Creating Reusable andInteroperable LearningObjects for Developing ane-Learning System ThatSupports RemediationLearning StrategyYENG CHAI LIM, THIAM KIAN CHIEW

Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Received 2 September 2010; accepted 18 May 2011

ABSTRACT: e-Learning is getting more important in education to provide new or enhanced services. Learn-

ing objects created according to e-learning standards such as Sharable Content Object Reference Model

(SCORM) play a major role in order to produce quality contents for e-learning. A virtual learning environment

(VLE) is normally used to support e-learning by providing online courses and other learning activities. Moodle

is one of the most widely used VLEs. However, Moodle still does not support the SCORM 2004 Sequencing

and Navigation. This article proposes a new technique to create an e-tutorial module, one of the main services

in e-learning that supports a certain level of SCORM 2004 Sequencing and Navigation on Moodle version

1.9.2þ. This helps to provide learning with more control on the learning sequences and hence supports reme-

diation learning strategy. Besides, study shows that courses built with learning objects complying with the

SCORM 2004 standards are interoperable. � 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Comput Appl Eng Educ View this

article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cae; DOI 10.1002/cae.20558

Keywords: learning objects; reusability; interoperability; e-learning; remediation

INTRODUCTION

e-Learning is a relatively new learning approach that emerged

as a result of technological advancement. According to the

Canadian Heritage Information Network [1], landmarks of

e-Learning include:

� The use of films for army trainings in the 1940s.

� Programmed text and more creative instructional films

were used for teaching and learning in the 1960s.

� Educational and classroom televisions as well as video-

tapes became new learning delivery methods in the 1980s.

� In the 1990s, the increased popularity of computers at

home and in businesses drove the development of

computer-based training (CBT) to fulfill the learners’ need

for interactivity.

� Nowadays, Internet technologies provide greater support

for learning.

It is obvious that the emergence of e-learning came with

the advancement of technologies, and boosted by the advent of

the World Wide Web (WWW or the Web) in the 1990s. Clark

and Mayer ([2]: p. 11) define e-learning as ‘‘trainings delivered

on a computer (including CD-ROM, Internet, or intranet) that is

designed to support individual learning or organizational perfor-

mance goals.’’

There are many learning resources that can be gained

through the use of the Internet, but most of the time, those

resources are not fully utilized. The same learning content is

created by different people, but in fact, the effort is not

necessary to be repeated. Such repetition is indeed a waste of

resources as the creation of e-learning content with good

quality is time consuming. Typically, e-learning companies

Correspondence to T. K. Chiew (tkchiew@um.edu.my).

� 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

1

quote development ratios of 276 h to develop 1 h of complex

e-learning [3]. The question is, what can be done to avoid such

repetition of development effort and waste of resources?

An important component that can be used to solve the

problem is the use of learning objects. Learning object is the

concept in which learning content is broken down into small

chunks that can be independently created or maintained, and

reused [4].

LEARNING OBJECTS, E-LEARNING STANDARDS, ANDLEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

One of the most popular definitions of learning object is out-

lined as ‘‘any entity, digital or non-digital, that may be used

for learning, education, or training’’ ([5]: p. 6). There is no

standard for the size or granularity of a learning object. A

learning object can be as small as a paragraph of text and as

large as a 3-month online course.

The metaphor of LEGO building blocks is normally used to

describe learning objects. LEGOs are portable, durable, sharable,

and interoperable and can be assembled into imaginative wholes

by virtually everyone. However, Wiley [6] argues that the meta-

phor could somehow be misleading and the atom metaphor is a

better alternative to explain the concept of learning objects.

The most well-known reason for using learning objects is

reusability. Once the knowledge content has been packaged as a

learning object, it can be reused in multiple applications with-

out much additional effort. This will save a lot of time and

effort since the same content does not need to be recreated by

other people. Other characteristics of learning objects are inter-

operability, accessibility, and durability [7]. These characteris-

tics ensure reduction of development time and effort as well as

saving of development cost when e-learning systems are created

using learning objects.

Interoperability refers to instructional components devel-

oped in one location, with one set of tools or platforms, in

another location, with a different set of tools or platforms. The

learning objects can be mixed and matched from multiple sour-

ces and within multiple systems. This means an e-learning

object can be used in multiple courses and a course can consist

of multiple learning objects from different sources.

One of the important techniques used to achieve interoper-

ability of learning objects is metadata. Metadata, which is often

described as ‘‘data about data,’’ includes a list of commonly

defined fields for each learning object and it is essential for

addressing learning objects. When a learning object is needed

for a particular course, metadata is the clue in order to search

and find the learning object.

While both educators and learners understand the impor-

tance of using learning objects in the e-learning experiences,

several standards have been developed for the purpose of con-

tent distributions. The common standards used are Sharable

Content Object Reference Model (SCORM, http://www.adlnet.

gov/), Instructional Management Standards (IMS, http://

www.imsglobal.org/), and Aviation Industry Computer-Based

Training Committee (AICC, http://www.aicc.org/). Standards

are important to enable interoperability, protect the investment

on content development, and enable the exchange of content

locally and globally. Without these standards, learning objects

cannot be easily reused, or to be mixed and matched to form a

customized lesson for specific groups or individuals.

SCORM is one of the most commonly used standards.

There are two key components in SCORM, which are Learning

Management System (LMS) and Shareable Content Object

(SCO). A SCO is a standardized form of reusable learning

object while an LMS is any system that keeps learner informa-

tion, can launch and communicate with SCOs, and interpret

instructions that tell it which SCO comes next. The SCORM

standard focuses on two important parts. The first part defines a

model for packaging learning content, known as content aggre-

gation model. The second part defines an application program-

ming interface (API) for enabling communications between

learning content and the system that delivers it.

LMS is software that launches online training and then

tracks student’s performance on that training. The features and

functions generally provided by LMS are administrative func-

tions and learner interface. Administrative functions include

course setup, learner registration, course assignment, and

reporting of learners’ progress by tracking data such as the

scores from any tests or quizzes. Learner interface allows learn-

ers log in to the LMS using personal identifier and access to

e-learning content. Moodle (http://www.moodle.org/) is one of

the most well known and flexible open source LMSs that helps

educators create effective online learning communities. Its mod-

ular design lets many people develop additional functionality

easily.

LMSs are used to create and manage e-learning. However,

system requirements might change over time and hence differ-

ent LMSs will be needed at different stages in order to provide

desired functionalities in terms of system administration and

learner interface. The problem can be resolved by using learn-

ing objects that are created based on a standard to ensure their

interoperability on different LMSs. Content creators can design

and create the content once and use it over various types of

standard compliant LMSs. Hence, the learning objects technol-

ogy is welcome mostly by developers and educators in helping

them to save time and effort by using reusable learning content.

SEQUENCE AND NAVIGATION RULES ANDREMEDIATION LEARNING STRATEGY

One of the essential features that should be possessed by any e-

learning systems is to provide customized or personalized learn-

ing experience for the learners as different learners have differ-

ent capability and knowledge levels prior to participating in the

learning [8]. Their learning objectives might be different as

well. This is clearly observable and proven from our experience

in teaching a Java programming course for five consecutive

semesters, and now in the sixth semester. Based on the grades

that the students obtained, we categorized them into four

groups: excellent, average, rather poor, and poor, as indicated

in Table I.

Table I Categorization of Students Based on Grades

Group Grade Marks, x

Excellent A, A� 75 � x � 100

Average Bþ, B, B�, Cþ, C 50 � x � 74

Rather poor C�, Dþ, D 35 � x � 50

Poor F x < 35

2 LIM AND CHIEW

The numbers of students in the four groups for the five

semesters are presented in Table II. It can be seen from the

table that most students fall into the average group, generally.

While changing course delivery methods and modifying course

contents did help to improve overall student performance,

where the percentage of average students had been increased

from around 40% in the first three semesters to above 50% in

the last two semesters, we found there is still a huge gap, in

terms of Java programming knowledge and skills, between the

excellent and poor groups. Attending to different students dif-

ferently according to their knowledge and skill levels is a must.

Similarly, any e-learning systems used should take this situation

into consideration by having customization and personalization

capabilities to cater for students at different knowledge and skill

levels. Having such a system gives students more personalized

learning experience which is accustomed to their progress in

learning. This shall improve e-learning systems that have ‘‘one-

size-for all’’ such as [9], and in accordance with other attempts

[10,11] to make teaching and learning of programming lan-

guages more effective.

