Enhancing Authoring, Modelling and Collaboration
in E-learning environments: UNED research outline
in the context of E-Madrid excellence network
Manuel Castro-Gil3
Sergio Martín3, Clara Pérez Molina3
3
IEEC Department, UNED University
Madrid, SPAIN
mcastro@lsi.uned.es
Miguel Rodriguez-Artacho1,
José I. Mayorga1, Tim M. Read1, Javier Velez 2,Salvador Ros4,
Covadonga Rodrigo1, Emilio J. Lorenzo1, José Luis Delgado1, Elena
Bárcena5
1
LSI Dept. UNED University
2
ISIA Departament, Complutense University 4SCC Dept, UNED
5
Modern Languages Dept, UNED
miguel@lsi.uned.es
Abstract— In the last years, authoring based on e-learning
standards has been consolidated as a core factor of industry and
development of interoperable and effective virtual learning
environments. However, there is a need for further research on
abstraction to provide a more instructional view in the context of
authoring tools in a variety of ways, in order to avoid being
driven by Learning Technology (LT) specifications, facilitate
instructional knowledge aggregation, and to provide an
appropriate level of clarity and semantics in the design of
collaborative activities. We propose a combination of techniques
to provide this instructional abstraction in the context of the new
European educational model, combining instructional layers and
collaborative scripts in authoring tools, and semantic web
techniques for extending e-learning material in order to harness
the wealth of existing web content and semantically labeled
repositories.
Keywords: E-learning content modeling, Educational authoring,
collaborative learning, e-learning standards, Semantic web
I.
authoring tools usually do not implement features for these
two factors and generally also lack of the appropriate
abstraction level to provide an efficient way to search and
retrieve content and on the other hand, a suitable way to
describe learning courses at an instructional level of
abstraction.
To overcome these problems in authoring of educational
material we propose a combination of techniques to provide
instructional abstraction by means of instructional layers,
collaborative scripts in authoring tools and semantic web
techniques for extending e-learning material in order to
harness the wealth of existing web content and semantically
labeled repositories.
II.
INSTRUCTIONAL LAYERS, KNOWLEDGE MODELLING
AND COLLABORATION
INTRODUCTION
The generation of educational content and design of
collaborative activities has always been a big effort, especially
because in many occasions the objective of the author or
group of authors is to reuse existing resources and develop a
complete course, including complex activities with content
and user interactions. If the main goal of a learning object
(LO) is to be used for teaching and learning, the second one in
importance should be its reuse. To this end, extensive research
has been carried out in the last years to standardize learning
content components and collaborative interactions [14], to
make them usable in interoperable and maintainable content
repositories. To organize and help in the retrieval of the right
LOs, metadata labels have been defined and standardized. But
this has introduced an additional burden, namely that of
annotating LOs appropriately following these metadata.
In this context, gathering educational content is a matter of
two factors (a) reusability, which implies to have the resource
at the appropriate level of granularity, and (b) availability,
which tackles the idea of actually finding the most appropriate
resource using a variety of techniques. The fact is that
From the instructional point of view, the notion of Learning
Object has been extrapolated from a variety of computational
paradigms like reusable component as a software engineering
concept, providing structured reusable elements labeled with
metadata, and also from knowledge engineering, allowing
content organization using knowledge-based structures like
ontologies or semantic web development. On the other hand,
from the cognitive sciences perspective, the adoption during
the 50s and 60s of some instructional theories based on
cognition have obtained useful abstractions to specify
appropriate methods and situations in which those are to be
applied during learning process [7].
In this scenario, very rich tools are available to tackle with
the problem of providing flexibility in the creation of courses
based in the aggregation of LOs [1][2]. However,
this authoring tools have not evolved in a parallel way to be
instructional aware, and still focus strongly on LT
specifications and implement a LT specifications' syntax
driven approach to implement the process of authoring [15].
The authoring of learning content has similarities with the
COTS software building model, as it combines creation from
scratch and reuse and modification of existing content, freely
978-1-4244-6571-2/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
April 14-16, 2010, Madrid, SPAIN
IEEE EDUCON Education Engineering 2010 – The Future of Global Learning Engineering Education
1137
available on the network or stored in repositories. In this case,
the reusing process needs some meaningful way to search and
retrieve the appropriate content shaped as learning objects
(LOs). Current research agrees that approaches based on a
plain classification of LOs by means of a metadata labels lack a
meaningful way to search, retrieve and reuse LOs from an
instructional perspective. The reason for this drawback is based
on the fact that (1) from an instructional perspective, retrieval
of a collection of LOs by matching metadata attributes does not
replicate the way a teacher operates when creating its own
material, and (2) from the authoring perspective, the
construction of metadata instances is very costly and not as
precise and consistent as desirable.
A. Using knowledge modeling to improve authoring,
collaboration and virtual learning communities
It has been mentioned that people is actually a killer
application of the Internet, and it is with people and some
organization that impressive results are achieved at low cost
(for instance, del.icio.us, Wikipedia, Twitter, or the syndication
of blogs) [31]. In this sense creating educational content can
also be done by users providing the appropriate
environment. Several repository efforts have been launched
but they have not yet taken off.
Figure 1: Semantic annotation of educational content
Sometimes the problem is one of granularity: the
presentation of the learning resources is too broad as to ease the
reuse of specific content. But if the granularity is too small, it is
more difficult to have a good overview. Concerning this point,
we agree with the approach proposed by [19] of using Topic
Maps. Actually, we have already explored that from the
teachers’ point of view, authoring of educational content is
easier to create if it is previously instructionally structured
based on a pedagogical ontology (See Figure 1). This way
teachers can refer to LOs like i.e. ‘I would show here examples
to illustrate this concept’ or ‘exercise this concept solving this
problem’ or ‘give me a hint’. We can be even more precise by
saying ‘insert here some easy examples to illustrate this
concept’ and so on [2].
In the current way of retrieving LOs, we look for terms that
match the metadata attributes, but without asking for a precise
instructional relationship. So, the retrieved elements will have
to be filtered one by one. We proposed to embed a
semantic query language in LT specifications and the creation
of a semantic layer based on the conceptualization of a subject
domain. We think educational content authoring is a 2-step
process. Firstly, there is a need to create an instructional view
of the learning content at a low level of granularity. In this
sense, some works suggest the use of semantic layers to
organize information in the repositories [19]. Our approach
also proposes using a semantic layer, except that we
use RDF/OWL [24] [23]. There is a very strong relationship
between RDF and Topic Maps. Simply stated, one could say
that RDF provides a simpler and less specific model, based on
more fundamental concepts. It is thus more flexible. Moreover,
the possibility of reasoning with tools such as CWM or
Pychinko, provides us with a tremendous power, allowing the
inference of new information from existing metadata by the use
of rules [18].
Some ideas are possible in this respect. As we have already
evaluated authoring can be combined with topic maps as a way
to link LT-based specifications to a cognitive-based framework
[8], where LOs no longer remain as isolated components and
act as a part of instructional ontologies. One way for
improving LT-based specifications could be using embedded
languages for allowing the creation of semantic instructional
queries and referring instructional content at a higher level of
abstraction [15] [6]. This authoring model would allow also the
creation of dynamic links in the educational content, creating
on the fly content in the case the reference had been updated,
obtained by a direct reference or by means of inference of
semantically labeled resources using reasoning link CWM and
that is partially developed in [18] and [31]. The objective in
this sense is not so much the development of new content
specifications based on learning technologies or e-learning
standards, but to use consolidated specifications such as IMS
stack to integrate on them some mechanisms that allow the use
of the described techniques with the objective to validate them
in a real context of virtual campus.
Going beyond
reasoning, semantic web techniques have also a huge potential
for enhancing eLearning search and retrieval, such as selecting,
recommending, repurposing and reusing learning resources or
tailoring learning activities to a given social or working
context. Ontologies lie in the core of these techniques as they
are able to provide a formal and shared conceptualization for
every aspect within a learning set-up and scenario and to infer
new and unforeseen facts implied by the available knowledge.
Hence, we propose using ontologies as the foundation for the
aforementioned semantic layer. Besides, using ontologies
could help characterizing LOs in terms of semantic entities
instead of the traditional syntactic approach. It has been
signaled that retrieving LOs from a repository by searching
field contents fails to catch the user's intentions, which tends to
make its results either inaccurate or inadequate for the user
[25]. Furthermore, as metadata standards impose a number of
constraints on the possible values, learners and educational
authors are supposed to know the right searching terms for a
given query beforehand in order to get a good precision and
978-1-4244-6571-2/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
April 14-16, 2010, Madrid, SPAIN
IEEE EDUCON Education Engineering 2010 – The Future of Global Learning Engineering Education
1138
recall. Ontologies allow turning syntactic metadata into
semantic annotations as well as enabling searching for
resources in a way far richer and closer to the users’ needs than
a mere keyword search. In this sense, instructional uses of the
LOs are a distinctive trait, which could be used to drive the
searching process, thus allowing a new kind of
meaningful, usage-directed semantic query.
A number of techniques are going to be used to achieve this
goal:
•
•
•
•
Ontological Engineering, including locating candidate
ontologies to reuse, aligning and merging them and
building the lacking parts by using ontology design
patterns such as those described by [26] for obtaining or
building set of ontologies gathering all the necessary
knowledge and representing every relevant instructional
entities and relationships, making it explicit and easier to
(re)use as well as binding the instructional ontologies to
existing educational standards (such as SCORM, LOM or
IMS-LD) for enabling the interpretation of existing
metadata to bootstrap the semantic annotation process.
Inference techniques, based on Description Logics [23]
[28] and rule-based engines[30].
Semantic annotation based on the representation and
efficient retrieval of terms related to the aforementioned
ontologies [29] [24]. As a result, it will be facilitated the
reuse and repurposing of available Learning Objects (or
their meaningful components) both in an Learning Object
Repository and on the web.
mediate and moderate the learning process. Articulating its
instructional workflow requires storing and later retrieving
ELOs. These objects have to be characterized with respect to a
new dimension, that of the collaborative context whence the
ELOs arise. And furthermore, the collaborative context where
ELOs emerge can help automating their characterization in
terms of context-dependent metadata. It is quite important to
determine the elements to take into account to populate the
context for facing these requirements. Examples of such
elements would be the collaborative activity being developed,
the group or the involved tools.
Socio-collaborative context elements are fed from the
collaboration-oriented virtual learning environments (VLE),
and particularly, from the use students make of them and their
integrated tools. Hence, VLE must be built taking into account
four main requirements:
•
•
•
Clustering techniques for discovering new knowledge
gathered from the web, such as FCA [27].
All these techniques are to be applied bearing in mind the
pedagogical objective of designing a recommendation
mechanism based on semantic search and able to cope with the
actual needs of instructional designers and learners that
would create a new kind of LO, which could be
named recommendation LOs. Such a LO, would consist of
contents collected from the web as the result of an usagedirected query as described before.
B. Modeling collaboration
The field of e-learning, collaborative learning is a
pedagogical paradigm that is getting a growing acceptance. It is
articulated by arranging a set of students into a number of small
groups to carry out several learning activities together. Within
these settings, learning objects, rather than being provided by
teachers and instructional designers, arise as a consequence of
the joint work of the groups supported by collaborative tools.
These new kinds of objects have been coined as ELOs
(Emergent Learning Objects).
The paradigmatic shift consists in moving from the teachercentered perspective, where the instructor delivers the
appropriate contents to the students, to the learner-centered
one, where students take a more active role while teachers
•
Defining the social structure for the underlying virtual
learning community (VLC) where the learning scenarios
are to be unfolded and particularly, the set of groups and
types of users required for this development.
Designing the collaborative work that learners will be
involved in, including defining activities according to a
pedagogical method, describing their sequencing along an
instructional workflow, defining the roles suiting an
appropriate division of labor, etc.
Supporting the collaborative interaction by integrating an
open set of external mediating tools within a VLE. The
integration mechanism must provide a sufficient
interoperability level for the users to perceive a smooth
sense of continuity in their learning experiences. ELOs
are, in this sense, a main resource as a vehicle to provide
functional connection between tools an so achieving the
desired interoperability level.
Catching all the dynamical aspects inherently bound to the
collaborative learning scenarios specification, such as,
creating informal learning groups within the experiences
lifespan, supporting activity monitoring and control or
assisting the evaluation and grading tasks.
To face these requirements, we have developed the
PELICAN e-learning platform [20] [21] [22]. Different users
can perceive this tool from several complementary
perspectives:
•
PELICAN as a design tool. PELICAN is used by
instructional designers as a design tool to define
collaborative learning scenarios. The platform provides a
simple and flexible modeling language to allow the
definition of all the aspects related with collaborative
experiences (social arrangements, collaborative work,
monitoring rules, collaborative evaluation strategies, etc.)
Notice that these specifications could be reified as LOs to
foster their reusability along different pedagogical contexts
and reduce the design efforts.
978-1-4244-6571-2/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
April 14-16, 2010, Madrid, SPAIN
IEEE EDUCON Education Engineering 2010 – The Future of Global Learning Engineering Education
1139
•
•
PELICAN as a VLE environment. From the students’
point of view, PELICAN is perceived as a collaborationoriented VLE. Hence, it provides the required
technological infrastructure to support the previously
designed learning scenario development such as shared
virtual workspaces, access to web references, interaction
services and so on.
PELICAN as an integration platform. PELICAN can also
be considered an integration platform as it provides several
mechanisms to incorporate external tools supplying
interaction services to virtual workspaces at various
integration levels.
Design Level
teacher
A1
Even group
A2
Ix
Iy
Iz
A3
Odd group
students
Social arrangement
Collaborative work
Monitoring rules
Collaborative evaluation
Interaction and
events
the abstract sense reflected in their VLEs, and thereby avoiding
the use of syntax driven tools. The UNED has since 2006 being
generating open content, specifically Open Educational
Resources (or OERs), marked up using various educational
standards. Specifically, given the accessibility needs of an
important part of our students, these resources needed to
include meta data not only on the type of content but also its
structure and the way in which it can be adapted and presented
to students with special needs.
A. Deploying e-learning standards policies
Distance learning in virtual environments allows intensive
use of new technologies, especially in the field of creating and
managing multimedia content. The use of multimedia
resources, either as asynchronous or synchronous learning tool
in virtual environments can improve content learning with a
high visual and interactive effect. But multimedia source
material is diverse, ranging from video lectures to radio
broadcasting, videoconferencing and slide presentations
developed in many different formats.
PELICAN
Sequencing, control
and dynamic
adaptation
Development Level
teacher
teacher
Ix
Ix
Iy
Iz
Chat
Iz
Iy
Group A
Group B
Poll
Chat
Poll
LO Repository
Figure 2: Two working levels within PELICAN
According to these three perspectives the instructional
workflow in PELICAN is stated at two working levels. As it
can be seen in figure 2, within the design level instructional
designers specify in a formal and computational way all the
aspects related with the learning scenario being undertaken. At
development level, teachers deploy the design of a learning
scenario along one or several workspaces bound to different
socio-collaborative contexts. Between these two layers
PELICAN is located as an orchestration mechanism to
synchronize instructional workflows within each workspace
with the prescriptions expressed in the scenario specification at
design level.
III.
INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES: E-LEARNING STANDARDS AND
EDUCATIONAL METHODOLOGIES IN THE CONTEXT OF
EUROPEAN EDUCATIONAL SPACE
In the current arena of educational standards, the
development of ad-hoc standards leads to a large extent forced
the re-use of existing ones. Given the new production
framework being proposed here, where educational institutions
need to adapt the content life cycle towards a sustainable
model, they have to combine their own research and
development in the area of educational standards. Given this
approach it would be possible to integrate lecturers into the
authoring of standardized content via a strategy of institutional
production using tools that implement instructional design in
This availability of this highly heterogenous bunch of
educational objects implies that a single standardized metadata
schema does not conform, as a rule, the definition of an
educational repository metadata architecture, as in the case of
an organization like UNED. In this context, the development of
an application profile specifically designed for a LO repository
with large multimedia component is highly important, being
necessary to correctly define a set of metadata associated with
the nature of the object which will structure and identify all
elements and relations between them. In this sense and, overall,
the use of standards-based content description XML allows to
describe completely and extending all the elements that are part
of a course.
Using XML as a standard basic language for describing
content is widespread used in e-learning standards based on
LOM, DublinCore and others, as well as schemas for
description of multimedia (MPEG-7 is an example) or the
packaging of objects (eg, SCORM). Therefore, it is perfectly
feasible to full integrate the profile as a standard inside an
environment that fully uses the other, providing they have a
common language and a consistent set of metadata.
This new application profile will result from the integration
of different standardized metadata schemas (generic, such as
Dublin Core, educational like LOM, and multimedia such as
MPEG-7) and represents the first step of a long process to
ensure consistency and reuse of these contents in the future.
Taking LOM as a starting point it may be a good choice, or at
least an appropriate option but will implya greater effort (as far
as labeling is concerned) in relation to other alternatives such
as DublinCore. Moreover, at present, there are many more
application profiles based on DublinCore than in LOM. This
does not mean in any way, that the use of DublinCore is most
appropriate. The reason is based mainly on one side in the
simplicity of the Dublin Core metadata (as opposed to a larger
number in LOM). For another, the more "generalist"
DublinCore pursued against a better "educational" search with
978-1-4244-6571-2/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
April 14-16, 2010, Madrid, SPAIN
IEEE EDUCON Education Engineering 2010 – The Future of Global Learning Engineering Education
1140
LOM. In any case, as shown in this document and the
referenced literature, it would be more difficult making the
transition from a profile based on Dublin Core to a profile
based on LOM than viceversa.
The subset of LOM metadata related to technique or
technology will be somehow redefine to accommodate the
huge volume and type of learning objects along with a set of
other standard schemes which will define more precisely the
audio and visual properties of the objects. In the case, the
metadata that are commonly used in the LOM standard will be
integrated in the data flow described by the MPEG-7, so that
the latter becomes a comprehensive description of the reusable
learning objects [32].
B. Software and content accessibility conformity
ICT technologies led each student to fulfill their learning
process at their time, place, pace and capacities, but if the
methodology is non-accessible for people with disabilities it is
completely useless. Attention to diversity must be paid
continuously, as the learning process is a continuous mode.
A critical issue to improve drastically the quality of the
educational process is the development of high quality on-line
learning resources and educational software [33] and the
accessibility level of these materials will make a difference. A
precise control must be taken into account over the creation
process, analyzing the existing standards for learning
resources, their level of accessibility, developing new laws,
directives, standards, specific guidelines and new authoring
tools. The appearance of Open Source development tools for
SCORM compatible materials has achieved a great goal [34].
Non-accessible web interfaces prevents and hinder right
access to information and services for Internet users. Even
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) promotes since many
years accessibility standards and guidelines for both content
development and authoring tools, reality is highly
disappointing. The problem of accessibility is not yet
understood by developers and producers and also there is still
a lack of development frameworks covering the whole
software development life-cycle that include accessibility
checkpoints.
Lecturers and learners should be provided with specific
means so that they can interact with learning material
regardless of disability, benefits of accessibility compliance
are not only for people with disabilities, but also for elderly
people, all users in general. Learning environments will be
Web based in most situations [35], therefore Web materials
displayed into LCMS must be available for all users. The
materials will run with the same behavior in all environments,
have a consistent user interface and be easily navigated so that
the content can easily be accessed and understood. IMS
GDALA (Guidelines for Developing Accessible Learning
Applications) offers specific guidelines for design and
development of e-Learning applications in all the lifecycle and
W3C/WAI WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines)
give general guidelines to achieve accessible content.
Lecturers create learning content using above standards.
Courses will be delivered and display through an e-Learning
platform - that is in fact a Web based application - therefore
greater flexibility and automatic processes are desirable from
the point of view of the creator, commonly the lecturer.
Authoring tools are the main point in the stages in the creation
of educational content. The most widely used technical
development so far is based on the use of validation and
verification tools for web content after development. This
validation cycle model is close related to the methodology
called software prototyping based on the creation of
prototypes, i.e., incomplete versions of the software program
being developed. A prototype typically simulates only a few
aspects of the features of the eventual program, and may be
completely different from the eventual implementation.
The chances of the result of the validation process vary
depending on the project and the available resources, in most
cases it is reduced to the validation of the use of standards and
accessibility and omitting the rest of the characteristics
involved. Some authors propose methodologies based with an
expanded user-centered development. In this type of solutions,
starting from a simple design and considering all users,
accessibility requirements are considered at first, before the
initial prototype is developed, along with the rest of software
requirements. Therefore in this model, the prototype is
evaluated in the most possible ways obtaining then the most
complete error report.
In another category are those solutions based on the
development of web content using authoring tools that include
accessibility standards like (X)HTML and CSS. At first they
represent a guarantee of compliance with W3C standards and
other requirements of accessibility and usability. Often these
authoring tools also include validation tools or links to them,
being designed to operate in a similar way as the validation
cycle model. Such tools (as the ones that comply with W3C
ATAG guidelines) are one of the best alternatives. In practice,
it is a limited solution, having trouble with dynamic web pages
or parts that are not included in the set of standards. As in the
previous case, there is an intermediate solution being used
only for the development of specific content based on (X)
HTML or CSS.
In a new category one could gather all those new
technologies arising from technical innovation around the
Web 2.0 [36]: developments that use sets of Web 2.0
standards, Rich Internet Applications (RIA), Semantic Web or
Micro formats. Actually, the application of these techniques
usually takes place as a whole in the project so that it is
analyzed through a unique hybrid model that represent
simplified solutions. The use of Web 2.0 elements benefits
accessibility:
o they are standardized elements already,
o there is the possibility of reutilization of models with RIA
Mashup components,
o many metadata information exists to provide Semantic
Web functionality.
978-1-4244-6571-2/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
April 14-16, 2010, Madrid, SPAIN
IEEE EDUCON Education Engineering 2010 – The Future of Global Learning Engineering Education
1141
Regardless of the use of RIA technologies, other authors
defend in any context the use of semantic information in
addition to accessibility aiming the usage of standards
(X)HTML, CSS, XML for data and SOAP and DOM for data
exchange and interaction. This concept is at the heart of Web
2.0, and thus is implicit in the use of these technologies.
Alongside, he believes that Semantic Web complies
accessibility conformity of software components because of
the metadata information also easier from RIA technologies
because it has been taken into account almost since its
inception. Finally, the semantic information is supplemented
with the use of Microforms or metadata patterns that
complement those elements likely to present accessibility
problems.
Regarding the scope of this solution, it is beneficial
because it provides innovative technologies for web
development. RIA technologies certainly give greater power
and functionality to the web, besides being really closed to
accessibility conformity because of the use of web-based
standards and reutilization of components. Still in the area,
Mashup development ensures separation of structure and
content, facilitating the publication of content with a minimum
and accessible version from any application or Web service.
On the other hand, the semantic information through metadata
is a very valuable partner to enriched components, so that that
they can be interpreted by assistive technology tools and
accessibility APIs for platforms.
C. The European Educational Area
In a broader context, the new European Area [9] and its
convergence in education designed a model closer to what
today is conducted in North America and Japan. In such
systems is given greater importance to the practice load during
the conduct of a subject. By providing an orientation toward
more experimental tasks, and a clear direction to the working
world, students develop a range of skills than in degrees with
less experimentation do not have. This is an excellent testbed to
carry out institutional standardization policies.
The most visible set of changes involves the
abovementioned adoption of a US-like unified cycle structure
involving graduate-master-doctoral cycles, as well as the
adoption of a single unit of measurement, the ECTS (European
Credit Transfer Systems) credit (which refers to 25-30 student
hours of total effort, rather than being measured in hours of
face-to-face lessons as before). In many countries (such
as Spain), this involves the re-design and thus the
(re)accreditation of all the degrees, under the quality
certification system required by the EHEA. This massive,
simultaneous redesign of all degrees presents daunting
challenges but also offers unprecedented opportunities. On the
one hand, since all degrees must be simultaneously redesigned,
synergies among them can be effectively exploited, thus
encouraging the re-utilization oriented approaches discussed in
this paper (LCMS, standards like LOM, Dublin Corem QTI,
IMS, SCORM, etc.). On the other hand, shifting the unit of
academic measurement to student hours (through the ECTS)
facilitates the seamless combination of face-to-face, distance
and blended learning in academic degrees.
The other, maybe even more significant but more subtle set
of changes are those aimed at shifting the focus from
instructor-centered “teaching” to student-centered “active
learning”. It involves methodological changes such as
continuous evaluation, de-emphasizing theoretical lectures to
focus more on assignments and projects, higher practical focus,
allowing students higher flexibility to design their own
curricula. When combined with budget limitations, this
methodological shift strongly supports the introduction of
effective IT based approaches to alleviate the burden on the
instructor’s resources. These should facilitate the educational
equivalent of the current manufacturing trend towards “masscustomization”, thus allowing individually tailored learning
paths with a level of resources similar to that required by
standardized education. In addition, several countries are taking
this opportunity to introduce far-reaching modifications in their
educational systems, which further strengthen the case for the
introduction of IT based educational innovation. For example,
in Spain, until now, all “official” degrees were listed in a
catalogue compiled by the Education ministry (universities
could also grant their own degrees on whatever they wanted,
but those did not have official recognition). This catalogue
included the name and the degree curriculum (structure), up to
certain level of detail. The new system, however, breaks away
from that closed catalogue approach and just issues some very
generic guidelines to which new degrees should conform.
Within this framework, universities (both private and public)
are free to propose whichever degree titles and supporting
curricula they want. Once the proposal is cleared from a quality
criteria point of view (general quality criteria, such as the
faculty CVs, cohesiveness of the proposed degree curriculum
and appropriateness of the supporting IT infrastructure) the
new degree is inscribed in a national registry, and the
university is free to offer it (subject, again, to periodic quality
evaluations).
One last aspect worth highlighting regarding the EHEA is
its emphasis on promoting mobility and the international
dimension in education (through joint international degrees or
through mobility in selected subjects of end term Thesis).
Again, achieving this objective would be assisted by the
adoption of standards-based, location independent IT-based
educational solutions. These should support both distributed
provision of learning services (e.g. in degrees offered by
consortia of universities) and their consumption by distributed
student groups, facilitating not just the interaction between
students and instructors, but also the increasingly critical
interaction among participants in distributed teams.
IV.
BACKGROUND OF UNED RESEARCH GROUPS
Researchers in the UNED belong to LTCS1 (LSI Dept.), GElios (DIEEC2 Dept.) or ATLAS6 (Modern Languages Dept.)
groups. Some of their members also belong to the CINDETEC
unit, a Vice-chancellorship that coordinates the university's elearning infrastructure.
978-1-4244-6571-2/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
April 14-16, 2010, Madrid, SPAIN
IEEE EDUCON Education Engineering 2010 – The Future of Global Learning Engineering Education
1142
The LTCS Group is made up of researchers from the LSI
Department at UNED and external collaborators that work
developing projects which apply learning and collaborative
technologies to the support of human activity in distance
learning scenarios. The research is based upon:
• Knowledge-based Authoring
• Collaborative modeling in educational contexts
• E-learning standards
• Software and Content Accessibility conformity
The group's research lines can be situated within the area of
educational technologies, specifically learning, both individual
and collaborative. The first relates to different aspects of
instructional knowledge representation and its normalization.
The second is centered in the problems associated with
collaborative learning and the mechanisms that sustain and
define the activities that configure it. The third goes from the
description of the collaborative workspaces or mediational
tools that facilitate the communication between distinct agents
in the process, to the analysis of the process based upon records
of the activities undertaken. The latter reinforces accessibility
issues while delivering eLearning services.
The group has participated in the following project in the
last years: ENLACE 1 2005-2007 / COLDEX 2 IST 2001-32327
(IST program)/ EA2C2 3 (TIC 2001 -00007) and
CELEBRATE 4 (2002-2004) IST-35188 / e-XCELLENCE
2004-3536/001-001 EDU-ELEARN and eXcellence+ action
2007 – 1999/001-001 TRA-MULPRO 5 and EduTubePlus 2007
EDU 427003 6.
the University are working on this route in order to improve the
attention offered to its more than 200,000 students.
In this sense, the DIEEC, has over 10 years working in the
area of e-learning, with 14 national and international projects.
Worth quoting some of the most recent international projects
such as “PED -CARE (Pedagogical Distributed Group Care)”,
“Elearning Thematic Network”, “Internet-based Performance
Support System with Educational Elements”, “IPLECS –
Internet-based Performance-centered Learning Environment
for Curricula Support”, “mPSS – móbile Performance Support
for Vocational Education and Training”, “SOLITE
SOFTWARE LIBRE EN TELEFORMACIÓN”. And in the
national scope, "s-Labs –Integración de Servicios Abiertos para
Laboratorios
Remotos
y
Virtuales
Distribuidos”,
“MOSAICLEARNING: Aprendizaje Electrónico Móvil, de
Código Abierto, basado en Estándares, Seguro, Contextual,
Personalizado y Colaborativo” o“Comunidades Virtuales de
Alumnos” as an example. The G-elios research group (Grupo
de Investigación en Ingeniería Eléctrica y Tecnologías
Avanzadas en Educación, Electrónica, Control, Computadores,
Energías
Renovables,
Sostenibilidad,
Movilidad
y
Comunicaciones) meets 22 researchers (the mayority of them
with PhD degree) within the department.
Finally the ATLAS 8 group has been working in the area of
intelligent language learning systems for several years and has
been involved in a series of funded research projects: The
Virtual Verb Trainer (VVT), The Virtual Authoring Tool
(VAT), I-Peter I, I-Peter II, COPPER and I-AGENT, the latest
and currently ongoing project with a Ministry of Education
grant, number: FFI2008-06030.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
As well as working in different research projects, the group
participates in other activities that promote investigation and its
diffusion, taking part in summer courses, doctoral courses, and
specialised seminars and congresses at both national and
international levels.
We thank Comunidad de Madrid for the support of EMadrid Network of Excellence
S2009 TIC-1650 and
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación for the support of project
TIN-2009-14317-C03-03.
REFERENCES
The G-Elios group belongs to the Department of Electrical
Engineering, Electronics and Control (DIEEC 7) of the School
of Industrial Engineering at the UNED has a major focus on
research in the Advanced Educational Technologies Applied to
Engineering, with special emphasis on e-learning, due to the
model of teaching in UNED (which is distance education). This
characteristic makes that communication between teachers and
students is especially in a virtual way, ie through some form of
electronic means, primarily through e-learning platforms. This
means that individual departments and research groups from
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
1
http://:enlace.uned.es
http://www.coldex.info
3
http://sensei.lsi.uned.es/ea2c2
4
http://celebrate.eun.org/eun.org2/eun/en/index_celebrate.cfm
5
http://www.eadtu.nl/e-xcellenceqs/
6
http://www.edutubeplus.info
7
http://ww.ieec.uned.es
2
[5]
8
T. Boyle (2003) Design principles for authoring dynamic, reusable
learning objects in Australian Journal of Educational Technology 2003,
19(1), 46-58.
Rodríguez-Artacho, M., & Verdejo Maíllo, M. F. (2004). Modeling
Educational Content: The Cognitive Approach of the PALO Language
in Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 7 (3), 124-137.
Devedzic V. (2004) Education and the Semantic Web in International
Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education #14 (2004) 39-65 IOS
Press.
Retrieved
March
2008
at
http://fon.fon.bg.ac.yu/~devedzic/IJAIED2004.pdf
Leo, D.H.; Perez, J.I.A.; Dimitriadis, Y.A. (2004) IMS learning design
support for the formalization of collaborative learning patterns in
Advanced Learning Technologies, in Proceedings. IEEE International
Conference on Volume, Issue , 30 Aug.-1 Sept. 2004 Page(s): 350 - 354
Paquette G., Aubin C., & Crevier, F. (1999). MISA: A knowledge-based
method for the engineering of learning systems. Journal of Courseware
Engineering , 2.
http://atlas.uned.es
978-1-4244-6571-2/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
April 14-16, 2010, Madrid, SPAIN
IEEE EDUCON Education Engineering 2010 – The Future of Global Learning Engineering Education
1143
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
D. Bodas & M. Rodriguez Artacho (2007) Instructional Theories to
Model Educational Content: A Case Study in book Computers and
Education: E-Learning, From Theory to Practice, B. F. Manjon et al.
(Eds) Springer ISBN 978-1-4020-4913-2 (Print) 978-1-4020-4914-9
(Online)
D. Wiley (2000) The instructional use of learning objects AIT/AECT
Publicher. Available online at http://www.reusability.org
M. Rodríguez-Artacho, M.F. Verdejo, J.I. Mayorga, Y. Calero (1999)
Using a high-level language to describe and create web-based learning
scenarios Proceedings IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference FIE ’99
San Juan (Puerto Rico) . ISBN 0-7803-5643-8,ISSN 0-7803-5646-2
Castro, M., 2007. Distance and On-Line engineering education evolution
through the EHEA. In Innovaçao e Desenvolvimento, pp. 1-7. 21-23,
Covilhà (Portugal)
Weinbrenner, S., Engler, J., Bollen, L., & Hoppe, U. (2007). Ontologybased Support for Designing Inquiry Learning Scenarios.AIED 2009:
14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education
Rodrigo, C.; Delgado, J. L. “Java-XML Innova: Generación de Objetos
Educativos Multimedia para la enseñanza de Java”. II Jornadas de
Innovación Docente: La Implantación de Grados en el EEES. Madrid,
12-14 de Enero de 2009
Delgado, J. L.; Rodrigo, C.; León, G. “Experiments in Calibration and
Validation for Medical Content-Based Images Retrieval”. Medical
Image Annotation in ImageCLEF 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science. Aarhus (Dinamarca). 2008 (Printed in 2009)
Delgado J. L.; Sastre, T.; Rodrigo, C.; Sama, V. “Diseño de un Perfil de
Aplicación para Repositorio Multimedia Accesible”. AMADIS’09. IV
Congreso de Accesibilidad a los Medio Audiovisuales para Personas con
Discapacidad. Pamplona, del 18 al 19 de Junio de 2009
Koper, R., & Olivier, B.(2004). Representing the Learning Design of
Units of Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 7 (3), 97-111.
M. Rodriguez-Artacho & F. J. Velasco (2008) Providing Instructional
layers of Abstraction in Authoring Tools for Engineering Education
Content in FIE Frontiers in Education Conference 2008 (Albany, New
York, USA)
Parsia,
B.,
Yarden
Katz,
Y.,
Clark,
K.:
Pychinko.
http://www.mindswap.org/~katz/pychinko (checked March 2006)
Berners-Lee, T.: Cwm. http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm
(checked March 2006)
Henze, N., Dolog, P., & Nejdl, W. (2004) Reasoning and Ontologies for
Personalized E-Learning in the Semantic Web. Educational Technology
& Society, 7 (4), 82-97
Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Sun, Y., Nao, S. (2004) Authoring Topic
Maps-based Digital Course Libraries. International Workshop on
Applications of Semantic Web Technologies for E-Learning: Semantic
Web for E-Learning, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 23-25 August (2004)
Vélez J. Mayorga J. I. Verdejo M. F. (2005). "A Metamodel for Defi
ning and Managing Web Based Communiti es." IADIS Internati onal
Conference. Web Based Communiti es 2005. pp. 183-190 ISBN: 97299353-7-8
Vélez J. Barros B. Verdejo M. F. (2006). "A Framework to define Web
Based Communiti es." Internati onal Journal of Web Based Communiti
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
es 2006 Vol. 2, nº 3 pp. 339 - 359 ISSN: 1477-8394 IJWBC 2006
Journal.
Vélez J. Verdejo M.F. (2007) "Modelado arquitectónico de la plataforma
Pelican para la implantación de entornos colaborati vos de aprendizaje",
Revista Iberoamericana de Informáti ca Educati va”, Diciembre 2007 nº
6, págs. 47-62, ISSN 1699-4574
Web Ontology Language Reference (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owlref/
RDF Semantics (2004) http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
Mayorga, J.I., Barros, B., Celorrio, C., Verdejo, M.F. (2006) “Accessing
A Learning Object Repository Through A. Semantic Layer”.
Proccedings of the workshop Learning Object Repositories as Digital
Libraries 06.
Ganmeni, A. Gómez-Pérez, A., Presutti, V. Suárez Figueroa, M.C.
(2007) Towards a Catalog of OWL-based Ontology Design Patterns
Proceedings of the XII Conference of the AEPIA
Ganter, B. Wille, R. (1999) Formal Concept Analisis, Mathematical
Foundations (Springer)
Horrocks, I Patel-Scheider, P.F. (2004) Reducing OWL Entaliments to
Description Logic Satisfacibility, Journal of Web Semantics, 1 (4) 345357 Elsevier
SPARQL Query Language for RDF (2008) http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfspasrql-query
SWRL: A semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and the Rule
ML (2004), http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL
Rodriguez-Artacho, M. and Kloos, C. (2006) Semantic web aided
authoring content in Proceedings of the Semantic Web Workshop SWEL ’06 Dublin June 06
J. L. Delgado; Sastre, T.; Rodrigo, C.; Sama, V. (2009) Diseño de un
Perfil de Aplicación para Repositorio Multimedia Accesible.
AMADIS’09. IV Congreso de Accesibilidad a los Medio Audiovisuales
para Personas con Discapacidad. Pamplona (España)
S. Besio, E. Laudanna, F. Potenza, L. Ferlino & F. Occhionero (2008)
Accessibility of Educational Software: From Evaluation to Design
Guidelines. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on
Computers Helping People with Special Needs. People with Disabilities:
Software Accessibility pp. 518 - 525 Linz (Austria). ISBN:978-3-54070539-0
G. Attwell (2005) What is the significance of Open Source Software for
the education and training community?. Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Open Source Systems. Scotto and Giancarlo
Succi (Eds.) pp.353-358 Genova (Italy)
M. Cooper (2007) Accessibility of Emerging Rich Web Technologies:
Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. ACM International Conference
Proceeding Series
B. Gibson (2007) Enabling an Accessible Web 2.0. IBM Emerging
Technologies. Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary
conference on Web accessibility (W4A). ACM International Conference
Proceeding Series.
978-1-4244-6571-2/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
April 14-16, 2010, Madrid, SPAIN
IEEE EDUCON Education Engineering 2010 – The Future of Global Learning Engineering Education
1144