This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 10 October 2014, At: 10:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Research in Geographicaland Environmental EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgee20

GIS learning objects: an approach tocontent aggregationMichael Govorov a & Gennady Gienko ba Advanced Diploma Program in GIS , Vancouver Island University ,Nanaimo , BC , Canadab Department of Geomatics, School of Engineering , University ofAlaska Anchorage , Anchorage , AK , USAPublished online: 23 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Michael Govorov & Gennady Gienko (2013) GIS learning objects: an approachto content aggregation, International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 22:2,155-171, DOI: 10.1080/10382046.2013.778712

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2013.778712

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 2013Vol. 22, No. 2, 155–171, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2013.778712

GIS learning objects: an approach to content aggregation

Michael Govorova∗ and Gennady Gienkob

aAdvanced Diploma Program in GIS, Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, BC, Canada;bDepartment of Geomatics, School of Engineering, University of Alaska Anchorage,

Anchorage, AK, USA

Content development and maintenance of geographic information systems (GIS) relatedcourses, especially designed for distance and online delivery, could be a tedious task evenfor an experienced instructor. The paper outlines application of abstract instructionaldesign techniques for modeling course structure and developing corresponding coursecontent using the concept of learning objects. The paper elaborates on theoretical andmethodological aspects of using learning object to design a family of the subject-related courses. Feasibility of the developed methodology is illustrated by the practicalimplementation using author-it component content management system. The developedcourse content pyramid, learning objects, and other course content components wereused to compile lectures and laboratory assignments for different GIS courses, designedboth for in-class and online delivery.

Keywords: learning objects; abstract instructional design; learning content pyramid;component content management system; geographic information systems

Introduction

Topics on education in geographic information systems (GIS) and related geospatial tech-nologies (e.g., neo-geographical education) became increasingly popular during the lastdecade (Linn, Kerski, & Wither, 2008; Papadimitriou, 2010; Wiegand, 2001). In manyopinions GIS is the biggest contributor in the areas of geography and its education that havebeen made to society and economy since the Age of Discovery (Wiegand, 2001). Nowadays,topics in GIS are not only included in curricula in many universities and colleges, but alsotaught within the geography subject in K-12 (Lam, Lai, & Wong, 2009; Smith, 2005). How-ever, successful implementation of GIS on all levels of education requires further researchinto better design of learning spaces (Kidman & Palmer, 2006).

The geospatial world is rapidly evolving, bringing more and more technological innova-tions every year. It comes as no surprise to anyone involved in teaching GIS and GeospatialScience that the development, delivery and maintenance of the learning content is a chal-lenging exercise. To maintain consistency, the lessons should be designed based on certaineducational components and instructional elements such as course outline, objectives, mainlearning content, exercise activities, assessments, evaluations, summary and resources. Cur-rent educational technologies require that both in-class (face-to-face) and online deliverycourses should be built into a virtual learning environment (VLE) using particular LearningActivities Management System (LAMS). Moodle, Blackboard, and WebCT are examplesof LAMSs with the structured learning components, which are typically used to facilitatethe e-learning experience.

∗Corresponding author. Email: govorovm@viu.ca

C© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

156 M. Govorov and G. Gienko

As the most academic programs in GIS and Geospatial Science use teaching materialsin the digital form, it sounds quite reasonable to arrange educational resources to beused as much as possible in several courses without major alteration. Some teachingmaterials can stay unchanged for a long time; others would need periodic revision andediting. In reality, there is no single course in GIS that would not require some annualrevision. Changes in the course content include alterations of delivery dates, deadlinesfor assessments, locations of exercise data, informational content, assessment questions,etc. For example, the content of the “Remote Sensing Satellites and Sensors” lecture mayrequire periodic updates with new sensors available for image acquisition, not to mentionlearning units (LUs) related to techniques and methods of geospatial data processing andanalysis. Changes in a couple of slides within a single course are easy to deal with, butthey can quickly become a challenging task when an innocent modification of one lectureslide triggers multiple alterations in various teaching fragments scattered among severalcourses.

Another challenge for the delivery of GIS courses is high frequency of versioning andupdating of used software and operation system platforms. Course activities, assignments,assessments and links to external resources heavily depend on the version and type ofthe software used, even when the only one software package is adopted in a program.In recent years, GIS software developers released their software updates quite frequently.Some software updates include not only fixed software bugs and improved graphical userinterface (GUI), but also alterations of underlying algorithms (for example, how to treatNoData values in spatial algebra operations in ArcGIS). Software updates heavily impactmost of the GIS courses at all levels – from the introduction to GIS to advanced coursessuch as programming for GIS in Net environment.

The authors took part in the development and delivery of more than a dozen coursesin GIS, Cartography, Remote Sensing (RS) and Global Navigation Satellite Systems(Projektas 2007; UAA, 2011; UoT, 2011; VIU, 2013; VIU SDI, 2013). These courseshave been designed for online, face-to-face or mixed delivery modes and taught indifferent universities and national educational programs. Some courses were intended forunder-graduate students; others were designed for training in spatial data infrastructure(SDI) programs for post-graduate professional development.

Professionally structured and up-to-date instructional materials enhance student under-standing and provide student motivation about the subject. Using leading-edge technologysuch as VLE (Laverde, Cifuentes, & Rodrıguez, 2007) with well-structured content fa-cilitates positive e-learning experiences in both face-to-face and online deliveries. Theobjective of this study is to examine various aspects of the organization and implementa-tion of theory of learning objects (LOs) and to explore its applicability for course contentmodeling in Geographic Information Science. The learning components organization hasto support instructor’s ability to access, search, update and reuse various content fragments(CFs) from the commonly accessible LOs database, with the purpose of designing anddelivering their respective courses in different academic programs. At the same time, theauthors do not believe in the ultimate success story of the “write once, use anywhere”approach for educational materials (Wiley, 2006). Additional contextualization and supportfrom a course instructor will always be necessary before presenting education material to alearner. The focus of this paper is to apply several concepts of the LOs theory to model, de-sign and explore teaching components of several GIS and Remote Sensing courses. Roles,relations, interactions and activities of students and instructors are beyond the scope of thispaper.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 157

LO content modeling

The key element of content modeling theory is LOs. Different aspects of LO contentmodeling for instructional design and software engineering were intensively researchedduring the last decade in many academic studies and industrial projects (Dodds, 2001;Wagner, 2002; Wiley, 2000). Among the main LO content models are the Learnativity con-tent model (Wagner, 2002), the Microsoft model (Elliot, 2005), the advanced distributedlearning (ADL) academic co-lab model (Brown, 2002), the sharable content object refer-ence model (SCORM) content aggregation model (Dodds, 2001), the CISCO reusable LO(RLO)/reusable information objects (RIO) model (Barrit, Lewis, & Wieseler, 1999), theIEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee Learning Object Metadata (LTSC LOM)aggregation metadata model (IEEE, 2010) and the NETg LO model (L’Allier, 1997). Ageneric content model of LOs can be successfully applied to design and deliver various GIScourses for undergraduate and postgraduate GIS programs (DiBiase, 2005; Styliadis et al.,2006). Several projects were carried out using a methodical approach based on the SCORMmodel and/or LAMS such as Moodle to design GIS course materials for e-education (Iercan,2008; Konig, 2009; Luna et al., 2010; Ossiannilsson & Sponberg, 2010; VIU, 2013).

Terminology

The literature review of studies related to LOs might bring some confusion in understandingof LOs. Despite the popularity of the topic, the reader can quickly find that there is a lackof consensus on what exactly constitutes the LOs. Even more, the polemics on the topicof “whether learning objects are dead or not” can be seen in some critical reviews; someauthors even suggest to “finally bury the LOs concepts that have failed us, and beginwith fresh ideas” (Wiley, 2006). In spite of such statements, there is much evidence thatconstructive methodological aspects and technological components of the LOs modeling,developed in the last decade, can be successfully applied for designing, developing andmaintaining various learning materials.

LOs (RLOs by CISCO or sharable content objects (COs) by SCORM) are contextindependent, transportable and reusable pieces of instruction; LOs are digitally managedand delivered (Verbert & Duval, 2004). It is important to emphasize two words in thisdefinition: instruction and digital. LOs are specifically designed entities of informationsuitable for instruction (teaching and learning), and they are in digital (electronic media)form. LOs can be active or passive (Mills, 2009) and can be represented in various formsof media such as text, audio, animation, videos, Java code and applets (Barrit et al., 1999).

LOs are made up of smaller reusable entities: COs and CFs. CF is the smallest pieceof knowledge or instruction that makes sense on its own. CF contains some informationand can constitute a step-by-step procedure, a concept, a short video or an exam question.Some other terms, used to describe CFs, are “chunks of Learnativity raw media,” SCORM’s“assets,” or CISCO’s “content items” (Verbert & Duval, 2004). CFs, combined together andarranged into a logical structure, can form a self-consistent LU called CO. COs can beaggregated to the next level and construct an LO such as a lab exercise. Finally, a logicallystructured sequence of LOs can build a LU such as a course.

The smallest entities and structures (CFs and COs) are reusable and transportable; theycan be reused in different LOs and LUs (Shaw, 2003). The concept of reusable learningentities in different courses is very appealing. Such design allows for parts of LUs to bereused rather than recreated from scratch when a particular content is needed. At the sametime, this approach supports fast and cost-effective maintenance of existing courses.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

158 M. Govorov and G. Gienko

Learning objective

Each LO should contain learning objectives (Lobj), sometimes called terminal or perfor-mance objectives. The Lobj define desirable output of a LU in terms of learning outcomes.For example, Lobj can contain statements about knowledge and practical skills which canbe gained upon completing the LO. Learning objectives have to be stated objectively andmeasurably.

Learning content pyramid

The LO content model can be represented as a pyramid with different levels of learningcomponents or functional granules with raw CFs at the bottom of the pyramid (Verbert &Duval, 2004). To be combined into an upper level unit, the physical learning entities (piecesof text or media) need to be linked. These links establish relationships between entities,define their sequence and outline the logical structure of the output.

According to the literature review, there is no consensus about how the upper levelsof a content pyramid are organized. The CFs can be aggregated into COs (or Learnativityinformation objects [IO] or CISCO’s reusable IO [RIO]), which extend CFs that are builtaround a single learning objective (Verbert & Duval, 2004). Thus, a CO can encompassCFs, zero or more COs, and navigation (links) between CFs (Verbert & Duval, 2004).

At the next level of the learning content pyramid, LOs aggregate abstract COs and alsoinclude learning objective (Verbert & Duval, 2004). The content of learning objective canalso be represented as CF. LOs can be aggregated further into a module, a lesson, a course –a LU. The LO can contain another LO. The number of CO and LO levels of aggregationis rather arbitrary and depends on the learning subject, instructional method and style ofcourse delivery.

Design and development of the course pyramid can be assisted by using one of the learn-ing design modeling languages to structure the content of learning modules. The IMS learn-ing design specification (IMS, 2003) or educational modeling language (EML) uses sets ofbuilding blocks to design connections between learning entities and specify roles, activitiesand other elements of learning environment (Hermans, Manderveld, & Vogten, 2003).

Size and granularity of learning entities

Another feature of the LO theory is that it does not define exact granularity or size of CFobjects or the size of other aggregated objects. The extent of learning entity has to be definedby logical size rather than physical size (e.g., duration of instructional time) (Currier &Campbell, 2005; Francis & Murphy, 2008). In addition, several authors suggest that physicalsize of an LO should be small enough to support reusability as much as possible (ADL,2004; Conlan, Dagger, & Wade, 2002; Schluep, Ravasio, & Sissel-Guttormsen, 2003).Such definition of LO granularity does not prescribe the actual size of component objects.The conceptual content models, however, declare the trade-off between reusability andcontextualization of content components (Balatsoukas, Morris, & O’Brien, 2008). Theminimum reusable unit can be used to describe the level at which content is logicallystructured and stored for maximum efficiency.

Implementation of learning content pyramid

The vitality of LO concept can be proven by several active LO repositories such as CAREO(CAREO, 2010) or MERLOT (MERLOT, 2010). There are internationally accredited

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 159

standards for content packaging mechanisms (IMS, 2009; SCORM, 2004). The IEEELearning Technology Standards Committee (IEEE, 2010) has specified the LOM that allowsearching learning components by contextualizing their metadata elements from a meta-data repository. IMS or SCORM content packaging specifications provide a way to includeIEEE LOM with learning content. It is important that the CFs, COs and LOs be taggedwith metadata (Verbert & Duval, 2004).

Implementation of the learning content pyramid can be based on the following conceptsof LO packaging, concepts of object-oriented design (OO) and specifications of LOM:

• Content can be defined through learning component types. A type of a learningcomponent is similar to the “class” in object-oriented programming, which allowsdefinition of properties and methods for each content item. A learning fragment issimilar to an instance of an object of that class.

• According to one of the core concepts of the OO paradigm, polymorphism, every CFcan be consumed at a minimum by using its fragment interface (common properties).Content that supports conditional publishing (where values of properties enclosedwithin the content) can be used to create variables to make personalized versionsof the document. By dividing the document (e.g., an assignment or lecture) into CFobjects, it is possible to assign special properties to the objects. It allows programsand scripts to dynamically access and update the content, structure and style of adocument.

• A package of learning components has to include, explicitly or implicitly, a structuralcontent organization of learning components and fragments. With the OO approach,the structural content organization can be implemented to design abstract LO and/orCO classes. A definition of sequencing intent can be associated with the contentstructure (SCORM, 2004).

• A package of learning components has to be associated with metadata, which de-scribes the content package as a whole. At the same time, each package componentand fragment has to have its own metadata. Metadata content can be organized as CFobjects, and LO and/or CO classes can have metadata properties.

• In order to incorporate OO learning component type of model into an enterprisecontent context, the current candidate objects and their structure (associated rela-tionships) must be organized through the application of information architecture.Information architecture creates the foundation that allows for further decompositionof content into objects.

There are certain advantages of applying the OO paradigm to model learning contentpyramids, and the most important one is that the CFs can be formally defined as “co-classes.” A co-class can be used to create new instances of CFs. The aggregated upper levelcontent components of the pyramid are abstract classes. According to the OO fundamentalconcepts, the abstract class, or the “parent,” allows other classes (or subclasses) to useand share its properties and methods. The OO approach segregates the content from thepresentation format. It allows for the content created for one purpose to be used in othercontexts and for other purposes. However, the CF has to be linked to the style propertiestemplate to define its final media format.

Learning content pyramid for GIS courses

The focus of this study is to apply the LO legacy to identify primary granules of the learningcontent and create a formal structure for GIS courses using various entities of the learning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

160 M. Govorov and G. Gienko

content pyramid. Primary entities and CF objects have to be defined in order to be sharedand used for compilation of various abstract-learning components. Reusability has to bean inherent property of the entities to allow their further use for content modification. Toimplement this approach, the following entities have been used to develop the learningcontent pyramid for GIS courses.

Entities of learning content pyramid:

• LU – learning unit• Lobj – learning objectives• LO – learning object• CO – content object• CF – content fragment

Hierarchy and aggregation principles:

• LU = LO1 + LO2 + . . .

• LO = Lobj + CO1 + CO2 + . . .

• Lobj = CF1 + CF2 + . . .

• CO = CF1 + CF2 + . . .

• CF = text, dataset, image, plot, formulae, audio, video, metadata, etc.

Logical and physical structure:

• Physical entities: CF• Logical entities: LU, LO, Lobj, CO• Links between CF, CO, LO, LU

Output (final product):

• Logical entities: LU, LO• Physical entities: Text document (MS Word, PPT, PDF, HTML, etc.)

Implementation of the proposed learning content pyramid requires the use of method-ology, standards and tools for LO packaging, and integration (IMS, 2009; SCORM, 2004).Metadata for LOs and CFs has to be based on the IEEE Learning Technology Standards(IEEE, 2010).

Development of GIS course structure

Most GIS courses have similar structures: an introduction module, weekly modules(lessons), exam and assessment modules, and the wrap-up or review module (Figure 1).There are several modeling tools available for course designing, and one of them, Uni-fied Modeling Language (UML), was used to outline, formalize and visually represent thestructure of GIS learning content pyramid. Figure 1 shows the model diagram of abstractlearning components of GIS course.

The course introduction module may include several standard structural components:course overview and goals, objectives, acquired skills, reading resources, list of usedsoftware, course structure and schedule, course evaluation requirements, policies, etc. Thetypical structure of a week module is shown in Figure 2. The module may include links

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 161

Course (Unit of Learning)

Introduction Module (LO)

Weekly Lesson (LO)

Wrap-up and Review Module(LO)

Exam Module (LO)

Communication Section (LO)

Recourses Section (LO)

Course Metadata (CO)

Course text (LO)

List of supplementary reading (CO)

Learing activities (CO)

Lab assignment (LO)

Quiz (LO)

Assignment Q&A forum (LO)

External recourses (LO)

Course outlineLAMS orientationSoftware setup

Reading resourcesSubmission instructions

PreparationsTest

Course reviewSelf-assessment test

Certificate submissions

ChatEmail

Forums

Glossary of termsExternal resources

1

0..*

1

1

1

1..*

1

1..*

1 1

1

1..*

1..2

1..*

Figure 1. A GIS course diagram of learning objects and their entities. Nodes represent course objectsand connecting lines represent relations between objects.

to learning components such as lecture (text), list of supplementary readings, learningactivities (e.g., animation with multiple choice or matching questions in Adobe FlashPlayer format (see Figure 3 as an example), lab assignment document, link for submissionof assignment, quiz, student Q&A forum and external recourse (e.g., ESRI FAQ). Courseoutline, lectures and lab assignment documents are structured using LOs, COs and CFs.

Figure 2. Weekly Module 3 from GIS programming course.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

162 M. Govorov and G. Gienko

Figure 3. Check Your Understanding activity from Module 3 of GIS programming course.

The main elements of CFs, exposed to frequent modifications, are submission dates,lab-grading points, links to data storage location, software versions, links to recommendedrecourses, as well as changes in the main lab text and exercises. Lab scenarios, theoreticalbackground material, assignment questions and sequence of lab exercises may also requirefrequent updates. Figure 4 outlines the structure of lab assignment notes from a GISprogramming course. It was explicitly assumed that there is no overlap between LOs inrelated context fragments – otherwise the objects should be fragmented into elementaryentities to correspond the appropriate level of the learning pyramid.

An analysis of learning components in GIS courses suggests that different componentshave different frequency of updates. Table 1 illustrates types and frequency of updates oftypical learning entities in GIS courses.

The proposed GIS course structure can be implemented as a component content man-agement system (CCMS). The CCMS stores and manages the primary reusable componentsto assemble and modify various documents. The goal of any CCMS is to provide an organi-zation with a repository of reusable content that can be used for distribution of informationand change management, while leveraging the assets already in place (Refresh Software,2009).

GIS course content management system

A single-source CCMS software “Author-it” has been used to design a GIS CCMS. Thesoftware provides a variety of tools to store and manage small reusable components toassemble structured documents. These components come in various user-specified sizesand types (Vasont Systems, 2010). Author-it supports core database management function-alities including security, versioning, import and export (publishing), word processing andstyling, project management flow and other. Designed course content database includes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 163

Lab assignment document (LO)

Metadata (CF)

Learning objective (CO Labj)

-due date-grading and points

Lab administration (CF)

Outcome (CF)

Title (CF)

Tools (CO) Tool (CF)

Source data (CO)

Lab objective (CF)

References (CO)

Dataset (CF)

Concepts (background) (CF)

Project scenario (CF)

Exercise (CO)

-data links-external links

Action (CF)

Explanation (CF)

Questions (CO) Question (CF)Conclusion (CF)

Lab grade (CF)

Reference (CF)

1..*

1..*

1

0..*1..*

1..*

1..*

0..*

0..*

1..*

1..*

1

1

1

1

1

1

0..*

1

1

1

Figure 4. Object diagram of a typical Lab Assignment. The diagram represents entities and thehierarchy of the GIS Lab Learning Pyramid.

Table 1. Frequency of updates of GIS learning entities.

Learning unit Object nameObjecttype

Frequency persemester Cause

Updatetype

Course Course outline CF Each semester Academic calendar AutoSlide CF Occasional Updates, errors,

expansion, downsizingManual

References CF Occasional Updates Manual

Lab/assignment Administration CO Each semester Academic calendar ManualDue date CF Each semester Academic calendar ManualGrading and

pointsCF Occasional Course workload

revisionManual

Source data CF Occasional Revision, change ManualReferences CF Occasional Updates ManualExercise CO Occasional Updates, errors,

expansion, downsizingManual

Exam Administration CF Each semester Academic calendar ManualQuestions CF Occasional Updates, errors Manual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

164 M. Govorov and G. Gienko

Table 2. Terminology in learning object theory and Author-it software package.

Learning object theory Author-it

Learning Unit (LU) Book TemplateLearning Object (LO) Book TemplateContent Object (CO) SectionContent Fragment (CF) Topic, Question

metadata repository, enabling on-the-fly search and aggregation of CFs into LUs. The out-put document can be published in various formats (MS Word, PDF, HTML, XML, etc.).Author-it is also Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) compliant (Author-it,2011). The DITA is an XML-based architecture for authoring, producing and deliveringtopic-oriented, information-typed content that can be reused and single sourced in a varietyof ways [(DITA, 2010)].

The developed LO pyramid and GIS LO entities were used for practical implementationof GIS CCMS. Figure 5 outlines the structure of database of GIS learning entities and CFsfor the coordinate geometry (COGO) lab assignment.

Author-it uses its own terminology to define entities within the system: Book Template,Section and Topic. This sequence also defines hierarchy of entities in the Author-it structureand internal database. However, users may deploy their own terminology. Table 2 outlinesthe correspondence between the language of LOs used in the paper and terminology ofAuthor-it software.

According to Figure 5, all “raw” learning entities in the database are kept in alphabeticalorder. To build a logical LU (CO or LO), the learning entities need to be arranged accordingto a predefined structure. Figure 6 illustrates organization of the COGO lab assignment inAuthor-it according to the developed GIS Lab LO structure (see Figure 4).

Figure 7 represents a snapshot of a working process of compiling a COGO lab as-signment using source-learning entities from the database. The figure shows compila-tion of a CO (entitled “Remaining Side-Shots”) using different CFs (text, pictures andquestions).

Developed COs and LOs can be further used to populate particular LUs. For example,Figure 8 illustrates the process of designing of the final product – a LU (GEOG523 coursefor online delivery). All components of this particular GEOG523 LU have been designedaccording to the developed LU structure (see Figure 1). The screenshot in Figure 8 showsall Lab/Assignments LOs (shown as Book Templates in the background window). TheCOGO Lab template from the Author-it database was used to create and customize a newLab 4 for GEOG523 course. The output document of the COGO lab is published in MSWord format (the right top window).

The CFs can be represented as object instances with the data and code members (proper-ties and methods) to support frequent updates. The most frequent changeable elements of aCF (such as deadlines, locations of data and links to external resources) can be implementedas variables in CCMS.

Discussion

Based on the principles of object learning theory and methodological aspects of its im-plementation described in this paper, the authors developed a GIS CCMS system usingAuthor-it software. The developed GIS CCMS was tested by designing several GIS and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 165

Figure 5. The structure of a database for GIS LUs (the left pane), COGO lab assignment objects(the right pane) and the QuestionBank folder (bottom window). The navigation content pane (leftpane) organizes the items in the “GIS course library” using customizable library folders. The “GISMaterials” folder includes subfolders with reusable learning objects for different leaning units (e.g.,the “GIS Spatial Analysis” contains objects for relevant topics). Sequentially, “Leaning units” includessubfolders for “Weekly lessons” (e.g., COGO lesson). In turn, “Weekly lessons” includes subfolderswith reusable objects (e.g., the LabAssignment and QuestionBank folders). At the bottom level of the“GIS Materials” folder, there is a place to store reusable entities such as learning objective, content,fragment and questions. These objects are used to build lessons that will be reused in GEM Courses(delivered at University of Toronto) and GEOG Courses (delivered at Vancouver Island University).The object list pane (right to the navigation pane) displays the objects that are stored in the selectedlibrary folder. Objects’ types (e.g., topic, section, book) are shown using icons (see explanation forTable 2 below).

