Levels of Standardisation

Anido et al (2003: 304) separate the outcomes of these standardisation efforts into two levels.

4.5.1. Level 1: Specification of Information Models

Anido et al (2003: 304) explain that several proposals have been produced to specify the format, syntax and semantics of data to be transferred among heterogeneous platforms (for example, courses, learner profiles and evaluation objects). The more mature standardisation results correspond to this first level. In most cases, XML is used to define supporting

information models enabling interoperability in an e-learning setting. Friesen (2002) observes that e-learning standards are often multi-part, consisting of a “data model” that specifies the standard’s “normative” content in abstraction and one or more “bindings” that specify how the data model is specified in a formal idiom, which is most often XML. Standards at this level can be seen as common specifications that must be used by different vendors to produce learning objects. For example, in the car manufacturing environment, common specifications define standards to make, for example, tyres for car wheels. The standard allows different vendors to produce tyres that can be used by different cars. In the same way, common specifications for learning objects would allow their use by different educational software tools (Anido et al, 2003: 304). Relevant specifications at this level address metadata, learner profiles and educational content organisation.

4.5.2. Level 2: Common Software Components and Open Architectures

A multipart standard, more rarely, also includes an Application Programming Interface (API) or “service definition” that defines points of contact between cooperating systems (Friesen, 2002). According to Anido et al (2003: 305), standards at this level define the expected behaviour of software components responsible for managing learning objects in online environments. Revisiting the car manufacturing example, second-level standards would specify the interface for the robots that assemble tyres in a production line. These specifications let different manufacturers produce robots with the same behaviour. Performance may vary but the expected behaviour as defined by the specification must be implemented by different manufacturers’ robots. Therefore, a production line could be composed of robots developed by different manufacturers provided they are compliant with the defined specification to support interoperability (Anido et al, 2003: 305). In the same way, software interfaces for educational components would allow new online learning

Chapter 4: E-learning Standards

systems to be built, providing interoperability among heterogeneous systems at runtime. So far, only some institutions have developed architectures that contain common components for a generic learning environment. Available proposals have not defined interfaces for the proposed architecture components or do not cover the whole functionality needed in a complete e-learning environment. Some proposals have already been identified for the development of software components responsible for managing the information models in the first level of standardisation, but so far results have been scarce (Anido et al, 2003: 304).

4.6

E-learning Standards

Many organisations around the world have been working diligently to create specifications for learning-related technologies and needs such as metadata, learner profiling, content

sequencing, web-based courseware and computer-managed instruction (e-Learning Consortium, 2003: 11). This section details the different e-learning standards.

4.6.1. Packaging Standards

Developers create learning objects that are integrated into unified courses. Horton and Horton (2003: 476) assert that packaging standards allow the assembly of courses authored in

different tools by different developers into integrated modules. These standards enable a LMS to import and organise all the components of a course. Packaging standards prescribe ways to bundle several objects, to protect them and to transport them. E-learning packaging standards specify how to bundle the separate files that make up a lesson or course. They are necessary to ensure that all the hundreds or thousands of files are included and installed in the right location (Horton and Horton, 2003: 480).

4.6.2. Communications Standards

A set of standards is necessary so that LMS’s can launch individual lessons and other components, and can administer tests and other assessments. These standards are called communications standards and they specify how the consumer and LMS exchange

information (Horton and Horton, 2003: 478). Communications standards define a language whereby people or other entities can communicate. E-learning communications standards define a language whereby the LMS can start up modules and communicate with them during learner engagement (Horton and Horton, 2003: 483).

Chapter 4: E-learning Standards

4.6.3. Metadata Standards

Anido et al (2003: 305) specify that metadata standards describe the information used to define, as precisely as possible, educational content. This enables potential learners and developers to find the content they need (Horton and Horton, 2003: 488). Olivier and Liber (2003: 149) add that metadata standards provide a reasonably uniform way to describe learning resources, so that they can be discovered and accessed. Metadata standards specify how developers can prepare descriptions of their courses and other learning modules so that the LMS can compile catalogues of available learning content (Horton and Horton, 2003: 478).

4.6.4. Learning Design Standards

The Educational Modelling Language (EML) was developed by the Open University of the Netherlands (OUNL) to describe how learning objects should be structured and is a single, all-embracing approach to developing learning experiences (Open University of the

Netherlands, 2004). The IMS Global Learning Consortium took over EML and developed the IMS Learning Design specification as a language for “modelling units of study”. A learning design captures who does what, when and using which materials and services in order to achieve particular learning objectives. The Learning Design specification is able to model single learner situations and allows multi-learner situations such as group and collaborative learning processes to be modelled (Open University of the Netherlands, 2004; Olivier and Liber, 2003: 154). The primary goal of the specification is to provide a framework that supports a wide variety of pedagogical approaches while promoting the exchange and interoperability of e-learning materials (Halm, 2003: 54; RELOAD, 2004).

4.6.5. Quality Standards

Horton and Horton (2003: 493) state that another group of standards considers the quality of modules and courses. Quality standards address the design of courses and modules as well as their accessibility by those with disabilities (accessibility specifications). Quality standards ensure that e-learning content has certain characteristics or was created using certain

processes, but do not guarantee success. They ensure that objects are usable.

4.6.6. Other Standards

Learner profile or learner information standards specify information that characterise learners, their knowledge and preferences. Educational content organisation standards provide data models to describe static and dynamic course structure. Other standards address question and

Chapter 4: E-learning Standards

test interoperability, competency definitions, and include many others that are still in their early definition stages (Anido et al, 2003: 305). Further standards contribute to the goal of combining high-quality components in order to create richer, more effective learning

solutions, such as telecommunications and media standards (Horton and Horton, 2003: 478).