Advertisement

From Content Management to E-Learning Content Repositories

  • Julià Minguillón
  • Miguel-Angel Sicilia
  • Brian Lamb
Chapter

Abstract

The concept of content in an educational context is very different from the one in other fields such as publishing or electronic newspapers, for example. From textbooks to exercises, from software simulations to data sets containing educational data, it is necessary to rethink the way these educational resources or “learning objects” are managed. One of the major concerns for teachers using e-learning environments is the availability of the appropriate structures and tools for organizing such learning resources and making them accessible to learners. This is especially true for e-learning virtual environments where learners have access to both digital libraries and also to any other Web resource, through Google or other conventional search engines. Nevertheless, these systems are usually not directly integrated in the learning process and content and metadata management requires the use of different tools. Furthermore, new pedagogical approaches consider the learner as an active element in the learning process, promoting the acquisition and development of competences through activities which involve the use and creation of learning resources. This chapter explores the relationship of traditional content management systems and the broader scope of virtual learning environments, including aspects of metadata standards, content personalization, the use of semantic web techniques and ontologies, the use and annotation of learning resources and the possibilities offered by the use of Web 2.0 technologies. At the end of this chapter, the possible learning scenarios that will be derived from all the changing forces, combining methodological, technological and organizational issues will be described.

Keywords

Learning Object Digital Library Content Management Learning Resource Open Educational Resource 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ade, J., Allegre, C., Arsenis, G., Bladh, A., Catenhusen, W.-M., Dowling, P. et al. (1999). The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999. Available at http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/990719BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.PDF
  2. Akeroyd, J. (2005). Information management and e-learning. Some perspectives. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 57(2), 157–167.Google Scholar
  3. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic Web. Scientific American, 284(5), 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals – Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.Google Scholar
  5. Boiko, B. (2001). Content management bible. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Conway, P. (2008). Modeling the digital content landscape in universities. Library Hi Tech, 26(3), 342–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Downes, S. (2001). Learning objects: Resources for distance education worldwide. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2, 1.Google Scholar
  8. Dreher, H., Krottmaier H., & Maurer, H. (2004). What we expect from digital libraries. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 10(9), 1110–1122.Google Scholar
  9. Ferran, N., Casadesús, J., Krakowska, M., & Minguillón, J. (2007). Enriching e-learning metadata through digital library usage analysis. The Electronic Library, 25(2), 148–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gagné, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Gaševic, D., Jovanovic, J., & Devedžic, V. (2007). Ontology-based annotation of learning object content. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heery, R., & Anderson, S. (2005). Digital repositories review. Bath: UKOLN and Arts and Humanities Data Service. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/digital-repositories-review-2005.pdf
  14. Herlocker, J. L., Konstan, J. A., Terveen, L. G., & Riedl, J. T. (2004). Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 22(1), 5–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holmes, B., & Gardner, J. (2006). E-learning: Concepts and practice. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  16. Konstan, J., Miller, B., Maltz, D., Herlocker, J., Gordon, L., & Riedl, J. (1997). GroupLens: Applying collaborative filtering to Usenet News. Communications of the ACM, 40(3), 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2006). Cultural issues in the sharing and reuse of resources for learning. Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning, 1(3), 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McGreal, R. (2004). Learning Objects: A practical definition. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(9), pp. 21–32.Google Scholar
  19. McNaught, C. (2006). Are learning repositories likely to become mainstream in education? Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies, Setubal, Portugal, April 11–13, 2006 (pp. IS9–IS17). Keynote address.Google Scholar
  20. Monge, S., Ovelar, R., & Azpeitia, I. (2008). Repository 2.0: Social dynamics to support community building in learning object repositories. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects (formerly the Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects), 4.Google Scholar
  21. Nash, S. S. (2005). Learning objects, learning object repositories, and learning theory: Preliminary best practices for online courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from http://ijklo.org/Volume1/v1p217228Nash.pdf
  22. Peters, T. A. (2002). Digital repositories: Individual, discipline-based, institutional, consortial or national? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(6), 414–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1999). Instructional-design theories and models, volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenberg, M. J. (2002). E-Learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Sicilia, M. A. (2007). Beyond content: Sharing the design of open educational resources In: Open educational resources [on-line monograph]. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC). 4(1). UOC. http://www.uoc.edu/rusc/4/1/dt/esp/sicilia.pdf.
  26. Sicilia, M. A., García-Barriocanal, E., Sánchez-Alonso, S., & Soto, J. (2005). A semantic lifecycle approach to learning object repositories. Proceedings of the Advanced Industrial Conference on Telecommunications, pp. 466–471.Google Scholar
  27. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
  28. Sumner, T., & Marlino, M. (2004). Digital libraries and educational practice: A case for new models. Proceedings of the 4th Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 170–178.Google Scholar
  29. Taylor, J. C. (1999). Distance education: The fifth generation. Proceedings of the 19th ICDE World Conference on Open Learning and Distance Education, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  30. Thomas, P., Carswell, L., & Price, B. (1998). A holistic approach to supporting distance learning using the internet: Transformation, not translation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thomas, A., & Rothery, A. (2005). Online repositories for learning materials: The user perspective. Ariadne, 45, available at www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/thomas-rothery/.
  32. Wiley, D. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects: Online version, http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc.
  33. Wiley, D. (2007). Content is infrastructure. Terra incognita [online]. Available at http://blog.worldcampus.psu.edu/index.php/2007/10/03/content-is-infrastructure/.

Bibliography

  1. Horizon Report. (2009). Various authors. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://wp.nmc.org.horizon2009
  2. Alsagoff, Z. A. (2008). University learning = OCW + OER = Free! ZaidLearn. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://zaidlearn.blogspot.com/2008/06/university-learning-ocw-oer-free.html
  3. Downes, S. (2005). The fate of eduSource. OLDaily. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=15
  4. Downes, S. (2008). The future of online learning: Ten years on. Half an Hour. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2008/11/future-of-online-learning-ten-years-on_16.html
  5. Ferran, N., Mor, E., & Minguillón, J. (2005). Towards personalization in digital libraries through ontologies. Library Management, 26(4/5), 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hirst, T. (2008). OER custom search engine. OUseful Info. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://ouseful.open.ac.uk/blogarchive/014895.html
  7. Leslie, S. (2008). Dynamic Wiki-driven OER search engine. EdTechPost. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://www.edtechpost.ca/wordpress/2008/06/20/google-coop-on-the-fly/
  8. Wiley, D. et al. (2004). Overcoming the limitations of learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 507–521.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julià Minguillón
    • 1
  • Miguel-Angel Sicilia
  • Brian Lamb
  1. 1.Computer Science, Multimedia and Telecommunications DepartmentUniversitat Oberta de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations