information space by exploring
different information about the
animal. This also opens the
possibility for discussion between
learners. If an animal is placed in
incorrect areas, a string of text
will be displayed, providing some
hint to a learner that the animal
does not belong there. The hint is
also provided from a set of
random statements.

The learner drags the text

(animal name) and drops it in
the corresponding area

Figure 5: Natives to Australia information object

Contextual Representations

The idea behind a conceptual representation is to allow learners to explore some realistic
scenario and collect data, usually for the purpose of inquiry and problem-solving. For
example, learners might collect data about volcanic activity, weather conditions, air
pollutants in the atmosphere, population of life forms at great ocean depths, statements
of opinion from people, and so on. Usually, there is a contextual representation of some
imaginary or real place inaccessible to learners because it is distant, time and place
dependent, involves danger, is too small or too big to allow data collection, requires
sophisticated tools for collection of the data, requires lab conditions, requires expertise
10

and so on. Engaging learners in collection of authentic data allows them to experience
the origins of that authentic data, and explore the context and tools used in data
collection. This might also enable learners to experience authentic problems or
discipline-specific inquiries as they engage in collection and exploration of data.
Figure 6 shows a screen from a Water Experiment contextual representation. This
learning object allows learners to collect data on factors affecting the quality of water of
the imaginary lake presented in the scenario. This data can be used, for example, in a
problem-solving activity that directs learners to act as environmentalists, investigate the
situation and propose a solution to a problem in the form of a report to an environment
protection agency.
Some information about Water
Quality Indicators and Tools is
provided in these pull-down
menus

This is data collected for one of

five areas from the lake. The
numbers are randomized. This
means that different learners
would collect different sets of
data. This allows groups of
learners to engage in
collaborative discussion of
possible pollution in the lake
and its causes.

A learner collects data measurements of the water

quality - by selecting a tool from
a set of tools and clicking on a
selected area on the image of the
lake.

Figure 6: Water Experiment contextual representation

Exploring Usefulness of the Proposed Classification
I organized and participated in a collaborative activity to explore how closely a collection
of learning objects developed by community of teachers and instructional designers
reassembles the proposed classification. A small committee of three was formed to
review learning objects from a collection. The committee included two instructional
designers who had previously designed learning objects. One of the two instructional
designers specialised in the field of sciences and technology, and the other in humanities.
I was the third member of the review team. The source of learning objects was a
Learning Object Competition held in Singapore in November 2003, organized by Elearning Competency Center, a Singapore Government founded organization, the task of
which was to monitor, promote and facilitate developments in the e-learning industry.
The competition attracted 83 submissions from educational institutions, the corporate
sector and interested individuals. The majority of the submissions issued from
educational institutions in Singapore. I was appointed as one of three judges who made
decisions on the best learning objects submitted for this competition, based on criteria

11

which included pedagogical value, interface design and reusability. Subsequently, I

presented a keynote address at the Learning Object Conference 2003 in November,
where the awards were announced and presented to the top entrants. Later on, this
collection of learning objects was reviewed in the context of activity reported in this
section of the paper 1 .
An exemplary screen of learning objects was captured, reduced and printed on a sorting
card of A5 size. Each card also contained a short paragraph of general description of that
learning object (e.g. its content and any specific features). The committee held several
meetings, during which we collaboratively sorted the 83 cards into a set of internally
homogenous and externally heterogeneous piles representing types of learning objects
proposed by the classification. When contradictions emerged, the committee revisited the
learning object and discussed the best possible solution to resolving such contradictions.
The proposed classification showed itself to be an appropriate tool, as the committee was
able to place each of the learning objects from the collection into one of the classified
types. Most numerous learning objects in the collections were presentation objects in
forms of direct instruction. Difficulty in sorting was associated with what might be called
granularity. Some presentation objects were combined with practice objects into
products that reassemble courseware packages. Some conceptual models and simulation
objects were also integral components of larger presentation objects. However, few
learning objects existed independently as practice objects, conceptual models or
simulation objects, thus validating the existence of these classification types. The few
other learning objects appeared to be what the committee understood as information
objects. The problem with information objects was that they were poorly designed,
giving an impression of being just a set of ordinary web pages and reading material
enhanced with media. Only one of the learning objects was identified as game-like. The
committee revisited this learning object and agreed that it should be considered as a
practice that assists learners to correctly pronounce and recognize certain German
language terms. No learning object in this collection was found to be in the form of
contextual representation. This is an indication that the proposed categorization may be
useful beyond the context of this particular exercise, as it appeared to cater for more
learning object types than were present in the collection.
Conclusion
This paper presents a classification of learning objects consisting of six types:
presentation, practice, simulation, conceptual models, information and contextual
representation objects. The paper opens a possibility for the proposed categories to be
challenged, or for more categories of learning objects to emerge in further inquiries
involving examination of larger repositories of learning objects such as MERLOT 2 .
Based on common characteristics of these six types, a learning object is defined as a
mediated representation designed to afford uses in different educational contexts. Some
of the learning objects can be combined with other objects into direct instruction
products supporting traditional pedagogies. Other learning objects are more appropriate
1

Special thanks to Lim Kin Chew, Executive Manager of E-learning Competency Centre
in Singapore, for permission to examine the collection of learning objects submitted for
Learning Object Competition 2003.
2
The MERLOT repository is reputedly the best collection of learning objects in the
world (Zemsky & Massy, 2004). Currently, MERLOT contains references to 12,525
learning objects (data obtained from MERLOT in March 2005).
12

in the context of more contemporary approaches as resources to be deployed in learning

activities designed by educationalists. Design and reuse of learning objects are two
independent processes likely to be planned by different professionals. In the conclusion
to this paper, I provide some suggestions as to how this classification might be useful to
the two groups.
The classification might support people involved in design (e.g. a learning object
architect who examines subject matter, conceptualizes potentially useful learning objects,
and creates a blueprint of it for a production). It would direct design to facts, concepts,
procedures, principles, real systems and tools, useful data and other stuff of a discipline
that could be best represented for educational reuse with particular types of learning
objects from the classification. Thus, the classification would provide a framework for
subject matter analysis that might in turn lead to better quality indicators for design of
educationally useful materials that exist as learning objects.
The classification should also support people involved in reuse of learning objects (e.g. a
teacher who locates a learning object in a digital repository and makes it available to
students as a resource in a planned learning activity). A variety of learning object types
would support reuse in a variety of pedagogical approaches (e.g. direct instruction,
inquiries, problem-solving and collaborative knowledge-building). This might lead to
personal epistemological change in education professionals involved in reuse of learning
objects, because a variety of resources would encourage educators to experiment with
their uses. Furthermore, the classification might lead to development of metadata
strategy (beyond current metadata standards) that provides heuristics to people involved
in reuse. Metadata might include information about a type of learning object, in addition
to some pedagogical recommendations for its reuse. The concept of reuse of learning
objects is currently very narrowly defined, and the reason for this could be linked to
problems associated with lack of a useful definition and classification. A broadly
accepted, well-validated classification would lead to better understanding of reuse, which
would cater for a variety of educational situations such as, for example: use of a learning
object as a presentation aid; to initiate classroom or on-line discussions; as a component
in direct-instruction for on-line delivery; as a resource in an authentic problem-solving
activity; as an object of an inquiry; during independent studies, assignments and projects
by learners; as a component in design of other learning object, and as a basis for
designing other learning objects.
Finally, to acknowledge my own understanding by this stage, when I speak of learning
objects, I am referring to reusable mediated representations designed for educational
application. They reside in digital repositories, ready to be located and utilized by those
involved in educational activities (e.g. teachers and students). These representations
address: (a) key concepts from disciplines, in visual and often interactive ways not
permitted with previous technologies, for sharing of socio-historical heritage of humanity
(our knowledge), (b) information and data that can be useful in the context of developing
disciplinary-specific thinking, culture of practice, spirit of inquiry, theoretical knowledge
and information work, (c) presentation of small, instructional sequences and
demonstrations delivering encapsulated descriptions of some aspects of subject matter
which can support learning processes by providing just-in-time information, (d)
simulations of key equipment, tools and processes from a discipline to enable
development of deep understanding of artifacts used in a culture of practice. My
immediate intention is to empower education professions with digital material which they
can use to create a spectrum of educational activities.