Remote Sensing courses, which were later delivered both online and in in-class environ-ment. The use of CCMS allowed authors to systemize the course content, build and optimizethe course structure, identify overlaps and gaps in the content areas and align structuralelements of the courses. It is necessary to mention that developing any CCMS requires

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

166 M. Govorov and G. Gienko

Figure 6. Organization of COGO lab assignment in Author-it. The reusable objects from the COGOfolder (a sub-folder in the GIS Materials folder, see Figure 5) were used to build a COGO labassignment book. For this purpose, the reusable learning objective (Book), content (Section) andfragment (Topic) objects from the LabAssignment folders in the COGO folder are structured as theLO GOGOLab Advanced (Book).

certain time, but the initial efforts will be well compensated afterward; once the system isin place, it significantly expedites the course development, maintenance and revisions. Thefinal output, of course, is the improved quality of the materials, resulting in better learningexperience for students.

At the same time, implementation of the GIS CCMS outlined several practical consid-erations:

• Expansion and/or downsizing of LU, LO or CO can require significant efforts inediting the source CFs.

• Compiling new LO or CO entity using exiting CFs may result in additional edit-ing of links between CFs in a new compilation to ensure continuity of the “textflow.”

• Terminological differences in textbooks, used to create the source CFs, need to beaddressed at the designing stage and resolved when compiling COs.

• Ambiguity in names of datasets (especially names used by default in GIS softwarepackages) needs to be resolved at the early stage of CCMS design.

• Multiauthoring the source CFs may result in differences in terminology, variousgraphical designs and writing styles.

• To ensure consistency in design of the final texts, it is useful to define various textstyle templates for different output documents.

• Import and export options in most CCM systems do not support MS PowerPoint(PPT) format, so the third-party software might be needed to create slides for lecturenotes.

• CCMS software (and Author-it in particular) may not support advanced GUI; thiswill be a significant limiting factor in modeling LOs using visual modeling tools suchas UML diagrams.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 167

Figure 7. Content object (CO) with embedded content fragments (CF) – several images (pictogramsfrom the Pictures folder) and a question (grayed out) from the QuestionsBank folder. The Topic Editor(the top window) allows to link or embed (and preview) the content of an object into other objectsacross a documentation set. For example, Remaining Side-Short topic reuses the pictograms fromthe Pictures folder (right navigation pane in the background window) and the Question 6 topic-objectfrom the QuestionsBank folder. Any change to the content and/or structure of the embedded object,such as adding, removing, promoting or demoting topics or their contents, is automatically reflectedin all other objects where this particular CF object is used.

Once created, a database of GIS learning components can be used by several instructorsto build the content of their lectures, presentations, lab assignments, tutorials, manuals,quizzes and exams. Instructors can also update LOs in the source database to keep it up todate.

The main benefits the GIS CCMS offers for courses development:

• Reusability (single learning source is stored in one place and can be reused multipletimes in different learning entities);

• integrity (LUs content is updated automatically as soon as the shared componentsare changed);

• consistency (information is kept consistent across all LUs);• contents and structures of sources such as CF, CO, LO and LU are separable from

the styles and formatting used to represent these sources (character and paragraphstyles; object and publishing templates);

• version control (ability to create multiple versions of an individual object while stillkeeping the old versions);

• accessibility (review and edit the online content in real-time);

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

168 M. Govorov and G. Gienko

Figure 8. Reusing the COGO lab assignment content objects for creating and publishing GEOG523course lab assignment. GEOG523 course is delivered at Vancouver Island University as a part of theonline program (ONL). The course includes the COGO lab assignment, which reused the book-objectGOGOLab Advanced from the common folder GIS Materials. This book (lab notes) is publishedas a MS Word document (the right top window) based on customizable styling templates used fordevelopment of all GEOG courses.

• collaboration (team working environment).

The benefits of GIS CCMS for course delivery:

• Fast-track to build a LU (spending less time to prepare teaching materials allows toallocate more time on the interaction with students; manage documentation efficientlyby using automated workflows, templates and protocols);

• multichannel delivery (the same content can be easily published in student calendar,lab, lecture notes);

• timely and efficient update of the content;• variety of output formats to generate lecture notes and other teaching materials;• security of information (permissions-based and tracking enabled access).

