Technical Learning Infrastructure, Interoperability and Standards

  • Xavier OchoaEmail author
  • Stefaan Ternier


Over the last 20 years, there has been a strong push in Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) to shift from the development of research prototypes to deploying mature systems. The capability for systems to exchange information with other systems and to scale in different contexts is crucial for realizing this maturity and has been realized through the creation of specifications and standards. This chapter guides the reader through several papers discussing past and current efforts to improve the maturity of TEL systems through standards and specifications. Initially, most of these concentrated on the production and sharing of learning content and activities. Nowadays, standardization work focus on the high-level interoperability between learning tools and sharing of information about learner actions. Respecting historical developments, specification and standardizations, works in this chapter are grouped around five themes: (1) management, sharing and reuse of learning content, (2) design and production of learning content and activities, (3) deployment of learning content to the learner, (4) assessment and tracking of learner actions, and (5) high-level interoperability between learning tools. Useful references to understand the evolution and current state-of-the-art in each one of these groups are provided, as well as small discussions about their relevance for current and future TEL tools.


Interoperability Standards Learning resource Metadata standards Learning infrastructures Share and reuse Learning management system Learning design Learner analytics 


  1. Alario, C., & Wilson, S. (2010). Comparison of the main alternatives to the integration of external tools in different platforms. In L. Gómez Chova, D. Martí Belenguer, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI 2010), Madrid, Spain (pp. 3466–3476). Valencia: IATED.Google Scholar
  2. Allinson, J., François, S., & Lewis, S. (2008). SWORD: Simple web-service offering repository deposit. Ariadne, 54, Retrieved from
  3. Anido, L. E., Fernández, M. J., Caeiro, M., Santos, J. M., Rodríguez, J. S., & Llamas, M. (2002). Educational metadata and brokerage for learning resources. Computers and Education, 38(4), 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bienkowski, M., Brecht, J., & Klo, J. (2012). The learning registry: Building a foundation for learning resource analytics. In S. Buckingham Shum, D. Gasevic, & R. Ferguson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 208–211). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  5. Cafolla, R. (2006). Project MERLOT: Bringing peer review to web-based educational resources. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 313–323.Google Scholar
  6. Conole, G., & Warburton, B. (2005). A review of computer-assisted assessment. Research in Learning Technology, 13(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conole, G., & Culver, J. (2009). Cloudworks: Social networking for learning design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 763–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing learning design: The learning activity management system (LAMS). In G. Crisp (Ed.), Interact, Integrate, Impact: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). Adelaide.Google Scholar
  9. Duval, E. (2004). Learning technology standardization: Making sense of it all. Computer Science and Information Systems, 1(1), 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duval, E., & Hodgins, W. (2003). A LOM research agenda. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2003) (pp. 88–98), Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  11. Duval, E., Hodgins, W., Sutton, S., & Weibel, S. L. (2002). Metadata principles and practicalities. D-lib Magazine, 8(4), 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gonzalez-Barbone, V., & Anido-Rifon, L. (2010). From SCORM to common cartridge: A step forward. Computers & Education, 54(1), 88–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Govaerts, S., Verbert, K., Dahrendorf, D., Ullrich, C., Schmidt, M., Werkle, M., …, & Law, E. L. (2011). Towards responsive open learning environments: The ROLE interoperability framework. In C. D. Kloos, D. Gillet, R. M. C. García, F. Wild, & M. Wolpers (Eds.), Towards ubiquitous learning. Proceedings of 6th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2011), Palermo, Italy (pp. 125–138). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Griffiths, D., Beauvoir, P., Liber, O., & Barrett-Baxendale, M. (2009). From Reload to ReCourse: Learning from IMS learning design implementations. Distance Education, 30(2), 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hatala, M., Richards, G., Eap, T., & Willms, J. (2004). The interoperability of learning object repositories and services: standards, implementations and lessons learned. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2004), New York, NY, USA (pp. 19–27). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  16. IEEE (2002). IEEE 1484.12.1 Standard: Learning object metadata. New York, NY.Google Scholar
  17. IMS (2003a). IMS digital repositories interoperability—core functions information model (2003, January 13). Retrieved from
  18. IMS (2003b). IMS learning design specification (2003, February). Retrieved from
  19. Koper, R. (2001). Modeling units of study from a pedagogical perspective: The pedagogical metamodel behind EML (Technical report). Open University Nederlands. Retrieved from
  20. Lagoze, C., Van de Sompel, H., Nelson, M., & Warner, S. (2002). The open archives initiative protocol for metadata harvesting (Version 2.0. 2002, June). Retrieved from
  21. Laurillard, D. (2013). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. McGreal, R. (2008). A typology of learning object repositories. In H. H. Adelsberger, Kinshuk, J.M. Pawlowski, D.G. Sampson (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for education and training (pp. 5–28). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Meire, M., Ochoa, X., & Duval, E. (2007), Samgi: Automatic metadata generation v2. 0. In C. Montgomerie, J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007, Vancouver, Canada (pp. 1195–1204). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)Google Scholar
  24. Morgan, E.L. (2004). An introduction to the Search/Retrieve URL Service (SRU). Ariadne, 40. Retrieved from
  25. Nejdl, W., Wolf, B., Qu, C., Decker, S., Sintek, M., Naeve, A., Nilsson, M., Palmér, M., & Risch, T. (2002). EDUTELLA: A P2P networking infrastructure based on RDF. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2002), Honolulu, HI, USA (pp. 604–615). New York, NY: ACM..Google Scholar
  26. Nottingham, M., & Sayre R., (Eds.) (2005). The atom syndication format, RFC 4287. Retrieved from
  27. Ochoa, X. (2005). Learning object repositories are useful, but are they usable?. In N. Guimarães, & P. Isaías (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on Applied Computing (pp. 138–144). Algarve, Portugal.Google Scholar
  28. Ochoa, X., & Duval, E. (2009). Quantitative analysis of learning object repositories. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2(3), 226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poltrack, J., Hruska, N., Johnson, A., & Haag, J. (2012). The next generation of SCORM: Innovation for the global force. In Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference (I/ITSEC) (Vol. 2012, No. 1), Canberra, Australia (pp. 1–9). Arlington, VA: National Training Systems Association.Google Scholar
  30. Richards, G., McGreal, R., Hatala, M., & Friesen, N. (2002). The evolution of learning object repository technologies: portals for on-line objects for learning. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education (IJEDE), 17(3), 67–79.Google Scholar
  31. RSS 2.0 Specification. (2009). (version 2.0.11). Retrieved from
  32. SCORM (n.d.). Retrieved from
  33. Simon, B., Massart, D., Van Assche, F., Ternier S., Duval, E. (2005). A simple query interface specification for learning repositories. CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA 15454).Google Scholar
  34. Ternier, S., Verbert, K., Parra, G., Vandeputte, B., Klerkx, J., Duval, E., Ordonez, V., & Ochoa, X. (2009). The Ariadne infrastructure for managing and storing metadata. IEEE Internet Computing, 13(4), 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolpers, M., Najjar, J., Verbert, K., & Duval, E. (2007). Tracking actual usage: the attention metadata approach. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 106–121.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral, Guayaquil, EcuadorGuayaquilEcuador
  2. 2.Open Universiteit NederlandHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations