Developing interactive multimedia Learning Objects using QuickTime

Abstract

This paper focuses upon the application of the multimedia architecture ‘QuickTime’ for developing pedagogically sound interactive Learning Objects to support the teaching of principles of Audio Engineering. The project used an action research methodology in the design and evaluation of four successive Learning Objects by several different groups of users. The MERLOT criteria for evaluating Learning Objects was modified and utilized in the development process and the subsequent insights gained from developing and evaluating the Learning Objects are highlighted.

Introduction

While definitions are varied, most researchers and practitioners would agree that Learning Objects are meant to enhance learning and to be reusable within a range of learning contexts. They are usually interactive digital resources illustrating one or more interrelated concepts. They are small in size, but contain enough content and context to make them pedagogically useful. This project uses Wiley’s definition of Learning Objects as a basis:

Learning object: Any digital resource that can be reused to support learning. The term “learning objects” generally applies to educational materials designed and created in small chunks for the purpose of maximizing the number of learning situations in which the resource can be utilized (Wiley, 2002, p. 1).

In her definition of Learning Objects, Metros emphasizes the ‘learning’ aspect of Learning Objects. “Learning objects often are confused with information objects. True learning objects include learning objectives and outcomes, assessments, and other instructional components, as well as the information object itself” (Metros & Bennett, 2002, p. 3). Metros elaborates further on her definition of Learning Objects:

Instructors are comfortable incorporating audio/visual resources, readings, guest lectures, and other instructional activities into their traditional classes. Learning objects are the new and improved, digital version of these activities. If designed within a sound pedagogical framework, learning objects can be accessed from anywhere at any time. Instructors can create an engaging experience by using learning objects in an interactive context. (Metros & Bennett, 2002, pp. 8–9).

Embedding formative or summative assessment within Learning Objects is an important way of focusing on the learning objectives of the Learning Object and providing the user with feedback on their understanding of the concepts. This is similar to Biggs concept of course alignment, “We have first to be clear about what we want students to learn, and then teach and assess accordingly in an aligned system of instruction” – cited in Biggs (1999).

Bringing these ideas together: a Learning Object is a digital resource that ideally covers one main concept, and can be used within different learning contexts that are related to the basic information context of the Learning Object.

Learning Objects are the descendants of the computer mediated learning (CML), and interactive multimedia movements (IMM). The late 20th century educational environment was filled with expectation at how CML and IMM would revolutionize learning. The reality was that the cost of producing highly interactive CDROMs and online courses was in most cases prohibitive. CDROMs went out of date almost as soon as they were produced, and were often far too context specific to be reused in other learning environments than the specific one they were designed for. The last few years highlighted how small, interactive, reusable Learning Objects could bring the cost of education down while increasing quality and access.

Reusability is the ability to use a learning object within different learning contexts. Since 2000, reusability of Learning Objects has become a major focus of their development. Wiley is a key researcher in the area of Learning object reusability and maintains a website resource devoted to discussing issues of Learning Object reuse (Wiley, 2000b). The Centre for Learning and Teaching Through Technology (University of Waterloo, 2003) provides a brief description of the benefits and strategies for reusing Learning Objects and is a good introduction to this topic. The ability to reuse Learning Objects within different learning contexts is a central defining factor that differentiates Learning Objects from other learning materials. Several studies emphasize the need to plan for reusability in the earliest stages of learning object design (Boyle, 2002a, Currier and Campbell, 2002, Hawryszkiewyez, 2002, McNaught et al., 2002).

Research has focused upon the need to create Learning Objects that are small enough to enable re-purposing, while retaining enough context information to remain educationally useful. Johnson describes this as an “inverse relationship between context and reusability” (Johnson, 2003). This size/scope relationship has been given the term ‘granularity’ (Wiley, Gibbons, & Recker, 2000). Granularity refers to the size of a Learning Object. Smaller Learning Objects contain less context specific information and are therefore more granular or reusable. South and Monson (2000) provide a useful explanation of the granularity of Learning Objects, defining a ‘learning threshold’ and a ‘context threshold’ within which Learning Objects sit. They describe the trade-off for achieving useful granularity as the increased need for metadata and storage requirements. South and Monson also provide an economic argument for the reusability of Learning Objects. Although the initial development cost of learning objects is high, the ability to reuse these objects across a wide range of courses, and the ability to repackage Learning Objects for distance delivery courses, ultimately will save money. This is why large multinational corporations with in-house training programmes are very interested in Learning Objects. For example, Cisco Systems has done significant research into utilizing Learning Objects for training their employees.

Acker makes an analogy with the current success of the Apple Computer’s iTunes store and Learning Objects in education.

Just as Apple Computer’s micro-pricing of songs in its iTunes Music Library intermediates a more user-centric value proposition than pre-packaged CDs, learning objects are better adapted to serve individualized delivery preferences of Faculty, focus the attention and fiscal resources of students more successfully than the textbook, and offer rich new ecologies of learning for both (Acker, Pearl, & Rissing, 2003, p. 2).

The marketing power is in the flexibility and value for money offered to the end user. Acker also notes that the breaking down of learning environments into bite sized chunks meets with resistance from some faculty members. Faculty “fear the deconstruction of their roles into: knowledge creation, knowledge packaging, knowledge delivery, and student assessment” (Acker et al., 2003, p. 2). However he argues that this does allow faculty to become instrumental in tailoring education for individual students and providing a higher quality learning experience.

Downes (2001) makes an argument for the potential of Learning Objects to revolutionize tertiary education. He questions the need for the traditional delivery of courses to constantly recreate themselves in the name of academic integrity rather than utilizing more effective teaching methodologies. He calls his vision one of a Learning Object economy.

Metadata is descriptive information about the Learning Object, requirements, Author, copyright etc. Metadata standards have been developed by several international organizations, and there is on-going collaboration to make these standards inter-operable. For learning objects to be re-purposed, they need to be categorized according to content and context within a standard ‘library’ format. This information is needed so teachers and students can search for and find appropriate learning objects. Metadata allows Learning Objects to be correctly categorized within learning object repositories. Learning Object repositories are libraries of either actual Learning Objects or databases of hyperlinks to catalogued Learning Objects.

Standard descriptors for Learning Objects have been defined by several standards organizations. One of the oldest is the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI, 2003). It was started in 1995 at a workshop in Dublin, is based on an international academic community, and attempts to liaise with other metadata initiatives. Various templates are available for creating Dublin Core metadata, e.g. (Koch & Borell, 1997). This template is a convenient online html form for generating metadata in the Dublin Core format. The Instructional Management Systems project (IMS Global Learning Consortium, 2003) was established in 1996 for setting standards and specifications for learning technologies within the US. The Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC, 2003) was established in 1996 by the IEEE Computer Society Standards Activity Board to develop and recommend standards for learning technology. In particular they have developed the LOM – Learning Object Metadata specification (LTSC, 2001).

In 1999 the United States Department of Defense commissioned the Advanced Distributed Learning initiative to integrate the various developing standards for technology-based learning. This resulted in the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) (Advanced Distributed Learning, 2004). The purpose of SCORM is to promote the development of Learning Objects and individualized learning technology, as this is believed to “enhance learning experiences while improving efficiency and reducing costs” (Advanced Distributed Learning, 2004).

Recent standards developments include integration with learning management systems that have previously only supported proprietary standards (CETIS, 2003, Currier and Campbell, 2002). CETIS (the Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards) provides a link between standards organizations and United Kingdom higher education and further education institutions. Their website provides many useful links regarding metadata standards, an easy to understand background on learning standards, and a useful encyclopedia of learning standards acronyms. Metadata standards are not a major focus of this research, however a standard template (Koch & Borell, 1997) was utilized to provide appropriate metadata for all Learning Objects created as part of the project.

Learning Object repositories are designed to facilitate access to Learning Objects. They generally consist of online searchable databases and often include evaluations of Learning Objects in their collections. A useful collection of links to online Learning Object repositories is hosted by the University of Alberta (Academic Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Lab, 2004). The site also provides a brief description and overview of each repository, giving a good comparison of each. One of the most established Learning Object repositories is the Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching (MERLOT, 1997). Another popular repository is the World Lecture Hall (University of Texas, 2001). EdNA (Education Network Australia, 2004) is a large Australian based repository. Most repositories are open to the international academic community, but may restrict submission of content to members of a particular institution (CAREO, 2003, Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction, 2004). Some repositories are regionally based, e.g. (COHERE, 2003, eduSource, 2003). Some smaller collaborative repositories focus on developing resources among a particular group of institutions. The Canadian based Co-Operative Learning Object Exchange (CLOE, 2003) is a collaborative project between 16 Ontario universities. However the CLOE administrators were happy to supply logon access to the researcher upon email request. CLOE has recently become a sub-community of the MERLOT consortium.

MERLOT is one of the oldest and largest Learning Object repositories. MERLOT is an open, online repository for Learning Objects and course modules and is based on scholarly peer review principles. MERLOT contains over 10000 listings from a wide range of disciplines. Membership is free, and members can contribute and evaluate Learning Objects. When contributing material to MERLOT, the user fills out a short form that generates metadata conforming to the IMS and IEEE LOM standards.

Evaluation is needed to ensure the development of quality Learning Objects. One of the most mature approaches to evaluating Learning Objects is utilized by the MERLOT (1997) repository. The MERLOT Peer review process is modeled on the scholarly peer review process of peer reviewed journals (Hanley, 2003). The goal of adopting this approach to evaluation of Learning Objects is to encourage the adoption of Learning Objects within the higher education community. The MERLOT repository is divided into several subject categories/communities, with an editorial board for each category. Experts in each field are allocated to review submitted Learning Objects within each category. The result of the peer review process is a rating from one to five, plus comments for every Learning Object reviewed. The rating scale represents the following:

• Materials not worth using at all.

• Materials do not meet minimal standards but there might be some limited value.

• Materials meet or exceed standards but there are some significant concerns.

• Materials are very good overall but there are a few minor concerns.

• Materials are excellent all around.

The ratings are used to give preferential listing in searches of the MERLOT repository, and provide users with a quick idea of the quality and usefulness of a Learning Object. Learning Objects with review grades of less than 3 are not displayed. The MERLOT evaluation criteria was modified for the context of this project and used as one of the prime evaluation instruments. (See Appendix A for the modified MERLOT Learning Object evaluation used.) A more recent Learning Object evaluation tool is the Learning Object Reusability Instrument (LORI) (Nesbit, Belfer, & Leacock, 2003). However this was not used by this project as it was under development at the time of the project.

To produce interactive multimedia Learning Objects developers can either use powerful programming languages such as Java, or the less demanding object oriented authoring applications. The resulting Learning Objects must work on either Windows based or Macintosh computers. Although the Macintosh platform has a small global market share, within the Audio Engineering field it has an equal or greater market share than Windows based systems, therefore cross-platform functionality of the Learning Objects was seen as an imperative.

Hedberg discusses how the implicit learning theories behind multimedia authoring tools will affect the design of Learning Objects. “Of the many common tools, the older have taken a more structured approach borne out of behavioral learning theory. The more recent tools have striven to reduce the need for time or procedural structure to create an environment of intelligent objects” (Hedberg & Harper, 2002, p. 4). Two of the most commonly used cross-platform multimedia authoring applications are Macromedia Director, and Macromedia Flash (Cuthbert and Himes, 2002, Gallenson et al., 2002). Director is a powerful authoring application, but lacks sophisticated audio capabilities, and is currently limited to eight tracks of audio. For more powerful audio capabilities, Director can utilize the sophisticated audio capabilities of QuickTime.

Combining this hidden power with Director as a container will lead to some interesting new territory. Indeed, if you are using Director mostly as a container for QuickTime, you might even find that you don’t need Director at all for some jobs. After all, why waste processor power and RAM on two multimedia engines when one will do the job just fine (Young, 1999, p. 2).

Flash MX includes built-in learning additions and templates for quickly creating interactive assessments (Macromedia, 2002). Macromedia promotes Flash as an authoring environment for Learning Objects (Heins & Himes, 2002). There are several examples of interactive audio mixers created using Flash (BLOB Productions, 2003, Porter, 2001). However, Flash is limited to a total of eight audio tracks. The most suitable environment for multi-track audio Learning Objects is QuickTime. Beverly describes QuickTime as “the on-line, cross-platform, multimedia architecture of the present and future” (Beverly, 2004, p. 1). He then goes on to give several reasons why Wright State University have chosen QuickTime as their preferred multimedia delivery format:

• Apple has developed QuickTime as an open media architecture.

• QuickTime includes state of the art codecs.

• QuickTime 6 was chosen as the basis for the platform ubiquitous MPEG-4 standard.

• QuickTime is freely available (Beverly, 2004, p. 2).

With the introduction of interactive sprite tracks to QuickTime in version two, QuickTime has developed into a powerful interactive multimedia architecture with features that rival and in some areas exceed those of Macromedia Director. Resources that describe and illustrate QuickTime’s capability include (Apple Computer, 2000, Peterson, 2003, Sitter, 2002, Stern and Lettieri, 1999, Totally Hip Software, 2003a, Totally Hip Software, 2003b, Young, 2000a, Young, 2000b). Peterson and Young are two of the foremost experts in authoring interactive QuickTime. Peterson’s book (2003) outlines many scripting ideas for creating truly interactive QuickTime objects. Brennan Young, 2000a, Young, 2000b provides a lot of useful resources for LiveStage Pro (LiveStage Pro is the premier application for authoring QuickTime movies), a quick introduction to the principles of QScript, as well as pointing out some key concepts that are not so clearly established by the LiveStage Pro manual. Stern and Lettieri (1999) give an overview of the capabilities of QuickTime, plus hints and tips for authoring QuickTime.

While there are many QuickTime ‘widgets’ (small interactive tools such as calendars, calculators, clocks, navigation banners etc.), there are few examples of purpose built interactive QuickTime Learning Objects as defined by this project. Most QuickTime Learning Objects would be best described as interactive video presentations. There are relatively few multimedia developers, and even less educational designers, who have explored the potential of interactive QuickTime. One exception is Deakin University. A 2001 report describes their experiences and benefits of utilizing QuickTime for authoring interactive multimedia Learning Objects:

By using QuickTime, the degree of expertise required to conduct a performance from multiple elements has been made as accessible as street theatre with lots of participants and yes when you build the show with multi-track theatricks, the audience will come! (Segrave, Warren, & McNolty, 2001, p. 12).

NASA use QuickTime for video and virtual reality within their Learning Technologies projects (Gaskins et al., 2003, NASA Office of Education Technology and Products Office, 2004). Mellow, Hanks, Pivac, Pivac, and Went (2003) utilized QuickTime to create Learning Objects for sign language students. QuickTime was used for its cross-platform compatibility, and user playback control of the movies. Another example used QuickTime movies within a virtual experiment (Dantas, Kemm, & Weaver, 2003). Examples of utilizing QuickTime for streaming video within Learning Objects include (Cameron, 2003, Fardon and Henderson, 2003). In summary, all of these projects utilize only the most basic interactive features available within QuickTime. This project explores the boundaries of what is currently possible using the QuickTime architecture.

The researcher was interested in exploring the potential of Learning Objects within the field of Audio Engineering in which he has considerable expertise. A search of Learning Object repositories (CAREO, 2003, CLOE, 2003, Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction, 2004, MERLOT, 1997, SAE Institute, 2001), and the Internet, revealed there is a lack of interactive multimedia learning resources for key Audio Engineering concepts, although some do exist (SAE Institute, 2001). Online (Hambly, 2002) or CDROM examples provide little more than replacements for textbooks, although they do usually contain audio examples (Everest, 1997). There are a couple of notable exceptions (Neumann, 1996, Sides, 1995), however these are large resources that were not designed as Learning Objects. Some resources are outdated, both technically and in content, while most resources focus upon text or audio examples only, with little user interactivity. Some online examples (Gibson, 2000, Mellor, 2001, Mellor, 2003) do however provide facilities for email and discussion group support for students. In general these resources are designed as complete unique packages or courses, and have not been designed for re-purposing in other learning contexts. The quality of available Learning Objects for this context is low, and the general mode for learning the principles of Audio Engineering is still an on campus/site hands on approach.

There is a gap between theory and practice in the use of Learning Objects in Tertiary education. Most research has focused on defining Learning Objects rather than practical design and implementation. As a result the overly hyped Learning Object economy has yet to be realized.

During the Middle Ages, theologians and philosophers spent large amounts of time debating the precise number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. The early learning object movement has spent similarly large amounts of time debating what the correct definition of a learning object should be (Roy, 2004b, p. 1).

The objective of this research was to bridge the gap between Learning Object theory and practice by utilizing established instructional design principles to produce quality interactive Learning Objects. These resources are intended to support both distance and face-to-face learning. By using Learning Objects the learning context and outcomes will be able to be modified by educators to suit the needs of different users.

The study breaks new ground within the context of Audio Engineering, moving beyond the established instructional pedagogy usually employed to teach basic concepts, and places interactive Learning Objects within a constructivist pedagogy.

Because the research is interested in producing change and creating usable Learning Objects the best research method fit was that of action research which is described in project methodology below.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows: The research project, including data collection processes is outlined, then the Learning Object design process is described for each Learning Object describing how the QuickTime platform was utilized to create interactivity and simulate real world examples of the concepts. Section 4 describes the results of the evaluation of the Learning Objects, and is followed by an outline of the projects conclusions. Finally, examples of the main evaluation instruments and user feedback are given in Appendix A.