13

References
Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: methods and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Anderson, A. T. (2003). I object! Moving beyond learning object to learning
components. Educational Technology 43(4), 24-19.
Bederson, B. B., & Shneiderman, B. (2003). The craft of information visualization: readings and
reflections. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Bush, D. M. (2002). Connecting instructional design to international standards for
content reusability. Educational Technology, 42(6), 5-13.
Churchill, D. (2005a). Teachers private theories and their design of technology-based
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology.
Churchill, D. (2005b). Learning object: an interactive representation and a mediating tool
in a learning activity. Educational Media International.
Cisco Systems (2001) Reusable learning object strategy: designing information and learning objects
through concept, fact, procedure, process, and principle template. San Jose, CA: Cisco Systems,
Inc.
Clifford, R. (2002, August). Adding a pedagogical dimension to SCORM [Digital Audio
Recording]. Oral presentation at the Online Instruction for 21st Century: Connecting
Instructional Design to International Standards for Content Reusability, Brigham
Young University, Rexburg, Idaho. Retrieved August 30, 2003 from
http://zola.byu.edu/id2scorm/.
Cochrane, T. (2005). Interactive QuickTime: developing and evaluating multimedia
learning objects to enhance both face-to-face and distance e-learning environments.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects 1(1) 33-54.
Davydov, V. V. (1999). The content and unsolved problems of activity theory. In Y.
Engerstrm, R. Miettinen & R. Punamki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 3952). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
De Jong, T. et al. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: the use of
multiple representations in technology-based learning environments. In A. Van
Someren (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9-40). Kidlington, Oxford:
Elsevier Science Ltd.
E-learning Competency Center. (2003). Explanation on learning objects. Retrieved September
15, 2003 from http://www.ecc.org.sg/loc/ecplain.htm.
Fraser, A. (1999). Web visualization for teachers. Retrieved February 23, 2004, from
http://fraser.cc/WebVis/.
Friesen, N. (2003). Three Objections to Learning Objects. Retrieved July 24, 2004 from
http://www.learningspaces.org/n/papers/objections.html.
Gibbons, A. (n.d.). Model-centered instruction: beyond simulation. Retrieved September 20,
2005, from http://www.gwu.edu/~lto/gibbons.html.
IEEE. (2001). WG12: Learning Object Metadata. Retrieved February 15, 2005,
http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/.
IMS Global Learning Consortium (2002). Learning Resource Meta-data Specification.
Retrieved February 15, 2005 from http://www.imsglobal.org/metadata/.
JohnsonLaird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jonassen, D., & Churchill, D (2004). Is there learning orientation in learning objects?
International Journal of E-learning, April-May, 32-42.
LAllier, J. J. (1998). NETg's precision skilling: the linking of occupational skills descriptors to
training interventions. Retrieved September 15, 2000, from
http://www.netg.com/research/pskillpaper.htm.

14

Lukasiak, J., Agostinho, S., Bennet, S., Harper, B, Lockyer, L., & Powley, B. (2005).
Learning Objects and learning designs: an integrated system for reusable, adaptive
and sharable learning content. Research in Learning Technology, 13(2), 151-169.
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 4364.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional
design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
McGreal, R. (2004). Learning objects: a practical definition. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 1(9), 21-32.
Merrill, M. D. (2000). Knowledge objects and mental models. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The
Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Retrieved July 24, 2004 from
http://reusability.org/read/chapters/merrill.doc.
Paivio, A. (1974). Language and knowledge of the world. Educational Researcher, 3(9), 5-12.
Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning. Learning and
Instruction, 14(3), 235-240.
Schnotz, W., & Lowe, R. (2003). External and internal representations in multimedia
learning. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 117-123.
Tufte, E (1997). Visual explanations. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press.
Tufte, E (2001). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics
Press.
Tufte, E. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press.
Van Someren, A. (Eds.). (1998). Learning with multiple representations. (Eds.). Kidlington,
Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Van Someren, A., Boshuizen, P.A., de Jong, T. & Reimann, P. (1998). Introduction. In
A. Van Someren (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 1-5). Kidlington,
Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Von Glassersfeld, E. (1997). Piaget's Legacy: Cognition as Adaptive Activity. Retrieved
December 12, 2003, from
http://www.umass.edu/srri/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/html/245.html
Vygotsky, S. L. (1962). Thoughts and language. Cambrige, MA: The MIT Press.
Vygotsky, S. L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.
Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht,
Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A
definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Eds.), The Instructional Use of
Learning Objects. Retrieved July 24, 2004, from
http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc.
Wiley, D. A. (2002). The coming collision between automated instruction and social constructivism.
Retrieved September 16, 2005, from http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/collision_09.doc.
Wiley, D. & Edwards, E. (2002). Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of
online learning. Retrieved November 20, 2003 from
http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/ososs.pdf.
Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (2004). Thwarted innovation: what happened to e-learning and why.
Philadelphia, PA: The Learning Alliance, University of Pennsylvania.

15