e-Learning Borderless Education - Informatics · e-Learning Borderless Education. An accepted European ICT certification standard promoted by CEPIS ... training to the workplace and

The European Online Magazine for the IT Professionalhttp://www.upgrade-cepis.org

Vol. IV, No. 5, October 2003

e-LearningBorderless Education

An accepted EuropeanICT certification standard

promoted by CEPIS(Council of European Professional

Informatics Societies)

<http://www.eucip.com/>

1

UPGRADE

is the European Journal for the Informatics Professional, published bimonthly at <http://www.upgrade-cepis.org/>

Publisher

UPGRADE is published on behalf of CEPIS (Council of European Professional Informatics Societies,<http://www.cepis.org/>) by NOVÁTICA<http://www.ati.es/novatica/>, journal of the Spanish CEPIS society ATI (Asociación de Técnicos de Informática<http://www.ati.es/>).UPGRADE is also published in Spanish (full issue printed, some articles online) by NOVÁTICA, and in Italian (abstracts and some articles online) by the Italian CEPIS society ALSI<http://www.alsi.it> and the Italian IT portal Tecnoteca<http://www.tecnoteca.it/>.UPGRADE was created in October 2000 by CEPIS and was first published by NOVÁTICA and INFORMATIK/INFORMATIQUE, bimonthly journal of SVI/FSI (Swiss Federation of Professional Informatics Societies, <http://www.svifsi.ch/>).

Editorial Team

Chief Editor: Rafael Fernández Calvo, Spain <[email protected]> Associate Editors: • François Louis Nicolet, Switzerland, <[email protected]> • Roberto Carniel, Italy, <[email protected]>

Editorial Board

Prof. Wolffried Stucky, CEPIS PresidentFernando Piera Gómez andRafael Fernández Calvo, ATI (Spain)François Louis Nicolet, SI (Switzerland)Roberto Carniel, ALSI – Tecnoteca (Italy)

English Editors:

Mike Andersson, Richard Butchart, David Cash, Arthur Cook, Tracey Darch, Laura Davies, Nick Dunn, Rodney Fennemore, Hilary Green, Roger Harris, Michael Hird, Jim Holder, Alasdair MacLeod, Pat Moody, Adam David Moss, Phil Parkin, Brian Robson.

Cover page

designed by Antonio Crespo Foix, © ATI 2003

Layout:

Pascale Schürmann

E-mail addresses for editorial correspondence:<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> or <[email protected]>

E-mail address for advertising correspondence:<[email protected]>

Upgrade Newslist

available at <http://www.upgrade-cepis.org/pages/editinfo.html#newslist>

Copyright

© NOVÀTICA 2003. All rights reserved. Abstracting is permitted with credit to the source. For copying, reprint, or republication permission, write to the editors.

The opinions expressed by the authors are their exclusive responsibility.

ISSN 1684-5285


Joint issue with N

OVÁTICA

*

2 PresentationDistance Learning –

Ángel Fidalgo-Blanco and Martín Llamas-Nistal

The guest editors present the issue, of highly practical nature, whose aim is to provide readers with a necessarily limited overview of e-Learning systems, via a series of articles on some significant aspects – standards, technological questions and practical e-Learning use cases – which they consider representative of the work currently being done in this field. As usual, a list of Useful References is also included for those interested in knowing more about this subject.

6 Technology Enhanced Learning: Research Activities within the Framework of the European Commission

– Patricia Manson and Elena Coello

The authors describe how the European Commission Directorate General for the Information Society is supporting the development of learning technologies by their programmes and calls for research.

8 Standardization in Computer Based Learning

– Judith Rodríguez-Estévez, Manuel Caeiro-Rodríguez, and Juan M. Santos-Gago

This paper presents the state of the art and current trends in the standardization process of computer based learning, identifying the most important institutions involved, their role in the process and the most interesting fields and issues.

16 CEN/ISSS WS-LT: The European Standardization Body for Learning Technologies

– Frans Van Assche and Mike Collett

The authors present the standardization activities conducted by the Workshop on Learning Technologies (WS-LT) of the Comité Européen de Normalisation/Information Society Standardization System (CEN/ISSS).

21 Component-Based Software Engineering and CSCL in the Field of e-Learning

– Yannis A. Dimitriadis, Juan-Ignacio Asensio-Pérez, Alejandra Martínez-Monés, and César A. Osuna-Gómez

The authors take a look at various alternative approaches to the problem of adequately transferring the highly dynamic requirements of the learning environment to CSCL (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning) applications.

29 AVANTE: A Web Based Instruction Architecture based on XML/XSL Standards, Free Software and Distributed CORBA Components

– Víctor Theoktisto, Adelaide Bianchini, Edna Ruckhaus, and Lee Lima

The authors describe the e-Learning architecture being used at the Universidad Simón Bolívar in Caracas, Venezuela.

39 E-Learning in Distance Education and in the New Cooperative Environments

– Enrique Rubio-Royo, Domingo J. Gallego, and Catalina Alonso-García

This paper gives an overview of the application of the Internet in distance learning provided by the UNED (Open University of Spain).

47 Information Technologies and Knowledge Management in the Ongoing Training of Doctors

– Cristina Zamanillo-Sarmiento, Julián Ruiz-Ferrán, and Ángel Fidalgo-Blanco

This article concerns an e-Learning experience with healthcare professionals in which the objective is to keep them permanently up to date so they can manage their private practices more efficiently and effectively.

53 EducaNext: a Service for Knowledge Sharing

– Joaquín Salvachúa-Rodríguez, Juan Quemada-Vives, Blanca Rodríguez-Pajares, and Gabriel Huecas Fernández-Toribio

The authors describe a multilingual e-Learning service for higher education institutions, research organisations, and professional communities, based on sharing and collaboration for designing learning resources.

* This monograph will be also published in Spanish (full issue printed; summary, abstracts and some articles online) by NOVÁTICA, journal of the Spanish CEPIS society ATI (Asociación de Técnicos de Informática) at <http://www.ati.es/novatica/>, and in Italian (online edition only, containing summary abstracts and some articles) by the Italian CEPIS society ALSI and the Italian IT portal Tecnoteca at <http://www.tecnoteca.it>.

e-Learning – Borderless Education

Guest Editors:

Ángel Fidalgo-Blanco and Martín Llamas-Nistal

Next issue (December 2003):“IS Security and Contingency Plans”

http://www.ati.es/novatica/infonovatica_eng.html

http://www.upgrade-cepis.org


2

UP

GRADE

Vol. IV, No. 5, October 2003 © Novática

Presentation

Distance Learning

Ángel Fidalgo-Blanco and Martín Llamas-NistalGuest Editors

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) havenot only transformed many of the day to day activities ofpeople and organizations but have also become a powerfulinstrument for meeting new needs. More specifically, ICT areused to enhance quality in the field of training, allowing learn-ers to take a more active part in the learning process, bringingtraining to the workplace and making learning accessible topeople who are unable to attend on site classes.

But it’s not all good news; the two main problems arisingfrom the incorporation of ICT in learning processes are: • The inappropriate use of these technologies, which can

produce exactly the opposite effect to what was intended.• The widening of the education gap between rich and poor

regions (as the latter lack the necessary technological infra-structures)

An Evolving Terminology

The various methods and procedures whereby ICT isapplied to training is popularly known by the all embracingterm e-Learning, but also goes under various other names, suchas tele-learning, tele-training, tele-education (or distance learn-ing, electronic learning, etc., etc.). This is not helpful for theuninitiated to gain an understanding of the exact meaning of theterm e-Learning and prevents people, even those who have hadsome experience of this kind of learning, from having a generalvision of its possibilities.

Various terms have been used to refer to the application ofICT in training:• First of all there was CBT (

Computer Based Training

) whichbasically consisted of using a personal computer as an‘assistant teacher’; the computer was responsible forperforming certain tasks with the learners, for exampleasking questions and explaining the concepts that the learnerhad problems with. This term was current until the early 90s.

• The increasing power of computers and the appearance ofCD-ROMs, the most important feature of which is, as read-ers will be aware, their ability to store large amounts ofinformation on a single recordable disk, gave rise to anotherterm,

Educational Multimedia

. The main feature of Educa-tional Multimedia was its ability to integrate different kindsof information, for example an image or a video and connectit via links (hypertext or hypermedia), in a similar way topresent day web pages. This term was current until the mid90s.

• The consolidation of communications networks, specificallythe Internet, gave rise to

Tele-training

which basicallyconsisted of using networks as a means of communication

between learner and teacher; the learner used e-mail to sendthe teacher queries and assignments and content was organ-ized on web pages. This term had a relatively short lifespan

• The term

e-Learning

first appeared in the mid 90s and isused to describe Internet based tools providing a series ofservices to be applied in training processes; these servicesare typically: communications (forums, chat, e-mail);management (learner management, grades, statistics), coop-erative work (virtual hard disks, shared directories) andnavigation (indexes, multimedia, lists, …). e-Learningsystems were quickly incorporated into distance learningprocesses, although they were also applied to other types oftraining (on site, at the workplace, ongoing or lifelong, …).The main weakness of these systems is the way content istransmitted, that is, the problem of designing and applyingpedagogical methods which ensure that the learner reallydoes learn.

• In recent years a new generation of e-Learning systemsincorporating knowledge management techniques is begin-

1

Ángel Fidalgo-Blanco has a PhD in Informatics. He is aProfessor of the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM),Spain, and has more than 15 years’ experience in the applicationof ICT to learning. He is currently Deputy Head of the Depart-ment of Applied Mathematics and Informatic Methods at theUPM, Director of the Laboratory of Innovation in InformationTechnologies (DMAMI-UPM) and collaborator in educationalinnovation at the UNESCO Department of University Manage-ment and Policy. He forms part of the academic management ofthe Master in “Consulting in e-Business Information Technolo-gies” at the Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. <[email protected]>

Martín Llamas-Nistal is a Telecommunications Engineer(1986) and has a PhD in Telecommunications (1994), both fromthe Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain. Since 1987 he hasbeen lecturing at the ETSI de Telecomunicaciones (Higher Tech-nical School of Telecommunications Engineering) of the Univer-sidad de Vigo, Spain (where he was assistant head during theperiod 1994–1997). He is currently an associate professor of theDepartment of Telematic Engineering of that same university. Hehas led several research projects in the field of telematics and hasauthored more than 100 publications in journals and domestic andinternational congresses. His areas of interest are protocol engi-neering, formal description techniques, e-Learning, web servicesand architecture, and Internet based applications. Since Decem-ber 1998 he has been the Head of ICT Area at the Universidad deVigo, Spain. He is a member of ATI, IEEE and ACM. <[email protected]>


http://www.upgrade-cepis.org/issues/2003/5/upgrade-vIV-5.html


© Novática

UP

GRADE


3

ning to appear; these systems are known as LCMS (

Learn-ing Content Management System

) e-Learning. These are animprovement over previous methods as they reduce the costand the preparation time of a course, reorganize contentaccording to individual student’s needs and allow the differ-ent content to be reused.

All these terms reflect a specific technological advance, andthe term e-Learning should therefore be understood to mean aseries of processes and technologies developed to serve theworld of training; the where, how and when depends on thevision of those responsible for training, on the learning envi-ronment and on the specific needs of each organization or indi-vidual.

The decisive factor behind the qualitative and quantitativegrowth of the influence of ICT on training was the arrival of theInternet and its star application, the World Wide Web (WWW,or simply the Web). It was first used as a simple means ofcommunication (mainly via e-mail, as we mentioned earlier)and distribution of software and material. In the early days ofthe Web an abundance of educational material was distributedover the Internet, mainly on web pages, but the problem wasthat this material, mainly notes and written material in generalthat needed printing out, was not necessarily designed for thismedium.

Around this time the first tele-training or e-Learning

plat-forms

were also being developed, aimed at integrating thedifferent aspects of training over this new medium. One of thebiggest problems in this new environment, with its manyplatforms which are not always compatible with one other, isthe matter of the reuse of learning resources which are oftencostly to produce.

Interoperability

is another requirement to bemet; different systems or platforms need to be able to inter-change information and work together. All of the above givesrise to the need for

standards

to regulate these requirements.

The Contents of This Monograph

In this highly practical monograph we aim to providereaders with an overview of some significant aspects of e-Learning systems, albeit a necessarily limited one, via a seriesof articles which we consider representative of the workcurrently being done in this field. The articles are divided intothree clearly differentiated sections – standards, major techno-logical aspects and practical e-Learning use cases – prefaced byour opening article, “

Technology Enhanced Learning:Research Activities within the Framework of the EuropeanCommission

” in which

Patricia Manson

and

Elena Coello

, ofthe European Commission Directorate General for the Infor-mation Society, describe how the European Union is support-ing the development of learning technologies by theirprogrammes and calls for research.

In the first section – standards – we have two articles. Thefirst is “

Standardization in Computer Based Learning

”, by

Judith Rodríguez-Estévez

,

Manuel Caeiro-Rodríguez

and

Juan M. Santos-Gago

, which presents the state of the art andcurrent trends in the standardization process of computer basedlearning, identifying the most important institutions involved,their role in the process and the most interesting fields and is-sues. Meanwhile, the second article, “

CEN/ISSS WS-LT: TheEuropean Standardization Body for Learning Technologies

”,by

Frans Van Assche

and

Mike Collett

, presents the standardi-zation activities conducted by the Workshop on Learning Tech-nologies, WS-LT, of the CEN/ISSS (Comité Européen deNormalisation/Information Society Standardization System).

The second section, dealing with technological aspects ofimportance to the theme of the monograph, comprises anothertwo articles. The first is by

Yannis A. Dimitriadis

,

Juan-Ignacio Asensio-Pérez

,

Alejandra Martínez-Monés

and

CésarA. Osuna-Gómez

, and is entitled “

Component-Based SoftwareEngineering and CSCL in the Field of e-Learning

”. It takes alook at various alternative approaches to the problem of ade-quately transferring the highly dynamic requirements of thelearning environment to CSCL (Computer-Supported Collabo-rative Learning) applications. The second article, “

AVANTE: AWeb Based Instruction Architecture based on XML/XSL Stand-ards, Free Software and Distributed CORBA Components

”,authored by

Víctor Theoktisto

,

Adelaide Bianchini

,

EdnaRuckhaus

and

Lee Lima

describes the architecture being usedat the Universidad Simón Bolívar in Caracas, Venezuela).

The final section, dealing with practical use cases in the fieldof e-Learning, is made up of three articles covering differentactivity sectors: “

e -Learning in Distance Education and in theNew Cooperative Environments

”, by

Enrique Rubio-Royo

,

Domingo

J. Gallego

and

Catalina Alonso-García

, provides uswith an overview of the application of the Internet in distancelearning provided by the UNED (Universidad Nacional deEducación a Distancia – Open University of Spain) and showsus how the incorporation of ICT affects teachers’ work, creat-ing new expectations for enhancing learning processes. “

Infor-mation Technologies and Knowledge Management in theOngoing Training of Doctors

”, by

Cristina Zamanillo-Sarmiento

,

Julián Ruiz-Ferrán

and

Ángel Fidalgo-Blanco

,concerns an e-Learning experience with healthcare profession-als in which the objective is to keep them permanently up todate so they can manage their private practices more efficientlyand effectively. Finally, “

EducaNext: A Service for KnowledgeSharing

”, by

Joaquín Salvachúa-Rodríguez

,

Juan Quemada-Vives

,

Blanca Rodríguez-Pajares

and

Gabriel Huecas

,describes an e-Learning service based on sharing and collabo-ration for designing learning resources, in which the ISABELapplication, developed since 1993 by the Escuela TécnicaSuperior de Ingenieros de Telecomunicación of the Universi-dad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain, plays a major role.

Translation by Steve Turpin

2




4

UP

GRADE


Acknowledgements

While expressing our hope that this monograph will help readers ofUpgrade and Novática towards a better understanding of some of theessential aspects of e-Learning, we want also show our gratitude to theeditors of both journals for the trust they have placed in us and the helpthey have given us throughout the whole preparation and editing proc-ess. Thanks also go to the authors for their articles, particularly toPatricia Manson, head of the Technology Enhanced Learning Unit(European Commission Directorate General for the InformationSociety) for her special contribution to the monograph.

Note from the Editor of Upgrade:

This monograph will be also published in Spanish (full issue print-ed; summary, abstracts and some articles online) by Novática, journalof the Spanish CEPIS society ATI (Asociación de Técnicos deInformática) at <http://www.ati.es/novatica/>, and in Italian (onlineedition only, containing summary, abstracts and some articles) by theItalian CEPIS society ALSI and the Italian IT portal Tecnoteca at<http://www.tecnoteca.it>.

Useful References about e-Learning

Collected by Ángel Fidalgo-Blanco and Martín Llamas-Nistal

The following information has been posted for those whowant to have a deeper knowledge of the wide field of e-Learn-ing. It complements the bibliography and references includedin the papers published in this issue.

Associations

• AAHE (American Association for Higher Education). <http://www.aahe.org>.

• ADIE (Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Informática Educativa):<http://chico.inf-cr.uclm.es:8080/adie/index.html>. (In Spanish.)

• ARIADNE Foundation for the European Knowledge Pool: <http://www.ariadne-eu.org>.

• EAEEIE (European Association of Education on Electrical andInformation Engineering): <http://www.eaeeie.org>.

• PROMETEUS: <http://www.prometeus.org>.• RIBIE (Red Iberoamericana de Informática Educativa):

<http://www.ribie.org>. (In Spanish.)

Books

B. Abbey (Ed.)Instructional and cognitive impacts of Web-based education.Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2000.

C. J. Bonk and K. S. King (Eds.)Electronic collaborators: Learner-centred technologies for litera-cy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum, 1998.

W. A. DravesTeaching online. River Falls, WI: LERN Books, LearningResource Network, 2000.

Franklin and Strenski (Eds.)Building University Electronic Educational Environments,Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.

William HortonEvaluating E-Learning: Here is how you can predict success,measure value, and prove worth. Alexandria, VA: ASTD, 2001.

S. HortonWeb teaching guide: A practical approach to creating course Websites. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

G. KearsleyOnline education: Learning and teaching in Cyberspace. Bel-mont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2000.

W. W. Lee and D. OwensMultimedia-Based Instructional Design: Computer-Based Train-ing, Web-Based Training, and Distance Learning. Jossey-Bass,2000.

Manuel Ortega, José Bravo (Eds.)Computers and Education: towards an Interconnected Society,Kluwer Ac. Pub, 2001.

Passey and Kendall (Eds.)TelE-LEARNING. The challenge for the New Millennium,Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.

M. RosenbergE-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the DigitalAge. McGraw-Hill, 2000.

Gilly SalmonE-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online.London: Kogan Page or Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2000.

Christine Steeples and Chris Jones, (Eds.)Networked Learning: Perspectives and Issues. London: Springer-Verlag, 2002.

Watson and Andersen (Eds.)Networking the Learner, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.

K. M. White and B. H. Weight, (Eds.)The online teaching guide: A handbook of attitudes,strategies,and techniques for the virtual classroom. Boston: Allyn andBacon, 2000.

Journals and Magazines

• BEEP (Best Education E-Practices): <http://www.spjc.edu/eagle/BEEP/issues.htm>.

• Computer Applications in Engineering Education, Ed. Wiley: <http://www.wileyeurope.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-CAE.html>.

• Computers and Education, Ed. Elsevier: <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03601315>.

• Educational Technology & Society, IEEE: <http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/>.

• e-Learning y gestión de conocimiento (Knowledge Management):<http://www.rrhhmagazine.com/>. (In Spanish.)

• IEEE Transactions on Education: <http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/transactions/te.htm>.

• JERIC (Journal on Educational Resources in Computing), ACM:<http://www.acm.org/pubs/jeric/>.




© Novática

UP

GRADE


5

• Teaching with Technology Today, University of Wisconsin, USA:<http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/index.htm>.

• The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learn-ing, Athabasca University (Canada’s Open University): <http://www.irrodl.org/>.

Reports

• Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality. Communica-tion from the European Commission, 2001. <http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lll/life/communication/com_en.pdf>.

• The Learning Content Management System. A New e-LearningMarket Segment Emerges. An IDC White Paper, 2001. <http://www.kmgpinc.com/downloads/IDCLCMSWhitePaper.pdf>.

Standardization

• ADL/SCORM (Advanced Distributed Learning/Sharable ContentObject Reference Model): <http://www.adlnet.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=scormabt>.

• GESTALT/RDS (Getting Educational Systems Talking AcrossLeading edge Technologies/Resource Discovery Service): <http://www.fdgroup.co.uk/gestalt/rds/index.htm>)

• IEEE/LTSC Learning Objects Metadata: <http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/>.

• LSAL (Learning Systems Architecture Laboratory): <http://www.lsal.cmu.edu>.

• OKI (Open Knowledge Initiative): <http://web.mit.edu/oki>.• SIF (Schools Interoperability Framework):

<http://www.sifinfo.org>.

Tools

• Black Board: <http://www.blackboard.com/>.• Tools’ Informational Portal: <http://liti.dmami.upm.es/elearning>.

(In Spanish.)• WEBCT: <http://www.webct.com/>.

Web Portals

• Brandon Hall’s e-Learning trends, best practices, tools and vendors:<http://www.brandon-hall.com/index.html>.

• EuroLearning: <http://www.eurolearning.com/UK/main.jsp>.• European e-Learning Portal (multilingual):

<http://www.elearningeuropa.info/>.• Forbes. Reports, articles, documents and news about e-Learning:

<http://www.forbes.com/specialsections/elearning/contents.htm>.• Repository of e-Learning articles:

<http://www.bctechnology.com/statics/ps_archive.html>.• Resource Centre of didactic materials and technologies:

<http://www.cnice.mecd.es/>. (In Spanish).• UNESCO Chair of e-Learning:

<http://www.uned.es/catedraunesco-ead>. (In Spanish).




6

UP

GRADE


Technology Enhanced Learning: Research Activities within the Framework of the European Commission

Patricia Manson and Elena Coello

This article takes a look at the activities in the field of research into technology enhanced learning which theunit of the same name is carrying out under the auspices of the Directorate General for the InformationSociety of the European Commission.

Keywords:

e-Learning, Knowledge Society, ongoing train-ing, personalized learning, technology enhanced learning.

If the term

Information Society

refers to the evolution andavailability of technology in everyday life,

Knowledge Society

recognises the importance of know-how accumulated by indi-viduals, and their experience and capacity for learning andacquiring new knowledge. The knowledge society implies thatthe creation of wealth, welfare, and employment dependsdirectly on its citizens’ ongoing learning and their capacity totransform learning into a source of innovation and competitiveedge. However the digital gap could isolate some citizens fromtechnological progress. Ongoing education and training thusbecome key elements in the building of the knowledge society.

The European Commission (EC) has contributed to the de-velopment of technologies with specific educational purposesvia a series of RDT (Research, Technological Development anddemonstration) Framework Programmes. The EC took part inthe 2

nd

Framework Programme with the DELTA programme,and has since been maintained a presence in all subsequentframework programmes, not to mention the e-Europe initiative,launched in the year 2000 with the aim of speeding up thearrival of the information society in Europe. e-Europe explicit-ly recognises that the ongoing development of individual skillsand expertise is one of the keys to improving quality of life andemployment.

The Internet and World Wide Web revolution brought abouta radical change in the development of technology enhancedlearning, moving away from offline solutions, CD-ROM basedlearning, or CBI (Computer Based Instruction), towards onlinecooperation environments which allow remote students tointeract with one another, place the learner at the centre of thelearning process and give the instructor a new role. This evolu-tion is due not only to the tremendous advances made in tech-nology but is also a result of the progress made in knowledgeof the state of the art as a result of years of research into thesubject. We have learned a great deal about the integration ofmultimedia elements in educational environments thanks toprojects funded during the 4th Framework Programme. The 5thFramework Programme, however, saw an evolution away fromthe paradigm of teacher-learner based unidirectional teachingof predefined subjects, the learner-centred learning paradigm.

The use of technology, hands over – or will hand over – thecontrol over learning to the students themselves, whether intheir private, professional or educational lives, thanks to the

ubiquitous access to personalized learning

. In this new para-digm, the role of the teacher is redefined: as well as being theprimary source of knowledge in a certain subject, more empha-sis is given to a teacher’s role as a support and guide for learnersto increase their ability to learn how to learn.

Together with the most outstanding achievements whichcame out of previous framework programmes, such as the EUN(European SchoolNet), the ARIADNE platform, and thePROMETEUS consensus forum, many other projects havecontributed to improving the understanding we have of tech-nology enhanced learning and defining research priorities inthe 6th Framework Programme. These are projects which tack-le practically all the issues related to the development and useof technology for enhancing the learning process, a process in

Patricia Manson is Head of Unit, Technology EnhancedLearning, within the Directorate for Interfaces, knowledge andcontent technologies. Applications. Information market of theInformation Society Directorate General. She has worked withthe European Commission's programmes for research in Informa-tion Society Technologies (IST) applications areas and predeces-sor programmes for 10 years, focusing on topics relating toaccessing digital content prior to moving to the TechnologyEnhanced Learning area. <[email protected]>

Elena Coello has a B.A. from the Universidad de Valladolid,Spain, completing her studies with a final year at the Universityof Saarland, Germany. She has worked for the EuropeanCommission for three years in their R&D programme Informa-tion Society Technologies (IST) in the field of Multimedia Appli-cations and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)applied to the enhancement of learning, education and training,with special involvement in the coordination of activities relatedto ICT supported vocational training and corporate training. Herprofessional experience outside the European Commission hasbeen in the field of research management, in both public andprivate sectors: University of Madgeburg (Germany), InstitutMunicipal d'Investigació Mèdica (IMIM) (Barcelona, Spain),Sema Group (Madrid, Spain) y Groupe des Écoles de Télé-communications (Paris, France). <[email protected]>




© Novática UPGRADE Vol. IV, No. 5, October 2003 7

which Spain has played an important role in recent years.Below we give some examples.

Adaptivity in learning systems is the research objective of theALFANET project. Other projects are responding to the needsof learning in the corporate environment. LIP and CORONET,which are exploring the intersection between e-Learning andknowledge management are an example of these, while theSLIM-VRT project is researching into the development of softskills in virtual environments. Meanwhile, by providing flexi-ble access to university courses, the CUBER project providesan answer to individuals’ and organizations’ learning needs andMETACAMPUS has developed a portal using intelligent agenttechnology, user authentication systems and e-paymentsystems in order to enable content, teachers and subjects to beinterchanged virtually between students of one university andany other university. The aim of the PED-CARE project is toimprove the relationship between students and teachers via theproper use of communication technologies, such as the Internetor mobile technologies, while the use and development ofinnovative technology to improve language learning has beenthe main aim of several projects, ALLES for example.

The 6th RDT Framework Programme has given EuropeanUnion research new instruments. Alongside existing specificprojects of focused research in previous framework pro-grammes, integrated projects and excellence networks, knownas the ‘new instruments’, have been designed with the idea ofoptimising research resources in Europe by coordinating themmore efficiently. Integrated projects and excellence networkswill contribute to the creation of the European Research Space.

The Information Society Technologies (IST) programme ofthe 6th Framework Programme has been in full swing sinceJanuary 2003. The first proposals to be chosen deal with whatare to be the key issues in research into technology enhancedlearning in the coming years: adaptavity, personalization,collaboration learning, and blended learning (which combinesthe use of the Internet with on site classes, with a teacher andnormally in groups), both in state regulated educationenvironments, such as schools and universities, and in voca-tional and continuous training. The end user, the individualwho is learning, is at the centre of the learning process and canacquire the means allowing them to take active decisionsconcerning their training. With regard to the technology chosento achieve these goals, the most important aspects to be consid-ered are, on the one hand, the use of open platforms, the use of

standards, interoperability and the reuse of resources, and onthe other, network technologies, particularly those based onGRID, and interface technology. While by the end of the yearwe can expect new projects to feature mobile applications,remote wireless access, virtual and augmented reality, simula-tions, 3D, etc, these same technologies will also figure promi-nently in the call for proposals for the next FrameworkProgramme, as will other issues such as informal learning,peer-to-peer learning, etc.

The potential for technology to support and enhance thelearning process must surely have been in the forefront of theminds of the first developers of technological applications.People’s attitude towards e-Learning first went through a phaseof scepticism as a result of the lack of understanding of whattechnology had to offer educational environments. Manypeople saw, and some still see, e-Learning as the isolation ofthe student, or the elimination of the teacher, or simply as a wayto cut training costs. These ideas have been falling by thewayside as a result of the findings of some extensive researchwork. There are already highly advanced e-Learning platformson the market which are beginning to realize the full potentialof technology to allow a greater flexibility of access andprogress in learning according to learners’ individual require-ments. Personalization and ubiquitous access are, and willcontinue to be, key issues in the development of technologicalapplications for learning. They will enable access to the knowl-edge sources and educational resources which are appropriateto individual needs at any given time. By resources is meant notonly pre-defined elements but also the knowledge acquiredthrough communication with other students, teachers orexperts in a given subject via virtual communities. Thus, theuse of technology will push out the physical boundaries ofcollaboration in the classroom. The challenge for futureresearch into technology enhanced learning is to show howtechnology is able to improve the quality of learning in allpossible scenarios, and what added value technology canprovide to the learning process. In order to do this, technologi-cal applications aimed at enhancing learning require a certainorganizational context and a strategic balance between pedago-gy and technology.

At <http://www.cordis.lu/ist/directorate_e/telearn/index.htm>the readers of Upgrade can find additional information aboutall the above.





8 UPGRADE Vol. IV, No. 5, October 2003 © Novática

Standardization in Computer Based Learning

Judith Rodríguez-Estévez, Manuel Caeiro-Rodríguez, and Juan M. Santos-Gago

In recent years, the evolution of information and communications technologies (ICT) has given rise to agreat many e-Learning systems and resources, bringing with it, as is customary, problems of reuse andinteroperability. As a result of this situation, a number of international institutions and groups haveembarked on a process of standardization in order to obtain a set of broadly accepted recommendations.This article aims to show readers the present state of the art and current trends in the standardization processof computer based learning.

Keywords: data models, e-Learning systems, interopera-bility, reuse, standardization.

IntroductionMany institutions have made use of the advances in

multimedia technologies, online communication and softwareengineering to offer learning products and services at everylevel. Learning resources and systems abound and, as a result,there is a clear need for some form of standardization. As inother initiatives aimed at creating a standard, the standardiza-tion to be applied to educational technologies must enablereuse and interoperability among systems.

In this article, which is intended as a first point of referencefor the researcher or anyone involved in the field of standardi-zation in e-Learning, we provide an overview of the currentstate of the art in this field, identifying the key aspects in thisprocess (sections 2–9) and describing the most interestingissues: formats and data models, description and representationof learning resources, organizations, educational modellinglanguages and management matters. In section 10 we go on tolook at other aspects to do with the standardization of learningtechnologies which are currently in a less developed state thanthose dealt with earlier.

In the following section we start by taking a look at the insti-tutions and organizations involved in the standardization ofeducational systems.

Institutions InvolvedThe institutions and organizations involved are typically

in the USA or Europe using a large number of software prod-ucts and, more specifically, educational software applications.

2.1 Institutions in the USA and Other non-European Countries

The Learning Technologies Standardization Committee(LTSC, <http://ltsc.ieee.org>) of the IEEE (Institute of Electri-cal & Electronics Engineers) is concerned with practicallyevery aspect of computer based learning. Its main aim is todevelop technical standards, recommended practices andguidelines for software components, tools, technologies and

methods to aid the development, implementation, maintenanceand interoperability of educational systems.

The “36th subcommittee of the first joint International Stand-ardization Organization and International ElectrotechnicalCommission” (ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36, <http://jtc1sc36.org>)was set up in 1999 to deal with all aspects related to the stand-ardization of the learning technologies. Its main interest lies ininteroperability, not only at a technical level but also taking intoaccount cultural and social issues.

In 1997 IMS Global Learning Consortium, <http://www.imsglobal.org>, emerged as a project within the NationalLearning Infrastructure Initiative promoted by EDUCAUSE,formerly EDUCOM, a consortium of educational institutionsin the USA plus corporate partners, to define technical stand-ards for the interoperability of distributed learning services and

1

2

Judith Rodríguez-Estévez graduated as a telecommunicationsengineer (1999) from the Universidad de Vigo, Spain. She iscurrently lecturing as a visiting professor in the Dept. of Telemat-ic Engineering of the same university, and is responsible, togetherwith other lecturers, for the subjects of Software Engineering,Computer Fundamentals and Computer Networks. Her interestsare centred around e-learning, the semantic web and web services.<[email protected]>

Manuel Caeiro-Rodríguez was awarded a degree in telecom-munications engineering in 1999 from the Universidad de Vigo,Spain. He is currently a professor of software engineering in theSchool of Telecommunications of this university where he isstudying for his PhD. His field of research is focused on thedevelopment of software architectures for distributed learningsystems. He is particularly interested in the application of resultsin the fields of workflow and groupware for the creation of flexi-ble learning environments. <[email protected]>

Juan M. Santos-Gago is a Telecommunication Engineer(1998). He has been involved in several projects related todistance learning and e-commerce. He is currently an AssistantProfessor in the Dept. of Telematic Engineering of the Universi-dad de Vigo, Spain. His PhD is related to the application ofSemantic Web concepts to enhance personalized learning envi-ronments. <[email protected]>





applications. Nowadays IMS’s most important work is in thefields of meta-data, content packaging, EMLs (EducationModelling Languages), questionnaire definition, and themanagement and handling of group and learner information.

The Aviation Industry CBT Committee (AICC, <http://www.aicc.org>) is the natural response to the challenge of education-al standardization from one of the most important consumers ofeducational software. AICC’s activities are aimed at, inter alia,the definition of software and hardware requirements for learn-ers’ computers, their needs in terms of peripherals, multimediaformats for course contents and properties of the user interface.The AICC is closely involved in the United States Departmentof Defence’s ADL initiative and has been serving the aviationindustry since 1988.

In 1997, the United States Department of Defence and theWhite House Science and Technology Bureau launched an ini-tiative named Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL, <http://www.adlnet.org>). From its outset ADL has been centred onWeb based education. It coordinates its work with other organ-izations like the IEEE, IMS and AICC. Among the results ofthis collaboration is the Sharable Content Object ReferenceModel (SCORM). This proposal includes a reference model forshareable educational software objects, a runtime environmentand a content aggregation model.

The project Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM, <http://www.geminfo.org>) provides a working framework for thepublication and location of learning resources available on theInternet. This project began in 1997 as a special project underthe auspices of the ERIC Clearinghouse on Information &Technology.

Education Network Australia (EdNA, <http://www.edna.edu.au>) is aimed at promoting the Internet as a support tool forcomputer based learning among the Australian educationalcommunity, from learners to content providers. Like GEM,EdNA’s main aim is to provide access to educational servicesand resources.

2.2 European InstitutionsIn the European Union there are four major initiatives

concerned with the standardization of computer based educa-tion. The Alliance of Remote Instructional Authoring andDistribution Networks for Europe (ARIADNE, <http://www.ariadne-eu.org>) formed part of the IV Framework Programmeof the European Commission. Among the most important fieldsof work undertaken by this alliance are computer networks foreducation and learning, methodologies for the development,management and reuse of educational contents, study plans forthe definition of computer based learning, and educationalmetadata.

The project GESTALT, Getting Educational Systems TalkingAcross Leading edge Technologies, <http://www.fdgroup.co.uk/gestalt/>, also part of the IV Framework Programme of theEuropean Commission, sets up a working framework for thedevelopment of compatible, scalable, heterogeneous anddistributed educational systems. Its main aim is to enable usersto discover learning resources, as well as providing an accessto those resources and an appropriate management of thenetwork infrastructure.

PROMETEUS, PROmoting Multimedia access to Educationand Training in EUropean Society, <http://www.prometeus.org>, is another European initiative bringing together morethan 400 institutions involved in the standardization of compu-ter based education.

The Information Society Standardization System (ISSS) is asubcommittee of the European Committee for Standardization(Comité Européen of Normalisation, CEN). The ISSS’s activi-ties in pursuit of educational standardization take place in theLearning Technologies Workshop (CEN/ISSS/LT, <http://www.cenorm.be/sh/lt>). Their main efforts are aimed at thereuse and interoperability of learning resources, collaborativeeducation, metadata for educational content and quality in thelearning process, while taking into consideration the culturaldiversity of Europe.

LTSC & JTC1/SC36 Close Collaboration

ISO/IECJTCI1/SC36

CurrentFuture

SamplingOrganizations

Figure 1: Major Contributors to the Standardization Process in e-Learning.

LTSC





2.3 Joint InitiativesAs the reader may gather from the various proposals

discussed in the following sections of this article, in many casesthey are the result of the joint efforts of several institutionsinvolved in the standardization process. Normally an activity isinitiated simultaneously in various institutions and, in thecourse of the process, contact is made between them in order todecide on final recommendations. In most cases the LTSC gath-ers together the proposals from all the players and then convertsthem into common recommendations after reaching a commonconsensus. Eventually, proposals approved by the IEEE begina more rigorous process in order to become ISO or ANSI stand-ards (see Figure 1). Table 1 gives a breakdown of the all contri-butions discussed in this article, contributions which, in mostcases, have become basic references in the field of e-Learning.

Educational MetadataEducational metadata is one of the most prolific fields in

the standardization of technologies applied to learning. Meta-data provides descriptions, properties and information abouteducational objects, allowing them to be described so as tosimplify their use and management.

One of the main collaborators in the definition of educationalmetadata is the LTSC committee of the IEEE. In 1998, the IMSinitiative and the ARIADNE project carried out a joint proposalwith the IEEE which went on to become the current Base Doc-ument of the Learning Object Metadata (LOM) specification.

Since June 2002, LOM has been the first officially recog-nised standard resulting from the standardization processdescribed in this article. LOM specifies the syntax and seman-tics of an educational object’s metadata. This set of metadatadefines the attributes required to fully describe an educationalobject. LOM is focused on the minimum set of attributes need-ed to allow these educational objects to be easily managed,located and evaluated. This set of metadata may also includesuch attributes as learning and interaction style, educationallevel or prerequisites.

The core set of metadata known as the Dublin Core, <http://dublincore.org>, is a widely used, general purpose metadataschema, the main purpose of which is to facilitate the locationof resources. In August 1999 the DCAC (Dublin Core AdvisoryCommittee) founded the Dublin Core Education Workgroupwith the aim of developing and carrying out a proposal for theuse of Dublin Core metadata in the description of learningresources. Its task is basically to make proposals for expandingthe Dublin Core set to describe this particular type of resources,taking LOM and the IMS proposal as a basis.

The IMS project found that one of the primary tasks toconsider in the standardization process was to reach a broadconsensus on learning resource metadata. Since 1998, whenLOM was created as a result of IMS’s first joint proposal withARIADNE, the consortium has been collaborating on a regularbasis on its development.

The ADL initiative proposal is closely linked to the IMS andLOM proposals. However, its main aim is to fill the existinggap between metadata specifications and implementationoriented content models. Although in many cases XML

(eXtensible Markup Language) implementations are available,the LOM based specifications listed earlier provide no descrip-tion at all of how to apply the metadata to each particular sys-tem. The ADL initiative’s metadata proposal is based on LOMand is defined within SCORM specifications. Basically, meta-data is used to describe the three basic components of theSCORM model: assets, SCOs and content aggregation (see thenext section on packaging and organization).

In 1998 ARIADNE developed, jointly with the IMS project,the initial metadata proposal which would eventually becomeLOM. Its aim was to develop a metadata schema which couldbe used in a multicultural and multilingual environment,neutral with regard to the language used by either the learningresource or the metadata instance itself. ARIADNE’s metadatais currently being developed in parallel to LOM, while retain-ing some of its own elements.

The main aim of the GEM initiative is to provide a solutionfor the location and publication of learning resources availableon the Internet. GEM provides a tool which helps contentproviders to catalogue the resources they make available to thepublic. The cataloguing process is supported by a metadatamodel whose latest version, released in March 2002, fully inte-grates the Dublin Core metadata set and the recommendationsof Dublin Core’s Education Workgroup.

Along the same lines, the Australian project EdNA hasdefined a Dublin Core based metadata schema, expanded withnew elements, whose aim is to provide descriptive informationfor the classification of learning resources.

As readers will have gathered, these last two proposals arecentred on solving the specific problem of the location andretrieval of learning resources in each particular applicationenvironment. The role they play in the standardization processis not as apparent as in the previous proposals.

Packaging and Organization of Learning ResourcesA key factor in the process of exchanging learning

resource aggregations among different systems is the mainte-nance of the existing relationships between the different unitsmaking up the aggregation. It is therefore essential to definedata models which allow the structure of the learning resourceaggregations to be represented with a view to enabling wholecourses or parts of courses to be exchanged.

The most interesting recommendation in this respect is theproposal from the IMS consortium: the IMS Content Packag-ing specification. The key element in this model is the package.A package represents an aggregation of learning resourceswhich is treated as a single entity. This aggregation may in-clude an single course, one or several parts of a course or evena collection of courses.

IMS packages are made up of two elements. The first is the‘manifest’, an XML document which describes the encapsulat-ed content and how it is organized. The second is the education-al content described in the manifest, such as web pages, textfiles, evaluation objects or any kind of data material. Whenthese elements are encapsulated in a single file (e.g., a com-pressed .zip, .jar, or .cab file), the resulting file is known as aPackage Interchange File.

3

4





One of the most important components of the manifest is thesub-element Organizations. This element is used to specify oneor several alternative organizations for the resources includedin the package. Each organization defines the static relation-ships which exist between the aggregation resources in theform of a hierarchical tree, as can be seen in Figure 2, in whicheach item corresponds either to a learning resource or an aggre-gation of lower level items.

Other institutions besides the IMS consortium have beenworking in this field. For example, the first task of the ADLinitiative in this field was to adapt the format for the structuredefinition of courses developed by the AICC to XML. Thelatest official version of the SCORM reference model has

adopted the IMS proposal. The SCORM Content AggregationModel (CAM) includes an extended version of the IMS Pack-aging Model, incorporating, among other less significant fea-tures, the possibility of defining ‘access prerequisites’. Theseprerequisites support the definition of simple dynamic behav-iours in resource organizations by establishing a set of accessconditions for each item depending on the learner’s status in theother items in the aggregation. In this way SCORM providessimple sequencing and conditional browsing capabilities.

The IMS consortium has recently released a more versatilesequencing model called IMS Simple Sequencing Specifica-tion, <http://www.imsglobal.org/simplesequencing/index.cfm>.This specification defines a method of representing the author’s

Acronym Proposal Entity responsible

Reference Date

Metadata

DCMI Dublin Core Metadata Initiative DC-Ed <http://dublincore.org/groups/education/> 21/10/02

EdNA MD EdNA Metadata EdNA <http://standards.edna.edu.au/metadata/index.html> 25/10/01

GEM MD GEM Metadata GEM <http://www.geminfo.org/Workbench/gem2.html> 14/03/02

GEMSTONES Gestalt Extensions to Metadata Standards for on-line Education Systems

GESTALT <http://www.fdgroup.co.uk/gestalt/metadata.html> 26/04/99

IMS MD IMS Metadata IMS <http://www.imsproject.org/metadata/< 01/10/01

LOM Learning Object Metadata LTSC <http://ltsc.ieee.org/doc/wg12/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf> 12/06/02

Packaging and Organization of Learning Resources

CMI CMI Guidelines for Interoperability AICC <http://www.aicc.org/docs/tech/cmi001v3-5.pdf> 02/04/01

IMS CP IMS Content Packaging IMS <http://www.imsglobal.org/content/packaging/> 01/07/03

SCORM-CAM Content Aggregation Model ADL <http://www.adlnet.org/ADLDOCS/Documents/SCORM_1.2_CAM.pdf> 01/10/01

IMS SS IMS Simple Sequencing IMS <http://www.imsproject.org/simplesequencing/> 20/03/03

Learner Information

EPAPI Extended PAPI GESTALT <http://www.fdgroup.co.uk/gestalt/D502v4.zip> 21/10/99

IMS Enterprise IMS Enterprise IMS <http://www.imsproject.org/enterprise/> 01/07/02

IMS LIP IMS Learner Information Package IMS <http://www.imsproject.org/profiles/> 09/03/01

PAPI Public and Private Information for Learners

LTSC <http://edutool.com/papi> 25/11/01

UOM Unit Object Model GESTALT <http://www.fdgroup.co.uk/gestalt/D502v4.zip> 21/10/99

Evaluation Models

IMS Q&TI IMS Question & Test Interoperability IMS <http://www.imsproject.org/question/> 26/03/03

EMLs

OUNL-EML Educational Modelling Language OUNL <http://eml.ou.nl> 01/06/01

IMS LD Learning Design IMS <http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/> 20/01/03

Runtime Environments

CMI CMI Guidelines for Interoperability AICC <http://www.aicc.org/docs/tech/cmi001v3-5.pdf> 02/04/01

SCORM-RTE Runtime Environment ADL <http://www.adlnet.org/ADLDOCS/Documents/SCORM_1.2_RunTimeEnv.pdf>

01/10/01

Digital Repositories

KPS Knowledge Pool System ARIADNE <http://ariadne.unil.ch> 01/06/02

IMS DR IMS Digital Repositories IMS <http://www.imsproject.org/digitalrepositories/> 12/08/02

Table 1: The Most Important Proposals for the Standardization of e-Learning.





intended behaviour for a learning session, in other words, thesequence in which educational objects are delivered to thelearner. The standard includes three data models:

Sequencing Definition Model: is used to describe thesequencing behaviour.

Tracking Model: is used to record information about thelearner’s interactions with the learning activities in order tocontrol the selection and sequencing of other activities.

Activity State Model: records information about the situa-tion or status of the learner with regard to the activities sched-uled.

The general process of Simple Sequencing can be describedas a combination of several behavioural models: Navigation,Exit, Roll Up, Selection and Randomization, Sequencing andDelivery.

Educational Modelling LanguagesThe OUNL EML (Open University of the Netherlands'

Educational Modelling Language) defines a learning process asa set of activities for both learners and teachers without anyspecific link to any concrete approach. An EML describes notonly the content of a study unit (text, questionnaires) but alsostudents’ and teachers’ roles, relationships, interactions andactivities. In this respect EML is designed so as to allow manydifferent pedagogies to be expressed, and groups learningobjects with learning objectives, prerequisites, learning activi-ties, teaching activities and learning services in a workflow (orrather a learning flow) which models itself on a specific learn-ing design.

The IMS Learning Design specification is based on OUNLEML, created by the Open University of the Netherlands, andwas recently accepted as an IMS specification (January 2003).Its aim is to provide a framework of elements to formallydescribe the design of any learning-teaching process. It pro-vides a flexible and generic language which supports the defi-nition of learning designs under different pedagogical

approaches. IMS Learning Design is a proposal which inte-grates with other IMS specifications: IMS Content Packaging(Section 4), IMS Meta-data/LOM (Section 3), IMS Questionand Test Interoperability (Section 7) and IMS Simple Sequenc-ing (Section 4).

There are other less important EMLs proposals for differentapproaches. The CEN/ISSS Workshop on Learning Technolo-gies produced the CEN Workshop Agreement [1] in whichinterested readers can find a survey of EMLs. According to thissurvey, an EML is “a semantic information model and binding,describing the content and process within a ‘unit of learning’from a pedagogical perspective”. Both OUNL EML and IMSLearning Design fit this definition perfectly.

Learner InformationLearner information comes basically from three different

sources: personal information (e.g., address, telephonenumber), preferences (e.g., operating system, network connec-tion, computer configuration) and academic information (e.g.courses completed, grades). As in the case of content or coursestructure specifications, learner data models facilitate the inter-change of learner information among the various platforms ofdifferent institutions.

However, educational systems involve other structures whichinclude learner information. Normally an educational processis organized around learner groups, a given schedule, etc. Inother words, the available information about learners definesthe individual properties of learners, but also defines the learn-er-learner and learner-other agent relationships that may exist.

As in other applications involving the handling of personaldata, issues of security and privacy arise. Learner informationshould also be provided in terms of who requires access theinformation: learners, teachers, system managers, relatives,other colleagues, the general public, etc.

The PAPI (Public And Private Information) of the aforemen-tioned Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) ofthe IEEE, defines the syntax and the semantics for a learnerinformation model as a set of records. PAPI is intended as thefoundation of a Learner Model containing all the necessaryinformation to describe a learner. IEEE LTSC has actuallyalready sent a current version of PAPI (draft 8) to the ISO/IECJTC1 SC36 for further standardization.

IMS is continuing with two lines of work concerning learnermanagement information the first of which is a learner profilemodel, the IMS Profile initiative. They define Learner Informa-tion as “a collection of information about a Learner (individualor group learners) or a Producer of learning content (creators,providers or vendors)”. This Learner Information Package(LIP) specification organizes learner information into 11 cate-gories, is compatible with the vCard [2] specification andincludes the results of the IEEE PAPI.

The second line of work concerns the definition of standardstructures allowing interoperability between systems lodged inthe same company or organization. This initiative, IMS Enter-prise, complements the one described above. While IMSProfile provides support to describe the learner, IMS Enterprise

5

6

organizations

item

resource

organization

organization

item

item

item

item

item

item

resource

resource

resource

Figure 2: Organization of Resources in an IMS Package.





provides a description of the information needed to managethose learners in a learning system.

Like IMS, GESTALT has developed two specificationsconcerning user data management: EPAPI, which defineslearner profiles, and UOM, which manages groups and defineslearning units. Basically EPAPI is an XML implementation ofPAPI, adapted to the needs of GESTALT, and is based onversion 5.0 of PAPI. The Unit Object Model (UOM) describeslearning units as entities which relate learning objectives,access requirements, learner groups, teachers, tutors and learn-ing process planning. In other words, this model allows users tospecify all the agents involved in the learning process and alltheir relationships.

Learner EvaluationIMS’s specification, Question & Test Interoperability

(QTI), deals with the matter of the exchange of evaluationmaterial between heterogeneous learning systems, such asindividual questions or questions grouped into questionnaires.This specification includes both the format of a set of structuresto represent evaluation material, such as details about whatquestions to include and in what order, and all the informationrequired to process students’ results. It also includes structuresfor the exchange of the corresponding student evaluationreports. Thus the educational content administrators and devel-opers have the necessary formats to import and exportquestions or whole questionnaires, including the results of thestudent evaluation process.

The QTI specification is very versatile and includes a widerepertoire of data structures enabling quite complex evaluationmaterial to be represented (most types of questions commonlyused in e-learning systems nowadays are supported by thespecification). The possibility has also been considered ofincluding proprietary extensions without compromising theintegrity of the QTI specification, which will enable QTI to beadopted by existing tools. However, due to the complexity thatthis will involve, a simpler version, called QTILite, has alsobeen released. This stripped down version of the specificationonly supports a subset of the structures described in the fullversion.

Runtime EnvironmentsIn order to enable the reuse of educational content, one

basic requirement is the clear separation between the contentsand the logic which manages them, in other words, their ‘runt-ime environment’. The basic tasks of runtime environments areto deliver contents to the learner, to support the interactionbetween content and learner, and the decision of the next edu-cational resource ‘to deliver’ depending on the static anddynamic structure of the course and on the prior actions of thestudent (see Section 4). In order to enable reuse, the logic need-ed to provide this functionality must be clearly separated fromthe learning resources themselves, such as multimedia ele-ments, and even the software modules responsible for otherfunctionalities (e.g., content transfer, communication betweenstudents, etc.).

The most important proposals in terms of runtime environ-ments come from the AICC and of the ADL initiative. Recentlythe IEEE LTSC has set up a workgroup on runtime environ-ments the specifications of which are based to a large extent onthe work of the AICC.

The way to start up educational contents is known as thelaunch mechanism. This mechanism defines the proceduresand responsibilities for setting up the communication betweenthe delivered resource and the LMS (Learning ManagementSystem). Once this communication has been initiated, thereshould be a clearly defined procedure for the interchange ofinformation. The communication between the LMS and thelearning resources is channelled through an interface whichstandardizes the communication protocols, providing ways forthe runtime environment to keep informed about the status ofthe educational content (initiated, ended, etc.), and to inter-change information between the LMS and the resource. Thecommon vocabulary used in this communication is defined inthe runtime environment’s Data Model. This model defines astandard list of elements used to describe the information to beinterchanged, such as the status of the educational resource.

In order to ensure content reusability and interoperability,LMS developers must implement these launch mechanismsand their corresponding interface correctly, while contentdevelopers must ensure the proper use of the interface and datamodel provided.

The definition of runtime environments has evolved overseveral stages in recent years. In the beginning, when e-Learn-ing systems tended to be autonomous, the AICC developed afile based communication interface to use in MS-DOS operat-ing systems. Later, in collaboration with the ADL initiative,they replaced this with an interface based on the HTTP proto-col. This new interface was clearly oriented towards TCP/IPnetworks. Finally, this model was revised to include an API(Application Program Interface) separating the runtime envi-ronment from the protocol layer (see Figure 3.)

Digital Repositories“ADL development envisions the creation of learning

‘knowledge’ libraries, or repositories where learning objectsmay be accumulated and catalogued for broad distribution anduse. These objects must be readily accessible across the WorldWide Web or whatever forms our global information networktakes in the future.” [3]

Digital repositories store collections of resources which canbe returned over the Internet without prior knowledge of thecollection’s structure. Digital repositories store both theresources themselves and the metadata describing thoseresources, although they may be physically stored in differentrepositories.

The basic functionality provided by a digital repository canbe described, in a nutshell, as working on two levels. First levelactions are carried out by the user while second level actionsare performed by the repository itself: search/expose, gath-er/expose, submit/store, request/deliver and alert/expose.

Recently, the IMS consortium has released the final specifi-cation (three documents) on the interoperability of digital

7

8

9





repositories. The main aim of the specification is to define a setof common services allowing digital repositories to present acommon interface. The specification also establishes acommon functional architecture and a reference model for thecapture of the common aspects of the most popular implemen-tations of digital repositories. Another vital feature of this spec-ification is that it does not aim to define a complete set of serv-ices but focuses on the definition of a set of common essentialservices so that external entities can store and access digitalcontent in the repositories.

Basically the IMS specification takes into account all theimportant aspects of existing digital repositories. For thatreason the specification does not define new schemas butmakes use of existing ones: principally metadata and contentpackaging. The specification also makes suppositions about theunderlying technologies for implementations: (1) SOAP as amessage protocol, (2) XQuery as the query language for XMLdocuments, and Z39.50 as the search protocol for genericdigital repositories (i.e. those not specifically located within thescope of the e-Learning). However, these are candidate tech-nologies and there is no commitment or agreement to includethem in future versions of the specification.

There is also some other noteworthy work being carried outin this field (e.g. ARIADNE [4] or UNIVERSAL [5]) based onthe concept of interoperable digital repositories. The main goalof these projects is to provide federated networks of repositor-ies of educational objects with additional intermediation func-tionalities.

Other Proposals and RecommendationsIn this section we take a look at other standards which are

at an early stage of specification and that do not clearly fall into

any of the categories previously mentioned. For each field ofwork we name the institutions involved.

10.1 Definitions of Competence In order to have a common knowledge of the competence of

learners we need universally accepted data models of compe-tence definitions. There are currently definitions of terms suchas Learning Objective, Competence and Skill, but very littleagreement on how these definitions can be used to define reus-able competence data models. The IEEE LTSC has a work-group, the P1484.20, working on competence definitions. Thisgroup has published the document Competency DefinitionData Objects [6]. The IMS has also published a document, IMSReusable Competencies Definition Information Model Specifi-cation [7] which is very similar to LTSC’s work.

10.2 Location These specifications deal with matters relating to cultural and

linguistic diversity. This includes translations of humanlanguages (for example of learning documents or vocabulariesof learning object meta-data), but also more technical matters(e.g., encodings and character sets, date formats) and alsocultural matters of a more general nature (e.g., representationsof appropriate icons or user interface metaphors). Europeaninstitutions like PROMETEUS and CEN/ISSS, among others,are working on this issue.

10.3 Intellectual PropertyQuestions of intellectual property arise in several ways when

we consider the role of information technology in educationand training. These specifications aim to specify a contractbetween the holder of the intellectual rights of the resource and

10

Learning Management System (LMS)

LMSServer

Server Side

Data ModelActual data sentback and forthbetween SCOand LMS

Browser

Client Side

Launch(Starts SCO)SCO

APIAdapter

JavaScript

API (CommunicationLink between SCOand LMS

Figure 3: API Based Runtime Environment (SCORM).





the users of that resource. PROMETEUS and the CEN/ISSSare also concerned with matters of intellectual property.

10.4 Accessibility The first recommendations in terms of accessibility were

published by IMS [8]. PROMETEUS and CEN/ISSS are alsoworking on the development of recommendations and guide-lines to enable people with disabilities to access quality e-Learning.

In addition to these, there are other fields of work under studyby various groups. For example, the AICC is proposing guide-lines and recommendations to facilitate the use of computerbased learning systems. They have defined several elementsconcerning the user interface, media document format media orhardware systems.

ConclusionsThe standardization of educational technologies is a chal-

lenging process. There are many issues to be considered, themost important of which we have dealt with in this article.From a strictly methodological viewpoint, this field is a mix-ture of traditional approaches to standardization, led by classicstandardization groups, of slow and rigid evolution producingrecommendations starting from zero, and approaches providedby users or the industry who develop standards from existingproducts and experience.

Eventually some of the contributions presented in this articlewill become generally accepted standards or recommenda-tions, LOM being a good a example of this process. For thisreason it is vitally important for the different players to collab-orate with each other, a trend which can be seen at the presentmoment in time. Within the different fields of standardizationwe can already see some proposals which are a reference forthe rest.


References[1]

A. Rawlings, P. Rosmalen., R. Koper, M. Rodrígez-Artacho, andP. Lefrere. Survey of Educational Modelling Languages (EMLs),version 1, CEN/ISSS WS/LT Learning Technologies Workshop,2002.

[2]F. Dawson, and T. Howes. vCard MIME Directory Profile, Tech-nical Report, Internet Engineering Task Force, 1998. <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2426.txt>.

[3]T. Looms and C. Christensen. Advanced Distributed LearningEmerging and Enabling Technologies for the Design of LearningObject Repositories, ADL Technical Report. Advanced Distribut-ed Learning (ADL) Initiative, 2002.

[4]E. Duval, E. Forte, K. Cardinaels, B. Verhoeven, R. Van Durm, K.Hendrikx, M. Wentland-Forte, N. Ebel, M. Macowicz, K. Wark-entyne, and F. Haenni. The ARIADNE Knowledge Pool System,Communications of the ACM, 44 (5) 73–78, 2001.

[5]S. Brantner, T. Enzi, S. Guth, G. Neumann, B. Simon. UNIVER-SAL: Design and Implementation of a Highly Flexible E-MarketPlace for Learning Resources, Proceedings of the IEEE Interna-tional Conference on Advanced Distributed Learning Technolo-gies, IEEE, Madison (WI), USA, 2001.

[6]C. Ostyn. Proposed base document for a Draft Standard for Com-petency Definition Data Objects, IEEE Learning TechnologyStandards Committee, May 1999 <http://ltsc.ieee.org/doc/wg20/CompDefInit.doc>.

[7]A. Cooper, and C. Ostyn. IMS Reusable Definition of Competen-cy or Educational Objective – Information Model Version 1.0Final Specification. IMS Global Learning Consortium, October2002. <http://www.imsproject.org/competencies/>.

[8]C. Barstow, M. McKell, M. Rothberg, and C. Schmidt. IMSGuidelines for Developing Accessible Learning Applications.Version 1.0 White Paper. IMS Global Learning Consortium,2002. <http://www.imsproject.org/accessibility/accessiblevers/index.htm>.

11





CEN/ISSS WS-LT: The European Standardization Body for Learning Technologies

Frans Van Assche and Mike Collett

After a short discussion on Learning Technology (LT) standardization on an international level, this paperelaborates on the work of the Workshop on Learning Technologies (WS-LT) of CEN/ISSS (Comité Européende Normalisation/Information Society Standardization System), the European Information SocietyStandardization body. The WS-LT was established in 1999 and has produced work in areas such asEducational Modelling Languages, Quality Assurance, Learning Object Metadata related activities,Vocabularies and Taxonomies, and Description of Language Capabilities. Current work focuses on digitalrights and copyright protection, interoperability frameworks, learner profiles, accessibility, harmonizationof vocabularies, and the establishment of a learning technology observatory.

Keywords: CEN/ISSS, learning technologies, standardiza-tion, WS-LT.

Standards in Learning TechnologiesEuropean standards may seem dry and technical, but they

play a role of increasing political importance in Europe. Inparticular, standards have five main aims related to e-Learningcontent, systems and subsystems:1. Interoperability: The ability of the system to work with

another system. This applies to all the varieties of informa-tion related to an e-Learning system including content,student/teacher profiles and system parameters.

2. Re-usability: The ability to allow interchangeable compo-nents to be reused in the same or in different systems.

3. Manageability: The management of any e-Learningsystem should allow to track the appropriate informationof the actors involved.

4. Accessibility: The ability of the system to provide thelearner with access the appropriate content at the appropri-ate time.

5. Durability: The intention of any standard to avoid or delayobsolescence.

Broadly speaking, achieving these properties is a general aimfor most of the components of computer software, for example,but related to the e-Learning industry and focusing on thelearning process, there is a set of issues that are covered byLearning Technologies (LT) specifications, most of themcurrently under development.

Standardization Bodies in the WorldBefore discussing the standardization bodies, it is impor-

tant to understand that technically there are two kinds of stand-ards:• De jure Standard: Specifications officially approved by

right or by law, as opposed to de facto. The designation/certification of a specification's status is carried out by an

accredited body such as IEEE LTSC (Institute of Electrical& Electronics Engineers – Learning Technologies Standard-ization Committee), ISO/IEC–JTC1/SC36 (InternationalOrganization for Standardization/International Electrotech-nical Commission), or European CEN/ISSS (ComitéEuropéen de Normalisation/Information Society Standardi-zation System), in Europe.

• De facto Standard: A specification existing in fact whetherwith lawful authority or not. Typically, when a critical massor majority choose to adopt and use a specification. Forexample, Java, Adobe PDF documents, VHS videotape, etc.,are all “de facto” standards.

The ideal state is when a de jure standard is also de facto, (forinstance HTTP). Specifications evolve and become standardsover time and go through several phases of development beforethey become widely adopted or become de facto.

There are many groups, consisting of researchers andconsultants from different backgrounds, involved in the studyand development of Learning Standards. At the same time,

1

2

Frans Van Assche is strategy manager of the European School-net, <http:// www.eun.org>. He is the vice-chair of the CEN/ISSSLearning Technology workshop and an associate professor at theSchool of Economics in Brussels, Belgium. He has led highprofile projects concerning eLearning including the EuropeanSchoolnet Multimedia project, and Web for Schools. He wassecretary of IFIP 8.1 and vice-president Research and Develop-ment James Martin associates Europe. <[email protected]>

Mike Collett has been involved for several years in promotingopen technical standards to support learning in UK, European andinternational groups. He is currently Chair of the British Stand-ards Institution’s committee (IST43) and the European committee(CEN/ISSS WS-LT) responsible for learning technology stand-ards and represents the UK at the international level.<[email protected]>





different standards bodies are active in the field of education.However, only a few groups are relevant for the development ofLT standards. A main distinction must be made between formalstandardization bodies and other working groups or organiza-tions.

The main formal standardization bodies for learning technol-ogies are:• CEN-ISSS WS-LT: LT Workgroup of the European Stand-

ardization Committee, <http://www.cenorm.be/sh/lt>.• IEEE-LTSC: Learning Technology Standards Committee of

the IEEE, <http://ltsc.ieee.org>.• ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36: Specialized committee of ISO and

IEC, <http://jtc1sc36.org/>.Besides the formal standardization bodies for learning tech-

nologies there are various groups that are actively involved onthe development and/or implementation of standards or speci-fications for Learning Technologies. Such groups may issuespecifications that become de facto or industry standards, beinvolved in pre-standardization work leading to standards, orbe involved post-standardization work such as the developmentof application profiles, localizations, and dissemination activi-ties.

Influential groups include:• IMS Project, <http://www.imsglobal.org>.• Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, <http://dublincore.org>.• AICC (Aviation Industry CBT Committee),

<http://www.aicc.org>.• ADL Initiative (Advanced Distributed Learning),

<http://www.adlnet.org>. • ARIADNE Foundation (Alliance of Remote Instructional

Authoring and Distribution Networks for Europe), <http://www.ariadne-eu.org>.

• European Schoolnet, <http://www.eun.org>.• CETIS (Centre for Educational Technology Interoperabili-

ty), <http://www.cetis.ac.uk/>.• Schools Interoperability Framework,

<http://www.sifinfo.org/>.• CanCore Metadata, <http://www.cancore.ca/indexen.html>• EdNA (Education Network Australia)

<http://www.edna.edu.au>.None of these groups work in isolation and, in fact, very

close interactions often occur, as participants in these forumsare in some cases the same people, companies and workinggroups.

The Workshop on Learning Technologies (WS-LT) of CEN/ISSS

The Learning Technologies Workshop was officiallylaunched in February 1999. The initial activity of the Workshophas been the preparation of a report identifying requirementsfor standards-related activity in relation to learning technolo-gies. This report was published as CEN Workshop AgreementCWA 14040 in October 2000 on which the following objectiveis based.

The Workshop's objective is to encourage the effective devel-opment and use of relevant and appropriate standards for learn-ing technologies for Europe by

• Encouraging participation in global initiatives in order toensure that diverse European requirements are properlyaddressed by those global initiatives;

• Creating specifications, agreements, guidelines or recom-mendations where appropriate, i.e. when no initiativeaddressing the identified requirements is in place yet orwhen global solutions developed elsewhere need to be local-ized to European requirements;

• Providing a forum for the development and implementationof requirements-driven Learning Technologies e.g. throughthe development of a network or test bed for interoperabilitytesting or through the creation of reference examples;

• Carefully examining and taking into account the variouseffects, of the diversity of cultural backgrounds andlanguages that exists within Europe, on learning and trainingtechnology standards;

• Publicizing the Learning Technologies Workshop's activi-ties and results to relevant European projects, technologydevelopers and end users;

• Providing a discussion forum for European projects andother initiatives.

The workshop on learning technologies is – like otherCEN/ISSS Workshops – an open working group aimed atproducing specifications on a consensus basis, as guidance orother material. The Workshop is open to all; it makes use ofelectronic working methods, enabling participation by compa-nies, organizations and academia without the need for attend-ance in person at the Workshop meetings.

The CEN/ISSS Workshops produce CEN Workshop Agree-ments (CWAs)1, which are consensus-based specificationsdrawn up in the special open Workshop environment. They aredeveloped along straightforward lines, with a minimum ofbureaucratic rules. CWAs may contain technical specifications,but they may also contain guidance material of a purely inform-ative nature, such as guidelines or codes of practice, or theymay address the implementation of existing standards.

A CWA reflects the consensus of identified companies andorganizations responsible for its contents. Unlike a EuropeanStandard, it does not depend upon the votes of national delega-tions for its acceptance, nor is it designed to support legislativerequirements. Instead, its purpose is to offer interested partiesa flexible and timely tool for achieving a technical agreementwhere there is no prevailing desire or support for a formalstandard to be developed. Approved CWAs are howeverpublished by CEN National Members (the national standardsbodies).

Activities of the WS-LT during 2001 and 2002In the first years of its existence the WS-LT engaged in

Educational Modelling Languages, Quality Assurance, Learn-ing Object Metadata related activities, vocabularies and taxon-omies, and description of language capabilities.

3

1. All the CWAs related, as in this case, to the eEurope Action Planare available at <http://www.cenorm.be/sh/lt>.

4





4.1 EML (Educational Modelling Language)Today, there are many different ways of describing educa-

tional material. A standardized EML would enable learningmaterial to be described extensively using agreed definitions.The environment of the learning material could be matchedwith that of individual students, so that if the student appears tobe having difficulty with a concept, supplementary remediallearning material can be provided. If a standardized descriptioncould be drawn up, then learning material produced in onelearning institution can be used in others, and a bank of learn-ing resources could be built up.

As a first step towards a standardized EML, the Workshopdeveloped a survey of six existing Educational ModellingLanguages, which compares the scopes and looks at the respec-tive merits and weaknesses of these EMLs. This report wascompleted in October 2002.

4.2 Quality Assurance The public perception of the quality and awards obtained

through learning schemes that involve use of learning technol-ogies must not be compromised if such schemes are to flourish.

Standards on quality requirements of different processescannot be established before the processes themselves aredefined. Moreover, such standards should not be prescriptive,especially when dealing with stylistic or pedagogical issues. Asan example, descriptive elements might be used to ensure thetransparency of design and development processes. Suchelements may include reports and documentation.

The Workshop produced an analysis of existing approaches,focusing on two main aspects: Process-oriented approachesand transparency of learning resources. The outcome of theproject was CWA 14644, “Quality Assurance Standards for IT-supported Learning, Education and Training”, published inJanuary 2003.

4.3 Learning Object Metadata Related ActivitiesBecause of their role in indexing and retrieving of resources,

standardized metadata are vital to the education sector. TheIEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC)Learning Object Metadata (LOM) is the commonly acceptedglobal standards solution for describing learning objectsthrough metadata. The definition of the LOM data modelresulted in 2002 in the publication of the LOM data modelstandard by IEEE.

To help others understand and implement the standard, theWorkshop is translating the LOM document into other Europe-an languages. It is hoped to also translate associated parts of thestandard, such as the XML (eXtensible Markup Language)bindings documents, as they are approved. The Learning Tech-nologies Workshop has complemented this global activity withtwo projects that address Europe's specific requirements.

A first project ensures that the IEEE LOM, as the globallyaccepted solution, is capable of addressing specific Europeancultural requirements (such as multilinguality). The outcome ofthis project was CWA 14643, “Internationalization of the IEEELearning Object Metadata”, published in January 2003.

A second project within a LOM context has investigatedstandardization actions to permit the identification of alterna-tive versions of resources, in different languages, as well as theorigin of the translation. The outcome of this project was CWA14645, “Availability of alternative language versions of alearning resource in IEEE LOM”, also published in January2003.

4.4 Vocabularies and TaxonomiesLearning objects will only be reused if they can be easily

found, understood, adapted and integrated by other people. It istherefore of utmost importance that Learning Objects arecorrectly classified, described and, most of all, well indexed.

The indexing activity within the Learning Object Metadata(LOM) model involves an analysis of the content of an objectand its main characteristics. In the LOM model, several dataelements have been created for the important task of describingthe content and characteristics of a resource. These dataelements are complementary to other data elements that giveadditional information in natural language, usually in thelanguage of the Learning Object and/or the Learning Objectindexer. Therefore the choice of an appropriate “vocabulary”for this key operation is crucial to ensure that the LOM is inter-operable and able to facilitate successful searching.

The project delivered a CWA on “Controlled Vocabulariesfor Learning Object Metadata”, addressing the issue of whatvocabularies should be used for specific categories and dataelements of the LOM, as well as a web based Vocabularies Reg-istry.

4.5 Description of Language CapabilitiesA key objective of the Workshop is to enable multilinguality,

while preserving the cultural wealth of Europe. In support ofthese aims CWA 14590, “Description of Language Capabili-ties”, was published in October 2002.

The specification enables teachers and learners to selectappropriate languages for communication. This informationwill help providers to offer appropriate learning resources. Thedefault delivery could be in the mother tongue of the learner ifsuch a version is available. Alternatively, written, audio orvideo content can be delivered in appropriate languages. Ifthere is no version in a language that matches the capabilitiesof the end user, then machine translation could be considered.Most importantly, all of this will have to be implemented givingdue consideration to privacy concerns.

Current activities of the WS-LTCurrent activities of the WS-LT include investigations

into digital rights and copyright protection, interoperabilityframeworks, learner profiles, accessibility, harmonization ofvocabularies, and the establishment of a Learning TechnologyObservatory.

5.1 CopyrightAs digital learning materials become more widely available

and it becomes easier to edit, combine and redistribute resourc-es, the issues of digital rights and copyright protection become

5





even more complex. Publishers want to protect their investmentagainst illegal copying and non-commercial organizations orindividuals want mechanisms to share materials with certainrestrictions.

The Workshop will continue to examine digital rightsmanagement and coordinate with international developmentsand offer a European perspective. In particular, it will focus onuse cases and best practice, links to standardization initiativesand make suggestions for developing and harmonising Europe-an educational licence conditions.

5.2 Interoperability FrameworksMost of the information that supports school administration

is now stored and transferred electronically. It is important thatthe correct information is preserved and that informationremains up-to-date in all instances of a record, but this is oftenmade difficult because not every application uses the samevocabularies, format and structure.

The Workshop aims to provide interoperability specificationsfor a range of information exchange. While initially aimed atschool systems, this will also be applicable in a wider lifelonglearning context. This work item will support the outputs of theOASIS project (Open Architecture and Schools in Society –IST-2000-26216), available at <http://oasis.cnice.mecd.es/public_deliverables/descarga/D5-2_r1.pdf>), that enables dif-ferent applications and systems to share information, and theSIF project (Schools Interoperability Framework), <http://www.sifinfo.org/>.

Existing specifications will be adapted to meet the needs of abroader audience so they are suitable for standardization. Anyspecifications produced should not duplicate internationalstandards activity.

5.3 Learner ProfilesIt is inevitable that information about users will be stored

electronically and transferred between learning systems. Thereare issues about privacy and data protection but it is importantthat various systems can interoperate to exchange learner infor-mation records. The Workshop is dealing with the developmentof data models, protocols and bindings that are capable ofexpressing specific European requirements and concerns forlearner information, for example an acceptable model forhandling competency that allows the secure handling of thispersonal information in open and distributed learning environ-ments.

The development of European contributions as part of futureinternational standards is required in order to avoid conflictwith European privacy or security demands. The Workshopencourages harmonization of effort and provides input intointernational activities such as Participant Information beingdeveloped by ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 36 and the Learner Informa-tion Package from the IMS Global Consortium.

The Workshop is producing recommendations for a Europe-an competency repository and various mappings taking intoaccount the European Diploma Supplement, CEDEFOP (Euro-pean Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, <http:

//www.cedefop.eu.int/>) specifications (European CV format,CV supplement) and language capability definitions.

5.4 AccessibilityAccessibility to all forms of information and communication

technologies for everyone, regardless of their requirements andabilities, is a high priority. The Web Accessibility Initiative ofW3C (World Wide Web Consortium, <http://www.w3c.org>)enables, for instance, production of web-sites that are accessi-ble to all, including people that are visually impaired.

The Workshop is studying the accessibility requirements forlearning objects for learning communities with special needs.One specific activity is to propose vocabulary and elementsextensions to be integrated into the IEEE LOM.

5.5 The Learning Technologies Standards Observatory (LTSO)

Uptake of learning technology standards is increasing, withnumerous commercial products under development, and manyRTD projects exploring the issues in this area.

However, there is widespread confusion and misunderstand-ing about the relationships between the relevant standards andspecifications, as well as between the organizations that devel-op, define, profile or implement them.

To respond to this need, the Learning Technologies Work-shop decided to establish an accessible and sustainable web-based repository that acts as a focal access point to projects,results, activities and organizations that are relevant to thedevelopment and adoption of e-learning technology standards.

What is thus offered is a neutral source that addresses forinstance the relationship and main differences among specifica-tions and standards for the same category (e.g. how doIEEE/LTSC LOM and IMS metadata interrelate). TechnologiesStandards Observatory (LTSO) is accessible from the LearningTechnology Workshop's home page or at <http://www.gist.uvigo.es/~lanido/LTSO/current.htm>.

5.6 The On-line Repository of Taxonomies and Vocabularies

A web based registry of vocabularies, thesauri, classifica-tions, taxonomies relevant to the field of education and learningtechnology, is available to assist the users of the LearningObject Metadata model who want to create their own control-led vocabulary while indexing their resources.

Users should contribute to the repository’s maintenance bysubmitting new descriptions of a vocabulary, taxonomy, andthesaurus or by modifying an existing description. Links to theregistry are provided through the Workshop’s home-page.

Relationships with Other ActivitiesFrom its very start, the Learning Technologies Workshop

has decided, as a matter of principle, to not duplicate work thatis already done elsewhere. The work for instance that was donein relation to the IEEE LTSC Learning Object Metadata (LOM)is a clear example of this principle.

6





Similar to IEEE/LTSC, the Learning Technologies Workshophas a special status towards the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36 commit-tee on Learning Technologies, which enables it to feed itsdeliverables into the formal international standardizationprocess for becoming ISO/IEC standards. For instance, resultson Quality Assurance and on Description of Language Capabil-ities have been input into SC36’s work programme.

Technical specification providers such as the ones mentionedin an earlier section are also following up on the work of theLearning Technologies Workshop. They are feeding their expe-riences into the Workshop or including the Workshop’s resultsinto their own specifications.

Finally, in the domain of e-Learning and e-Training, consid-erable efforts are invested under the IST programme as well asvia many national or European initiatives. Projects producingspecifications, architectures, reference models, etc. with aninterest of getting a broader support and recognition of theirwork, can use the Workshop as a useful tool for reaching aEuropean-wide consensus on their deliverables.

How to Participate in the CEN/ISSS Workshop The CEN/ISSS Workshop on Learning Technologies is

open to, and seeks involvement from, all interested parties:educational and training authorities (national as well as region-al), universities, providers of professional training, softwareproducers, telecom and Internet service providers, educationalpublishers and broadcasters, etc.

People who would like to participate in the activities of theLearning Technologies Workshop on behalf of their organiza-tions, should register as a Workshop participant via the Work-shop’ web-pages. It is not necessary to participate in physicalmeetings; the Workshop welcomes all contributions. Sugges-tions for learning technology standards requirements or usefulinformation about existing related activities can be send anytime to the Workshop Secretariat.

The CEN/ISSS Learning Technologies Workshop homepage, from where you can contact us or be directed to the latestinformation on all our activities, is at <http://www.cenorm.be/sh/lt>.

7





Component-Based Software Engineering and CSCL in the Field of e-Learning

Yannis A. Dimitriadis, Juan-Ignacio Asensio-Pérez, Alejandra Martínez-Monés, and César A. Osuna-Gómez

The use of Information and Communication Technologies in the education domain has been characterizedby the need of providing flexible systems that are adaptable to particular learning situations. In this sense,Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE) has emerged as a software development paradigm suitablefor obtaining reusable, flexible, and customizable distributed applications, which would provide greatbenefits to the e-Learning domain. Nevertheless, this CBSE-education relationship has not coped with thecollaborative aspects and the pedagogic theories underlying the social constructivism that constitutes thebasis for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). This article describes the processundertaken by the authors when applying CBSD principles to the CSCL domain, emphasising the lessonslearned during this experience. The article is particularly focused on the problem of ‘translating’ the highlydynamic requirements posed by educators, as well as by participants and their educational context, into theCSCL applications.

Keywords: computer-supported collaborative learning,CSCL, component-based software engineering, componentframework, e-Learning.

IntroductionAttempts to apply technological innovation in order to

enhance education have always been present. In the case ofICT (Information and Communication Technologies) theseefforts have resulted in several paradigms of educationalcomputer-based systems: Computer Assisted Instruction(CAI), Intelligent Tutoring systems (ITS), simulations ormicroworlds, and, more recently, due to the generalised useof computer networks, e-Learning and CSCL (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning) [1].

This diversity reflects, often implicitly, the evolution intechnologies as well as in educational trends. For instance,the term e-Learning, that represents the current dominantparadigm, has incorporated web technologies and has putmore emphasis on a student-based, autonomous, and flexiblelearning (typically in distance education).

1.1 CSCL: A New Paradigm of Educational SoftwareCSCL, partially derived from an evolution of Computer-

Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), is based on a new andstrongly interdisciplinary paradigm of research and educa-tional practice [2]. Its main features include highlighting theimportance of social interactions (collaboration) as an essen-tial element of learning, the preference for an interpretativeapproach to the evaluation of the learning process (asopposed to traditional positivist proposals), as well as the roleof participative analysis and design of the whole communitywhen creating new technological environments [3]. On theother hand, CSCL has been based on distributed systems

1

Yannis A. Dimitriadis is Associate Professor at the School ofTelecommunications Engineering of the Universidad de Valladolid,Spain. He has a BSc from the National Technical University ofAthens, Greece (1981), an MSc from the University of Virginia,USA (1983), and a PhD from the Universidad de Valladolid, Spain(1992, 1995), all of them in Telecommunications Engineering. Hisresearch interests include the technological support to learning andwork processes, as well as machine learning. He has published morethan 100 book chapters, journal articles, as well as papers in Spanishand international conferences and workshops. He is reviewer inseveral journals and member of the editorial board of the AppliedIntelligence journal, Kluwer Academic. <[email protected]>

Juan-Ignacio Asensio-Pérez is Associate Professor at the Schoolof Telecommunications Engineering of the Universidad de Valladol-id, Spain, where he got his MSc (1995) and PhD (2000) degrees inTelecommunications Engineering. His research interests include theintegrated management of network and systems, as well as compo-nent-based software engineering and distributed processing technol-ogies applied to the educational field. <[email protected]>

Alejandra Martínez-Monés is Assistant Professor at the Depart-ment of Computer Science of the Universidad de Valladolid, Spain.She got her MSc (1997) and PhD (2003) degrees in ComputerScience by the same University. Her research activity is focused onthe CSCL field, mainly on the technological support to the evalua-tion in CSCL environments. She has published several journalarticles and papers in Spanish and international conferences. <[email protected]>

César A. Osuna-Gómez is researcher at the Computing andApplied Mathematics Program of the Mexican Petroleum Institute,Mexico. He has a MSc in Computer Science from the UniversidadAutónoma de Guadalajara, Mexico, and a PhD (1999) from the Uni-versity of Valladolid, Spain. His research interests include the con-ceptual formalization of the CSCL field and its relation with tech-nologies from the distributed systems world. <[email protected]>





technologies in order to support some of its main characteris-tics, i.e.: communication, collaboration, and coordination.

Several of the aforementioned elements have been embeddedin the main commercial products or innovative proposals of e-Learning, although in a marginal way. For example, generictools that promote collaboration have been introduced (withouta precise objective and environment), the importance of design-ing activities and associated workflows has been assumed byIMS-LD (IMS Learning Design, <http://www.imsproject.org>), or the main roles and collaborative activities have beenmodelled through standards such as IEEE LTSC (Institute ofElectrical & Electronics Engineers – Learning TechnologyStandards Committee, <http://ltsc.ieee.org>). However, themain stream within e-Learning is still centred around theconcepts of knowledge transmission as the basic educationalparadigm, and the new proposals are dominated by the imme-diate application of the new technological ‘affordances’ and theexpected market benefits. Therefore, it is still necessary toadvance in order to analyse and embed all pedagogical andtechnological elements that define CSCL.

1.2 CSBD and Education: The Necessity of Reuse and Adaptation

In spite of the aforementioned differences, educational soft-ware in general has been traditionally exposed to the necessityof adaptation and personalisation. Such requirements havebeen expressed by educators who need to use the software indifferent educational and social contexts, or even, with differ-ent pedagogical styles. Thus, too many specific applicationshave been developed in order to meet the above requirements.Due to the fact that these applications are usually monolithic,dependant on particular technologies and incompatible amongthem, teachers usually face great difficulties in order to inte-grate them in the classroom [4]. These projects present a highfailure rate since they are not able to get adapted to new educa-tional situations and to incorporate technological innovationsthat are continuously emerging.

Software component technology [5] offers the promise ofcomposing tools from elements that may come from differentproviders. Therefore, it is a reasonable candidate as a potentialsolution of the aforementioned problems of the educationaldomain, since it provides the capacity of application reuse andadaptation. When dealing with the problem of reuse in Soft-ware Engineering and particularly in CBSD (Component-Based Software Engineering), it is essential to take intoaccount the concept of component framework [6]: an extensi-ble set of reusable software components in a particular applica-tion domain together with a number of software design patternsthat document their use. Components included in a frameworkcan be reused, instantiated and assembled with additionalcomponents provided by developers in order to obtain concreteapplications faster and with a lower cost.

CBSD has been employed in several projects in which theidea of component framework has been successfully applied indeveloping educational applications [4]. However, the issue ofsupporting collaboration, inherent to the particular CSCLdomain, has not been taken into account.

1.3 Objectives and StructureIt is precisely the above objective of obtaining a software

component framework for CSCL that guided the work of theauthors during the last years, within a multidisciplinary groupformed by educators, as well as telecommunications andcomputer engineers.

Nevertheless, building a component framework is not an easytask. A framework developer must face different problemsrelated to both the particularities of the framework domain andthe technologies used to support the derived components [6].One of the most important problems to take into account in thiscontext is the identification and dimensioning (i.e. level ofgranularity) of components. The fulfilment of this task largelydepends on how the key concepts and principles of the domainof interest are understood by software developers [7]. In theCSCL domain, this problem is particularly important due to thebig separation among abstractions used by experts in collabo-rative learning (pedagogues, psychologists, education practi-tioners,…) and those used by software developers.

The authors have employed three different approaches, partlycomplementary, in order to deal with the aforementionedproblem of domain understanding by the software developers.The objective of this paper if to present and discuss the follow-ing three approaches in a unified way: first, a top-downapproach that led to the telematic-educational conceptualframework DELFOS; second, a bottom-up approach focusedon the development of concrete component-based collaborativelearning applications; and, finally, as a compromise betweenthe previous ones, an intermediate approach based on the defi-nition of the so-called Collaborative Learning Patterns (CLP),detailed descriptions of collaborative learning techniquesdefined by experts in this field that could help software devel-opers in the task of identifying components to be employed invarious types of CSCL applications.

The work presented in this paper covers several points ofinterest: the study of the CBSD’s potentialities and limitationsthrough its application in an interesting and complex domainsuch as CSCL; the creation of a sufficiently large set of compo-nents and patterns, i.e. a framework for CSCL; the search forsolutions to the problem of lack of shared knowledge amongtechnologists and educators. Additionally, these proposals arevalidated by experience derived from real scenarios of design,development and evaluation of significant applications.

Accordingly, Section 2 presents the main features, problemsand limitations of each approach, and discusses their relativemerits. The principal conclusions obtained in this work areshown in Section 3, together with the most interesting researchlines currently being dealt with.

Approaches and ResultsFigure 1 shows an overview of the three approaches

undertaken by the authors in order to achieve the goal of bring-ing together CBSD and CSCL. Each of the approaches ispresented in a separate subsection, while the last one (2.4)presents a synthesis of the results obtained, based on theauthors’ experience in real CSCL scenarios.

2





2.1 Top-down Approach: The Telematic Educational Framework DELFOS

In the first case, authors used a top-down approach, in whichthey aimed to solving the aforementioned problems through ageneral understanding of the CSCL domain, and a subsequentdetection of useful elements for analysis and development ofsuch applications. The outcome of this approach was theDELFOS (Description of Educational Layer FrameworkOriented to learning Situations) framework [8], composed ofthe following three main elements: a learning model based onthe ideas of social constructivism, a hybrid architecturecomposed of layers and objects for application development,and a development methodology based on participative analysisand design. DELFOS proposed the concept of learning situa-tion, that models a specific learning environment and includesfundamental aspects for an educator, such as the context theand pedagogical objectives. A learning situation as well as itsconstituent elements (activities, roles, objects and interactions)are modelled with the help of a set of templates that weredefined in the framework proposal.

The framework was validated via the development of threeCSCL applications of different characteristics. These experi-ences have shown that DELFOS provides useful tools for therequirement analysis phase, thus allowing to structure thedomain, and therefore simplify the communication betweenfinal users and software developers. However, it was evidentthat the idea of learning situations, essential in defining CSCLapplications within DELFOS, is hardly reusable, due to the factthat it is highly dependant on the specific context. In otherwords, a learning situation defined through the DELFOS toolscould not be applied without significant changes to differenteducational settings. Therefore, authors came to the conclusion

that it was necessary to identify context-independent aspects,that could be adapted to other educational scenarios withoutmajor changes. This new action line was carried out within thethird approach, that is described in section 2.3.

2.2 Bottom-up Approach: Specific CSCL ApplicationsThe bottom-up approach deals with the development of

specific component-based CSCL applications. This develop-ment process tries to extract relevant elements from the CSCLframework. The authors, therefore, worked towards the selec-tion of a CSCL application type whose complexity level waslow enough so as to enable fast prototyping, and high enoughin order to share most of the common problems of the domainthus leading to the identification and development of potential-ly reusable software component. The solution that was adopted(called MagicPuzzle) consisted of the development of asynchronous and collaborative application supporting the reso-lution of puzzles by pupils in primary education. This type ofapplications stands out due to its well-known educative andsocialising benefits, as well as to its ability to reflect the knowl-edge-building process. Within the context of this type of appli-cations the participants share pieces of knowledge needed forthe resolution of a more complex problem (probably with noclosed and single solution), justifying at the same time theiractions. All this process can be understood as a metaphor thatcontains educational methods such as case-based and project-based learning. The functional requirements of MagicPuzzlewere decided with the help of experts in primary education.

The EJB (Enterprise Java Beans) technology, together withits supporting J2EE (Java 2 Enterprise Edition) platform, wasselected for the development of MagicPuzzle due to its distrib-uted nature, its higher level of maturity, its computing platform

+abstraction level

COLLABORATIVELEARNINGDOMAIN

COMPONENT-BASED SOFTWARE

DEVELOPMENTDOMAIN

+closer toimplementation level

TRADITIONAL APPROACH

CollaborativeLearning Concepts,

Principles,Theories...

Top-Down Approach(DELFOS)

Bottom-Up Approach(use of concrete

applications)

CSCLApplications

Restrict

NEW APPROACH (CLP)

Influence

CL Best Practices

CollaborativeLearning Patterns

(CLPs)

Types of CSCLApplications

Reusable SoftwareComponents

Software Patterns

CSCL Component Framework

Figure 1: Three Approaches for Communicating the CBSD and Collaborative Learning Domains.





independence, and the wide availability of implementations.During the MagicPuzzle development, several design patternswere applied as, for instance, the so-called TOP patterns (TenObject Patterns) [9], focused on collaborative applications, andthe MVC (Model-View-Controller) pattern that enables inde-pendence between data and presentation.

Figure 2 shows a schema of the architecture of MagicPuzzleas well as the software components it is composed of.

Once the prototypes of MagicPuzzle were finished, theauthors explored whether the obtained components could bereused as building blocks for other CSCL applications. Forsolving this question, two new CSCL applications were devel-oped: a collaborative application (called eLAO) supporting thecourse “Computer Architecture” in Telecommunications Engi-neering studies, in which the authors expected to reuse basiccollaboration support components (Access Manager, SessionManager…), and a collaborative application supporting thewell-known Tangram game, much more similar to MagicPuz-zle and, therefore, more suitable for reusing of its components.

Nevertheless, during the first development stages it becameclear that the expected reuse could not be achieved. The reasonsfor this setback pointed to a development process too biasedtowards a very particular learning problem: the collaborativeresolution of puzzles. This problem, already known in theCBSD field, as well as the lack of a good formalisation ofCSCL concepts, obstructs the path towards the identificationand dimensioning of reusable components.

The search for common characteristics applicable to a broadset of CSCL applications in different learning contexts led the

authors to the proposal described in the next subsection, basedon the use of “Collaborative Learning Patterns”.

2.3 Intermediate Approach: Collaborative Learning Pat-terns

A CLP can be understood as a way of describing a collabo-rative learning technique, easily understandable by softwaredevelopers. Collaborative learning techniques dictate commonways of structuring interactions among participants in differentcollaborative learning activities, as well as the information theyinterchange and the objects they manipulate. The concept ofCLP is derived from the notion of “Collaborative DesignPattern” introduced in [10].

CLPs are identified and formalised by Collaborative Learn-ing practitioners (mainly teachers), and validated by pedagogyexperts. They are intended to be used by software developers,in order to derive common requirements for CSCL applicationsthat support collaborative learning activities based on the sametechnique. These common requirements are potentially moreuseful for helping developers to identify and dimension reusa-ble software components. In spite of this final use of the CLPs,it is important to point out that the contents of the CLPs them-selves do not include any technical information.

From the point of view of conceptual richness, CLPs can beconsidered as an intermediate approach between the two onesthat were already described in the previous sections: they arenot based on concrete applications but they do not try to takeinto account all the concepts and principles of the collaborativelearning domain (as DELFOS did.)

Pupil Interface

Pupil Interface

Teacher Interface

GAME MANAGER

SESSION MANAGER

ACCESS MANAGER

WAITING ROOM

FLOOR CONTROL

EJB CONTAINER (J2EE Platform)

Administrator Interface

DATA BASE Pupil Interface

Pupil Interface

Teacher Interface Administrator Interface

EJB CONTAINER (J2EE Platform)

GAMEMANAGER

FLOORCONTROL

WAITINGROOM

ACCESSMANAGER

SESSIONMANAGER

DATA BASE

Figure 2: Software Architecture and Components of a CSCL Application that Spports the Collaborative Resolution of Puzzles by Primary Education Pupils.





CLPs are represented according to the formalism that isshown in Table 1. It also shows a CLP defining a very well-known practice in Collaborative Learning: jigsaw [11]. OtherCLP’s (pyramid, simulation, etc…) have also been defined andapplied by the authors.

The use of CLPs depends on the particular software develop-ment methodology that is employed. As a way of illustratingthese ideas, if a software development methodology based onthe widely accepted Unified Process (UP) [12] is chosen, theinformation provided by CLPs might be used as the basis forthe derivation of actors and use cases, the conceptual model (al-so known as domain model), and the analysis of the use casesduring the iterations of the so-called ‘Inception Phase’.

Figure 3 shows UML (Unified Modelling Language) usecase and class diagrams representing use cases and conceptualmodelling for a software application that could eventuallysupport a collaborative learning activity of the type describedby the jigsaw CLP defined in Table 1. As it can be seen, the usecase diagram focuses on the identification of the functionalityneeded for supporting the tasks performed by the differentactors involved in the CLP. On the other hand, the conceptualor domain model reflects the types and the structure of theinformation and groups described by the CLP, as well as theinterrelation among them. It can be seen, for instance, howJigsaw Group, and Expert Group classes are associated toGlobal Problem and Subproblem classes which, at the sametime, maintain a relationship of aggregation between them.

Field Explanation Example

Name Name of the CLP Jigsaw

Problem Learning problem to be solved by the CLP Complex problem whose resolution implies the handling and/or collection of information that can be easily divided into disjoint sets and that can be used for the resolution of independent subproblems

Example A real-world learning activity suitable of being structured according to the CLP

Collaborative design of a computing system where the study of each subsystem is assigned to a particular participant

Context Environment type in which the CLP could be applied

Several small groups facing the study of a lot of information for the resolution of the same problem

Solution Description of the proposal by the CLP for solving the problem

Each participant in a group (jigsaw group) studies a particular subproblem. The participants of different groups that study the same problem meet in an "Expert Group" for exchanging ideas. At last, jigsaw group participants meet to solve the whole problem. Each participant contributes with its "expertise"

Actors Actors involved in the Collaborative Learning activity described by the CLP

• Teacher• Pupil• Evaluator

Types of Tasks Types of tasks, together with their sequence, performed by the actors involved in the activity. (NOTE: due to space restrictions only types of tasks performed by pupil and teacher are shown)

Pupil:1. Access to the information related to the subproblem2. Individual study of the subproblem3. Subproblem discussion in the experts group4. Problem resolution in the jigsaw group5. Result proposition6. Process self-evaluation

Teacher:1. Global problem definition2. Division of the problem into subproblems3. Creation of jigsaw groups4. Assignment of subproblems5. Provision of useful information6. Floor control system establishment7. Decisions about control of time8. Activity progress monitoring9. Result evaluation

Types and structure of Information Description of the types of information identified in the collaborative activity and how they are related

• Input information needed for global problem resolution• Partial information assigned to subproblems• Subproblem resolution proposal• Global problem resolution proposal• Correct global problem resolution (optional)

Types and structure of Groups Description of the types of groups of pupils identified in the collaborative activity and how they are related

• Jigsaw groups• Experts groups in charge of subproblems

Table 1: Collaborative Learning Pattern Structure and Its Application to the Jigsaw Technique.





After completing the UP incep-tion phase using the informationprovided by CLPs, and using nor-mal software development tech-niques prescribed (by UP in thisexample), it is possible to obtain asoftware design architecture for ajigsaw CSCL application. Obvious-ly, the authors recognize that it isvery difficult to prescribe a uniqueway for achieving a specific soft-ware design when starting from thedefinition of a CLP. CLPs provideclues and help for software devel-opment but they do not intend todictate a complete software devel-opment methodology.

In terms of software reusability,the consequences of this approachare very important: CLPs helpdevelopers to understand conceptsand requirements involved in thesupport of the different CSCL tech-niques. This makes easier the iden-tification of common softwarecomponents for CSCL applicationsbased on the same techniques.These common components are,potentially, more reusable thatthose obtained from the develop-ment of a particular CSCL applica-tion.

CLP have been successfullyapplied by the authors to the devel-opment of the eLAO application,already mentioned in Section 2.2.Reuse of eLAO software compo-nents is under evaluation by devel-oping new CSCL applicationsbased on the same CLPs. Our firstfindings show that, for instance,those components that support tasksin charge of teacher role, as well asthose related to information han-dling, are, potentially, the mostreusable ones. Therefore, thesecomponents are the most suitablefor becoming part of the pursuedCSCL component framework.

2.4 Synthesis of Results and Discussion

Authors’ experience, as describedin the previous sections, indicatesthat the CBSD technology does notguarantee by itself the achievementof software reuse, flexibility and

Teacher

Application Access

Problem and Subproblem Definitionand Assignment

Group Management

Time Control

Floor Control SystemEstablishment

Information Provision

Activity Progress Monitoring

Result Evaluation

Individual Work Support

Information Access

Experts Group Work Support

Jigsaw Group Work Support

Result Proposition

Process self-evaluation Support

Pupil

Evaluator

is assigned

consults

supervises

Experts Group

resolves

Subproblem

Partial Information

0..*

Pupil

Group

consults

User

Teacher

creates andsupervises

Jigsaw Group

resolves

Global Problem

Global Information

poses

provides

evaluates

proposed

correct Solution0..1

0..*

0..*

0..*

0..*

0..*

0..*

0..*

monitorsinteractions

definesand

assigns

Figure 3: UML Use Case Diagram and Conceptual Class Diagram Derived from the Jigsaw CLP





customisation. Domain-specific knowledge (collaborativelearning in this case) is, in this sense, an unavoidable requisite.This fact leads to the conclusion that the availability of mecha-nisms for enabling communication between domain expertsand software developers is more than desirable.

In the particular case of CSCL applications, the authors havenoticed that neither pure top-down nor bottom-up approachesfacilitate the identification of reusable software components:they focus on very specific learning situations, which are hardto generalize. Nevertheless, at least in the DELFOS-basedapproach, learning situations have a very strong conceptualbase from the point of view of social constructivism (althoughthis derives in a difficult comprehension by software develop-ers, which is much easier in the bottom-up approach).

Within this context, CLPs arise as the best alternative foridentifying and developing reusable CSCL components, asthey do not focus their attention on specific learning situationsbut on common techniques to some of them. CLPs start from apragmatic vision since they are defined by practitioners, not bypedagogues. However, the latter should validate them so as tomake sure that the defined CLPs conform to the principles ofsocial constructivism. Accordingly, CLPs can be considered asan intermediate solution in terms of intelligibility by softwaredevelopers.

On the other hand, CLPs have a drawback: when generatingspecific CSCL applications, developers must make an addition-al effort for customizing and completing the components iden-tified by means of CLP’s (see Table 1). In these cases, the CLP-based approach can benefit from the capability of DELFOS fordealing with the descriptions of specific collaborative learningsituations.

Conclusions and Future WorkCSCL is a rather new paradigm within educational soft-

ware that takes into account pedagogic aspects (that should notbe excluded from any approach to educational software devel-opment). In this article several approaches undertaken by theauthors in order to identify and dimension software compo-nents for a CSCL framework have been reviewed. This frame-work aims to facilitating the development of reusable andcustomisable collaborative learning applications. This workhas shown that the CLP-based approach is the best one in termsof reuse. Nevertheless, this fact does not imply the exclusion ofthe other two approaches.

In order to progress towards the achievement of a CSCLcomponent framework, several research lines have to be ex-plored. For instance: deriving the CSCL framework as an ex-tension to existing CSCW component frameworks; coordinat-ing collaborative learning activities, based on CSCLcomponents, by applying workflow management principles tostandards for the description of learning situations (as IMS-LD); and developing tools for enabling teachers and peda-gogues to generate new and customized CSCL applicationsbuilt from components belonging to the CSCL componentframework.

Acknowledgements The authors want to acknowledge the contributions from the rest of

members of the EMIC (Education, Media, Information, and Culture)Research Group of the Universidad de Valladolid, Spain, speciallyTeresa Blasco, Rocío Anguita, Lino Barrio, Bartolomé Rubia, IvanJorrín (Faculty of Education); Eduardo Gómez, Miguel Bote, Guiller-mo Vega, Francisco J. Álvarez, Marta Heredia, Davinia Hernández,Sonia Díez (School of Telecommunications Engineering); Pablo de laFuente (School of Computer Science); Pablo Orozco (UNAM, Mexi-co). Special thanks to the educators and students that make the evalu-ation of these technologies possible.

This work was partially financed by the Regional Government ofCastilla and León, Spain (project VA117/01), and the Spanish Minis-try of Science and Technology (projects TIC2000-1054 and TIC-2002-04258-C3-02).

References[1]

J. Arlow and I. Neustadt. UML and the Unified Process: PracticalObject-Oriented Analysis and Design, Addison Wesley Profes-sional, 2001.

[2]J. Carey and B. Carlson. Lessons learned becoming a frameworkdeveloper Software Practice and Experience, vol. 43, pp.789–800, 2002.

[3]C. DiGiano, L., Yarnall, C. Patton, J. Roschelle D. Tatar, and M.Manley. “Collaboration design patterns: conceptual tools forplanning for the wireless classroom,” Proceedings of the IEEEInternational Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies inEducation (WMTE'02), 2002.

[4]L. A. Guerrero D. A. and Fuller. A pattern system for the devel-opment of collaborative applications Information and SoftwareTechnology, vol. 43, pp. 457–467, 2001.

3

Top-Down (DELFOS) Bottom-Up (Concrete CSCL Applications) Intermediate (CLP)

Conceptual Base High Low Medium

Developers comprehension Low High Medium

Reuse/ Results generality Low Low High

Capability for describing concrete situations High Low Medium

Table 2: Comparison of the Three Approaches Described in This Article. (It can be seen how the CLP-based approach enables the reuse of the obtained components but requires an additional effort so as to be applied to specific scenarios.)





[5]D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson. Learning together and alone:cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning, Allyn andBacon, 1999.

[6]T. Koschmann. Paradigm shift and instructional technology. In:CSCL: Theory and Practice of an emerging paradigm, ed.Koshmann, T. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.pp. 1–23.

[7]A. Martínez. Method and Model for the computational support toevaluation in CSCL (in spanish), Tesis Doctoral. Universidad deValladolid, 2003.

[8]H. Mili, M. Fayad, D. Brugali, D. Hamu, and D. Dori. Enterpriseframeworks: issues and research directions Software Practice andExperience, vol. 32, pp. 801–831, 2002.

[9]C. Osuna Y. and Dimitriadis. “A framework for the developmentof educational collaborative applications based on social con-structivism,” Proceedings of the CYTED RITOS InternationalWorkshop on Groupware (CRIWG'99), 1999.

[10]J. Roschelle, J. Kaput, W. Stroup, and T. M. Kahn. Scalable inte-gration of educational software: exploring the promise of compo-nent architectures Journal of Interactive Media in Education, vol.98, Oct. 1998.

[11]C. Szypersky. Component software. Beyond object-orientedprogramming, NY, USA: Addison Wesley, 1998.

[12]A. Vaquero. Las TIC para la enseñanza, formación y el aprendi-zaje, Novática, vol. 132, pp. 4–14, Mar, 1998.





AVANTE: A Web Based Instruction Architecture based on XML/XSL Standards, Free Software and

Distributed CORBA Components

Víctor Theoktisto, Adelaide Bianchini, Edna Ruckhaus, and Lee Lima

The AVANTE Architecture described in this paper implements a WBI (Web Based Instruction) environmentbased on CORBA (Common Object Request Broker Architecture) distributed software components forcourse management, user authentication, collaborative work, database access, presentation and otherservices. The AVANTE components conform to a 4-tiered model, with client, presentation, management, andlow level services component sublayers. All metadata definitions are described using emerging XML(eXtensible Markup Language) standards for WBI. The developed WBI tool can be deployed using currentlyavailable free software and is independent of the chosen database manager. Performance and scalability areadjusted by adding or removing servers and replicating CORBA components. Services can be extended toinclude auditing, dynamic and adaptive interfaces, grading, content development, and integration withexisting administrative services

Keywords: CORBA, distributed components, free software,Web Based Instruction, XML, XSLT, WBI.

IntroductionTelecommunications, media, and computer technologies

are converging at a fast pace. Education has evolved from aface-to-face experience in Ancient Greece, through the corre-spondence schools of the mid 18th century, to the radio, televi-sion, videotapes, and satellite broadcasting of the last century.Research into and application of new Internet technologies ineducation is now an issue of vital importance, especially foreducators who need to keep up to date but don’t have the timerequired to do so.

Many worldwide institutions are aware that e–Learning, inthe sense of “learning on the Web”, has really taken off in thelast two years, and are busily implementing changes in theirtraditional teaching/learning processes [1]. Some privatecompanies have set up their own ‘corporate universities’, estab-lishing associations with leading academic institutions, and areeither buying or developing their own e–Learning solutions.

Web Based Instruction (WBI) is a natural evolution ofalready known methods (Computer-Assisted Instruction,Computer-Managed Instruction, Computer Based Education).WBI refers to the use of the World Wide Web as a repository ofeducational information, and to the Internet as the underlyingcommunication channel and content distribution system [2]. AWeb Based Instruction environment is defined as a set ofinstructional programmes which uses the attributes and hyper-media resources of the World Wide Web [3] to create a mean-ingful environment where learning is fostered and supported.This involves the application of a repertoire of cognitiveinstructional strategies within a constructivist learning environ-

ment that emphasizes collaborative work [4]. The educationalmodel underpinning WBI is collaborative learning, defined asthe set of instructional methods that motivate students to worktogether in order to obtain academic objectives [5]. 1

Víctor Theoktisto received a degree in Computer Engineeringin 1980 from the Universidad Simón Bolívar (USB), Caracas(Venezuela), and went on to obtain a Master of Engineering inIndustrial Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin,USA (1985). Since 1991 he has been an Associate Professor in theDepartment of Computer Science and Information Technologiesof the Universidad Simón Bolívar. He belongs to the Multimedia,Graphics and User Interfaces research group, and has beenpublished in such fields as Distributed Virtual Reality, AdvancedVisualization, Distributed Component Development, SoftwareEngineering, Evolutionary Programming and Human ComputerInteraction. He has been a consultant for the Government’s ownedcompany Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) in the fields ofSystems Dynamics and Virtual Reality, a member of the evalua-tion committee of the Information Technologies projects of theVenezuelan Ministry of Science and Technology (2001–2002),Programme Committee member of several for Iberamia1994 andsimilar for national and international congresses in the area ofEvolutionary Computation (GECCO) and Human ComputerInteraction (ACM SIGCHI). A founding member of the ACMSIGGRAPH professional chapter of Caracas, he has participatedin the CYTED COMDIST project (2000–2003) and the INET-GAM Alfa2 EU project (2002–2004). Currently on a two yearsabbatical at the Centre of Virtual Reality of Barcelona, Spainworking on Distributed Environments using Immersive VirtualReality. <[email protected]>

Continued on next page





The AVANTE project started in September 1999 at the Uni-versidad Simón Bolívar in Caracas, Venezuela (10,000 stu-dents, 1,200 academics and researchers) <http://www.usb.ve>.Its main purpose was to develop a WBI tool using emergingtechnology. Previously, a comparative study evaluating currentWBI environments was completed [6]. This project [7] is relat-ed to the CYTED programme COMDIST: Distributed Compo-nents for Tele-presence Service Implementation, (see <http://www.cyted.org/Nueva.asp> and <http://www.cyted.org/Menu5/ProyectoConsul.asp?CodProyecto=182>, respectively) withthe participation of several Spanish and Latin American univer-sities. In its first stage current WBI environments were evaluat-ed in order to detect the strengths and weaknesses of their soft-ware tools and to see how these tools could be adapted todifferent teaching methodologies.

During the next stage WBI tool requirements were deter-mined. These included technical requirements, facilities fordesigning and producing educational content with no program-ming experience, generic models allowing course structuringwithin a particular teaching approach, and support for collabo-rative work. On the basis of those requirements, the design ofthe architecture and interface was completed. The developmentfollows the CORBA (Common Object Request Broker Archi-tecture) standard, and XML (eXtensible Markup Language)was used to describe metadata components in order to ensureinteroperability and course content interchangeability withother WBI tools.

WBI Development ToolsThere are many WBI development tools currently availa-

ble. These tools ease the task of designing, running, andmanaging online courses, but require a certain knowledge ofHypertext Markup Language (HTML). Their most commonfeatures are shown in Figure 1.

Some of these tools were developed by universities (e.g.WebCT), and others by software companies (e.g. LearningSpace). There are surveys which compare features, technicalrequirements and cost. Among the features that are required,but not present, in these tools are the following: templates tofacilitate course development, content and interface adaptableto students’ profile and performance, resource sharing, differ-ent roles for the instructor and the developer, hierarchy for

course administration (course supervisor, instructor, assistant),and a standard language for metadata.

These initial requirements were the starting point for thefollowing stage.

2

Bulletin Board

Student Profiles

Teams

Search Engine

Course Plan & Schedule

Homework

Whiteboard

Administration & Security

E-mail

Evaluation

Multimedia

Navigation Model

Discussion forum

Chat / Video Conference

Content Development

Help & Guidance

Figure 1: Services Provided by WBI [14].

Adelaide Bianchini graduated as a Computer Engineer (1979)at the Universidad Simón Bolívar (USB), Caracas (Venezuela),and later as Master in Computer Science (1999), at the sameuniversity. She has been an Associate Professor at the ComputerScience and Information Technologies Department at the USBsince 1998. She belongs to the Multimedia, Graphics and UserInterfaces research group and has authored publications on UserInterface Design, Informatics applied to Teaching, HypermediaDevelopment Methodologies, and Web Usability. She has been aconsultant for the UNDP (United Nations DevelopmentProgramme), Director of the Centre of Information Technology atthe Universidad Metropolitana, Caracas (Venezuela), member ofthe Education Committee at the Venezuelan Ministry of Scienceand Technology, and she was on the organizing committee of theIberamia 1994 Conference in Caracas, as well as on several otherprogramme committees of national and international conferencesin the field of informatics. <[email protected]>

Edna Ruckhaus received a degree in Computer Engineering(1978) from the Universidad Simón Bolívar (USB), Caracas (Ven-ezuela) and then a Master in Computer Science (1986) from theUniversity of Syracuse, New York, USA (1986). She has been anAssociate Professor at the Computer Science and InformationTechnologies Department of the USB since 1998. She belongs tothe Data Base research group and has authored publications onWeb Semantics and Ontologies, Web Based Education, Hyperme-dia Development Methodologies, and Database Design. She hasbeen a consultant for the UNDP (United Nations DevelopmentProgramme), head of the Systems Engineering School at the Uni-versidad Metropolitana, Caracas (Venezuela), a member of theEducation Committee of the Venezuelan Ministry of Science andTechnology, and she was on the organizing committee of theIberamia 1994 Conference in Caracas, as well as on several otherprogramme committees of national and international conferencesin the field of informatics. <[email protected]>

Lee Lima obtained a degree in Computer Engineering from theUniversidad Simón Bolívar (USB), Caracas (Venezuela) (2002)and currently works for the SONY Media Group in multimedia.Part of AVANTE’s implementation was her degree course project.<[email protected]>





WBI Tools RequirementsIn this phase a more detailed version of a WBI tool's

requirements was produced.

3.1 Tasks performedThe following tasks were completed in order to determine

the requirements of a WBI tool: a) Analysis of the traditional teaching/learning process in

order to determine its main activities and their sequence:The activities were as follows: exposition, distribution ofmaterial, answering student questions, group activities,tasks and project supervision. The instructor uses severalmedia resources to enrich the content, motivate studentsand broaden communication channels. The student takesnotes, goes through the material, asks the instructor forclarification, and gets feedback either directly or indirectlyvia assessments. The instructor is a transmitter of informa-tion, the student a receiver, and the results of the contentare known by means of assignments and assessments.

b) Definition of a teaching/learning scheme with activestudent participation and instructors as facilitators: In thismodel, the instructor promotes active learning experiencesthrough collaboration, by which students should developsuch skills as analysis, synthesis, evaluation and knowl-edge application. The effort is centred on the student, whois solely responsible for knowledge acquisition. Each classsession becomes a forum for discussion and reflection.

c) Analysis of models used by new technologies in education:Internet technologies promote communication between theplayers in the teaching/learning process, facilitating thedistribution of information and collaborative work.

According to [9] there are four basic models for the use ofWWW in learning:1. The Web as an information source. Many instructors pub-

lish static information about courses, references and read-ing material.

2. The Web as an e-book. The Web is used to present informa-tion and teaching content, structured as tutorials, exercisesand examples. Learners follow instructions and work withthe material in almost the same way as they would withprinted material.

3. The Web as a teacher. By using synchronous and asynchro-nous channels, instructors can communicate with students.The tools used are e-mail, fora, chats, message boards, andvideoconferences.

4. The Web as a vehicle. This is the most sophisticated model,providing the instructor with the tools required to createand present structured content online, plus all the featuresneeded for a face-to-face virtual interaction with learners.

3.2 Definition of Teaching/Learning RequirementsWBI is highly interactive [10], mainly because students are

able to interact with the course content according to their needsand learning speed. WBI should not be limited to merelybrowsing course materials.

Besides access, a WBI tool should allow learners to [11]:

• Promote student-group interaction, generating differentperspectives on every learning task.

• Promote student-instructor interaction. • Provide students with peer-to-peer evaluation capabilities in

order to exchange information and solve problems.• Foster a collaborative environment.

Meanwhile, instructors should have the following possibili-ties: • Participate and mediate constantly in learning activities.• Supervise student assignments.• Motivate student teams to carry out their assignments.• Check the progress of activities. • Answer questions and attend requests from students.

3.3 Summary of RequirementsSumming up, the WBI tool's requirements were the follow-

ing:1. The users are students, instructors and system administra-

tors. Instructors do not need to have any knowledge ofprogramming techniques to create web material. Studentsmay be from any discipline.

2. Simple creation of teaching material based on educationalstrategies.

3. Transparent creation and maintenance of content databas-es, with fast information retrieval, and links to bibliograph-ical sources.

4. Platform independence. It must be flexible and open,reflecting the varied computational solutions used bystudents and teachers.

5. A consistent and adaptive multimedia user interface.6. Multiple communication methods and channels between

the players, either for information interchange or for medi-ated discussion.

7. Scalable and easy to maintain.The ultimate aim should reflect these requirements: “To

develop a platform independent web-based environment forteaching and learning services, using synchronous and asyn-chronous channels, with a set of tools for the creation andadministration of courses, information retrieval, automatedpublication of instructional content, and adaptive interactioncapabilities”.

Standards and SpecificationsE-Learning is limited by many constraints. Most sites are

based on pure HTML, or are managed dynamically by applica-tions (PERL, PHP, ASP, JSP, CFM) which serve HTML pagescombining predefined chunks with assembled data. An HTMLpage has information on how data is presented, but does notinclude semantic tags. Instructors have a very difficult timedeveloping their online courses or simply keeping them up todate. This lack of portability of course content has spawned anabundance of derelict academic websites.

4.1 Ongoing InitiativesThere have been some initiatives aimed at unifying

approaches for developing metadata on the web. To solveHTML’s lack of semantic content, the World Wide Web

3

4





Consortium (W3C), the body in charge of specifying webstandards, developed XML (eXtensible Markup Language).XML is a markup language derived from SGML (StandardGeneralized Markup Language) for defining content tags [12],with Document Type Definitions metadata (DTDs) that checka document for conformity and validity. XML is particularlywell suited to representing hierarchical data. A DTD is an XMLdefinition describing the logical structure of a particular classof documents, allowing a document’s content to be separatedfrom its layout, with software tools able to automatically parsethe document.

An XML Schema Definition (XSD) is a formal specificationof element names indicating which combinations are allowedin an XML document. Schema languages are more powerfulthan DTDs, and can be extended with data types, inheritance,and presentation rules.

XML documents can be transformed into otherdocument formats (HTML pages and other XMLdocuments) by using Extensible Style Language(XSL) templates. These templates handle presenta-tion and feature extraction, whereby an input XMLfile defined under a particular Schema Definition(XSD) is transformed into an output document byapplying an XSL transformation (XSLT) linked tothe same schema.

To avoid a proliferation of XML specifications, acoordinating body known as the Dublin Core Meta-data Initiative (DCMI <http://dublincore.org/>), pro-motes the widespread adoption of interoperablemetadata standards, with specialized metadatavocabularies or namespaces for describing resourcesthat enable intelligent information discovery

systems. The XML education namespace (DC-ed, <http://dub-lincore.org/ documents/education-namespace/>) is still a workin progress.

The specification of learning objects (Figure 2) is coordinat-ed by the IEEE Learning Technology Standardization Commit-tee (IEEE LTSC, <http://ltsc.ieee. org/>). The current standardis the Learning Object Metadata (LOM) draft [13], based onDCMI. There are other committees, the most important beingARIADNE and IMS [8]. Since 1996 the European Union hasbeen sponsoring the ARIADNE Project (Alliance of RemoteInstructional Authoring and Distribution Network for Europe),a project centred around the development of software tools andmethodologies for producing, managing and reusing computer-based pedagogical elements in telematics supported trainingcurricula (see <http://ariadne.unil.ch/Metadata/ariadne_metadata_v3final1.htm>). Validation of the project's concepts

Lear

ning

Styl

e

LearningContent

KnowledgeLibrary

Content index(metadata)

Query index

Performance(history)

Performance(new)

Performance(current)

Delivery

Learner

SystemCoach

Evaluation

RecordsDatabase

BehaviourMultimedia

Locator Index Assessment

Figure 2: The IEEE-LTSC Service Architecture.

Author

IMS Content Package

MANIFEST

Sub-Manifest(s)

Physical Resources(Content Media, Assessment,

Collaboration and others)

Build

Import

Export

Resources

Organization

Metadata

LEARNER COMPETENCES(Competency Statements)

Other Data

QUESTIONS, TEST(Assessments, Terms)

LEARNER INFORMATION(Certification, Preferences)

ENTERPRISE(Courses, People, Groups)

DATASTORE

Manage

LMS

RUNTIMEENVIRONMENT

INTERACT(Collaboration,

Simulation, etc.)

Run / Interact

Finish

TRACK

LAUNCHInitialize()

Get() / Set()

Interact()

Finish()

Content Management Scope

PEOPLE

Administer Learn

Figure 3: IMS Content Framework [14].





is currently taking place in various academic and corporatesites across Europe.

The IEEE LOM draft defines the nine categories of XMLdescriptors for learning objects. Subcategories are described indetail in [13]:1. General: context-independent features of the resource, e.g.

Identifier, Title or Human Language.2. Lifecycle: features related to the life cycle of the resource,

e.g. Version or Status.3. Meta-MetaData: origin and edition of the metadata.4. Technical: technical features of the resource, format5. Educational: educational or pedagogical features of the

resource:6. Rights Management: features that need to be interpreted

according to the resource’s rights of use.7. Relation: relationship with other resources.8. Annotation: comments and recommendations on the edu-

cational use of the resource.9. Classification: describes where this learning object fits

within a particular classification system.

4.2 Content and Metadata XML SpecificationsBased on the LOM model, the IMS project has developed

XML specifications for course metadata information. The IMS Framework shown in Figure 3 describes the IMS

Content Package, whose two largest elements are: (1) theManifest, XML documents describing content organizationand resources in a package; and (2) the documents described bythat XML. A package which has been incorporated into a singlefile for transportation (e.g., .zip, .jar, .cab) is called a PackageInterchange File.

The CORBA SpecificationCORBA (Common Object Request Broker Architecture)

was created by the Object Management Group (OMG, <http://www.omg.org/>) [14] and has the backing of major softwareand hardware companies. Its purpose is to promote object-orientation in software engineering, and with this in mind it hasadopted interfaces and protocols on commercially availableobjects, and defined a bus architecture for serializing objects as

an extension of the client/server model. This specifies acommon standard for the development of distributed applica-tions, based on the reusability, portability, and interoperabilityof objects in heterogeneous environments.

The CORBA bus defines the components’ structure and theway they interact, allowing low-level communication amongobjects by synchronized Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs).CORBA also allows asynchronous interaction, so clients cancontinue working after issuing a request without having to waitfor an immediate result from the server. CORBA enables class-es to be implemented in several languages, and can run ondifferent operating systems and platforms dispersed over aheterogeneous network. To enable this, CORBA is centredaround three main concepts:1. Separation between interface and implementation. All

CORBA components are specified by an Interface Defini-tion Language (IDL). IDL is a purely declarative languageclose to C++, but without statements or control structures.It is implementation independent, with bindings for C,C++, Java, Ada, Smalltalk and others. A component canspecify which classes it inherits from, attributes, throwableexceptions, input and output arguments, return values, anddata types.

2. Location Independence. The kernel of any CORBA imple-mentation is the Object Request Broker (ORB), which is amediation service that makes the location of objects trans-parent. It routes requests so that way that objects cancommunicate amongst themselves, either on the samemachine or over the Internet.

3. Vendor Interoperability and Systems Integration. The IIOPprotocol (Internet Inter-Operability Protocol) specifieshow to change messages from CORBA’s GIOP protocol(General Inter-ORB Protocol) on TCP/IP networks,making the Internet a giant ORB on which other ORBs caninteract. The IIOP has the advantage of operating on theSecure Sockets Layer (SSL) which allows data to passthrough the bus in a secure (encrypted) way.

The architecture allows the creation of simple objects that,when inheriting from the appropriate services, may have trans-actional, secure, blocked or persistent attributes. These objects

5

ClientClientObjectObject

ImplementationImplementation

InterfaceInterfaceRepositoryRepository

DynamicDynamicInvocationInvocation

ClientClientIDLIDLStubsStubs

ORBORBInterfaceInterface

ImplementationImplementationRepositoryRepository

StaticStaticSkeletonSkeleton

DynamicDynamicSkeletonSkeleton

InvocationsInvocations

ObjectObjectAdapterAdapter

Object Request Broker (IIOP)Object Request Broker (IIOP)

Figure 4: The CORBA Service Architecture.

ClientObject

Implementation

InterfaceRepository

DynamicInvocation

ClientIDL

Stubs

ORBInterface

StaticSkeleton

DynamicSkeleton

Invocations

ObjectAdapter Implementation

Repository

Object Request Broker (IIOP)





are able to interrelate with and locate each other within the bus.CORBA specifies an extension of the service for the creation,disposal, access, storage and retrieval of objects, and how todefine the relationships between them.

All CORBA Services are implemented in IDL (Figure 4).ORB’s interface offers the stubs service and dynamic invoca-tion interfaces to CORBA objects. Operations allow the trans-lation of object references as character strings, with methodsfor detecting nullity, duplication, and so on. It also has reflexivemeta-information functions that interrogate objects about theirtype. From the client side, to invoke a remote object as if it werelocal, it is first referenced, then the client is linked with the IDLstub which transforms ORB’s requests into a realimplementation, inheriting the interface methods. On the serverside, for each interface there is a skeleton implemented. Itsfunction is to transform the requests from the ORB into aninvocation on the object server. Stubs and skeletons are gener-ated by the IDL compiler.

5.1 CORBA Facilities and ServicesThe set of services established by the OMG is comprehensive

and still growing:a. Naming Service: Object registry, component name lookup,

and hierarchical context (‘folders’).b. Event Service. Dynamic decentralized event registry for

components.c. Life Cycle Service. Defines create, copy, move and delete

operations for bus components.d. Persistence Service. Provides a unique interface for storing

components permanently in using several alternatives,such as object databases, relational databases, and flat filesystems.

e. Relationship Service. Handles dynamic links betweencomponents.

f. Externalization Service. Extracts or inserts data in acomponent using streams.

g. Transaction Service. Provides a two phase dedicated coor-dination between components with atomic transactioncontrol.

h. Concurrency Control Service. Provides a blocking systemthat allows the synchronization of thread operations.

i. Licensing Service. Measures the use of components tocalculate use compensation.

j. Query Service. SQL-based object queries.k. Properties Service. Assigns values or properties such as

dates to a component.l. Security Service. Provides a secure working environment

for distributed objects.m. Time Service. Provides interfaces for time synchronization

of distributed objects.n. Collection Service. Provides CORBA interfaces for the

creation and handling of the most common collections.o. Trader Service. A Yellow Pages service to advertise and

promote distributed objects on.This gives an idea of the scope and power of CORBA object

services, and how these can be used to implement distributedservices on the web.

AVANTE ArchitectureThe AVANTE project (Aula Virtual – Aulas de Nueva

Tecnología, Virtual Classroom – New Technologies Class-rooms) started up in September 2000 as an enhanced alterna-tive to WBI. It is platform independent and has been developedusing free and/or open source software on a standards-baseddesign. The GNU/Linux OS platform was chosen due to itsuniversal availability for different processor architectures(Intel, PowerPC, MIPS, SPARC), its robustness as a main serv-er environment, and its growing code base.

6

User Services

Course Services

Grading Services

Other Services

COBRA ORBServiceClient Service

(Apache)

Resin: JSP

Web page

JDBC

DB

Presentation layer Middleware layer(Distributed Components)

Database layer

Figure 5: Physical Layers of AVANTE.





6.1 Physical LayersThere are three physical layers in AVANTE, as shown in

Figure 5. The first layer is a (multiple) Apache™ web serverwhich handles incoming http requests. A servlet engine runs oneach server (Tomcat™ or Resin™) [10] [12], in parallel with aJava Virtual Machine (JVM). This allows the session control tobe closer to the clients and hides CORBA interaction, withalmost no performance penalty. The second layer is the compo-nent layer, which hosts all CORBA services. The last layer isthe database repository, which is accessed via JDBC. AnyJDBC-SQL database manager can be used, such as ORACLE,MySQL, Postgres, or similar. All communication is kept secureby using SSL.

6.2 CORBA Sublayer Components in AVANTEAll WBI functionality is implemented as a layer of CORBA

distributed services. There are four sublayers in the CORBAlayer, with services grouped according to their nature [15]:client services (which for now are handled by the servletengine), presentation services, management services and lowlevel services, as shown in Figure 6.

All CORBA services inherit from the same classes, as shownin Figure 7, in UML (Unified Modelling Language) notation[16].

The responsibilities of all CORBA components are shown inTable 1.

6.3 A Typical Session with AVANTEAVANTE can be contacted from any web browser. Five main

user classes have been defined: Creator, Instructor, Student,Browser and Administrator. They can be further broken downfor certain course requirements.

A creator defines syllabus, content, and methodology. Aninstructor uses an already defined course, and activates it, add-ing class schedule, assessments, grade reporting, and commu-nication channels. A student interacts with all the course facil-ities and may in some cases add material. The browser has veryfew rights as a guest, and the administrator prepares courseswith student registers, class lists, and takes care of all necessarysecurity and performance enhancement.

When a course is created and later instantiated, a CORBAobject is created as a separate service, and from then on it existswith serializable and persistent properties. After logging on andobtaining their profiles, students use the CORBA naming serv-ice to locate a course which is then activated by the servletrunning on the web server.

6.4 The XML-XSL Translator ComponentCourse and student information is extracted from the relevant

database and converted into XML metadata. Using speciallydefined XSL templates, the intermediate representation is thentransformed by the XML-XSL filter-mapping component intothe information needed for the next process. Figure 8 showshow this mechanism is applied to create learner tailored cours-es and student web pages. The filter-mapping component isalso used for the import/export of course packages.

6.5 The Database Access ComponentXML-XSL filters are also used with the database component

to produce XML data or objects. This allows a simple yetpowerful way of producing XML data to and from SQL data-bases. As we can see in Figure 9, XML metadata is combinedwith the corresponding XSL style sheet which includes allnecessary SQL instructions. After a request the result is merged

User Interface Components

Filter-Mapping XML-XSLComponent

Management LayerPresentation Layer

Course Management

Import/Export

Schedule

Administration

Active Courses

Testing/EvaluationContent Development

Low Level Access Layer

Metadata

XML-XSL DB Course DB

Secure Access

User Profiles DB

Sync/AsyncCommunication

Figure 6: AVANTE Component Sublayers.





and formatted according to the XML template. A differentrequest is expressed with a different XSL. The same compo-nent is used for accessing Oracle™, MySQL™, and Postgres™DB managers by changing just one name parameter when load-ing the appropriate JDBC driver.

All management and administration is done locally orremotely though a web page (Figure 10). Users only need toknow the main address on the Web, without having to worryabout the real location of the components.

The security issues inherent to the CORBA model must besolved for universal unhindered access. The chosen ORB(ORBacus™) has provision for firewalls and proxies, so it canoperate over secure ports. Another alternative would be to fun-nel all connections through HTTP tunnelling. The chosen serv-let solution in AVANTE avoids both problems, leaving allCORBA connections to the servlet responsible for connectingthe users.

Figure 7: Class Diagram of the Courses.

CursoESTUDIANTES : ObjectID_CURSO : stringCRONOGRAMA : CronogramaOBJETIVOS : stringNOMBRE : stringDESCRIPCION : stringMATERIAL : ObjectGLOSARIO : GlosarioINSTRUCTORES : ObjectREQUISITOS : string

CronogramaACTIVIDADES : ObjectESCALA : stringFECHA_INICIO : dateFECHA_FIN : date

GlosarioTERMINOS : ObjectID_GLOSARIO : string

PreguntaID_EVALUACION : stringID_PREGUNTA : stringVALOR : stringDESCRIPCION

RespuestaID_PREGUNTA : stringID_RESPUESTA : stringDESCRIPCION : string

SeccionID_SECCION

MaterialURL : java.net.URLDESCRIPCION : stringID_MATERIAL : stringNOMBRE : stringTIPO : stringAUTOR : string

BibliografiaTITULO : stringISBN : stringID_BIBLIOGRAFIA : stringEDITORIAL : stringNUMEDICION : stringFECHA_PUB : DatePAGINAS : string

NotaVALOR : stringID_EVALUACION : stringCOMENTARIO : string

TemaID_TEMA : stringDESCRIPCION : stringTEMA_PADRE : stringMATERIALES : Object

UsuarioEMAIL : stringID_USUARIO : stringNOMBRE : stringURL : java.net.URLFECHA_NAC : datePASSWORD : stringFECHA_ULT_CAMBIO : dateFECHA_EXPIRACION_PASSWORD : dateFECHA_EXPIRACION_USUARIO : date

ActividadID_ACTIVIDAD : stringTEMAS : ObjectFECHA : dateDESCRIPCION : string

EstudianteCARNET : stringEVALUACIONES : Object

Object Factory

CrearObjeto()

PoliticaID_POLITICA : stringREGLAS : ObjectDESCRIPCION : string

ReglaID_REGLA : stringDESCRIPCION : string

EvaluacionID_EVALUACION : stringPREGUNTAS : ObjectDESCRIPCION : string

Rule

Policy Section

Object Factory

Cronogram

Course

User

Material

StudentActivity

Glossary

Bibliography Topic Evaluation Mark

Question Answer





Conclusions and Future WorkAVANTE’s architecture was designed with extensibility

and maintainability in mind. Existing services can be added ondemand, within a framework where new services can be easilycreated and integrated. Based as it is on available standards, itallows for the definition of courses that can be packaged andmigrated to other similar WBI tools. By using free and opensource software, readily available on the web (GNU/Linux™OS, Apache™ Web Server, Resin™ Servlet Engine, the JavaVirtual Machine™, and current web browsers), it can be set upand at no additional cost. The fact that the underlying model isbased on XML, and the use of XSL-based translators, ensuresthat valid changes in data and metadata will not modify existingcode. The CORBA component model implemented allows foron-demand scalability, since services can be replicated anddistributed as new server machines are added. New serviceswill be added to enhance the system’s performance and the userexperience. These include event logging and auditing, dynamicadaptive user interfaces, on-line testing/assessment, and inte-gration with existing administrative systems. A next step will

be to migrate all communications between components to theSOAP XML protocol, which will allow a much richer and morecomplex environment by expanding the XML specifications ofthe architecture.

Further work is related to the development of the contentcreation component. A model [17] has been developed forinstructional design, whereby the instructor will be able toselect learning objectives and the strategies to achieve themwith. The model will provide all the elements needed to designcourse content and related learning activities. The AVANTEarchitecture provides a blueprint for standards-based develop-ment of distributed services, which can be successfully appliedto almost any domain in the emerging e-Business industry.

References[1]

R. Ubell. Engineers Turn to e-Learning. IEEE Spectrum, October2000.

[2]N. Mathew and M. Dohery-Poirier. Using the World Wide Web toEnhance Classroom Instruction. First Monday. Peer-Reviewed

7

XML-XSLFilter

JavaTM SAX API

XML Data

XSL (1)

XSL(2)

XSL(3)

HTML(1)

DHTML(2)

XML(3)

Figure 8: XML-XSL Mapping.

XML-XSLDatabase Filter

JavaTM SAX API

XML Metadata

XSL (1)

XSL(2)

XML Data(1)

JavaTM JDBCXML Data(2)

Figure 9: XML-XSL Database Mapping

Layer Component Description

Management

Course Management Course Design and Maintenance

Active Courses Active Course Objects

Administration Environment Configuration

Auditing Logging and Tracking statistics

Syllabus/ Class Schedule Class Planning

Testing/Evaluation

Grade Reporting

Content Creation Bridge for content creation tools

Tutoring Methodology Teaching/Learning strategies

Presentation

User Interface Interaction

User Profiles User Customization/History

XML-XSL Filter-Mapping XSL-XML translator

Low Level Services

Access/Session Secure access and user authentication

Synchronous and asynchronous Communication e-mail, chat, news, whiteboard, videoconference channels

Import/Export Packaging Data and metadata migration

Metadata Handling XML creation and storage

Database Access JDBC-SQL connection pool management

Table 1: AVANTE Component Description.





Journal on the Internet. Vol. 5., N. 3. March 2000. <http:// www.firstmonday.org/issues/issu5_3/mathew/index.html>.

[3]B. Khan. Web-Based Instruction (WBI): What is it and why is it?In B.H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based Instruction. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc., 1997.

[4]A. Relan and B. Gillani. Web Based Information and The Tradi-tional Classroom: Similarities and Differences. In B.H. Khan(Ed.), Web-based Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: EducationalTechnology Publications, Inc., 1997.

[5]R. Hiltz. Teaching in a Virtual Classroom. International Confer-ence on Computer Assisted Instruction, 1995.

[6]E. Ruckhaus and V. Theoktisto. Aula Virtual I: Informe ProyectoDID S1-CA-411. USB, Caracas, 2000.

[7]V. Theoktisto, A. Bianchini, and E. Ruckhaus, Aula Virtual II:Extensión al proyecto DID S1-CA-411. USB, Associated withthe CYTED-UNESCO project. Caracas, 2000.

[8]IMS Content Packaging Information Model v1.1. IMS GlobalLearning Consortium, Inc. April 19, 2001.

[9]D. Casey. Learning from or through the Web: Models of Web-based Education. SIGCSE-Bulletin 30 n. 3, pp. 51–54, 1998.

[10]Luis Anido. Contribución a la Definición de ArquitecturasDistribuidas para Sistemas de Aprendizaje Basados en OrdenadorUtilizando CORBA. (Contribution to the Definition of Distribut-

ed Architectures for Computer Based learning Systems usingCORBA) Doctoral Thesis, ETSI de Telecomunicación, Universi-dad de Vigo, Spain, 2001.

[11]A. Turgeon. Web-based instruction with modules for active learn-ing. ADEC Presentation. September 1999. <http://www.adec.edu/workshops/1999/sept28/outline.html>.

[12]Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (2nd edition). WorldWide Web Consortium, 6 October 2000. <http://www.w3c.org>.

[13]Learning Objects Metadata, Rev. 6. IEEE P1484.12/D6. IEEELearning Technology Standardization Committee. February2001.

[14]Object Management Group The Common Object RequestBroker: Architecture and Specification (CORBA 2.3). USA,1999.

[15]V. Theoktisto. Patrones de Diseño (Design Patterns). UniversidadSimón Bolívar, Caracas, 2000.

[16]Yueh-Chun Shih and Nian-Shing Chen. The Conceptual Modelof Web-Based Instruction System and Its Implementation. ICCE99. <http://www.nsysu.edu.tw/~nschen/conference/icce99.htm>

[17]A. Bianchini. Modelo referencial de hipermedio basado en teoríade grafos, para minimizar el problema de desorientación delusuario (Graph theory based hypermedia reference model to min-imize the problem of user disorientation). Proceedings CIC’2000.pp. 121–130. Mexico. November 2000.

Figure 10: AVANTE’s Initial Access Screen.





E-Learning in Distance Education and in the New Cooperative Environments

Enrique Rubio-Royo, Domingo J. Gallego, and Catalina Alonso-García

This article, of informative purpose, aims to give an overview of how e-Learning is being included in trainingprocesses considered as traditional (distance and on site learning). But it will also be looking at practicalcases showing the results of the application of e-Learning within the framework of what are referred to as‘entrepreneurial units’, small research groups and departments set up within Universities to applyinnovative techniques among teachers and learners.

Keywords: collaborative environment, corporate e-Learn-ing, distance education, online training, organizational innova-tion, virtual campus.

IntroductionTo improve the quality of teaching, to meet the new

demands created by our knowledge society and to provideeducation in humanistic values are aims that most Europeanuniversities strive to achieve. The governing bodies of manyuniversities have put in place strategic policies and plans (bothon an individual and a cooperative basis) to meet the aforemen-tioned aims. But an important role is also being played by whatare referred to as ‘entrepreneurial units’; small research groupsand departments which are applying innovative techniquesamong their teachers and learners to achieve some of thoseaims. They act as test beds for other teaching institutions andprovide important information for the governors of our univer-sities to bear in mind when addressing strategic policies andplans. In this article we will provide two practical cases fromtwo different entrepreneurial units, each with a commondenominator: the use of e-Learning1 platforms.• The first case concerns the work carried out by Domingo J.

Gallego and Catalina Alonso-García on the use of e-Learn-ing in the distance learning. The incorporation of informa-tion and communications technologies in distance learningis a ‘natural’ evolution toward the use of technologicaladvances to improve a given service. The aim is to use tech-nological innovations in an non-exclusive way; that is to say,learners who do not have the required technological infra-structure at their disposal can still receive a quality service,but those that do can benefit from more learning possibili-ties, other approaches and different results.

• The second case concerns CICEI (Centro de Innovaciónpara la Sociedad de Información, <http://www.cicei.com>)of the Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.This is based on adapting certain processes normally related

to on site learning to the new competitive strategies arisingfrom the advent of the knowledge society. The aim is topromote cooperation among teachers. Given the socialnature of knowledge, cooperation is one of the cornerstonesof the Knowledge Society. Cooperation is present in organ-izational learning and innovation, informal learning, andlearning in the workplace. This new cooperative aspect of

1. The e-Learning platforms employed include training systems,cooperative work and knowledge management; all processes usethe Internet as their communications support.

1

Enrique Rubio-Royo is a full professor, working in the field ofknowledge and computer science and artificial intelligence in theDept. of Informatics and Systems of the Universidad de LasPalmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. He is the Director of the Centrode Innovación para la Sociedad de la Información (CICEI) of thesame university <http://www.cicei.com/>. He is also the Coordi-nating Director of the doctoral programme “Information technol-ogies and their applications” and is director of the UNITWIN-UNESCO chair of “Information Technologies for NorthwestAfrica”, <http://www.cicei.ulpgc.es/unesco/tis/>. For more thanten years he has been analysing the role of information technolo-gies in social and organizational environments and has designedand implemented several models of organizational innovation, e-learning, and collaborative environments in both public andprivate organizations. <[email protected]>.

Domingo J. Gallego has a PhD from the Universidad Com-plutense de Madrid, Spain, a Master in Educational Technologyand Communications from Columbia University, New York,USA, and a Diploma in Cinematography from the Universidad deValladolid, Spain. He is a professor of Didactics and Organizationof the Spain’s Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia(UNED). He lectures on Educational Technology and runs thedoctoral courses “How to do educational research on the Internet”and “Knowledge and intellectual capital management”. He is thetechnical coordinator of the postgraduate course “Master inEducational Informatics”, <http://www.uned.es/infoedu>. He hasextensive research experience and has directed 25 doctoral theses,all presented and defended, and many other research papers. Heis the author of several research papers and publications oneducational technology, distance learning and knowledgemanagement. <[email protected]>

Continued on next page





learning needs a new culture and a new environment ofcollaborative work.

E-Learning in Distance EducationIn the 90s the UNED (Universidad Nacional de Enseñan-

za a Distancia, Spanish Open University, <http://www.uned.es>) was a ‘paper’ university. All its teaching material wascentred on texts supported by radio broadcasts and audio andvideo material. As early as 1992 the article by Domingo J.Gallego entitled “From the paper university to the telematicuniversity”, published in the journal A Distancia to commemo-rate twenty years of the UNED, was already heralding thecoming changes and technical advances.

While encouraging the use of technology, UNED is a univer-sity which is technologically non-exclusive; in other words itdoes not exclude learners who do not have access to therequired technology (computer, Internet...) but it does encour-age teachers and learners to enter and make full use of theworld of the new technologies for learning. Many years ago, inthe closing session of the 10th Congress of Pedagogy (Sala-manca, October 1992) Miguel Angel Quintanilla said that‘technology’ had become the “modern day cultural coinci-dence”.

Computers have come into the field of learning bringing withthem a different way of acquiring knowledge. By usingcomputers learners should be able to develop their ideas, applytheir knowledge and gain confidence in themselves as intellec-tuals.

Computers afford us a huge opportunity to acquire unprece-dented skills and to invent and carry out highly interestingtasks, providing access to the languages and the world ofcomputing. The results of several pieces of research seem toshow that the use of the computer in support of individualizedlearning results in:• The learning being more active.• The possibility of greater sensorial and conceptual variety. • Less fatigue.• An approach to cognitive processes.• An aid to abstraction.

The different ways Informatics can be used act as a catalystby creating a new type of relationship between teachers andlearners. But this will only be possible when both teachers andlearners are prepared to shrug off their current hidebound rolesand play the more open role required by the new methodologi-cal models, characterised by curiosity, discovery and knowl-edge building.

Educators should create new educational models which meetthe need to generate new sources of knowledge. Teachersshould foster motivation and awaken the thirst for knowledgein their learners. In this way we can give learners an in-deptheducation, one in which they acquire new knowledge by exper-imenting, exploring and innovating, learning at their own paceand in their own learning style. Informatics as a new languageplays a vital role in this.

Online LearningIn our electronic age, the very concept of ‘distance’ needs

to be rethought in the light of the new resources that teachersand learners of distance learning have today.

But it is the incorporation of such modern technologies asfibre optics, communications satellites, microcomputernetworks, videoconferencing, teleconferencing by computer,e-mail and the Internet which allows us, indeed obliges us, totake a fresh look at the classic approach and our usual distancelearning models and open up new educational horizons.

This new series of mediational tools enable us to overcomesome of the typical difficulties of distance learning, for exam-ple the distance in time and space between learner and learningcentre, which led to delays in the solution of difficulties andeven to changes in the way those difficulties were formulated.The Internet overcomes isolation in learning by making virtualclassrooms and collaborative learning possible.

Traditionally distance learning has been described as a formof education in which learners:1) are physically separated from their teacher,2) are also separated from their teacher in time,3) and learn independently of any contact with teacher or

other learners. Nowadays the classic definition of distance learning has

widened its horizons to embrace the new possibilities that tech-nology, and, in particular, telecommunications provide. Crain-cross claimed, a few years ago, that “The death of distance willprobably be the single most important force shaping society inthe first half of the next century”. Accordingly we need to comeup with a new taxonomy that takes into account other kinds ofteacher-learner relationships:

Category 1: Correspondence based distance learning1. Study by correspondence based solely on written material.2. Study by correspondence based on written material backed

up by audio and video recordings.3. Study by correspondence based on written material backed

up by radio or television programmes, but with no commu-nication in real time.

2

3

Catalina Alonso-García is a PhD in Educational Science and agraduate in Psychology from the Universidad Complutense deMadrid, Spain, and also has a Diploma in Industrial Psychology.She is a Basic Education teacher and a professor of EducationalTechnology in the Spain’s Universidad Nacional de Educación aDistancia (UNED). She runs the doctoral courses “TeachingStyles, learning Styles” and “Educational Implications ofEmotional Intelligence”, and is the director of the Master,Specialist and Expert postgraduate courses on Educational Infor-matics. She has chaired eight UNED Educational InformaticsCongresses (1996-2003). She has taught at every level of theeducation system, and has authored several research papers andpublications on educational technology, distance learning, emo-tional intelligence and learning styles. <[email protected]>





Category 2: Telecommunications based distance learning1. Bidirectional audio communication audio.2. Bidirectional audiographic communication.3. Bidirectional video communication.4. Bidirectional communication by computer.

In the UNED there are currently a great many elements ofCategory 1 and Category 2 coexisting together. We can see inour university how real time bi-directional communications,achieved by means of various technological resources, enableinteractivity and dialogue and enhance the quality of educa-tional processes. We find ourselves in an exciting new situationin which communication systems are of paramount importanceas decisive mediating elements in education.

Peter Drucker, the famous business and management guruonce said in an interview published in Forbes magazine in June1997 (pp. 84–92) “Thirty years from now, big universitycampuses will be relics. Universities won’t survive. It's as largea change as when we first got the printed book... Already we arebeginning to deliver more lectures and classes off-campus viasatellite or two way video at a fraction of the cost. The collegewon’t survive as a residential institution.”

Virtual Online EnvironmentsVirtual online environments will be able to be supported

by internal networks or Intranets, private networks belongingto an organization or by Extranets, external networks tocommunicate with ‘the outside world’. The Extranet par excel-lence is, of course, the Internet, whose current possibilities, inits existing form, could be said to be stretched to the limit. Itwas designed to carry written information (text) but now sound,image and moving images have increased the informationalload over channels which have become inadequate. The boomin institutional and private connections has meant that thenetwork has reached saturation point, slowing down processes,sometimes to an exasperating degree, making the practical useof multiple audiovisual resources impossible. The launch ofInternet 2 and the technological improvements this will heraldmeans that we can look to the future with some optimism whilemaking the best out of the present.

The design of online virtual environments will depend on atleast three factors. Firstly on culture. If we are used to doingthings in only one way, change could be very slow in coming,especially considering that a fifth of the population of the firstworld is over sixty five years old, and a large percentage ofeducators are over forty five and will find it hard to make themove into virtual environments. It may be that developingcountries with younger populations and fewer preset ideas willbe quicker to discover and benefit from the new technologiesthan the aging West.

Secondly, on cost. The Internet has been more successful incountries where its use is less expensive. When free Internetconnection was offered to Spanish educational centres, morethan six thousand centres hooked up to the Internet. Broadbandconnection and its associated cost are limiting factors in the useof online virtual environments.

Thirdly, on ease of use. When a technology is easy to use itquickly becomes popular and people snap it up. The case of

mobile telephones is a good example of this. The more effort isrequired to get to grips with a technology, the slower and morelimited will be its dissemination. An online virtual environmentbased on complex technological systems will have much lesschance of becoming widely used than an environment using‘transparent and user friendly’ technology.

When in 1993 Marc Andreessen and his colleagues at theUniversity of Illinois designed Mosaic, the first multimediaWeb browser, they opened up the way to create virtual environ-ments with new features. The Internet became multimedia bynature – albeit slow and flawed, but multimedia nonetheless –with greater accessibility and more fun to look at. We have alsoseen the introduction of Hypertext, a cross-referencing toolallowing users to move straight from a selected word or phraseon the screen to related information stored on a computer inanother part of the world, thereby enabling us to use relateddocuments conjointly.

The concept of cyberspace, a term first coined by WilliamGibson in 1984 in his book Neuromancer, as a computergenerated three dimensional world in which people can experi-ence a virtual reality, is loaded with connotations of danger,isolation and anti-humanistic overtones in a world controlledby machines. However a good use of the new forms of commu-nication may actually increase the variety and depth of inter-personal communications, enriching people’s lives and open-ing up a gateway to a new type of social life.

Virtual PlatformsSince the mid 90s various platforms for the design of

online courses have appeared on the scene. After the initialexperiments with HTML editors, integrating e-mail and otheractivities developed with Java or Javascript, we now have alarge number of platforms facilitating the design of onlinecourses. However the number of platforms available may causeproblems for some people, due to the lack of standardisationand the need to decide on a specific platform.

Virtual platforms normally provide three kinds of tools:• User interface design tools.• Tools to facilitate learning, communication and collabora-

tion.• Course management tools.

Obviously the first step in the design of online courses is todecide what platform to use. This is a complex decision requir-ing the analysis of the various tools available and how theymeet the specific needs of each learning centre.

A Practical Case: UNED’s Postgraduate Courses in Educational Informatics

In UNED’s postgraduate courses in educational informaticsthe basic pedagogical criteria of third generation distancelearning have been followed: to design plurimedia teachingmaterials developed specifically for the postgraduate courses;to set up some on site meetings with the learners (those unableto attend in person can follow the meeting by videoconferenceon the postgraduate web page and can communicate and takepart in the meeting over the Internet); to promote collaborativelearning and the learners’ self knowledge of their learning abil-

4

5

6





ities by means of guided self-diagnosis of their learning style.Also included are distribution lists (as an improvement on theold BBS (Bulletin Board System) and the latest methods ofteacher-learner and learner-learner interaction provided by theWEBCT platform: fora, debates, chats, file sending, etc.

The choice of WEBCT as a basic platform was made for usby the university which chose it for all its telematic activity. Wehave tried out other platforms and we have carried out someresearch into the didactic possibilities of different onlineeducational models and available educational web pages. Someof this research is soon to be presented to the academic commu-nity in the form of doctoral theses.

Looking back at the results of UNED’s postgraduate coursesin educational informatics we believe that the considerableexperience over the years of different ways of approachingdistance learning has had a strong influence on the teaching. Iftoday we can talk about the nearly 3,000 teachers who havepassed through our postgraduate courses over the last ten years,and eight International Congresses of Educational Informaticshosted by the UNED which provide an annual snapshot of thestate of educational informatics in Spain and other countries inproceedings that fill thousands of pages and CDs with demon-strations and creations educational informatics which are easyto apply in the classroom, it is because the holistic approach todistance learning has covered most learning possibilities.

There are some people who have a great enthusiasm forInformatics and Telematics and start up virtual learning, oronline learning, activities and experiments without any prior

review of and without any thought to the meaning of distancelearning and its methodological peculiarities. They merelymake a transposition of the on site class to the telematic class.We believe that experience and a proper understanding of theteaching methodology of distance learning is of paramount im-portance, whatever your choice of design and platform.

CICEI: New Context-New RealityThe current situation of transition toward the Knowledge

Society (qualitative and generalized change within a networkedsociety) is bringing about a new context, a new reality, one towhich organizations and private individuals will have to adapt.In particular, changes in the nature of work (concerning themanagement of intangibles) require new skills, knowledge andattitudes of the new professionals (knowledge workers). Inturn, the social nature of knowledge requires new collaborativework environments (knowledge based work environment) to bedesigned within the new emergent organizational forms (net-worked organization). To implement these new environments,to support the interaction and sharing of the new emergentsocial forms (different types of online communities), variouscommunity oriented information technologies are used, asshown diagrammatically in Figure 1.

As we have seen, the present situation facing private individ-uals and organizations is one of far-reaching and rapid change.This gives rise to complexity and uncertainty, and makes itimpossible to predict what the future has in store. Meeting therequirements of this new reality does in turn produce changes,

7

New context

InternetNature of work

New requirements:

NetworkedDegree of complexity.

Growing

Permanent,

Knowledge as

New skills,

New work forms

Knowledge workers

Within…

Community

Virtual

New emergent

New emergent

Organization on Organization as a

Effective socialVirtualization

Reflection/ Learning by doing

Prototype of aPrototype of

Particularly… CICEI-ULPGCAims

ToolsCharacteristics

5

0

economy

generally speaking…

societyUncertainty

virtualizationprocess

collaborativeinnovation

key resource

knowledge andattitudes

1

and environments

2

oriented technologies

Socialization.Collaboration

principlescommunity

model

social forms

organizationalforms

3

an expanded network knowledge community

groups: distributedcollaboration

process overtime

Adaptation RDI Groups

4

K-based organizationK-workers

Collaborative desktop iDESKTOP

Figure 1: New Context – New Reality: the CICEI Model.





both in the nature of work and the forms and type of relation-ships to be found in group work, within the framework of thenew emergent organizational forms.

This new context, reflecting the current transition toward aknowledge society, has set the scene in CICEI for the formali-zation and implementation of a socio-technical model of ‘Net-worked Organization’, known as the SURICATA model. Themain features of this are, among others: • The intensive use of ICT (Information and Communications

Technologies) and particularly of Internet technologies,which brings about fundamental changes at a global level (e-Society), in organizations (e-Company), in industry (e-Economy) and in the marketplace (e-Business).

• Networking as a new organizational logic on which emerg-ing organizational structures are based in support of the newparadigms of knowledge creation, dissemination andsharing.

• View of knowledge as the key asset to manage (main sourceof competitive edge).

• View of the organization as a knowledge system (socialnature of knowledge).

• Innovation in knowledge management as a strategy oforganizational adaptation and change. Knowledge sharingas the only direct path to sustainable innovation.

• ‘Organizational’ learning as a feeder for knowledgemanagement.

• The organization as a community of communities.• The community as a ‘nucleus’ upon which knowledge is

created and shared (virtual communities, knowledge flows,social networks).

In the light of all the above, we see the implementation of anoverall knowledge strategy within an organization – and inparticular of an RDI centre – not only as a process of adaptationbut also as a process of growing virtualization over time, in thecontext of a new reality (moving toward the knowledge econo-my), characterized by the following elements: people oriented(interpersonal relations); importance of ideas, innovation,coordination and technology; immersion in the age of intangi-bles; an unprecedented emphasis on the value of learning.

New Forms and Environments of Knowledge Based Work

As Peter Drucker said a few years ago “Making knowledgeworkers more productive requires change in basic attitude,while making the manual workers more productive onlyrequired telling the worker how to do the job. Furthermore,making knowledge workers more productive requires changesin attitude not only on the part of the individual knowledgeworker, but on the part of the whole organization”.

In response to this new scenario, organizations are designingand developing different strategies addressing, on the one handthe new knowledge, skills and attitudes of the knowledge work-ers, and, on the other hand, the new work forms and environ-ments required.

8.1 The Knowledge Worker Out of all this is emerging a new kind of ‘worker’ and a new

way of working. It is ever more apparent that “The only thingthat gives an organization a competitive edge – the only thingthat is sustainable – is what it knows, how it uses what it knows,and how fast it can know something new” (Laurence Prusak).In order to manage and share this knowledge, organizationsneed knowledge management mechanisms to facilitate organi-zational learning and innovation. This leads to ‘knowledgebased work’, by which is understood “any activity that increas-es the knowledge a person or an organization has” and shouldinclude any kind of reflection or research that captures, storesand uses knowledge leading to new products, services or inno-vative processes. This has given the term ‘knowledge worker’(k-worker), coined by Peter Drucker about forty years ago, anew lease of life, although there is still a certain degree ofconfusion about its exact meaning,. Basically any personinvolved in the creation, management and dissemination ofknowledge is a knowledge worker. Of course this definitioncovers a wide range of activities and professions. Generallyspeaking, k-workers tend to be academically well qualified,have a thirst for knowledge and innovation, and an intensiveuse of information technologies.

Given all the above we can say that for ‘knowledge workers’to perform effectively in our knowledge society there must bea synergy between the capacity of technological systems toprocess information (ICT) and the creative and innovativecapacity of the people involved (‘knowledge workers’). Thus,as well as requiring new skills (computer skills, interpersonalskills, etc.), knowledge workers will also require new workenvironments to enable that synergy (‘personalized portal forthe knowledge worker’). The understanding, acceptance andefficient use by ‘knowledge workers’ of the working environ-ments we have described above, will allow them to ‘delegate’to technology anything that is programmable, allowing us toconcentrate our time and effort on value added activities requir-ing creativity and innovation.

8.2 Knowledge Based Work EnvironmentThe growing virtualization process, the presence of virtual

communities and the appearance of knowledge workers allmake it essential to modify our work environments. This iswhere the aforementioned ‘personalized portal for the knowl-edge worker’ comes in, where the dimensions of individual andcollaborative work (formal and informal groups) converge,with the aim of increasing and sharing organizational knowl-edge and thereby generating a return for the organization.

The management models of the industrial era placed empha-sis on control and top down orders, with clearly defined func-tions and responsibilities. The resulting hierarchical controlstructures are unable to respond quickly enough to the chang-ing demands of the users, nor can they meet the needs of theworkers. In this respect we can see a shift in current manage-ment methods towards biological metaphors (ecosystem) andcomplex systems, characterized by relationships involvinginterdependency and feedback.

8





Traditional work groups are thus being replaced by newemergent forms. Generally speaking, there is a shift fromhomogeneous and static groups to heterogeneous and dynamicones, as is shown in Table 1.

As specific examples of these new social relationships thatknowledge workers form part of we could mention: formalwork groups, project teams, practice communities, informalknowledge networks, etc.

8.3 Virtual communitiesAs we have seen, if the environment changes so must work

forms, organization forms and communication forms. Virtualcommunities and work teams emerge as key components ofknowledge management and organizational learning and inno-vation strategies.

In regard to this we see the field of applied research ‘Virtualcommunities and ICT’ as being of great interest, given thesynergy arising from the combination of ICT’s capacity fortransformation on the one hand and, on the other, the capacityfor innovation and creativity of people and groups. We considerthat:• Virtual communities in general, and practice communities in

particular, will play an ever more central role within bothorganizations and society in general.

• Virtual communities as a support to the reconfiguration oflearning and knowledge management processes (new para-digms) and of new emergent organizational forms.

• Different profiles of virtual communities in response toorganizations current need to develop a greater intentionali-ty and systemization with regard to knowledge management(design of a strategy)

• Relative value of virtual communities (Web based networks,with human many-to-many interactions), compared tobroadcast networks (one-to-many) and transactional net-works (one-to-one)

• New paradigm of networked creativity (overcoming thetraditional dichotomy: ‘few create, many consume’).

• Socio-technical paradigm of innovation (sustainable): as away of adapting to social, market, and technological chang-es, as the current main source of competitive edge and ascultural property.

• ICT as an implementation support for the different virtualcommunity profiles.

8.4 Socialization: Principles of CollaborationThe mere existence of virtual communities and work teams

is not enough; we need to give some thought to what conditionsare required for such online communities to work and to beeffective and productive. Generally speaking, the managementof social interaction by applying principles of collaborativeparticipation can help communities to improve their resultsexponentially. So, in order to achieve collaborative participa-tion we need to adopt the appropriate principles for the creationof effective social systems.

The sociological principles behind the development of socialsystems provide an approach or model for the design of Webbased interactive services. The principles of community collab-oration which a) facilitate the organization of groups; b) en-hance team collaboration; and, c) promote the exchange ofknowledge, can be summed up as follows:

Traditional groups New emergent forms

Homogeneous

• Groups of ‘similar’ people

• Organizationally similar (e.g. departments)

Heterogeneous

• Diversity of people, organizations, and specialities

• Organizationally disparate

Static

• Structure and participants

• Little mobility (in terms of adding and deleting members)

Dynamic

• Change forms part of the process

• Membership is fluid, based on needs

Organization oriented Productivity oriented

Centralized management

• Connected hierarchically

Distributed management

• May or may not be connected hierarchically

Predefined boundaries

• The group is predetermined

• Inflexible approach

Self-defined, organic

• Knowledge defines the group

• Adaptive to tasks

Reliant on ‘technical expert’

• Complex set up

• Sophisticated management and maintenance

Technologically self sufficient

• Rapid technological adoption (in principle)

• Learn as you go enhancements

Fixed geographical location

• Few locales

Mobile

• Anywhere, anytime

Table 1: Traditional and Emergent Work Groups.





1. Purpose. Shared interest or aim: why are we here?; whatdo we aim to achieve together?; how do we achieve ourpurpose online?

2. Identity , of the group and personal: do we know who’swho?; can members identify other members and establisha relationship with them?

3. Reputation. In online communities it’s not who you arebut what you do that is important. Reputation is achievedby our own actions (degree of participation, number andquality of contributions, value contributed to the organiza-tion).

4. Working . Our behaviour should be regulated according toshared or pre-established values. All group members musthave it clear what they can and can not do, how to resolveconflicts, who makes the rules, etc.

5. Communication. We must be able to interact, share infor-mation and ideas with the other members.

6. Groups. Possibility of members forming smaller groups(either formal or informal) when specific tasks or interestsrequire it.

7. Shared environment. Interaction takes place in a sharedenvironment which generates synergy and helps membersto achieve their personal and group aims.

8. Boundaries. The community is aware of who belongs andwho doesn’t belong to it.

9. Trust. Without trust a collaborative group cannot function.Trust is built over time and must be created by the group’smembers, promoters and facilitators. The building of trustincreases the group’s efficiency and makes it possible toresolve conflicts.

10. Exchange. The group’s collaborative work requires anexchange of values, knowledge and ideas.

11. Expression. Expression is the community’s lifeblood. It ishow members know what other members are doing.

12. History. By keeping track of its actions the group acquiresa culture and style of its own. It remembers what hashappened, the way things are done, its successes andfailures, etc... All this is vital for the community’s deve-lopment.

Figure 2: IDESKTOP Interface.





A practical Case: the Collaborative Work Desktop IDESKTOP

IDESKTOP is a Web based collaborative work environmentwhich supports the communication, collaboration, innovationand productivity of work groups in a secure way, regardless ofthe physical location of its members. It is intended for collabo-rative work in organizations of any size, work teams and virtualcommunities, and uses Internet technologies. Its interface isshown below in Figure 2.

The collaborative desktop achieves its aims by means ofcollaboration, communication, productivity and e-Learningtools. • Collaboration: collaborative work is the basic strategy for

the creation and distribution of knowledge in the communityand is supported by such tools as the collaborative calendar,distributed diary, directories, resource booking, polling forquick consultations, meeting management, unattended full-text searches, etc.

• Communication: communication between communityusers and outside world users is provided by applicationssuch as alerts, instant messaging, member contributions,discussion forums, internal chat, e-mail, diary.

• Productivity: the management of documents, projects andtasks, and workflow are among the options provided tocreate the right space in which to improve individual andcollective production.

• e-Learning: a system of external links to portals and offersof training (on several different platforms) integrates a tradi-tional range of online training at a corporate level.

The different configurations and accesses within the environ-ment are based on user and group profiles, with the aim ofproviding total flexibility when sharing information.

IDESKTOP is totally programmed in PHP v4 as a web servermodule, using an object oriented design throughout, which willfacilitate the future integration of information from externalresources. The programmed classes shield the system from theplatform they reside in (Unix, Linux, Windows, Solaris, etc.)and from the database system used (Oracle 8i, MSSQL, mSQL,MySQL, Sybase, etc.). The development platform is based onLinux 2.4.3, Apache 1.3.19, PHP 4.0.6 and Oracle 8.1.7systems. All information is processed in XML (eXtensibleMarkup Language) format, although at the moment everythinggoes through a parser to convert it to HTML (Hyper TextMarkup Language) due to the poor support provided by currentbrowsers to DTD (Document Type Definition), XML and XSL(eXtensible Stylesheet Language).

One of the most important aspects of our development is thesecurity of accesses and contents. To this end we have definedseveral levels of security covering different fields. From alogical point of view we have chosen a session based explicitsecurity model in which each user only sees the modules he or

she has access to. Although a user may force access to anunpermitted module, the system will check internally whethersuch access is allowed for that particular user or group profile.

At the request of the administrator, any user may be requiredto make use of a digital certificate to sign in and register access-es to the system by means of a double client/server certifica-tion. Although the system can be configured to use any kind ofcertificate, it is currently working with the certificate issued bythe Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre (the National Mintof Spain). If desired the system can issue its own certificate (inour case, CICEI’s).

To send sensitive information over the Internet somemodules make use of SSL technology to encrypt contents.Absolutely all processes requested are recorded by the system,with all the information necessary to enable processes andaccesses to be audited.


References[1]

C. M. Alonso and D. J. Gallego. La informática en la prácticadocente (Vols. I and II). UNED, Madrid, 2000.

[2]F. Cairncross. The Death of Distance. Harvard Business SchoolPress, 1997.

[3]A. Cornella. “Sin espacio social no funciona el espacio digital”.Message 602, Ke! Knowledge Energy, 2000. <http://www.infonomia.com/>.

[4]T. Davenport and L. Prusak. Working Knowledge. Harvard Busi-ness School Press, 1998.

[5]P. Drucker. “Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The BiggestChallenge”. California Management Review, V.41, 2, Winter1999, pp 79–94.

[6]Fundesco. “Teleformación: un paso más en el camino de laformación continua”. Fundesco, Madrid, 1998.

[7]D. J. Gallego and CM Alonso. El ordenador como recurso didác-tico. UNED, Madrid, 1999.

[8]W. Gibson. Neuromancer. Ace Books, New York, 1984.

[9]S. Kaplan. “Collaboration Models for Groups & Organizations”,2002. <http://www.icohere.com/Collaboration_Models.pdf>.

[10]E. Rubio-Royo et al. “Modelo sociotécnico de innovación socialy organizacional: Plataforma ‘Suricata’ de comunidades virtu-ales”. II Congreso Internacional de la Sociedad de la Informacióny del Conocimiento (2nd International Congress of the Informa-tion and Knowledge Society, Madrid, May 2003). <http://www.cicei.com/cicei/publicaciones/cisic-2003>.

[11]E. Wenger, R. McDermott, and W.M. Zinder. “CultivatingCommunities of Practice. A guide to managing knowledge”.Harvard Business School Press, 2000.

9





Information Technologies and Knowledge Management in the Ongoing Training of Doctors

Cristina Zamanillo-Sarmiento, Julián Ruiz-Ferrán, and Ángel Fidalgo-Blanco

In a time of change, with new technologies, new methods, new competitive strategies and new needs to meet,ongoing training is necessary for any professional who wants to be able to apply the latest knowledge intheir field of work. In this article we describe a case which shows how the use of Information andCommunication Technologies (ICT), knowledge management and cooperative work results in greaterefficiency in the process of ongoing training carried out in Spain by the Sanitas Foundation in the field ofPrivate Health Management. This training is carried out under the auspices of the FORINTEL project of theSpanish Ministry of Science and Technology jointly with the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain.

Keywords: cooperative work, e-Learning, health manage-ment, knowledge management, ongoing training.

IntroductionWhen we speak of e-Health we are referring to an inte-

gration of all Information and Communication Technologies(ICT) in the field of healthcare. The principal generator of anyhealthcare activity are the doctors, which is why they need tohave a sufficient supply of all the available resources needed tocreate an efficient health product, with the maximum qualityand at the minimum possible cost. The management of theseresources is based on the knowledge that a doctor can acquireas a dynamic process, by means of an ongoing and continuousmedical training. And for this reason knowledge managementshould be the principal tool of a doctor’s daily activity.

The main aim of this article is to show how the use of theright driving forces, specifically e-Learning systems, inmanagement courses for private medicine can improve theefficiency of both the learning process and what subsequentlygoes on in the doctor’s practice.

Before describing an example of theses courses we shouldperhaps give readers some information about private healthcarein Spain, about Sanitas, <http://www.sanitas.es/>, the mostimportant Spanish health insurance provider in the privatesector in particular, and about Sanitas’s activities in the field oftraining for doctors.

Of the approximately 160,000 registered doctors1 working inSpain, around 40,000 of them work in the private sector. Ofthose, some 20,000 work for Sanitas. In the year 2002, spend-ing on healthcare in the private sector made up 27% of allhealthcare expenditure and half of this 27% was accounted forby health insurance companies. And 25% of all Spanish health-care is in the hands of the private sector.

This being the scenario, it should be easy to grasp the impor-tance that doctors working in the private sector have in themanagement of limited resources in the face of an unlimiteddemand. This is where ICT plays a vital role, both in terms of

1. Throughout this article ‘registered doctor’ or 'doctor' should betaken to mean a doctor who is a member of one of the Spanish‘Colegios de Médicos’ (College of Physicians).

1

Cristina Zamanillo-Sarmiento is a doctor. She is the directorof Health Strategy and Information in Sanitas (BUPA Group), andthe director of the Sanitas Foundation Medical TrainingProgramme. She has a Master in Public Health (MPH) fromColumbia University, New York (USA) and a Master in HealthAdministration from the Escuela Nacional de Sanidad (Institutode Salud Carlos III, Ministry of Health and Consumption),Madrid (Spain). She is a specialist in the Accreditation of Socialand Health Centres and Services from the Universidad deValladolid, Spain. She has a Diploma in Managed Care fromLeeds University Business School, United Kingdom. <[email protected]>

Julián Ruiz-Ferrán has a master in Administration andManagement of Health Services from ICADE, Madrid (1997-1999), and a Master in Economics of Health and Health Manage-ment from the Universidad Pompeu i Fabra, Barcelona (Spain).He is a Medical Director of Sanitas S.A., patron and secretary ofthe Sanitas Foundation, and a deputy chairman of the HealthCommittee of the CEA (European Federation of National Insur-ance Associations) and UNESPA’s Comisión Técnica deEnfermedad (Technical Health Committee). <[email protected]>

Ángel Fidalgo-Blanco has a PhD in Informatics. He is aProfessor of the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM),Spain, and has more than 15 years’ experience in the applicationof ICT to learning. He is currently Deputy Head of the Depart-ment of Applied Mathematics and Informatic Methods at theUPM, Director of the Laboratory of Innovation in InformationTechnologies (DMAMI-UPM) and collaborator in educationalinnovation at the UNESCO Department of University Manage-ment and Policy. He forms part of the academic management ofthe Master in “Consulting in e-Business Information Technolo-gies” at the Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. <[email protected]>





improving the healthcare service and adapting to the cultural,social, scientific and technological changes arising from theimplementation of the information society.

The Fundación Sanitas (Sanitas Foundation)2 is a pioneer inthe use of information technologies for improving the standardof training in the medical profession and making it more acces-sible. Its training programme is available not only to the 20,000doctors who offer their services to Sanitas members, but also toall the other registered health professionals, around 160,000,through their Official Colleges of Physicians. This makes it oneof the most far reaching initiatives undertaken in our sector todate. This training is being offered free to doctors.

Sanitas is also a leader in the use of the Internet among itsdoctors and members. More than 5,000 doctors already have asecure access to the company’s website where they can carryout all kinds of Sanitas related consultations and transactions.These 5,000 doctors form a virtual community centred aroundknowledge management.

Since the year 1999, the Sanitas Foundation, in collaborationwith the colleges of physicians at a national level, has beensponsoring and organizing medical training courses in healthmanagement and ICT. These courses are aimed at all healthprofessionals who are intending either to start up a privatepractice or optimize the management of their existing practice.

Since 2001, with backing from the Forintel programme(Training in Telecommunications, <http://www.forintel.es/>)and the Subdirectorate General for Access to the InformationSociety of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology, thefoundation has also been developing medical training coursesfor doctors using ICT. These courses are being given in collab-oration with the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain.

Programmes such as Forintel recognise the importance of allcitizens being ready to integrate into the new InformationSociety. The eradication of illiteracy was the great challenge ofa century ago when citizens were preparing to compete in theindustrial society; now training in the use and handling of tele-communications and information technologies is the new chal-lenge, to enable citizens to build, benefit from and compete inthe new environment.

Health Management Training ProgrammeFunded by the Forintel programme, the Sanitas Founda-

tion, jointly with the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, <http://liti.dmami.upm.es/>, has set up a health management trainingprogramme which makes use of the typical drivers of the infor-mation society (information and communication technologies,knowledge management and cooperative work which we willrefer to by the generic term, e-Learning). The aims of the train-ing programme are:• To train private healthcare professionals in the handling of

advanced communications services and new informationtechnologies, so that they can acquire horizontal skills and

know-how to play a more active role in the informationsociety.

• To train private healthcare professionals to apply and inte-grate ICT so as to be able to perform more efficiently thegoals and services of the enterprise they work in.

• To enable the incorporation of the new forms of manage-ment, administration and marketing that have emerged fromthe intensive use of the Internet and communication technol-ogies.

• To promote e-Medicine, by training doctors in cooperativeskills enabling them to participate in the knowledgenetworks that are fast becoming a strategic factor in thedevelopment of the healthcare.

• To develop a vertical virtual learning community (for anymedical speciality) accessible by all doctors, so that they canmanage their practices and private clinics better, and areable, at the same time, to adapt to the new markets andchallenges that ICTs are introducing into their activities.They can thus increase their ability to respond to the demandof their customers through shared knowledge and ongoingtraining, incorporating elements of ICT into their particularscope of knowledge and experience.

In summary, the main aim of this training programme is todisseminate the knowledge and skills required to use ICTamong doctors, by means of an e-Learning system3 usingcontent related to private health management.

The sector of population targeted by this action comprisesregistered doctors who work in or own SMEs; a private surgery,a clinic and even a specialised medical centre are all SMEswhich need to incorporate the use of technological tools toensure their survival now and into the future. Employeesshould have a basic technological training to be able to contrib-ute to getting the best possible results for the enterprise, whileadapting to change and providing a better service to theircustomers. Training is therefore aimed at all doctors registeredin Spanish Official Colleges of Physicians who are currentlyworking in private healthcare and who want to optimize themanagement of their own practices.

Improved Efficiency of the Training ProcessWe go on to describe how the use of ICT4 and content

management tools5 enhances the efficiency of a trainingcourse. To do this we need to take into account the type ofcourse involved.

3.1. Ongoing Improvement and Expansion of Information Resources

Throughout the course, information resources related to thecourse’s syllabus are added (news, websites, articles, reports,

2. The Sanitas Foundation is a not-for-profit organization underprivate law, whose purpose is to promote medical research andhealth training in the broadest sense of the terms.

2

3. The e-Learning platform used is from the company Inventa Solu-tions, <http://www.inventasolutions.com/>.

4. The two main factors to bear in mind in ICTs are their user friend-liness and their adaptability to the context in which they are beingused.

5. The aim of content management is to organize useful informationresources so the doctor can perform learning tasks with the leastpossible effort.

3





legislation, etc.) with a view to ensuring the ongoing updatingof both the course syllabus and any information required toknow what the current state of the art is. In this way any doctorcan go into the portal (even a few years later) safe in the knowl-edge that it is up to date.

Obviously, if the content is not going to change in the dura-tion of the course, it would be preferable to give out a CD-ROMor even a book.

ICT and content management should allow the user easyaccess to all the information and resources related to thecourse, and this is where the portal comes in. The portal showsus the latest information entered into the system, the latestnews, official syllabus, etc. Its simple design makes it easy toidentify the type of information, to find out what’s new, and toaccess all the system’s resources. Figure 1 shows how it ena-bles access to the latest information (2) and (3), to the syllabus(4), to the activities to carry out (5) and to the various organizedcontent (6).

3.2 Activities as the Course’s Learning AxisThis e-Learning system has a set of information resources

organized around the syllabus. The syllabus structures andorders the various contents around seven modules. This sylla-bus is the document axis of the course and is as if it were a bookon private healthcare management.

Within the e-Learning system there is another axis, the learn-ing axis, which is made up of a set of activities designed to

enable the doctor to apply different concepts to practical situa-tions; these are therefore activities the doctor should carry out.Although there is no specific order, participants are recom-mended to do the first three activities in the first week of thecourse.

In order to make the performance of these activities moreeffective, the system makes use of content management mod-ules. The purpose of these modules is to search for and presentto the doctors all the information resources (syllabus contents,news, websites, general information, etc.) that might help themto carry out the aforementioned activities. To access such amodule you have to go to the option “Búsquedas” (Searches);Figure 2 shows how all the resources relating to activity 3 canbe accessed.

3.3. The Specific Interest of Each ParticipantIt is logical that one doctor will be more interested in a given

part of the course than another; it will depend on the type ofpractice they have and their own personal interests. For exam-ple if a doctor is in the middle of starting up and drumming upbusiness for a new private practice, he is logically going to bemore interested in any information to do with marketing, andmay even want to do all the available activities relating to thissubject.

The content management modules can also help us to findspecific resources; Figure 3 shows how to do this (by using the“Búsqueda” (Search) option).

Message of the day

The 5 latest news items

The 5 latest general information documents

Course syllabus

Activities to perform (active)

Lists with all the information ordered by type

Figure 1: Organization of the Information.





By selecting “actividad 3" in the label section and clicking on the option “ver” (see), all the information resources available on the system can be obtainedIn the example there are contents of various types: activity (description of activity), syllabus (contents of different modules), news and web addresses.

The content management module reorganizes all the resources and presents them in a convenient way for activity 3.This saves the doctor from having to search the entire system (and even the CD-ROM) for the information required to perform the activity

Figure 2: Content Management: Search for Information Resources Available for a Given Activity.

Figure 3: Search for Specific Resources.

Show all resources avail-able in the system relat-ing to the subject:“Technological skills”

Show all the activities sug-gested relating to the sub-ject:“Technological skills”





In this section we have seen how ICT (in this case the Inter-net) and content management help us to carry out our learningactivities more effectively and how to present resources organ-ized according to our own needs. In this case we have used twoof the drivers described in section two of our presentation, butcan we improve efficiency by using the third driver: ‘coopera-tive work’? We will see in the section that follows.

Improving CompetitivenessWe have seen how the integrated use of two driving forc-

es (ICT and content management) significantly improve theeffectiveness of the training process; now it is time to add ourthird driver, ‘cooperative work’. We will see how the incorpo-ration of these three drivers increases the effectiveness of thelearning process and the competitiveness6 of both people andorganizations.

We go on to describe the different activities proposed to seehow this improved competitiveness can be achieved.

4.1 Use of Debate ForaEach module of the course has its specific forum; as well as

using each forum as a way of consulting the tutor concerned,we propose that the course participants also perform thefollowing tasks:• To participate by sending answers to the doubts and

comments posted on the fora.• To comment on and debate about the results of the activities

(from 4 to 17).

4.2 Information SharingThe aim of the course is to find out how to manage a private

practice efficiently and effectively; there are many organiza-tions which provide resources aimed at helping healthcareenterprises to achieve this.

The idea is to build a portal where such resources are madeavailable to us. To develop such a portal would take a great dealof effort (in terms of time and money); however, if we have theright content management module technology and we all worktogether, it will be cheap and easy to build such a portal, and itwould be a great step towards achieving the aims of the course.

By carrying out activity 1 we can build the portal coopera-tively. We only ask each learner to spend a little time (about halfan hour) to find a website on the Internet providing a resourcewhich could help us in the following activities:• Test of management skill. A test to give us an idea of our

ability to lead organizations.• Business plan guidelines. A business plan is a document

which includes processes set out in the different modulesand is for defining an organization’s strategic or marketingplan.

• Online training . Free self-training modules related to oneof the subjects of the various modules.

• Funding. Entities who provide funding for various businessactivities (creation, new market, new activities, computeri-sation, training, etc.).

Figure 4 shows the portal created by participants on previouscourses, describing Web resources visited by them.

4.3 Knowledge SharingThis is the sharing of knowledge to enable us to improve the

typical activities of a private practice. There are a great many resources (articles, news, websites)

which can provide us with information and resources to help usin our work (which should lead to a better quality of health-

6. The aim of this section concerning the cooperative activities ofthe course is to see whether it is possible to become competitiveby managing knowledge. These kinds of activities fall under theheading of organizational learning and when they are applied toan organization they require there own specific implementationstrategy since the success of their implementation depends on agreat many internal factors of the organization involved.

4

Figure 4: Portal Resulting from the Cooperative Work of the Participants on the Course.





care). In principle these resources are very useful, and organi-zations tend not to share them with the competition. However,we will try to demonstrate how sharing will help us all toimprove.

The idea is that each participant shares something which theyhave found valuable; for example, if a doctor knows a websiteto do with gynaecology, he is asked to share it7 with othercolleagues; in this case, the doctor is being asked to share theirexperience or knowledge about the usefulness of the websitefor the performance of their speciality.

It is unlikely that anyone would have any objection to makingone piece of valuable information available to the other partic-ipants on the course if in return they got eighty back, just as noone would object to putting a euro into the pot if they got eightyeuros back in exchange.

Figure 5 shows an example of knowledge sharing on thecourse, where doctors have collected and evaluated their ownsearches in the Web, so contributing to a high level of credibil-ity of the portal amongst the whole community.

4.4 Knowledge NetworksMore than 700 doctors took part in the last course and they

cooperated in providing useful health-related resources. Thecourse this year will have a similar number of participants.

Imagine 1,500 doctors sharing resources, 10 Colleges ofPhysicians contributing content, and the tutors and the SanitasFoundation improving the content on private health manage-ment. If we manage to organize all these human and informa-tion resources we will have will have one of the best privatehealthcare management portals in the world.

The main difference is that all these resources would not bemanaged via training courses but via a knowledge networkwhich could be opened up to more doctors.

Knowledge networks are based on a group of people withsome kind of common interest; the main problem is the kind ofinformation on the portal, the quality of that information, theease with which it can be retrieved, and the upkeep of content.Even with the right technologies and content managementmodules, all of that would be impossible without cooperation.

Our next step is to create a knowledge network, but mean-while you can register on existing networks (for corporate aid)and find out how they work.

Conclusions In the e-Learning field tt is necessary to use the typical

drivers of the Information Society to achieve the heraldedimprovement in the effectiveness of learning processes and theachievement of a competitive edge.

The experience gained in our courses show that the organiza-tion of a course can supply the ICT and content management;but the third driver, cooperation, must be the work of all of us.

BibliographyINFO XXI.

La sociedad de la Inform@ción para todos. Spanish governmentinitiative for the development of the information society. <http://www.sgc.mfom.es/info_XXI/Presentacion/infoxxi.pdf>.

F. Michavila.Capítulo 5. La gestión del conocimiento. Innovaciones en laorganización y gestión de las universidades. (Chapter 5. Knowl-edge management. Innovations in the organization and manage-ment of universities) Published by: Cátedra UNESCO de Gestióny Política Universitaria y Comunidad de Madrid, 2001.(UNESCO Department of University Management and Policy,and the Madrid Community, 2001).

I. Nonaka, H. Takeuchi.The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese CompaniesCreate the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press,1995.

G. Von Krogh et al.Enabling Knowledge Creation. Oxford University Press, 1995.7. Knowledge is not only a matter of knowing that a certain website

exists but also to know that it is useful.

5

Figure 5: Knowledge Sharing on the Course Portal.





EducaNext: a Service for Knowledge Sharing

Joaquín Salvachúa-Rodríguez, Juan Quemada-Vives, Blanca Rodríguez-Pajares, and Gabriel Huecas Fernández-Toribio

In the coming years we will face the problem of lifelong, or ongoing, learning in the context of a rapidrenewal of the vast wealth of technical information. To address this problem we submit a solution,EducaNext, based on sharing and collaboration for learning resource creation. We use the term ‘learningresources’ in its broadest possible sense, including such learning activities as distributed multimediaconferences and their definition languages.

Keywords: Tele-education, lifelong learning, collaborativeWeb, distributed multimedia, Semantic Web.

IntroductionThe objective of this paper is to present EducaNext,

<http://www.educanext.org/>, a multilingual academic ex-change portal that aims to share, create and update learningresources, and foster collaboration among a large communityof knowledge producers. It provides a flexible solution,designed to evolve in response to future demands for knowl-edge and learning content from people facing the problem oflifelong learning. To achieve this, and to address the difficultycaused by the rapid turnover of content due to its continuousobsolescence, we have based the system on the use of the Inter-net and collaboration among many distributed authors. Wetherefore present a flexible solution, one designed to evolve inorder to meet any future demands.

The EducaNext portal is a Web-based platform on whichhigher education institutions, research organisations, andprofessional communities can share, retrieve, and reuse learn-ing resources. Its primary mission is to aid and support thoseeducators and individuals in the academic community dedicat-ed to increasing the excellence of higher education andresearch by fostering distributed collaboration.

It has been developed based on the UBP platform (UNIVER-SAL Brokerage Platform), developed by seven European Uni-versities as part of the UNIVERSAL project, <http://www.singleimage.co.uk/universal.htm>; the Universal Exchange forPan European Higher Education is a brokerage service linkingeducators and trainers for the exchange and distribution ofLearning Resources.

EducaNext is free and open to any member of the academiccommunity. Users may register and use the service providedthey abide by EducaNext’s Mission Statement, Code of Behav-iour and Terms of Use.

Services Provided by EducaNextIn this context EducaNext provides services whose aim is

to bring together and foster collaboration among a largecommunity of knowledge producers in order to create andcontinuously update a state of the art knowledge base. The high

1

2

Joaquín Salvachúa-Rodríguez is a professor in the Dept. ofTelematic Systems Engineering (DIT) of the Universidad Politec-nica de Madrid (UPM), Spain. He has taken part in a great manydomestic and European research projects centred around distrib-uted multimedia applications and the Semantic Web and its appli-cations. His interests are focused on decentralized systems (P2P)and new multimedia systems (SIP). He is currently working onprojects applying those technologies to tele-education. <[email protected]>

Juan Quemada-Vives is Head of the Dept. of TelematicSystems Engineering of the Universidad Politecnica de Madrid(UPM), Spain. With more than 20 years of experience in the fieldsof telecommunications and computer networks, his research in-terests are centred around new applications and services for theNew Generation Internet, in which field he leads the ISABELteam. He has authored a great many publications in journals andbooks on the subject of networks and formal methods, and hasbeen a member or organizer of several committees such as theGlobal IPv6 Madrid Summit, Interworking, ABCxx, GLOBAL360, FORTE, PSTV, FMOODS and ICODP. He currently occu-pies the Telefonica chair for New Generation Internet at the UPM.His current interests are focused on New Generation Internet,IPv6 and new Internet services and applications. The group henow leads is active in a great many domestic and Europeanresearch projects, such as UNIVERSAL, Euro6IX and ISAIAS. <[email protected]>

Blanca Rodríguez-Pajares has been a telecommunicationsengineer since 1997 and a PhD in the same field from the Univer-sidad de Valladolid, Spain, since 2001. Since 1998 she has beenlecturing in the Department of Signal Theory and Communica-tions of the same university where she is currently an associateprofessor. Her main lines of research are tele-education, educa-tional technology standards and web services. <[email protected]>

Gabriel Huecas Fernández-Toribio is a telecommunicationsengineer (1989) and holds a PhD in telecommunications engi-neering (1995), both from the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid(UPM), Spain. He lectured at the Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio,Madrid (Spain), between the years 1994 and 1999, and lecturedpart-time at the UPM from 1997 until 2002. He has been aprofessor of the Higher Technical School of TelecommunicationsEngineering of the UPM since 2003. His research activities in-clude the fields of multimedia applications, CSCW and networks. <[email protected]>





cost of this production, as well as the rapid rate of obsolescenceof knowledge and learning resources, requires a huge amountof human resources which can only be achieved via distributedcollaboration over the Internet.

EducaNext provides a full range of services allowing educa-tors to:• Participate in knowledge communities.• Communicate with other experts in a given field.• Exchange learning resources.• Work together on the production of educational material.• Deliver distributed educational activities.• Distribute electronic content under licence.

EducaNext also provides an exchange framework for thefollowing types of knowledge resources:• Educational Materials: electronic textbooks, recorded

lectures, presentations, lecture notes, case studies, quizzes,etc.

• Educational Activities: distributed courses, lectures, tutor-ing sessions, etc.

• Community-Centred Knowledge Resources: Collaborativecontent production projects, forums, integrated informalknowledge, etc.

The EducaNext organization is committed to the developingthe functionality of the service and the software that imple-ments it to incorporate any new development that may enhancethe creation, interchange and dissemination of knowledge.

Operational Organization of EducaNextThe consortium, UNIVERSAL, who developed Educa-

Next, has appointed the first Steering Committee and the firstExecutive Board, to establish the criteria that will be followedin the future. This group is called the initial group of promoters.

The Steering Committee represents the EducaNext commu-nity of registered users, as defined in the Mission Statement,Code of Behaviour and Terms of Use. It is also responsible forthe consolidation and promotion of the service and the commu-nity.

The Steering Committee is made up of distinguished andwell-known members of the academic world, which will helpto generate trust in EducaNext and guarantee the continuousinnovation of its service. The Steering Committee will alsoensure that there is an adequate representation of the commu-nity of registered users in all geographical regions, and upholdEducaNext’s mission.

With the exception of the initial group of promoters, SteeringCommittee members will be elected by the EducaNext commu-nity. The term of office of Steering Committee members,including the initial group of promoters, will be 3 years, afterwhich time they will be replaced or re-elected by the Educa-Next community of registered users. Any active user registeredfor more than one year is eligible to vote for Steering Commit-tee members. After the first and second year, additionalmembers may be added to the Steering Committee.

The main tasks of the Steering Committee are:• To define the strategic objectives of EducaNext and to super-

vise their fulfilment

• To promote the dissemination and usage of EducaNext with-in the academic community

• To define the working rules and procedures of EducaNext• To promote, in coordination with the Executive Board, the

necessary strategic links, projects and organisation ofEducaNext

• To promote convergence with similar initiatives with theultimate goal of achieving a global service and a global com-munity of knowledge producers

• To ensure an innovative evolution of the service according tothe state of the art

• To appoint the Executive Board• To approve the yearly planning of activities and budget of

the Executive BoardIn EducaNext’s mission statement the organization’s aims

are stated as: • To support the creation, exchange and dissemination of

knowledge.• To foster collaboration among higher education institutions

(HEIs) and other organisations producing knowledge, bothat an individual and an institutional level.

• To increase the excellence of higher education and research.All users should abide by a mutually accepted code of behav-

iour. Content should not be offensive in any way and all contri-butions should try to:• Make a positive contribution to Higher Education and

Research • Foster collaboration among academic and research commu-

nity, as well as other organizations producing knowledge • Maximize the benefits of knowledge sharing to all its mem-

bers• Be described using all the mandatory metadata for LR

description• Comply with the metadata scheme of the EducaNext Web

site• Be accurate and up to date• All discussions, Online Forums, should be for educational

purposes and not violate EducaNext’s code of behaviour.For further information about this code of behaviour, visit the

aforementioned EducaNext portal. <http://www.educanext.org/>.

The UNIVERSAL ProjectEducaNext is powered by the UNIVERSAL Brokerage

Platform (UBP), a system that lets educational mediatorsexchange learning resources. UBP, whose architecture isshown in Figure 1, has been developed as part of the UNIVER-SAL Project and is partially sponsored by the EuropeanCommission (IST-1999-11747).

4.2 Learning ResourcesOne of the most important design decisions taken was the

definition of what was to be exchanged, that is, the definition oflearning resources. A first approach, associating a learningresource with an entire course, proved to be not flexibleenough. The latest approach sees a learning resource as aneducational object, reusable in multiple learning contexts. In

3

4





some cases there may be constraints due to time factors relatingto when it is to be used, or the physical resources required forits use, such as scheduling subjects for a certain stage of theacademic year, or when videoconferencing facilities may notbe available.

Depending on such constraints, learning resources may besynchronous or asynchronous. Initially, a distinction betweenlive courses and packaged courses was made, but this distinc-tion was soon dropped when it was seen that in some cases apackaged lesson might be restricted to a specific period of timeor require telematic interaction with the instructor.

Below are two examples of learning resources offered on theUBP:• An interactive discussion session, using ISABEL (see Sec-

tion 6), about “Corporate Strategy in Emerging Markets”,which considers a case study about ethics in Asiatic areamarkets.

• A Web-based course about how to help ophthalmologistsmake early diagnoses of their patients.

These learning resources do not just consist of lessons, butthey also include slides, exercises and support material for theteacher. The diversity of use cases has generated a wide spec-trum of types of learning resources, but the platform is flexibleenough to consider new types of learning resources that may beadded later.

The key to the whole design is the definition of a learningresource and the attributes describing it. These attributesprovide information about the type of learning resource and itsusage. The definition of this metadata is crucial, since it consti-tutes UBP’s point of communication with both users and othersystems. The main standards concerning learning resourcemetadata are IMS, <http://www.imsglobal.org> [1], e IEEELOM (Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers – Learn-ing Object Metadata, <http://ltsc.ieee.org>) [2]. However,some problems soon arose with the use of these standards whenmodelling some learning use cases:• They include too many unnecessary elements, and the

names of some of them may create confusion.

• They do not include all elements needed for sometypes of learning resources.

• They do not differentiate between different typesof learning resources.

So, the standards had to be simplified, comple-mented and adapted, taking into consideration thetype of learning resource, in order to meet therequirements of UBP. With the modifications thatwere made to the metadata schema, a metadatainstance can refer to multiple categories within ataxonomy and a learning resource may be classifiedmany times with different taxonomies. By treatingclassification as components, taxonomy interrela-tions can be expressed more easily, (e.g. linksbetween taxonomies in different languages).

Changes in the standards have been made so thatthe UBP metadata schema conforms to Dublin Core(DMCI – Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, <http://

dublincore.org>) and IEEE LOM.In addition to metadata for learning resources, the agents

who interact with those learning resources have also been mod-elled. These agents, who need to be registered, are: providers,consumers, evaluators, and local registration authorities.

Learners are guest users who cannot interact with the learn-ing resources, since UBP has been designed for teachers toexchange learning resources on. Learners may retrieve learningresources that have been previously booked by their teachers,the idea been that of replicating the distributed organization ofuniversities and faculties by organizing a hierarchy of registra-tion authorities.

Metadata for these agents has been generated according tothe widely used vCard specification.

4.2. Digital Rights ManagementThe management of the digital rights to the content being

handled on a platform of this kind is too important an issue tobe overlooked. These rights need reinforcing with appropriatesecurity policies, including limitations on access to resources,to ensure the trust of high quality content providers. Otherwise,only resources not protected by intellectual property rightscould be used, in which case no interested party from the edu-cational e-commerce world would want to participate.

The UNIVERSAL platform allows a set of rights to beassigned to all available learning resources. They may be spec-ified in accordance with the type of agent wishing to access thelearning resource; for example, users can be allowed to accessa certain resource as a demo to see if it is what they are lookingfor.

The set of values has been chosen based on current availablestandards. Specifically, the languages XrML (ExtensibleRights Markup Language) [3], from Xerox, and ODRL (OpenDigital Rights Language), from Ianella [4], have been used. Arights management system consists of:1. A rights expression language.2. A rights messaging protocol.3. Mechanisms for policy enforcement.

alliances HEI

DigitalRights

Management

Schedule Offert

LearningObject

User

LearningResource

Taxonomy

Annotation

Figure 1: UBP Architecture Used in the UNIVERSAL Project





This system is perfectly integrated with the delivery systemso property rights cannot be violated.

4.3 Data Modelling with RDFOne of the wisest decisions taken by the project has been to

use XML/RDF (eXtensible Markup Language/ResourceDescription Framework) for data modelling. RDF [5] wasdeveloped by W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) <http://www.w3c.org> as a general model for Web metadata and abase technology for the so called Semantic Web, in which eachobject available on the Web via a URN (Uniform ResourceName) is defined as a triplet.

The basic concept of RDF is that an identifiable and address-able Web resource with a URN may be described by a set ofproperties, each of which has an associated value. These prop-erties may also form a further resource. The resource, the prop-erty and the value are represented with a 3-tuple (triple) –{property, resource, value} – in which the resource and valueare URNs, the latter only if the property is itself a furtherresource. This information may also be represented by meansof a graph and in XML. These three representations (triple,graph, XML) have equivalent meaning.

This enables multiple search forms to be implemented ondifferent data and with great flexibility. In order to ensurecompatibility with XML/RDF it was decided to use elementsfrom the DMCI (Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, <http://dub-lincore.org>), such as, dc.Title, for the component attributes.When other fields were required, LOM has been used, and ithas also been necessary to define new proprietary schemas.

RDF’s flexibility will allow other tele-education systems tobe integrated if required, with searches enabled by the RDFQuery protocol. Data could also be simply mapped onto thosecurrently existing, by defining various bridges for communicat-ing between data on the UNIVERSAL platform and any otheravailable metadata.

4.4 Technology UsedThe strong point of the UPB is the efficiency and versatility

of its technology platform, which is perfectly adaptive to allpossible environments or scenarios.

The three-tier architecture separates application componentsinto three logical layers: the user interface tier, the businesslogic tier, and the database access tier. In UBP architecture acentralized web application server serves web clients’ needsand synchronously accesses a central data store, as shown inFigure 2.

The UBP can be accessed using a standard PC with Internetaccess and a Web browser. The technologies for tiers 2 and 3have been selected for their robustness, reliability, safety andportability criteria.

The UBP is a modular Web-based system that follows theprinciples of open platform architecture. The main modulesinteract via specified APIs (Application Programming Interfac-es) to isolate each module from changes in other modules. Eachmodule contains an engine that provides services to users andto other systems, such as administration systems or deliverysystems.

Auth

entif

icat

ion

Serv

ices

Page NavigationHTML Rendering Engine

Functional components

Administration EngineUser Profile EngineLR Metadata Engine

Contract EngineAssessment Engine

Delivery Management Engine

Event Handler

User Interface Engine

Tier II – Web Application Server

Web Client

Tier I – User Interface front end

HTT

P(S)

Tier III – Database Server

Log dataUser dataHEI data

Cluster dataLR MetadataContract data

Assessment dataBooking data

etc...

UNIVERSALdata resources

JDBC

Figure 2: Technological Architecture of UNIVERSAL.





Community-based Service ModelAs explained above, EducaNext is a community service

supporting collaborative activities amongst members of highereducation institutions and research institutions. These commu-nities, created by Registration Authorities and managed byCommunity Managers, aim to create, exchange and dissemi-nate knowledge. Communities may be defined consideringdifferent criteria:• Subjects (e.g. Computer Science).• institutions (e.g. all members of a University).• alliances (e.g. all those working in a certain area).• practices (e.g. a group of language teachers), etc.

Multimedia Communications with ISABELThe application ISABEL <http://isabel.dit.upm.es> is

used for synchronous multimedia communications. It began itsdevelopment in 1993 in the ETSI (Higher Technical School ofEngineering) of the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain,within the framework of the ISABEL and IBER projects, underthe auspices of the RACE programme. The objective was tosupport collaborative activities over the broadband networkswhich were being designed around that time. Since then ISA-BEL has been developing a new concept of service, enablingreal time collaboration over the Internet which has been used tocarry out a great many distributed activities such as: • A virtual auditorium interconnecting several physical audi-

toriums for performing a distributed conference, wherespeakers and attendees can attend any participating site.

• A virtual meeting room interconnecting several meetingrooms for corporate work meetings, where participants ineach room can conduct discussions, slide presentations,joint editing, joint design, etc.

• A virtual classroom where a teacher can train remote learn-ers

The service concept in ISABEL has been designed to facili-tate collaboration in multipoint environments, so that sessionsin which dozens of persons may participate can be efficientlycoordinated. This is the main difference with H320 or H323based videoconferencing which has a very ineffectivemultipoint configuration management. Also, as ISABEL is asoftware technology running on PCs its deployment does notrequire the same high outlay as professional videoconferencingequipment.

ISABEL services implement various control policies overthe modes of interaction used during a session. In Figure 3 we

can see some stills from conferences, classes and meetings heldwith ISABEL, in which the participants were dispersed arounddifferent countries and continents and took part in activitiesthat normally require learners to be physically present.

ISABEL is currently being used in a great many initiativesfor developing the global university concept, in which univer-sities collaborate in the deployment of courses, learningcontents and educational activities. The most important initia-tives, apart from EducaNext, are:• A distributed course between four Higher Technical School

of Engineering, ETSIs, of four different universities in Spain(Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Universidad Politécnicade Catalunya, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid andUniversidad Politécnica de Valencia) on broadband Internet,which has been taught since the academic year 1999/2000.It is a course given by teachers from the four ETSIs tostudents in the same four centres. The students have toprepare the coursework in groups of three persons fromdifferent schools, collaborating over the Internet, and thenpresent it. The preparation, as well as the presentation, isperformed via ISABEL. More information can be found at<http://www.ccaba.upc.es/iba/>.

• The Cyber@ula Project is a collaboration between GATEand Telefonica at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,UPM, <http://www.cting.upm.es. The project has created avirtual ISABEL-based classroom, that, since the final termof 2001/2 which was when the first courses were distributed,has allowed the interchange of tele-presential coursesbetween different schools and departments of the UPM.

Event Definition Language (EDL)Event Definition Language (EDL) is a language that

defines a complete session for any content delivery platform. Itis used to describe the delivery system of educational activitieson EducaNext, including its deployment network. For ourpurposes it defines ISABEL events or events on other deliverysystems such as SIP based ones, since EDL is platform-inde-pendent.

An EDL description contains a set of sessions, sites, andtemplate definitions which allow an incremental definition ofthe sessions and the authentication of those attempting toaccess the site. Every EDL file will contain some genericdetails about the event, plus a set of participant sites with theirfull description, including such details as which is their mainmaster and which ISABEL MCUs (Multimedia Flow Servers)

5

6

7

Figure 3: Some Examples of ISABEL in Action.





are used by the session. Each site must define the type ofparticipation, whether it will be interactive or not, the band-width, the topology of the connection, etc.

In its first definition EDL used a syntax based on Icalendar,but in the second version it was written in XML so as to beinteroperable with other systems. But for the third version it isplanned to redefine EDL in XML/RDF in order to reap all thebenefits that the Semantic Web can offer for this type ofsolution.

ELENA as an Extension of ISABELAll the work developed during the Universal Project is

being continued in the ELENA Project (IST-2001-37264).ELENA is focused on distributing the platform in order toconsider new architectures, such as those based on the peer-to-peer or grid paradigms. Meanwhile new multimedia-contentdelivery systems and real-time multi-conference systems arebeing looked into. The architecture of ELENA is shown inFigure 4.

The key to this project lies in the use of a dynamic profile forthe student. This profile contains all relevant learner informa-tion: educational objectives, academic and professional recog-nition of qualifications (diplomas, degrees, certificates, etc.).The goal is for this smart learning space to be able to gathertogether and select the most suitable learning contents andservices for the student in every situation and at every moment.

In this way the project aims to simplify access to any learningresources that may be available on multiple platforms anddevices and thus help students to achieve their educationalgoals.

9. ConclusionsIn this article we have described what we believe to be a flex-

ible and sound solution to ensure that a community of users anddevelopers can work and prosper around EducaNext’s collabo-rative portal. Many technical advances, such as definitionlanguages and Semantic Web technologies, have been takeninto consideration in order to develop a flexible system andservice which adequately fulfil the purpose for which they weredesigned.

At <http://www.educanext.org> readers who want to find outmore about the project or get personally involved in its activi-ties can find further information. We hope that collaborationcan help us all to face the challenge that lifelong learningpresents us with, now and in the future.

References [1]

T. Anderson, D. McArthur, S. Griffin, and T. Wason. IMS Meta-data Best Practice and Implementation Guide: Educause, 1999.

[2]IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) Learn-ing Object Metadata – Draft Document v3.8. <http://ltsc.ieee.org/doc/wg12/LOM3.8.html, 1999>.

[3]Wang. Extensible rigths Markup Language (XrML): http://www.xrml.org, 2000.

[4]R. Iannella. Open Digital Right Languages (ODRL), W3C Work-shop on Digital Rights Management, 2001.

[5]D. Brickley and R. V. Guha. Resource Description Framework(RDF) Model and Syntax Specification: W3C Recommendation:REC-rdf-syntax-19990222, 1999.

8

Figure 4: Architecture of ELENA.

