Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Design, development and evaluation of open interactive learning objects for secondary school physical education

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was twofold: (a) the design and development of a set of open, interactive, digital Learning Objects (LOs) for high school Physical Education (PE), and (b) the evaluation of the newly-created LOs by PE teachers, experienced both in teaching PE and in Information and Communication Technology (ICT), as to their quality and usefulness, before the dissemination of the use of the LOs in schools. The design and development framework, which was included in an innovative national project, is first presented, followed by descriptions of the 19 LOs that were produced, grouped in two categories (instructivist-oriented and constructivist-oriented LOs). Thirteen (13) of the LOs were subjected to external, summative evaluation by 19 qualified PE teachers, each of whom evaluated all 13 LOs through completing an online evaluation form for each. The form consisted of a standard LO evaluation instrument comprising 4 criteria of quality (interactivity, design, engagement, usability), and of an additional item assessing the usefulness of the LO in the teaching of PE. The LOs were found to be adequate in terms of interactivity, design, engagement, usability and usefulness, which corroborates their suitability for use in schools. Instructivist-oriented LOs and constructivist-oriented LOs were not found to differ significantly in terms of design and usability. However, the latter were found to be significantly more interactive, engaging, and useful in PE teaching than the former. The study provides useful guidance for the future design and development of LOs for PE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data availability

Please contact corresponding author for data requests.

References

  • Ally, M. (2004). Designing effective learning objects for distance education. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online education using learning objects (pp. 87–97). London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1999a). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1999b). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher education research & development, 18(1), 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K. E., Zhang, J., Huang, Y. S., Liu, T. C., & Sung, Y. T. (2019). Applying augmented reality in physical education on motor skills learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 28, 685–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chitwood, K., & Bunnow, D. (2002). Learning objects: Resources for learning. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (pp. 67–70), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED471207.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2020.

  • Digelidis, N., Mylosis, D., & Papaioannou, A. (2014). Guide for the high school physical education teacher. Greek Ministry of Education - Institute of Educational Policy, http://repository.edulll.gr/edulll/handle/10795/1890. Accessed 20 July 2020. (in Greek).

  • Gadanidis, G., Gadanidis, J., & Schindler, K. (2003). Factors mediating the use of online applets in the lesson planning of pre-service mathematics teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(4), 323–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galembeck, E., Macedo, D. V., & Torres, B. B. (2003). Different energy sources in sports: Introductory software. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 31(3), 204–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannakopoulou, A. (2018). Evaluation of the digital school (Photodentro) learning objects for the biology course. MSc Dissertation: University of Athens, https://pergamos.lib.uoa.gr/uoa/dl/frontend/file/lib/default/data/2721512/theFile. (in Greek).

  • Graham, R.J. (2014). Exploring the quality, usability, and use of learning objects in introductory statistics classrooms. PhD Thesis. Iowa State University. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/14137. Accessed 22 July 2020.

  • Haughey, M., & Muirhead, B. (2005a). The pedagogical and multimedia designs of learning objects for schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(4), 470–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haughey, M., & Muirhead, B. (2005b). Evaluating learning objects for schools. e-Journal of. Instructional Science and Technology, 8(1), 1–22 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ850358.pdf. .

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R., Marshall, S., & Peters, D. (2010). Can we play a game now? The intrinsic benefits of TGfU. European Journal of Physical and Health Education, 4(2), 57–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007a). Evaluating the learning in learning objects. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 22(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2007b). Evaluating the use of learning objects for secondary school science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 261–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2008). A multi-component model for assessing learning objects: The learning object evaluation metric (LOEM). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(5), 574–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2009). Assessing learning, quality and engagement in learning objects: The learning object evaluation scale for students (LOES-S). Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(2), 147–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., Knaack, L., & Petrarca, D. (2009). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of web-based learning tools. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5(1), 27–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komis, V. (2004). Introduction to the information and communication technologies educational applications. Athens: New Technologies Publications (in Greek).

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, F., & Ally, M. (2005). A study of the design and evaluation of a learning object and implications for content development. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1(2005), 1–22. http://ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p001-022Krauss.pdf. .

  • Kretschmann, R. (2017). Employing tablet technology for video feedback in physical education swimming class. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(2), 103–1115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legrain, P., Gillet, N., Gernigon, C., & Lafreniere, M. (2015). Integration of information and communication technology and pupils’ motivation in a physical education setting. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34(3), 384–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Light, R., & Georgakis, S. (2005). Integrating theory and practice in teacher education: The impact of a game sense unit on female pre-service primary teachers' attitudes towards teaching physical education. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 38(1), 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastrogiannis, I. (2015). The utilization of student preconceptions and the inducement of cognitive conflict in the process of conceptual change, in the teaching of Physical Education in secondary education. Unpublished PhD thesis, Democritus University of Thrace (in Greek).

  • Megalou, E., & Kaklamanis, C. (2014). Photodentro LOR, the Greek national learning object repository. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED2014) (pp. 309-319), https://library.iated.org/publications/INTED2014. .

  • Megalou, E., & Kaklamanis, C. (2018). Open content, OER repositories, interactive textbooks and a digital social platform: The case of Greece. In M. Carmo (Ed.), Proceedings of END 2018 International Conference on Education and New Developments (pp. 146-150), http://end-educationconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Education-and-New-Developments_2018.pdf. .

  • Megalou, E., Gkamas, V., Papadimitriou, S., Paraskevas, M., & Kaklamanis, C. (2016). Open educational practices: Motivating teachers to use and reuse open educational resources. In M. Carmo (Ed.), Proceedings of END 2016 International Conference on Education and New Developments (pp. 42-46), http://end-educationconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/END-2016_Book-of-Proceedings.pdf. .

  • Mohnsen, B. (2012). Using technology in physical education (8th ed.). Big Bear Lake: Bonnie's Fitware.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesbit, J., Belfer, K., & Vargo, J. (2002). A convergent participation model for evaluation of learning objects. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(3), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.21432/T25C8C.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesbit, J., Belfer, K., & Leacock, T. (2009). Learning object review instrument (LORI) (version 2.0), https://www.academia.edu/7927907/Learning_Object_Review_Instrument_LORI_. .

  • Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papastergiou, M. (2009). Exploring the potential of computer and video games for health and physical education: A literature review. Computers and Education, 53(3), 603–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papastergiou, M., & Gerodimos, V. (2013). Can learning of basketball be enhanced through a web-based multimedia course? An experimental study. Education and Information Technologies, 18(3), 459–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papastergiou, M., Mastrogiannis, I., Natsis, P., & Kiriazidis, S. (2018). Digital learning objects for physical education. In St. Dimitriadis, V. Dagdilelis, Th. Tsiatsos, I. Magnisalis, & D. Tzimas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Panhellenic and International Conference “ICT in Education” (pp. 57–60). https://www.etpe.gr/conf/?cid=34. Accessed 3 July 2020 (in Greek).

  • Peters, M.A. (2017). Open education and education for openness. In M.A. Peters (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory (pp.1693-1696). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-588-4_411. .

  • Pill, S., Penney, D., & Swabey, K. (2012). Rethinking sport teaching in physical education: A case study of research-based innovation in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(8), 118–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sim, G., MacFarlane, S., & Horton, M. (2005). Evaluating usability, fun and learning in educational software for children. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005 - World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1180-1187), https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/20240/. .

  • Stolz, S., & Pill, S. (2014). Teaching games and sport for understanding: Exploring and reconsidering its relevance in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 20(1), 36–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svendsen, J. T., & Svendsen, A. M. (2020). Not for free! An analysis of two digital tools recommended as learning resources for physical education in upper secondary schools in Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1705896.

  • Tabuenca, B., Drachsler, H., Ternier, S., & Specht, M. (2012). OER in the mobile era: Content repositories’ features for mobile devices and future trends. eLearning Papers, 32(2002), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (2010). Preface. In J. Butler & L. Griffin (Eds.), More teaching games for understanding: Moving globally (pp. vii–xv). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, P., & Pearson, P. (2008). An integrated approach to teaching games for understanding (TGfU). In Proceedings of the 1st Asian Pacific sport in education conference (pp. 1–9). Adelaide: Flinders University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, D.A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version, http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc. .

  • Williams, D.D. (2000). Evaluation of learning objects and instruction using learning objects. In D.a. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version, http://reusability.org/read/chapters/williams.doc. .

  • Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to: George Piskopanis and Alexandra Kirtsoni, for their help in the implementation of the LOs, Eugenia Oikonomidou, for reviewing the metadata of the LOs, Sofia Sotiriou, Petros Natsis, Thomas Tsimnadis, Dimitris Kokaridas, George Sygkounas, Asterios Patsiaouras and Gerasimos Grivas for their help in the instructional design and the formation of the content of the LOs, Vassilis Gialamas for reviewing the statistical analyses, and to the 19 PE teachers for voluntarily evaluating the LOs.

Funding

The Learning Objects (LOs) presented in this study were designed and developed within the framework of the program “Digital School II: Extension and Utilization of the Digital School Platform, Interactive Books, and Learning Object Repository” (2017–2021), which was funded from the Greek National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) 2014–2020 and was implemented by the Computer Technology Institute & Press “Diophantus”. The funding source had no involvement in the design of the evaluation study of the LOs, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of the evaluation data, in the writing of the paper or its submission for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Education & Sport Science, University of Thessaly, Karyes, 42100, Trikala, Greece

    Marina Papastergiou

  2. Experimental High School of Mytilene of the University of the Aegean, G. Papandreou 10, 81100, Mytilene, Greece

    Iakovos Mastrogiannis

Authors
  1. Marina Papastergiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iakovos Mastrogiannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Papastergiou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

This study was conducted after informed consent of the participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Papastergiou, M., Mastrogiannis, I. Design, development and evaluation of open interactive learning objects for secondary school physical education. Educ Inf Technol 26, 2981–3007 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10390-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10390-2

Keywords