A Study to Determine what Kindof Learning Objects are Used in Higher Education Institutions

The proliferation of Web-based technologies during the last decade may have given the impression of wide-spread changes in educational pract ices. In fact the use of Web-based technologies in the teaching and learning process has obtained excellent results. On the other hand, there is also a constant use of educational content /Learning Objects (LO) in d ifferent formats and different types of platforms, enhanced by Web 2.0. The current study presents a comprehensive analysis of the use and effect of learning objects in a study about the development, availability and use of LO in Higher Education Institutions. It is reasonable to conclude that the Higher Education Institutions surveyed do not develop and do not reuse LO, wh ich use SCORM and IMS content package specification. Finally, it also presents advantages and disadvantages of the educational use of these LO.


Introduction
Technologies, in particu lar the internet, provide teachers with many interesting tools that can be used to improve teaching. The usefulness of these tools makes it important for teachers to have more information about the advantages and possibilit ies of using technology in the classroom [1], as well as the results derived fro m their application.
Develop ment, storage and reuse of educational content, commonly called Learn ing Ob ject (LO), is an issue of major importance that has been studied by the scientific community since the 90s. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) defines a learning object as "any entity, digital or non-digital, that maybe used for learning, education or training" [2].
The LO can be deposited or made available in an e-Learning p latform or/and learning objects repository (LOR), for collaborative purposes.
The E-learn ing p latfo rm, also kno wn as a Virtual Learn ing Env iron ment (VLE), is a co mputer program that simplifies the so-called e-learning (electron ic learn ing). These VLE are the most popular products and are currently present in almost all higher education institutions, as a backup to distance learning and face-to-face teaching. The ease of interaction content available through synchronous and asyn ch ron ous co mmu n ication too ls , make th ese platforms for educational agents spaces desirable [3].
On the other hand, solutions for e-learning repositories are advancing, offering federated sophisticated searches of learning objects through a network of repositories (Duval E. et al. cited by [4]).
Another important phenomenon is the use of WEB 2.0 tools in the field of eLearning. The current generation of Internet (O'Reilly Web 2.0, 2004) has brought changes in the way the technology relates to society, especially education. With Web 2.0, knowledge has become global and dynamic at the same time. The Internet is a g lobal platform, where sharing informat ion, emotions and experiences, achieveing fairly high level of interactivity. It also provides a set of tools that can store and share content in different fo rmats, allowing one to create collaborative knowledge bases or learning co mmunities. Downes, in 2006 and Bartolo mé and Hambug and Hall in 2008 ran ked this phenomenon as eLearning 2.0 [5,6,7], since the one who directs the operations is the user himself and it easily creates the content and makes it available on the Internet.
However, like the tradit ional Web, the Web 2.0 lacks data and languages to structure and represent the informat ion (and their meanings) wh ich h inders interoperability and reusability of LO [8].
To work around this problem, the commun ities of the Semantic Web and Web 2.0 have joined forces to create the so-called Semantic Web Social (Social Semantic Web) or Web 3.0. One can thus create Collective Knowledge Systems in which commun ities can share information (such as in Web 2.0) and organize and structure meaning (as in Semantic Web) [9].
Currently, the co mmunity of Artificial Intelligence applied to education is of the opinion that the use of Web 3.0 in education can provide results which are markedly positive when compared with the Web-based learning environments and traditional Web 2.0. Many of these results are available for free on the O4E-Ontologies for Education (http://O4E.iiscs.wssu.edu/drupal/). However, this reality is still far fro m fitt ing in the institutions of higher education as we can see in the study presented.
In this work we start by defining the concepts of Learn ing Object (LO) and LOR (Learn ing Object Repository). Then, we present a study that aims to measure the rate of develop ment and use of LO in teaching and learning in higher education institutions. Finally, we present the study's findings and observations about the advantages and disadvantages of the use of IT.

Learning Objects (LO)
The concept of LO appears related to the evolution of e-Learning, the presence of LM S and the g rowing number of online courses based on these platforms. These are grounded on an object-oriented programming IT philosophy, the purpose of which is to build s mall parts to reuse in different learn ing contexts, just like Lego pieces.
A LO is "a d igital resource that can be reused as an educational support " [10].
L'Allier says that a LO "is defined as the smallest experimental structure that contains a goal, a learning activity and a form of evaluation" [11], assuming that goal represents a statement of expected results and criteria of learning activ ity, the learn ing activity is the part that teaches the pursuit of the goal, and also assuming that evaluating an element that determines whether the goal was achieved with the expected results.
Merrill defines it as "a way of organizing a knowledge base of resources (text, audio, video or graphics) so that a particular algorithm-reflect ing teaching strategy can be used to teach a variety of different contents" [12].
Quinn and HOBBS describe a LO by using four components: content, learning objectives, functions and characteristics of LO [13].
Cisco Systems, says "a LO is defined as having content, interactivity, and metadata. St ill, each LO has a goal of learning and, therefore, is also associated with a learning activity, exercises and evaluation to ensure that the new skills and knowledge were purchased " [14].
In the context of this wo rk we have adopted the following definit ion: a LO is a digital resource with educational purposes that has technical characteristics and which includes pedagogical aspects.
In conclusion, we can say that the concept of LO is subject to mult iple definitions, some of wh ich are mo re restricted than others. They differ in terms of size, scope, content, design, and technical imp lementation. Polsani observes that "there are as many defin itions of LO as there is of a number of users" [15]. However, some requirements seem to gather consensus: Re-use, interoperability, durability and affordability.
Reusing refers to the ability of using in mult iple applications and contexts (easy to use and modify). Interoperability is the ability to exchange between different platforms (adapts easily to different systems of e-Learning). The durability is equivalent to the ability of the contents to prevail with changing of technology and knowledge is the ability to remotely access content and distribute it to different locations.
The concept of LO is not only limited to e-Learn ing systems. Over time, museums, libraries, and other entities have adopted this concept and imp lemented LOR, develope d VLE or online educational mu ltimedia applications.
The LO are typically described by metadata. Metadata is a set of structured data that describe, exp lain and locate the informat ion [16].
Cataloging LO by using metadata allows these to be distributed individually or comb ined with others, to form larger learn ing contents, as well as facilitating their recovery. However, the recovery and reuse of LO is influenced by the degree of detail of the contents (granularity). The granularity corresponds to the level of detail of a co mponent or part of the learning contents existing in learn ing materials.
The granularity of a LO can vary fro m a simp le image or graph to a complete curriculu m or lesson course [2]. However, the higher the granularity of the LO, the greater is your chance of re-use [15].
The main consortia involved in the development of specifications and tools for the generalizat ion of LO are World WideWeb Consortium (W3C), the International Standards Organization (ISO), A merican Nat ional Standards Institute (ANSI), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Dublin Core Metadata Initiat ive (DCMI), Instructional Management Systems Global Learning Consortium (IMS/ GLC), among others. They created working groups with the aim o f defining protocols and standards for specifying and managing metadata.
The efforts of these working groups, among others, resulted in standards or specifications and schemas for metadata (metadata element sets), including: Dublin Co re Metadata (DCM), IEEE Standard for Learning Object Metadata (IEEE-LOM ), IMS Learning Resource Metadata (IMS-LRM), Model for Metadata for Multimed ia Information (MMMI), Meta Data Interchange Specification (MDIS), Mu ltimedia Content Description Interface(MPEG-7), among others. Currently, there is a meta-language to describe features or language for expressing metadata Resource Description Framework (RDF). The use of this meta-language (or metadata that it expresses) adds layers of knowledge content, favoring a true understanding of the informat ion published not only fro m the perspective of humans, as well as the mach ines.
The most popular metadata schema is DCM, while LOM is the most widely used in the field of education. However, RDF is the proposal that most stands out t in the context of WS, since it is a W3C reco mmendation and enables one to express the metadata elements of DCM schemas and LOM.
The SCORM is a reference model for E-learn ing content. Currently, this model is co mposed of 3 sections Content Aggregation Model (CAM), Sequencing and Navigation and Run Time Environ ment (RTE). The main objective is to standardize the way that the contents relate to the systems that support them (LM S, LCMS). Its main features are: Organization of content migration/portability, reusability and standardization, and versatility.
However, the current learn ing systems based on the Web have little, or no, inter-operability between themselves, i.e. virtually all availab le information on a given system cannot be shared with other systems. For examp le, the interactions and learning styles of a student cannot be shared, because the way to represent the student model varies fro m system to system [8].

Learning Objects Repository (LOR)
An institutional repository is a set of services that a university/institution offers to the members of its community for the management and dissemination of digital materials created by the institution and its community members [17].
In recent years, a range of tools have been developed to assist in everything fro m drawing up preservation plans and policies to ext racting preservation metadata fro m files, alongside modular architectures for lin king all the tools together.
In 2010, DCC produced a report that provides a snapshot of the state of the art of preservation and curation in an institutional repository context, noting areas of recent and current research and development, namely: The current provision for p reservation and curation in EPrints, DSpace and Fedora; models and architectures of repository relevant to preservation and curation; a selection of preservation planning tools of possible use in a repository context; pertinent developments in metadata and tools for working with such metadata; Technologies that assist in performing emu lation, reverse engineering and migration; the issue of identifiers for repository materials; guidelines and tools for auditing curatorial aspects of institutional repositories, and, finally, a selection of tools for calculat ing the costs and benefits of curation [18].
The files found in these repositories are main ly scientific in nature. Ho wever there are also academic resources, including teaching materials. Specifically for educational content and, because of their characteristics and intended audience, the concept of institutional repository evolved into learning objects repository.
A learn ing objects repository is a system that "enables the storage, discovery and retrieval of metadata and/or electronic objects stored at a local or distributed level" (The JORUM Team, 2006 cited in [19]).
More specifically, a learn ing object repository (LOR) is a system that manages the access to reusable learning content, as it has been defined by several authors Downes, 2004;López 2005; Namuth, Frit z, King, & Boren, 2005 cited in [19]). M ERLOT, PA LOMA, EDNA and A RIADNE LOR are some of the pro minent LORs. Ho wever, some of these repositories are using different metadata schemes to describe the content stored in the repository, research in the field of e-learning repositories is mainly focused on interoperability between LORs.
The GLOBE (Global Learn ing Objects Brokered Exchange) project is an international effort to create federated search engine over distributed LORs for searching e-learn ing content [20]. However, the repository universe is much vaster, and goes beyond these options. With the growth of the web, and particularly Web 2.0, many academics ' published ' or shared their learning materials online in an open and informal way which contrasted significantly with the growth of institutional VLEs. Learning materials in VLEs were often ' hidden ' behind authentication systems that resulted in content not being shared across departments and were only accessible to tutors and students on each course. Institutional repositories present a way of bringing the two together and can offer different degrees of openness so that academics can choose how widely they want to share their materials.
Following the trend of integration and interactivity of Web 2.0, some institutions have come to integrate LO into VLE with co mmunication tools and sharing. For example, the Ministry of Education of Brazil (M EC) integrated the repository CESTA ("Coletânea de Ent idades de Suporteaou so de TecnologianaAprendizagem"), now called the "BancoInternacional de ObjetosEducativos" (International Bank of Educational Objects), in a teachers' portal. This repository is composed of 7,031 educational resources [21].
Therefore, in a dynamic environ ment of sharing content and educational practices the ELVs and the LOR have to integrate, thus creating dynamic learn ing environ ments to allo w the interoperable user to retrieve them by searching through federated repositories, with the ability to modify those objects and compose lessons out of them.

Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the development and the use of LO in Higher Education Institutions. As mentioned previously, a LO is a digital resource with educational purposes, which has technical characteristics (reusability, portability, modularity, standardization and metadata defined by IEEE and IMS) and which includes pedagogical aspects (interactivity, autonomy, cooperation and cognition). We want with this study to answer the follo wing research questions: 1). Does the institution use IT (in formation and communicat ion), including LMS, to teach courses in eLearn ing or b Learning? Which LMS is used?
2). Has the institution imp lemented some repository of scientific contents and/or LO? What are the features of the repository in terms of the content level (scientific, educational resources), content management, cataloging and content access control? Is the repository integrated with other national and international stores?
3). Does the institution develop educational content in LO format? Ho w the development teams are are fo rmed? What are the specifications used? 4). Does the institution promote reuse? How?

Method
Having identified the problem and research questions, the next challenge resided in the establishment of the research strategy to adopt for the selection and analysis of empirical material that would respond to research questions formulated. Th is process consisted of:

Literature Review
The Internet was the tool used to search for informat ion about: Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web, LO, specifications for metadata definit ion and courses, and LOR. The sources used were doctoral dissertations and master's degrees, author texts, articles in scientific and technical journals and access to existing documentation in LOR. Throughout the article the citations refer to the different sources used.

Interview
Taking into account the objectives that were achieved with the co mpletion of the interviews in this work the interviews were, in this work, designed and conducted in align ment with the principles and recommendations laid down and proposed by Holstein and Gubriu m, agreeing to what the authors mean by active interview [22].
According to the perspective of the active interview, interview schedules should take the form of a set of guidelines and not be predetermined hard scripts. The schedules must be sufficiently flexib le to be built and changed in the course of the interview, so as to exp lore new directions which were not anticipated. Despite its flexib ility, the course of the conversation is always acco mpanied by thematic and general guidelines stipulated by the interviewer.
On the one hand, we intend to respond to research questions and, on the other, have sufficient flexib ility to develop or confirm v iews on the items under consideration, if there need be. Although the script of the interview was already prepared, based on the literature rev iew, a few questions were made as the interview took place.
The order of the items which were brought up for discussion changed fro m interview to interview.
The sequence in which items were addressed in the course of an interview proved to be fundamental, allowing for reviews and adjustments, based on the experience obtained from previous interviews.
With this interview format, we could also ask various types of "experts", "instructional designers", technical managers of units of E-Learning as well as teachers.

Sample
To obtain a sufficiently representative sample we have taken into account two factors: 1). The size and nature of the samp le -we decided to ask higher education institutions and University and Polytechnic organic units of different scientific areas including Business, Engineering, Health Sciences, etc., fro m d istinct geographic areas.
2). The selection of interviewees -Select "experts" (responsible for research centres accredited by the Foundation for science and technology (FCT) in the area of the study), "Instructional designers", technical managers of units of E-Learning and teachers.
Having applied these criteria the following 8 institutions were selected: 1

Results Analysis
The tool used to conduct the analysis of interview was Excel. We chose this type of tool because, in the course of the interviews, we found that there were several questions that had only 2 types of answers (Yes or no) and the most frequent response was no. Thus, there was no need to explore the subtopics related to the issue.
It is important to highlight the fact that the last question was the one that proved important for our content analysis. However, as the information was not much and the categories were previously defined-advantages and disadvantages in the use of LO-we decided to point the referenced by the interviewees in the spreadsheet.
Having performed the analysis of the interviews the following conclusions were reached: 1). Does the institution use ICT (informat ion and communicat ion), including LMS, to teach courses in eLearn ing or b Learning? Which the LMS used?
All the institutions use LM S Moodle, as a co mp lement to classroom teaching, with the exception of the CESPU UNIVERSITY which is currently in the implementation phase of the LMS. We also noticed that 75% of the institutions teach short courses and/or post graduations with b-Learning. It is important to highlight the fact that Uab only teaches courses with eLearn ing.
2). Has the institution imp lemented some repository of scientific contents and/or LO? What are the characteristics of the repository at a content level (scientific, educational resources, Learn ing Ob jects), content management, cataloging and content access control? Is the repository integrated with other national and international repositories?
The table 1.shows the types of repositories implemented in the higher education institutions surveyed.
75% o f the institutions have imp lemented a repository of scientific and/or educational content. Most of the content is exclusively scientific. However, GATIUP, FEUP and Uab have scientific content and a reduced number of educational content.
At ISEP there is an educational repositories that files contents in mu ltiple formats (Powerpoint, Flash, ...), catalogued with the LOM specificat ion. In this repository part of the metadata is automatically ext racted fro m the educational content. This repository is accessible only to teachers and students of the institution. The type of access assigned to each content is the responsibility of the author. In the framework of research projects, the Medical Learning Objects Repository, GILT (Graphics Interaction and Learn ing Technologies) was recently developed, in http://gilt.isep.ipp.pt:8080/ melor/. However, this repository does not contain contents used in practice teaching of ISEP teaching.  Educational  content  ISCAP  -Yes  -ESEIG  ---ISEP - Yes * -* Over 90% is scientific production ESEIG is currently acquiring online content availability practices in LMS, to support classroom study. It turns out that there is at least one teacher who has developed and uses a repository of educational content. However, the institution has not adopted this practice yet.
At ISCAP a dig ital content repository is being implemented, aiming to store, disseminate and keep LO accessible using the SCORM specification. However this repository is not yet accessible to the public. Several years ago, it implemented a repository of scientific production that is currently being integrated with RCAAP-open access Scientific Repository of Portugal.
The GATIUP aims to encourage and facilitate in itiatives in open and distance learning, taking advantage of Internet technologies, in particular the Web. It is important to highlight the fact that this Office is bringing together professionals fro m various areas for content production in conjunction with the faculty members (s) that recommend its development. It meets the necessary conditions to, in collaboration with the teachers, develop mult imed ia materials, in various formats, of interest to the education and training activ ities of UP. Ho wever, these materials are not available in the scientific and educational repository of UP. This material is given to the teachers but stored by GATIUP.
Just like in other institutions, this institutional repository contains main ly scientific production. There is also some mu ltimed ia content in various formats, including educational content for students with special educational needs.
In addition to interviewing GATIUP, fro m the Un iversity of Porto, we also decided to interview an "expert", and a technical manager of an E-Learn ing Un it of FEUP (CIMAT) because this unit is a centre of excellence for the development, provision and reuse of LO due to their mission.
FEUP offers an institutional repository that stores scientific and educational content. We also note that the educational content is significantly less than the scientific one.
Within the framework of a p roject, it developed LO in SCORM format, in partnership with other institutions, to be used in vocational train ing. CESPU is currently imp lementing an LM S to support in-class teaching.
ESE has a scientific repository -A Digital Lib rary of IPB, which aims to disseminate and permit free access to scientific literature produced by the academic co mmun ity, promoting integration, sharing and visibility of scientific informat ion and ensuring the preservation of the intellectual memo ry of the Po lytechnic Institute of Bragança.
Within the framework of a research project, it implemented a portal, about 10 years ago, which had as its purpose to promote communicat ion between Primary and Pre-primary schools as well as promoting the same communicat ion of these schools with the co mmun ity, in general, and with the children and their parents or guardians, in particu lar, notably through collaborative play teaching tools and content dissemination and promotion. This is still available on the school Website.
At UAb there is an institutional repository that offers educational and scientific content in various formats. The user downloads statistics are available and feature queries.
Repository statistics found that 96% of available resources are in PDF format.
The contents of the courses are made availab le through the Moodle platform and are the responsibility of the teacher.
3). Does the institution develop educational content in LO format? Ho w the development teams are are fo rmed? What are the specifications used?
No institution develops LO using these specifications. Exceptionally and following the initiat ive of the teachers some SCORM S were developed. However they are not available for (re) use. FEUP, within the framework of a project developed LO in partnership with other institutions, which are to be (re) used in vocational training. 4). Does the institution promote reuse by showing teachers and students and academic co mmunity in general the LO wh ich were developed?
None of the institutions has experience in developing, submitting,advertising and above all (re)using LO that use SCORM and IMS Content specifications.
At the end of the interview, the interviewee was asked to indicate the advantages and disadvantages of using LO using SCORM and IMS Content specifications. The replies to this question are the conclusions presented in tables 2 and 3.
Fro m the study carried out we can conclude that the granularity of LO conditions their (re)use, the higher the granularity, the g reater reusability [2,15]. We also note that Web 2.0 made new storage toolbars, interaction and sharing available, wh ich promotes the active participation of its users in the construction and organization of content [5,6,7].
We also observed that the development of LO requires financial resources, qualified hu man resources in various areas of science and material resources (development offices and production tools and/or sharing). So the effort spent in development is offset when the LO reuse rate is great. This happens in hard format courses, which are replicated in various institutions and in various editions, e.g. vocational training courses.  Teachers, in teaching practices, use educational content with lesser degree of granularity, for example, videos, pdf etc. * They do not exist or do not appear in LO quality searches. If they did, teachers would use them **; The development of LO takes up a lot of financial, material and human resources*; Lack of support offices for production of Lo*. Lack of human resources for provision and cataloguing; * Format is too hard to be updated frequently. ** The academic community does not value the development of educational contents; ** There is only inter-operability learning in different environments. The part of the communication and registration of existing student activities, in the learning environment, is lost ; * The potential offered by Web 2.0 came make use of educational contents in packaged format (it is not possible to package Blogs and wikis)* The existence of multiple standards makes interoperability between tools difficult. For example, different versions of SCORM model are incompatible; * The creation of LO in an autonomous way accounts for the lack of consistency in the different CU (Course Unit) * * All mentioned ** Only a few reported