Remediation is an instructional strategy that can be used

to serve the purpose of providing customized or personalized

learning experience [12]. It caters for learners with different

paces of learning and helps slower learners to gain a better un-

derstanding of the learning contents before proceeding to the

next level of study. Its usefulness in teaching and learning has

been recognized in different fields of study. For example, [13]

claimed the use of e-learning allows course remediation for

dental students while [14] emphasized its importance for study-

ing programming. However, remediation was not built into the

e-learning systems and human intervention was required to im-

plement the instructional strategy.

By incorporating remediation into the proposed system,

the learners must progress through the contents in a pre-

determined order and the content that will be delivered to the

learners depends on their test results. Pre- and post-tests are

used to test the learners’ knowledge. It involves the provision

of alternative additional instructions to students who have not

met a minimum acceptable standard of achievement or required

core content and skills. Achievement of learning objectives is

enhanced when appropriate remediation is provided including

frequent evaluation of students’ task performance and incorrect

performance is immediately remediated, based on evaluation

results. Pre-test, post-test, mid-quarter, and final examination

are used to test on objectives to ensure students learn what they

need to learn [15].

In order to provide remediation, a certain level of SCORM

2004 sequencing and navigation rules must be supported, which

include:

� Sequencing control modes: It defines how contents will be

considered for delivery. The contents might be selected

randomly by the learners or the contents can be accessed

sequentially. All these and also many other control modes

can be used to set the way on how the contents will be

shown.

� Learning objectives: A learning activity may be loosely

described as a meaningful unit of instruction. It may pro-

vide a learning resource to the learners or it may be com-

posed of several sub-activities. A learning activity can be

associated with one or more objectives. For SCORM se-

quencing, an objective is a global variable that allows

the LMS to share status values between SCOs. Depending

on responses to learning activities, objectives may be sat-

isfied or not, leading to different branching options. The

objective status information will be used especially in

the pre-condition, post-condition, or exit-condition rules

evaluation.

� Pre-condition rules: Activities may have one or more pre-

condition sequencing rules associated with them. The se-

quencing rules have the structure of ‘‘If [condition set]

Then [action].’’ The [condition set] defines a set of condi-

tions which will be evaluated against the tracking infor-

mation for the activity. If the evaluation result is true, then

the [action] is applied. Pre-condition rules associated with

an activity will be evaluated right before the activity is

delivered.

� Post-condition rules: Post-condition rules have the same

structure as the pre-condition rules. The main difference

between them is that the post-condition rules will be eval-

uated right after the activity is completed and before the

next activity is delivered.

� Exit-condition rules: Exit condition rules also have the

same structure as the pre-condition rules. The conditions

will be evaluated when the students exit the current

activity.

The sequencing rules that have been discussed above are

just a subset of the whole SCORM 2004 sequencing and navi-

gation rules. However, the SCORM 2004 sequencing and navi-

gation rules are not yet supported by all the major LMSs.

Moodle version 1.9.2þ released in October 2008, for example,

still does not support the rules. We hereby demonstrate a way

to build a tutorial system for an e-learning using learning object

technology compliant to SCORM standard on Moodle version

1.9.2þ, but the system supports remediation learning strategy.

SUPPORTING REMEDIATION LEARNING STRATEGYIN MOODLE 1.9.2þ

In order to implement the sequencing rules in the e-tutorial sys-

tem to support remediation learning strategy, the SCORM mod-

ule of Moodle had been modified. PHP codes have been added

and modified so that all the sequencing rules information such

as the pre-conditions and objectives data are stored correctly

Table II Number of Students in the Four Groups for Five Semesters

Session Semester Excellent (%) Average (%) Rather poor (8/o) Poor (%) Total (%)

2007/2008 2 11 (6.0) 74 (40.7) 67 (36.8) 30 (16.5) 182 (100)

2008/2009 1 3 (2.4) 45 (35.7) 57(45.2) 21 (16.7) 126 (100)

2 21(11.7) 69 (38.6) 63 (35.2) 26 (14.5) 179 (100)

2009/2010 1 5 (5.9) 45 (53.0) 28 (32.9) 7 (8.2) 85 (100)

2 7 (7.7) 50 (54.9) 24 (26.4) 10(11.0) 91(100)

CREATING REUSABLE AND INTEROPERABLE LEARNING OBJECTS 3

into the database tables. When a learner views the tutorial, se-

quencing rules information is retrieved from the database tables

and stored into PHP session variables. The learner’s progress in

the tutorial is stored and the sequencing rules are checked while

the learner goes through the tutorial in order to determine

which SCO should be presented next and which SCO should be

skipped.

Two sequencing control modes have been used in this tu-

torial. Flow control mode is set at the root aggregation level.

Hence, the contents in the tutorial, organized into SCOs, can

only be accessed sequentially from the beginning. However, a

remediation part is added to the tutorial. Choice control mode

is set to the remediation part. The lessons in the remediation

part of the tutorial will be available after the students have

completed all the post-tests. When the remediation part has

been enabled, the students are free to select any of the lessons

in the remediation part.

Multiple learning objectives have been used for remedia-

tion purpose. Each SCO can set or read multiple objectives, and

a single objective can be set by or read by multiple SCOs.

These objectives are stored in the e-tutorial system and will be

referenced to make sequencing decisions. The system consists

of four modules related to Java programming. The first four

objectives are set by four pre-test SCOs, each corresponds to

one of the modules. The overall system structure is shown in

Figure 1. Based upon the student’s response to the pre-test

item, the score will be stored and the status of the objective

associated with that item is set to passed or failed. The score

will be calculated by dividing the number of correct answers

with the total number of questions. If the score meets the pre-

specified minimum satisfaction value, then the objective can be

considered as satisfied and the status is set to ‘‘passed.’’

After the students have completed all the pre-tests, they

will proceed with the first module. However, if the students

have passed the first pre-test which is corresponding to the first

module, the first module will not be shown and the students

will be automatically directed to the post-test for the module.

The students’ performance in the post-test will be stored. The

post-test result will be used later in the remediation part of

the system. The process is depicted as a flow chart in Figure 2.

The process repeats for the other three modules. After complet-

ing all the four modules, the students will reach the remediation

part.

In the remediation part, which modules (lessons) that the

students are required to re-take depend on the pre-condition and

the objectives that will be referenced. A student needs to re-

take a particular module if he/she has failed the post-test for

that particular module. This can be shown in a flow chart simi-

lar to the one shown in Figure 2. However, the lessons in the

remediation part will become available to the students once

they have completed all the four post-tests (one for each mod-

ule). This provides an option for the students to re-take the

lessons even though they have achieved good results in the

post-tests and is determined as do not need to re-take any les-

sons. The students can also take a quiz after walking through

the remediation part. There is no learning objective associated

with this SCO because the quiz is simply provided for the stu-

dent to assess their understanding on the contents provided in

the tutorial and also to test their mastery of knowledge in Java.

SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

The e-tutorial system uses the client–server architecture. The

relationship between client and server is a command or control

relationship where the client initiates a request and the server

responds accordingly. As mentioned earlier, SCORM has been

chosen as the e-learning standard used in this project. It uses a

Web-based infrastructure as the basis for its technical imple-

mentation. Figure 3 illustrates the connection between the

learner, teacher, Web browser, authoring tools, and LMS used

in the e-tutorial system.

The teachers use authoring tools such as RELOAD or

Macromedia FLASH to develop learning content according to

the SCORM standard. SCORM provides a specification for con-

struction and exchange of learning objects (SCOs). Each SCO

contains multiple assets such as Web pages and GIF files.

SCORM also packages and organizes learning objects while

metadata is used to describe the package and its content. SCOs

are organized into a predefined structure and packaged into a

Figure 1 Overall system structure.

4 LIM AND CHIEW

zip file with all the physical files, manifest file, and metadata

inside. Sequencing rules are incorporated into the package. In

Figure 3, each small circle with a number inside indicates an

SCO that has been arranged in a predefined order.

The SCORM package created can be used to create

courses in the LMS. It will be imported into the LMS and all

the information in the manifest file will be stored into database.

The learners access the e-tutorial system through a Web brows-

er. When the learners view a course, the course contents will be

retrieved and SCOs will be launched in the Web browser. Java-

Script functions in an SCO will be called in order to communi-

cate with the system through the API. The learners’ progress

throughout the course will be kept track and stored into data-

base. The flow of the course contents to be shown depends on

the content organization, sequencing rules, and the learners’

performance in the course.

SYSTEM TESTING

The e-tutorial system was tested to ensure that all the modules

were working properly and the system requirements had been

fulfilled. The testing strategy adopted was the bottom-up testing

where testing starts with the fundamental components and

Figure 2 Displaying a module based on pre-rest results.

Figure 3 System architecture. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at

wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

CREATING REUSABLE AND INTEROPERABLE LEARNING OBJECTS 5

works upwards. Some of the important system components

tested include the SCORM package, record learning progress

data, and the implementation of sequencing and navigation

rules. The ADL SCORM 2004 3rd Edition Conformance Test

Suite Version 1.0.2 was used to perform testing to determine

the components’ conformance to the SCORM 2004 3rd Edition

standard. However, the use of this test suite does not imply

certification to SCORM 2004 3rd Edition. The Conformance

Test Suite can be used to assess the conformance to SCORM

by providing several tests including Manifest Utility Test, SCO

RTE Conformance Utility Test, and Content Package Confor-

mance Test. Our system components passed all the tests.

Besides, the SCOs were tested for their interoperability.

We exported the SCOs built on Moodle to two other open

source LMSs, Docebo (http://www.docebo.org/doceboCms/),

and Open Enrollment (http://www.ohloh.net/p/pojosoft-lms),

and the SCOs worked the same as how they worked in Moodle.

The only exception was with Docebo whereby most of the

sequencing rules defined in the SCOs were not successfully ex-

ecuted because of limited support on SCORM 2004 standards

in Docebo. Modification to Docebo is required to rectify the

problem, as what we did to Moodle. In general, the SCOs we

have created are interoperable between Moodle, Open Enroll-

ment, and Docebo.

After these components have been tested, they were inte-

grated. Tests were carried out on the integrated system to

ensure that the components work well with each other. The

advantages of using this type of testing strategy are that the test

conditions are easy to create and the observation of test result

is easier.

USER EVALUATION

When the system had been successfully tested and deployed,

about 200 students were asked to evaluate the system. However,

only 18 students (less than 10%) completed evaluation of both

systems. The students’ background in relation to their prior

knowledge and experience on Java programming and doing on-

line learning is depicted in Table III. All the 18 students agreed

that the Internet is an important source of learning. We asked

the students to answer several questions on a 5-scale question-

naire (Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly

agreed). The following subsections discuss the evaluation

results in relation to contents and presentation, and users’ opin-

ion on using sequencing rules to incorporate remediation in-

structional strategy into the system, respectively.

Contents and Presentation

One of the best practices in the design and content in online

tutorials addressed by [16] is to teach concepts and not just

mechanics. It shows that it is important for the students to un-

derstand the concepts. Thus, the introduction and explanation

of concepts used in Java programming were included in the

Java tutorials to help the students in learning Java program-

ming. As a result, 11 students (61%) strongly agreed or agreed

that the tutorials gave broad enough coverage of the subject and

10 students (56%) strongly agreed or agreed that the content

was covered in sufficient depth.

Unstructured content is one of the factors that may demo-

tivate learners. The logical flow of chunks of information is

very important for making the content effective [17]. There

were 11 students (61%) who felt the tutorial content has been

arranged in a logical manner while others had neutral opinion.

Besides, most of the students (61%) were able to understand

the learning material given.

From the evaluation results, we concluded that the con-

tents and their presentation were satisfactory. Figure 4 summa-

rizes users’ response on questions pertaining to layout, design,

and contents of the system.

Table III Students’ Background

Question

Student

count

Prior knowledge

Have prior knowledge in Java programming language 5

Do not have prior knowledge in Java programming language 13

Online learning experience

Have online learning experience before taking the

Java tutorials

15

Do not have online learning experience before taking

the Java tutorials

7

Internet as source learning

Think the Internet is an important source of learning 19

Do not think the Internet is an important source of learning 0

Figure 4 Users’ response to questions regarding layout design and contents. [Color figure can be viewed in the

online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

6 LIM AND CHIEW

Sequencing Rules and Remediation

We continued to evaluate the students’ preference toward the

use of sequencing rules to provide remediation in learning. We

developed a control system which has exactly the same contents

except the sequencing components. We name the system with

sequencing components Java_Tutorial_1 and the other system

Java_Tutorial_2. The students are told to evaluate both systems

with some of them evaluating Java_Tutorial_1 before Java_

Tutorial_2 while the others did the other way round. There was

equal number of students (9) in each group.

Pre- and post-tests were used to provide course remedia-

tion by implementing sequencing rules. Pre-tests were provided

before each main topic. There were 14 students (78%) strongly

agreed or agreed that the tests help to evaluate their knowledge

before taking the lessons. The pre- and post-tests results were

used to determine the lessons to be shown to the students.

There were 12 students (67%) who liked the flow of content

which depends on the tests results while other students (33%)

had neutral opinion. The lessons associated with those tests will

only be shown to the students if they did not obtain good results

in the tests. This helps the students to be more focused on les-

sons that they are not good at. The survey shows that there

were 15 students (83%) who strongly agreed or agreed that the

flow of content in Java_Tutorial_1, which implements the se-

quencing rules, is more time efficient than Java_Tutorial_2.

Two students had neutral opinion and one student disagreed to

the statement. The organization and the flow of content may

determine the time students spend in a tutorial. Figure 5 shows

the results in a bar chart.

Basically, the data collected show that most of the students

were satisfied with the way the tutorial was conducted in Java_

Tutorial_1. There were 11 students (61%) who preferred the

way the tutorial was conducted in Java_Tutorial_1 compared to

Java_Tutorial_2. There were five students (28%) who had

neutral opinion while two students (11%) did not prefer Java_

Tutorial_1 compared to Java_Tutorial_2. However, there were

13 students (72%) who disagreed that they prefer the way

the tutorial was conducted in Java_Tutorial_2 compared

to Java_ Tutorial_1. Those 13 students are the addition of the

11 students who agreed that they prefer Java_Tutorial_1 com-

pared to Java_Tutorial_2 and 2 other students who disagreed

that they prefer Java_Tutorial_1 compared to Java_Tutorial_2.

That means the two students did not prefer any of the two Java

tutorials. This is summarized in Figure 6.

Online Learning Experience and Remediation. As the students’

online learning experience may influence their perception

on the tutorials, we examined their opinion on the use of tests

in the tutorials to help them to evaluate their knowledge before

taking lessons. In the group of students with online learning

experience, 18.2% of the students strongly agreed that the tests

were useful in helping them in their knowledge evaluation

while 63.6% of the students agreed to that statement. Only

18.2% of the students had neutral opinion and that means

more than 80% of the students who have online learning

experience liked the use of tests, that is, remediation, in tutori-

als. Besides, there were also five students (71.4%) without on-

line learning experience agreed that the use of tests in tutorials

helps them to evaluate their knowledge before taking lessons.

We concluded that students prefer remediation regardless of

their prior online learning experience. Figure 7 depicts the

results.

Figure 5 Users’ response to questions regarding implementation of sequencing rules. [Color figure can be viewed

in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

Figure 6 Users’ preference toward two tutorials. [Color figure can be

viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

CREATING REUSABLE AND INTEROPERABLE LEARNING OBJECTS 7

Sequence of Using Systems and Remediation. We also exam-

ined whether the sequence in which the two tutorial systems

were evaluated did affect the students’ preference on the sys-

tems. Among the 18 students participated in the survey, 9 of

them had completed Java_Tutorial_1 before Java_Tutorial_2

while the other 9 students had completed Java_Tutorial_2 be-

fore Java_Tutorial_1. For the group of students who completed

Java_Tutorial_1 before Java_Tutorial_2, four of them (44.5%)

agreed that the way the tutorial was conducted in Java_

Tutorial_1 helped them to be more focused on the topics in the

tutorial, while one of them (11%) strongly agreed and four of

them (44.5%) had neutral opinion. On the other hand, for the

group of students who have completed Java_Tutorial_2 first,

four of them (44.5%) agreed that the way the tutorial was con-

ducted in Java_Tutorial_1 helped them to be more focused,

while three of them (33.3%) had neutral opinion, one of them

(11.1%) strongly agreed and one of them (11.1%) disagreed.

Responses from both groups were quite similar and this shows

that the sequence in which the two tutorials were taken was not

a factor affecting the students’ perception on whether the way

the tutorial was conducted in Java_Tutorial_1 helped them to

be more focused. Figure 8 shows the results.

The flow of content in Java_Tutorial_1 depends on the test

results. There were a total of 12 students who strongly agreed

or agreed that they liked the way of how Java_Tutorial_1 was

conducted where the flow of content to be shown depends on

the test results. Among the 12 students, 8 of them have com-

pleted Java_Tutorial_1 before Java_Tutorial_2 while the other

4 have completed Java_Tutorial_2 first. Most of the students

who have completed Java_Tutorial_1 first liked the flow of con-

tent that depends on test results as they represent 88.9% of the

students in that group. For the group of students who completed

Java_Tutorial_2 first, only 44.4% of them (4 students) agreed to

the statement while 55.6% (5 students) had neutral opinion.

