D6.3.1

=Institutional policies require the use of defined standards when designing, (re)developing or using the physical e-learning infrastructure. =

Evidence
Heddergott (2006) describe the purpose and process by which international standards are created. It is important for digital products to be interoperable and standardized in order that consumers are able to evaluate the functionality and applicability of e-learning resources. Standards serve several purposes. They unify relevant terms, define procedures and ideal production processes, assist with quality assurance, describe quality criteria, provide instruments and methods for reusability, and promote transparency to the market. Heddergott notes, however, that standards still require quality e-learning content in order to deliver a quality learning product.

Ad-hoc development of e-learning environments has resulted in the proliferation of a wide variety of materials and systems designed to support student learning. Many of these are developed without consideration of how they appear to students moving from course to course, how they can be reused over time, or how to learn from the experience of others in developing effective materials. Standards and guidelines can support more effective practice (Marshall, 2004) and their use can result in cheaper, more useful materials to support student learning. Standards are also key to the ‘services’ model gaining currency as a tool for managing the growing complexity of the physical e-learning infrastructure.

A MLE is now almost ubiquitous in tertiary institutions engaged in e-learning, with many different systems, both commercial and open-source, available for use. A centralised infrastructure offers significant benefits to students by simplifying access to e-learning resources and providing consistency, while freeing teaching staff to concentrate on learning and teaching aspects (Katz, 2003). The significant resources expended by the ADL Consortium in developing the SCORM framework (http://www.adlnet.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=scormabt ) show that ad-hoc initiatives are unlikely to achieve the integration of technologies needed for future e-learning implementations. The Joint Information Systems Committee identifies two challenges for MLEs: one cultural – involving institution-wide collaboration for change in pedagogical concepts; the other technical – concerning systems integration. They comment that ‘[f]ull integration…is most likely to come from a standards or specifications based approach… that requires the close collaboration of the entire community of colleges, support agencies and suppliers’ (2003b, p. 1).

E-learning integration, for Jochems et al., (2004), involves not only integrating learning using information and communication technology (ICT), but also integrating ICT in education, so that ‘e-learning is not considered merely as an addition to instruction, but as an innovation, an integral part of the educational system’ (p. 7). However, Jochems et al. find aspects of the system’s technical dimension problematic. Arguing that interoperability specifications are crucial for large interconnected networks, they note that although there are several initiatives promoting specifications, there is also a plethora of incomplete architectures, protocols and standards to contend with. Furthermore, they comment that actual implementation of network interoperability mostly falls outside the influence of e-learning. Koper (2004) points to the importance of e-learning user interfaces, which govern much of the learning interaction and have quite specific requirements that differ from those of most common applications (pp. 69-70). In concluding, Jochems et al. observe that although perspectives of e-learning are often reduced to either interaction or delivery capabilities, integrated e-learning must take on a ‘wider, organizational, systemic perspective’ (p. 206).

Evidence of capability in this area is seen through the use of consistent, documented practice that reuses previous experience within the institution to build capability. Formal standards are used where available to inform and guide practice and ensure quality and reusability of materials. These standards and guidelines are communicated widely within the institution to encourage wider adoption by teaching staff.

Resources
http://careo.prn.bc.ca/losc/mod3t2.html

The Quality, Interoperability and Standards in E-learning report (2004) http://www2.tisip.no/quis/index.php begins by noting that innumerable course components and systems have been developed independently but that for systems to interoperate they need to ‘understand’ each other. Standards specifically for e-learning will provide the following four advantages: durability, interoperability, accessibility, and reusability. The QUIS report discusses the definition and characteristics of the six most widely adopted standards for educational resources and environments.