Conclusions and Future Work
The scientific co mmunity is faced with the lack of a clear and widely accepted definit ion of what is a LO [10,11,12,13,14]; although this concept have been studied since the 90s. Thus, it becomes necessary to redefine the concept of LO, taking into account the development of technology in the WEB.
In this article we define LO as a digital resource with educational purposes, which has technical characteristics (reusability, portability, modularity, standardization and metadata defined by IEEE and IMS) and which includes pedagogical aspects (interactivity, autonomy, cooperation and cognition).
The use of specifications in the description of LO enables a good platform of understanding, and in this sense can facilitate reuse.
The study concluded that higher the education institutions surveyed do not develop, do not reuse nor promote the reuse of LO using SCORM or IMS Content specifications. They use educational content with lesser degree of granularity, for examp le, v ideos, Pdf,etc.
The advantages given by the analyzed institutions for the reuse of LO were: suitability for self-study and for rigid training courses including vocational courses.
After this review, it is important to know what kind of educational content/LO teachers use and reuse in their teaching practices. Are the educational contents fully produced by the teachers?Where does the teacher store the contents developed? Does content reuse exist or not? Will Web 2.0 tools answer these questions?
After this review it is important to know what kind of educational contents/LO teachers use and reuse in their teaching practices. Are the educational contents fully produced by the teachers? Where do the teachers store the contents developed? Does content reuse exist or not?