Figure 9 shows the results.

In terms of time efficiency between Java_Tutorial_1 and

Java_Tutorial_2, all of the students in the group who had com-

pleted Java_Tutorial_1 before Java_Tutorial_2 strongly agreed

or agreed that the organization and flow of content in Java_

Tutorial_1 is more time efficient than in Java_Tutorial_2.

However, in the group of students who had completed Java_

Tutorial_2 before Java_Tutorial_1, only 66.7% of them (6 stu-

dents) strongly agreed or agreed that the organization and flow

of content in Java_Tutorial_1 is more time efficient than in

Figure 7 Users’ opinion on the use of tests in knowledge evaluation. [Color figure can be viewed in the online

issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

Figure 8 Users’ opinion on the way Java_Tutorial_1 is conducted helps them focus on topics. [Color figure can be

viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

8 LIM AND CHIEW

Java_Tutorial_2. This figure is relatively small compared to the

group of students who completed Java_Tutorial_1 first. In addi-

tion, there was one student (11.1%) in the group who disagreed

that Java_Tutorial_1 was more time efficient and two students

(22.2%) had neutral opinion. We concluded that students liked

remediation which helps them save learning time by not repeat-

ing topics that they already know. Figure 10 illustrates the

results.

Prior Knowledge in Java and Remediation. Besides the se-

quence in which the tutorials were taken, the students’

opinion on time efficiency between Java_Tutorial_1 and Java_

Tutorial_2 was analyzed based on their prior knowledge in Java

programming. In the group of students with prior knowledge,

three students (60%) agreed that the organization and flow

of content in Java_Tutorial_1 is more time efficient than in

Java_Tutorial_2, while one student (20%) strongly agreed on

that and one student (20%) had neutral opinion. On the other

hand, in the group of 13 students who did not have prior knowl-

edge, 2 (15.4%) strongly agreed, 9 (69.2%) agreed, 1 (7.7%)

disagreed, and 1 (7.7%) had neutral opinion. The statistics

shows that no matter the students have prior knowledge in Java

programming or not, there were at least 80% of students in

each group who felt that the organization and flow of content in

Java_Tutorial_1 is more time efficient than Java_Tutorial_2

which does not implement sequencing rules and remediation

strategy. This indicates that the implementation of sequencing

rules has positive impact on the students’ learning in terms of

time spent in a tutorial, regardless the students are beginners or

not. Figure 11 exemplifies the results.

DISCUSSION

In this article, we have discussed a few problems faced in de-

veloping e-learning systems. The first problem relates to the

repetition of effort in developing similar or even identical learn-

ing contents. This problem can be categorized as reusability of

the contents. The second problem is in relation to interoperabil-

ity of learning contents, that is, the problem of creating contents

with particular tools for particular platforms and then using it

with other tools on different platforms. The third problem is

how to provide customized or personalized learning experience

for the learners.

Figure 9 Users’ preference on the flow of contents in Java_Tutorial_1 that depends on test results. [Color figure

can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

Figure 10 Users’ opinion on comparison of time efficiency between tutorials. [Color figure can be viewed in the

online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

CREATING REUSABLE AND INTEROPERABLE LEARNING OBJECTS 9

We have addressed the first problem by creating e-learning

systems using learning object technology. By packaging con-

tents into learning objects, we promise the reusability of the

contents. The second problem is dealt with by creating learning

objects that are standard compliant. We adopted the SCORM

standard which is the de-facto standard for creating learning

objects. An e-tutorial system was created using SCORM-com-

pliant learning objects and the system ran well on Moodle, a

widely used open-source LMS. We also tested the system on

two other LMSs, which are Docebo and Open Enrollment. The

results were encouraging in terms of system interoperability.

For the third problem, as Moodle was not yet supporting

the SCORM 2004 sequencing and navigation rules, we modi-

fied the SCORM module of the LMS. By doing so, sequencing

rules were implemented and thus, we were able to support

remediation learning strategy. With the learning strategy, the

e-tutorial system enables the learners to progress through the

learning activities according to their individual knowledge

levels. Delivery of learning contents can therefore be custom-

ized to suit the ability and needs of individual learners, giving

them a more personalized learning experience.

WORK IN PROGRESS

We are currently looking into the design of remediation learn-

ing strategy in our e-tutorial system to enhance students’ learn-

ing experience as well as ways to improve the system

architecture to achieve better system performance. In addition,

as the sample size (18 students) is relatively small, we wish to

collect data from more students in order to produce more

reliable analysis.

REFERENCES

[1] Canadian Heritage Information Network, The history of

e-learning, http://lyon.chin.gc.ca/tael-pte/module1/m01t03p01_e.asp

[accessed: 9 December 2007].

[2] R. C. Clark and R. E. Mayer, e-Learning and the science of

instruction, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, 2003.

[3] N. Watts, Rapid development of media-rich, interactive e-learning.

In: Current developments in technology-assisted education, A.

Mendez-Vilas, A. S. Martın, J. A. M. Gonzalez, and J. M. Gonza-

lez (Eds.), Badajox, Formatex, 2006, pp 957–961.

[4] G. Vossen and P. Jaeschke, Learning objects as a uniform founda-

tion for e-learning platforms, Proceedings of the 7th International

Database Engineering and Applications Symposium, 2003.

[5] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Draft standard

for learning object metadata, Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers, IEEE 1484.12.1, 2002, http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/

LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf [accessed: 15 April 2009].

[6] D. Wiley, Connecting learning objects to instructional design

theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy, The Agency

for Instructional Technology, Bloomington, IN 2002, pp 3–

23.

[7] M.-A. Sicilia and E. Garcia, On the concepts of usability and

reusability of learning objects, Int Rev Open Distance Learn 4

(2003). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/155/236

[accessed: 15 April 2009].

[8] P. Brusilovsky, J. Eklund, and E. Schwarz, Web-based education

for all: A tool for development of adaptive courseware, Comput

Netw ISDN Syst 30 (1998), 291–300.

[9] A. J. Fernandez and J. M. Sanchez, CGRAPHIC: Educational soft-

ware for learning the foundations of programming, Comput Appl

Eng Educ 11 (2003), 167–178.

[10] J. B. G. Perez-Schofield, F. O. Soler, E. G. Rosello, and M. P.

Cota, Towards an object-oriented programming system for educa-

tion, Comput Appl Eng Educ 14 (2006), 243–255.

[11] A. J. Fernandez Leiva and A. C. Civila Salas, Practices of ad-

vanced programming: Tradition versus innovation, Comput Appl

Eng Educ; Published online in Wiley Online Library; DOI:

10.1002/cae.20465.

[12] National Association of EMS Educators, National guidelines

for educating EMS instructors module 20: Remediation, http://

www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ems/Instructor/instructor_ems/

2002_national_guidelines.htm [accessed: 20 April 2002].

[13] A. L. McCann and E. D. Schneiderman, E-Teaching and learning

preferences of dental and dental hygiene students, J Dent Educ 74

(2010), 65–78.

[14] A. Edwards and K. A. Zhang, Programming remediation plan, J

Comput Sci Coll 25 (2010), 41–47.

[15] J. King, S. Sattler-Weber, and K. King, Instructional strategies for

distance education: Research based examples, Proceedings of the

18th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, 2002.

[16] N. H. Dewald, Transporting good library instruction practices into

the web environment: An analysis of online tutorials, J Acad Libr

25 (1999), 26–31.

[17] S. Shivkumar, Strategies for improving e-learning effectiveness,

International Workshop on e-Learning for Adult Continuing Edu-

cation, 2006.

Figure 11 Users’ opinion on comparison of time efficiency between tutorials based on their prior knowledge in

Java programming. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

10 LIM AND CHIEW

BIOGRAPHIES

Yeng Chai Lim graduated from the University

of Malaya with a bachelor’s degree in

Computer Science in 2003. She continued

study at the same university and graduated

with a master’s degree in Computer Science in

2010. She is now a web-based software engi-

neer involving in a wide range of web applica-

tions including online shopping carts, content

management system, loyalty management sys-

tem, and online advertising management system.

Thiam Kian Chiew obtained both his bachelor

and masters degrees in Computer Science

from the University of Malaya in 1998 and

2000, respectively. He received his PhD degree

in Computing Science from the University of

Glasgow in 2009. He is now a senior lecturer

at the Faculty of Computer Science and Infor-

mation Technology, University of Malaya,

Malaysia. His research interests include Web

performance analysis, component-based soft-

ware engineering, and Web usability.

CREATING REUSABLE AND INTEROPERABLE LEARNING OBJECTS 11