D7.2.1

=A searchable repository of reusable e-learning resources is provided. =

Evidence
Leem & Lim (2007) conducted a survey of all 201 universities in Korea. They found that 85% had investigated offering e-learning. However, meaningful supports and policies were lacking. They recommend creating ‘Knowledge Servers’ to accumulate e-learning knowledge and content stored by a university.

Resources
Evidence of capability in this practice is seen through the creation and use of metadata standards and templates along with repositories for storing and accessing course resources for reuse.

Wright et al. (2009) describe the generic structure of a ‘learning object library’ and its relation to delivery specific learning object indexes and module instances within VLEs.

Chaudhry & Khoo (2006) discuss the issues involved in the development of a regionally tailored repository of learning objects. They outline content creation and development, content management and organization and the usability of the repository system. They emphasize that good quality meta-data are the key to a successful repository.

The http://designing.flexiblelearning.net.au/gallery/content/content_delivery.htm site (Australia) contains links to The Learning Object Repository Network, and the Flexible Learning Toolbox Site, which are e-learning repositories. There is also information on integrating web-based content and a selection of guidelines describing how to download and distribute learning objects.

Tate & Hoshek (2009) describe a case study of an ‘exemplar’ organizations’ management of reusable learning objects. They propose a ‘four-quadrant’ model for effective management in this domain which seeks to avoid learning object creation in the ‘zone of frustration’ where controls are high and potential for reuse is low. They also recommend that organizations seeking to implement a reusable learning object repository should support an informal prototyping environment that allows experimentation, creativity, and rapid non-specialist development.