The proposed approach for CCMS-based course design and management can be ben-eficial to universities, colleges and professional organizations offering large-scale GIS,Geo-Information Science and Geomatics programs. Creating CCMS for GIS learning com-ponents can also be appealing to organizations offering professional training courses (ESRItraining division and other) where certified instructors on sites can teach pre-approvedcurricula accessing CCMS, maintained by the principal organization and available online.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 169

Such approach can be also applied to interinstitutional collaborative programs with cross-credited and shared curricula. In general, the discussed concepts can be applied beyondcontent management in GIS courses; any educational program that incorporates numerouscourses with rich and intensively-changing content can benefit from adopting the proposedapproach of CCMS-based instructional design modeling.

Conclusions

The concepts of LOs and instructional design modeling can be successfully applied todevelop major elements and entities of the learning pyramid, outline object hierarchy and,finally, build a course-specific CCMS. The OO analysis and design methodology providea universal approach for structuring and aggregation of learning abstract components andfragment instances. Implementation of the learning components and entities as a dedi-cated CCMS enables instructors to access, search, update and reuse various CFs from thecommonly accessible LOs database, with the purpose of designing and delivery of theirrespective courses in collaborating academic programs. Practical implementation of GISCCMS for several GIS and remote sensing courses suggests that the use of the LOs theoryprovides obvious advantages; at the same time, several measures have to be taken at theplanning phase to optimize the process of course development. The use of CCMS can bebeneficial to instructors by saving time for course development, maintenance and revision.As a result, the students will benefit from optimized course content and structure, thus,experiencing better learning environment.

ReferencesAdvanced Distributed Learning (ADL) (2004). Sharable content object reference model (SCORM):

Overview (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://cisit.sfcc.edu/∼cat/SCORM_2004_Overview.pdf.Author-it (2011). Understanding author-it. Retrieved from http://www.author-it.com/index.php?

page=learningcenterbasic.Balatsoukas, P., Morris, A., & O’Brien, A. (2008). Learning objects update: Review and critical

approach to content aggregation. Educational Technology and Society, 11(2), 119–130.Barrit, C., Lewis, D., & Wieseler, W. (1999). CISCO systems reusable information ob-

ject strategy version 3.0. Retrieved from http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/ibs/solutions/learning/whitepapers/el_cisco_rio.pdf.

Brown J. (2002). Academic ADL Co-lab. Retrieved from http://www.adlnet.org.CAREO (2010). The Campus Alberta Repository of Educational Objects. Retrieved from

http://www.ucalgary.ca/commons/careo/index.html.Conlan, O., Dagger, D., & Wade, V. (2002). Towards a standards-based approach to e-learning

personalization using reusable learning objects. In M. Dricoll & I.C. Reeves (Eds.), E-Learn2002 – Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on E-Learning in corporate, government,healthcare and higher education, Montreal: AACE, pp. 210–217.

Currier, S. & Campbell, L.M. (2005). Evaluating 5/99 content for reusability as learning objects.VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 35(1/2), 85–96.

Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) (2010). Version 1.2, OASIS standard. Retrievedfrom http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/spec/DITA1.2-spec.pdf.

DiBiase, D. (2005). Using concept mapping to design reusable learning objects for e-education.Cartography and GIS – Proceedings of the International Cartographic Association, A Caruna,Spain.

Dodds, P. (2001). Advanced distributed learning sharable content object reference model version 1.2.The SCORM Content Aggregation Model. Retrieved from http://www.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm/SCORMSDocuments/2004%204th%20Edition/Overview.aspx.

Elliot, S. (2005). A content model for reusability. Retrieved from: http://www.cm-strategies.com/pdfs/elliot.pdf.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

170 M. Govorov and G. Gienko

Francis, D.E. & Murphy, E. (2008). Instructional designers’ conceptualizations of learning objects.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(5), 475–486.

Hermans, H., Manderveld, J., & Vogten, H. (2003). Educational modeling language. Retrieved fromhttp://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/77.

IEEE (2010). Learning technology standards committee (LTSC). Retrieved from http://www.ieeeltsc.org:8080/Plone.

IMS (2003). IMS learning design information model: Version 1.0, final specification. Retrieved fromhttp://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ldv1p0/imsld_infov1p0.html.

IMS (2009). IMS content packaging version 1.2 public draft version 2.0. Retrieved fromhttp://www.imsglobal.org/content/packaging/index.html.

Iercan, O. (2008). Development of source-distributed e-learning modules for GIS and remote sens-ing focusing on 3D Models. Retrieved from http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/5385/pdf/Octavian_Iercan_Dissertation.pdf.

Kidman, G. & Palmer, G. (2006) GIS: The technology is there but the teaching is yet to catch up.International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 15(3), 289–296.

Konig, G. (2009). Best practice in E-learning: Applications in photogrammetry, remote sensingand GIS. ISPRS Proceedings, E-Learning Tools, Techniques and Applications, XXXVIII-6/W7.Retrieved from http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVIII/6-W7/Paper/01_Koenig.pdf.

L’Allier, J.J. (1997). A frame of reference: NETg’s map to its products, their structures and corebeliefs. Whitepaper, Abril.

Lam, C.-C., Lai, E., & Wong, J. (2009). Implementation of geographic information system (GIS)in secondary geography curriculum in Hong Kong: current situations and future directions.International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18(1), 57–74.

Laverde, A.C., Cifuentes, Y.S., & Rodrıguez, H.Y.R. (2007). Toward an instructional design modelbased on learning objects. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 671–681.

Linn, S., Kerski, J., & Wither, S. (2008). Development of evaluation tools for GIS: How does GISaffect student learning? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education,14(3), 217–224.

Luna, R., Hall, R., Hilgers, M., & Ge, L. (2010). GIS learning tool for civil engineers. InternationalJournal Engineering Education, 26(1), 52–58.

MERLOT (2010). Multimedia educational resource for learning and online teaching. Retrieved fromhttp://www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm.

Mills, S. (2009). Learning about learning objects with learning objects. AliveTek, Inc., Retrievedfrom http://www.alivetek.com/learningobjects/site_paper.htm.

Ossiannilsson, E. & Sponberg, H. (2010). The needs for microtraining, learning objects and openeducational resources in GIS. In W. Aung, J. Moscinski, J. Uhomoibhi, & W. Wang (Eds.),Innovations 2010. World Innovation in Engineering Education and Research (pp. 303–318).USA: INEER.

Papadimitriou, F. (2010). A “Neogeographical Education”? The geospatial web, GIS and digital art inadult education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 19(1),71–74.

Projektas (2007). Lietuvos geografines informacijos valdytojø kvalifikacijos kelimas. Retrieved fromhttp://www.gismokymai.lt/.

Refresh Software (2009). SR2 component content management, executive summary for IT profession-als, SR2 Whitepapers. Retrieved from http://www.refreshsoftware.com/SiteObjects/031230514FB35BB8010D9E3CC434F79B/Component%20Content%20Management%20-%20IT.pdf.

Schluep, S., Ravasio, P., & Sissel-Guttormsen, S.S. (2003). Implementing learning content manage-ment. In M. Rauterberg, M. Menozzi, & J. Wesson (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: INTER-ACT’03 (pp. 884–887). Amsterdam: IOS press. Retrieved from http://www.itl.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp/∼ravasio/publications/InteractII.pdf.

SCORM (2004). 4th edition version 1.1 documentation (2009) advanced distributedlearning. Retrieved from http://www.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm/SCORMSDocuments/2004%204th%20Edition/Documentation.aspx http://www.scorm.com/.

Shaw, M. (2003). (Contextual and mutated) learning objects in the context of design, learn-ing and (re)use. Insights into using educational technology, Issue 8. Retrieved fromhttp://www.shawmultimedia.com/edtech_oct_03.html.

Smith, J.S. (2005). Flow theory and GIS: Is there a connection for learning? International Researchin Geographical and Environmental Education, 14(3), 225–230.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 171

Styliadis, A.D., Karamitsos, I.D., & Zachariou, D.I. (2006). Personalized e-learning implementa-tion - the GIS case. International Journal of Computers, Communications and Control, 1(1),59–67.

University of Alaska Anchorage (2011). Geographic information systems courses. Retrieved fromhttp://www.uaa.alaska.edu/schoolofengineering/current/courses/gis.cfm.

University of Toronto (2011). Center of environment, certificate in GIS for environmentalmanagement. Retrieved from http://learn.environment.utoronto.ca/distance-education/programs/certificate-in-gis-for-environmental-management.aspx.

Vancouver Island University (VIU) (2013). Advanced diploma in GIS applications. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mala.ca/adgisa/courses.asp.

Vancouver Island University (VIU SDI) (2013). Spatial data infrastructure (SDI), course descriptions.Retrieved from http://www.viu.ca/sdi/courses.asp.

Vasont Systems (2010). Crash course for: Content management. Retrieved from http://www.vasont.com/vasont/crashcourse/what_is_content_management.asp.

Verbert, K. & Duval, E. (2004). Towards a global architecture for learning objects: A comparativeanalysis of learning object content models. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceed-ings of the ED-MEDIA 2004 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia andTelecommunications. Lugano: AACE, pp. 202–208.

Wagner, E.D. (2002). Steps to creating a content strategy for your organization. The e-LearningDevelopers’ Journal, The eLearning Guild, October 29, 1–8.

Wiegand, P. (2001). Geographical information systems (GIS). Education, International Research inGeographical and Environmental Education, 10(1), 68–71.

Wiley, D.A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, ametaphor, and a taxonomy. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects.Retrieved from http://wesrac.usc.edu/wired/bldg-7_file/wiley.pdf

Wiley, D.A. (2006). RIP-ping on learning objects. Retrieved from http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/230.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

0:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4