___

• Akpinar, Y. & Simsek, H. (2007). Should K-12 teachers develop learning objects? Evidence from the field with K-12 students. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learnin, 4(3), 31-44.
• Anglin, G. J., Vaez, H., & Cunningham, C. L. (2004). Visual representations in learning: The role of static and animated graphics. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• ATANESA (2011). Atatürk University Learning Object Repository. Retrieved on 20 March 2011 from http://www.atanesa.net.
• Ayersman, D. (1996). Reviewing the research on hypermedia-based learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(4), 500-526.
• Bilgin, I. & Geban, O. (2002). Ogrencilerin grup calismalarindaki performanslari ile kimyasal denge konusu basarilari arasindaki iliskinin incelenmesi. Paper presented at 5th National Science and Mathematics Education Congress. Ankara.
• Bonate, P. L. (2000). Analysis of pretest-posttest design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
• Bradley C. & Boyle T. (2004) The design, development, and use of multimedia learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 13, 371–389.
• Bratina, T. A., Hayes, D. & Blumsack, S. L. (2002). Preparing teachers to use learning objects. The Technology Source. Retrieved on 20 May 2010 from http://technologysource.org/ article/preparing_teachers_to_use_learning_objects/
• Churchill, D. (2007). Towards a useful classification of learning objects. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 479-497.
• Ceken, R. (2010). Hydrological cycle through spiral curriculum model in science education: The United States versus Turkey. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2), 579-599.
• Donovan, W. & Nakhleh, M. (2007). Student use of web-based tutorial materials and understanding of chemistry concepts. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(4), 291-327.
• Doymus, K., Dasdemir, I., Aksoy, G., & Simsek, U. (2006). Fen derslerinin ogretilmesinde animasyonlarin etkisi. Paper presented at the 7th National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, Ankara.
• Glaser, B. G. & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2), Art. 4. Retrieved on 12 January 2011 from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040245.
• Gungormus, G. (2007). The effect of games used in web based education on success and permanency (Unpublished master thesis). Ankara: Gazi University.
• Gürbüz, R. (2007). Students’ and their teachers’ opinions about the instruction based on the materials on probability subject. Kastamonu Education Journal, 15(1), 259-270.
• Halat, E., Jakubowski, E., & Aydin, N. (2008). Reform-based curriculum and motivation in geometry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(3), 285- 292.
• Haughey, M. & Muirhead, B.(2005). Evaluating learning objects for schools. The e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology (e-JIST), 8(1).
• Helmstadter, G. C. (1970). Research concepts in human behavior: Education, psychology, sociology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Jaakkola, T. & Nurmi, S. (2004). Academic impact of learning objects: The case of electric circuits. Paper presented at the BERA (British Educational Research Association) 2004 Conference, Manchester, UK.
• Jones R. (2004). Designing adaptable learning resources with learning object patterns. Journal of Digital Information, 6(1).
• Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2005). Developing learning objects for secondary school students: A multi-component model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 229-254.
• Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2007a). A systematic evaluation of learning objects for secondary school students. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(4), 411–448.
• 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.
• Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2008a). An examination of the impact of learning objects in secondary school. Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 447-461.
• Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2008b). A formative analysis of individual differences in the effectiveness of learning objects in secondary school. Computers and Education, 51(3), 1304-1320.
• 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, 147-168.
• Kaya, O. N. (2009). The nature of relationships among the components of pedagogical content knowledge of pre-service science teachers: ‘Ozone layer depletion’ as an example. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 961-988.
• Keller, J. M. (1995). Motivation by design. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, College of Education.
• Kong, S. C. & Kwok, L. F. (2005). A cognitive tool for teaching the addition/subtraction of common fractions: A model of affordances. Computers and Education, 45(2), 245-265.
• Krämer, B. J. (2005). Reusable Learning Objects: Let's give it another trial. Fern Universität in Hagen, Forschungsberichte des Fachbereichs Elektrotechnik.
• Lehman, R. M. & Conceicao, S. C. O. (2007). American sign language learning objects for instruction: A higher education perspective. In P. Northrup (Ed.) Learning objects for instruction. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Leinonen T. (2005). Learning objects – Is the King naked? Retrieved on 19 March 2009 from http://flosse.dicole.org/?item=learning-objects-is-the-king-naked.
• MacDonald, C.J., Stodel, E., Thompson, T.L., Muirhead, B., Hinton, C., Carson, B., & Banit, E. (2005). Addressing the eLearning contradiction: A collaborative approach for developing a conceptual framework learning object. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 181-196.
• Mclean, N. & R. Iannella (2002). Digital rights management (drm) in education: The need for standardization. Briefing paper, Australian IMS Centre. Retrieved on 4 April 2007 from http:// xml.coverpages.org/IMS-Briefing-DRM-200202.pdf.
• Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.
• MoNE (2011). New curriculum of science and technology education. Retrieved on 12 March 2011 from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/modules.php.
• Namuth, D., Fritz, S., King, J., & Boren, A. (2005). Principles of sustainable learning object libraries. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 181-196.
• Nurmi, S. & Jaakkola, T. (2005). Problems underlying the learning object approach. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 1(11).
• Olkinuora, E., Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. & Nurmi, S. (2004). Evaluating the Pedagogical Value of Multimedia Learning Material: An Experimental Study in Primary School. In N. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.). Curriculum, plans, and processes in instructional design. International perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Parrish, P. E. (2004). The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 49-67.
• Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (2008). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd Ed.). London: Sage.
• Rehak, D. R. & Mason, R. (2003) Keeping the learning in learning objects. In Littlejohn, A. (Ed.) Reusing online resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning (pp.20-34). London: Kogan Page.
• Salas K. & Ellis L. (2006). The development and implementation of learning objects in a higher education setting. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 1-22.
• Sosteric M. & Hesemeier S. (2002). When is a learning object not an object: a first step towards a theory of learning objects. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 3, 1-16.
• Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Todd, Z., Nerlich, B., McKeown, S. & Clarke, D. D.(2004). Mixing methods in psychology: The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice. Psychology Press.
• Varank, I. (2003). The effects of computer training on Turkish teachers' attitudes toward computers and the effects of computer-supported lessons on Turkish students’ reported motivation to lessons (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Florida.
• Väljataga, T. (2005). Design and evaluation of problem-based learning objects for environmental education in Estonian secondary school. e-Learning in Higher Education: EUDORA Intensive programme ELHE during the summer school in Viljandi, Estonia, Linz, Austria: Trauner Verlag, (pp.214-231).
• Wiley, D. (2002). Learning objects need instructional design theory. In E. Rossett (Ed.), The ASTD e-Learning Handbook. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
• Yildirim, A. & Simsek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastırma yontemleri. Ankara: Seckin.
• Correspondence: Yalin Kilic Turel, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Education and
• Instructional Technologies, Faculty of Education, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey