You are here:

The Present and Future of Standards for E-Learning Technologies
ARTICLE

, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece ; , Technical University of Crete, Greece

IJELLO Volume 2, Number 1, ISSN 1552-2237 Publisher: Informing Science Institute

Abstract

This paper studies the e-learning technologies from the standardization aspect with a glimpse on future changes. Our aim is to thoroughly review the existing standards, the e-Learning process workflow and the market needs and trends and indicate the best path for achieving a global standard for e-learning activities. The generic model of e-learning is presented without emphasis on specific software and hardware solutions. We focus on the major necessities like reusability or interoperability of content and technologies and revise the current standards regarding these two aspects. The most popular infrastructure models are presented in details and the related committees and organizations involved in the standardization process are referenced. As an epilogue to this presentation we provide our insights for a global standard, which will cover all aspects of e-learning and will be supported by all related organizations, vendors, institutions and individual educators. We illustrate the steps for the successful configuration and deployment of a globally accepted standard and display the merits of this approach.

Citation

Varlamis, I. & Apostolakis, I. (2006). The Present and Future of Standards for E-Learning Technologies. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 2(1), 59-76. Informing Science Institute. Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Anido, L., Llamas, M., Fernandez, M.J., Rodriguez, J., Caeiro, M., & Santos, J. (2001). A standards-driven open architecture for learning systems. Second IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2001, P. 3.
  2. Barritt, C., & Alderman, F.L. (2004). Creating a reusable learning objects strategy: leveraging information and learning in a knowledge economy. San Francisco, California: Pfeiffer.
  3. Bohl, O., Schellhase, J., Senler, R., & Winand, U. (2002). The sharable content object reference model (SCORM)-A critical review. International Conference on Computers in Education, pp. 950-951.
  4. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school committee on developments in the science of learning. National Research Council. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from http://newton.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/
  5. Cohen, E., & Nycz, M. (2006). Learning objects and e-learning: an informing science perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 23-34. Available at http://ijklo.org/Volume2/v2p023-034Cohen32.pdf ECMA, (2004). ECMAScript application-programming interface (API) for content-to-runtime-services communication (EEEP1484_11_2). Retrieved February 20, 2006 from: http://ieeeltsc.org/wg11CMI/1484.11.3/14113pub/1484_11_3_d6.pdf
  6. Ellington, H. (2000). How to become an excellent tertiary-level teacher. Seven golden rules for university and college lecturers. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24, 3.
  7. Fallon, C., & Brown, S. (2002). E-learning standards: A guide to purchasing, developing and deploying standards-conformant e-learning. St. Lucie Press. Friesen, N., (2005), Interoperability and learning objects: An overview of e-learning standardization. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 23-31. Available at http://ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p023-031Friesen.pdf Halm, M. (2003). Beyond the LOM: A new generation of specifications. In C.M. Glynn & R. Acker (Eds.), Learning objects: Contexts and connections. The Ohio State University Press.
  8. Horton, W, & Horton, K. (2003). E-learning tools and technologies. Indianapolis: Wiley.
  9. IEEE. (2004). IEEE standard for learning technology (2004). Data Model for Content Object Communication, IEEE Std 1484.11.
  10. Krull, G.E. (2004). An investigation of the development and adoption of educational metadata standards for the widespread use of learning objects. Master’s thesis, Rhodes University, South Africa. L'Allier, J., & Lacoff Resner, S. (2004). The competency gap: Aligning education. Chief Learning Officer Journal, 34-37.
  11. LearnTone. (2006), Sun™ LearnTone learning management system, Retrieved February 20, 2006 from http://www.isopia.com/LearnTone/LearnTone.html
  12. Lytras, D.M., & Sicilia, M.A. (2005). Modeling the organizational aspects of learning objects in semantic web approaches to information systems, Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 255-267. Available at http://ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p255-267Lytras_Sicilia.pdf Masie, E., (2002). Making sense of learning specifications and standards: A decision maker’s guide to their adoption. The Masie Centre. Retrieved February 20, 2006 from: http://www.masie.com/standards/S3_Guide.pdf
  13. Nash Smith, S. (2005) Learning objects, learning object repositories, and learning theory: Preliminary best practices for online courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 217-228.
  14. Pöyry, P, Pelto-Aho, K, & Puustjärvi, J. (2002). The role of metadata in the CUBER system. In Proceedings of the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists (SAICSIT) Conference.
  15. Pukkhem, N., & Vatanawood, W. (2005). Instructional design using component-based development and learning object classification. Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'05), 492-494.
  16. RELOAD. (2006), RELOAD home page. Available on February 20, 2006: http://www.reload.ac.uk
  17. Robson, R. (2003). The global framework for e-learning. Eduworks Corporation. Presentation at AICTEC 2003. Retrieved February 20, 2006 from: http://www.eduworks.com/Library_E-Learning.html
  18. Stark, J.S., & Lowther, M.A. (1986). Designing the learning plan: A review of research and theory related to college curricula. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Post-Secondary Teaching and Learning.
  19. Varlamis, I., Apostolakis, I., & Karatza, M. (2005). A framework for monitoring the unsupervised educational process and adapting the content and activities to students’ needs. WISE Workshops 2005, 124133.
  20. Vossen G., & Westerkamp P. (2003). E-learning as a web service. Seventh International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium (IDEAS'03), 242.
  21. Wiley, D.A. (1999). The post-LEGO learning object. Retrieved February 20, 2006 from: http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/post-lego.pdf Wiley, D., (2002). The instructional use of learning objects. Retrieved February 20, 2006 from: http://reusability.org/read/

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. A Model to Represent the Facets of Learning Object

    Nathalie Hernandez, Josiane Mothe & Bachelin Ralalason, Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, France; Bertin Ramamonjisoa, Université de Fianarantsoa, Madagascar; Patricia Stolf, Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, France

    Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jan 01, 2008) pp. 65–82

  2. Modalities of Using Learning Objects for Intelligent Agents in Learning

    Dorian Stoilescu, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Canada

    Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jan 01, 2008) pp. 49–64

  3. The OSEL Taxonomy for the Classification of Learning Objects

    Vito Convertini, Diego Albanese, Agostino Marengo, Vittorio Marengo & Michele Scalera, University of Bari, Italy

    Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jan 01, 2006) pp. 125–138

  4. Guidelines and Standards for the Development of Fully Online Learning Objects

    Nicole Buzzetto-More & Kaye Pinhey, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, United States

    Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jan 01, 2006) pp. 95–104

  5. Viability of the "Technology Acceptance Model" in Multimedia Learning Environments: A Comparative Study

    Raafat Saadé, Fassil Nebebe & Weiwei Tan, Concordia University, Canada

    Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects Vol. 3, No. 1 (Jan 01, 2007) pp. 175–184

  6. Applying a System Development Approach to Translate Educational Requirements into E-Learning

    Said Hadjerrouit, Agder University College, Norway

    Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects Vol. 3, No. 1 (Jan 01, 2007) pp. 107–134

  7. Practical E-Learning for the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics at the University of Ljubljana

    Primoz Luksic, Boris Horvat, Andrej Bauer & Tomaz Pisanski, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects Vol. 3, No. 1 (Jan 01, 2007) pp. 73–83

  8. Interfaces Modelization in Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) for Learning Optimization

    Martin Lesage, Gilles Raîche, Martin Riopel & Komi Sodoke, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada

    E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (Oct 15, 2007) pp. 342–351

  9. Educators’ Perceptions of Learning Object Brokerage.

    Nipan Maniar, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom; William Garrison, StreamLearn, United States; Chris Simms & Emily Bennett, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom

    EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2007 (Jun 25, 2007) pp. 2900–2905

  10. M-learning to teach university students

    Nipan Maniar, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom

    EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2007 (Jun 25, 2007) pp. 881–887

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.