Advertisement

Designing and Testing an Open-Source Learning Management System for Small-Scale Users

  • Kevin Johnson
  • Timothy Hall
Part of the Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing book series (AI&KP)

Abstract

The vision of reusable learning resources or objects, made accessible through coordinated repository architectures and metadata structures, has gained considerable attention within education and training communities. A proliferation of standards, architectures, Web technologies, and functionality abound to help realize this promise. This chapter outlines the issues associated with designing solutions for small-scale users such as small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It describes the requirements and architecture for the development of an open-source small-scale learning object (LO) management system that supports the full management of learning objects, by bringing together the most promising advances in this field to attain a learning system for use by small-scale users to leverage the power of learning objects for improved training at an individual and organisational level.

Keywords

Learning Object International Standard Organization Learn Management System Metadata Standard Metadata Schema 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hokanson, B., Hooper, S. (2000) Computers as cognitive media: the potential of computers in educations. Computers in Human Behaviour, 16(5):537–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 3.
    IEEE. (2002) IEEE LOM Version 1, final draft. http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    IMS. (2001) http://www.imsproject.org.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    WebCT. (1997) WebCT—e-learning solutions for higher education. http://www.webct.com.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Blackboard. (1997) Blackboard Software Company, http://www.blackboard.com.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    TopClass. (1995) TopClass Computer Systems, http://www.wbtsystems.com.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Docent Docent Software Company, http://www.docent.com.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    TrainerSoft TrainerSoft Company, http://www.trainersoft.com.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Fallon, C., Brown, S. (2003) e-Learning Standards: A Guide to Purchasing, Developing and Deploying Standards—Conformant e-Learning. Boca Raton, Florida: St. Lucie Press.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Avaltus. (2000) http://www.avaltus.com/.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Brahler, C.J., Peterson, N.S., Johnson, E.C. (1999) Developing on-line learning materials for higher education: An overview of current issues. Educational Technology and Society, 2(2):42–54.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Duval, E., Hodgins, W. (2003) A LOM research agenda. In: WWW2003. Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Rust, G., Bide, M. (2000) The “indecs” metadata framework: principles, model and data dictionary, http://www.indecs.org/pdf/framework.pdf. Indecs Framework Ltd in 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Sciore, E., Siegel, M., Rosenthal, A. (1994) Using semantic values to facilitate interoperability among heterogeneous information systems. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 19(2):254–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 16.
    Drew, P., et al. (1993) Report of the workshop on semantic heterogeneity and interoperation in multidatabase systems. ACM Sigmod Record, 22(3):47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 17.
    IEEE. (1999) Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. http://www.ieee.org/ portal/index.jsp?pageID=corp_levell&path=about/whatis&file=index.xml&xsl=generic.xsl.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    AICC. (1988) http://www.aicc.org/.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    ARIADNE. (2001) European ARIADNE Project. http://www.ariadne-eu.org.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    UCGIS. (1998) University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) Research Priority White Papers—Paper 5: Interoperability of Geographic Information. http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/other/ucgis/research_priorities/paper5.html.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Wiley, D.A. (2000) Learning object design and sequencing theory. In: Instructional Psychology and Technology Department. Provo City, UT: Brigham Young University, p. 142.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Tannenbaum, A. (1991) Computer Networks, 2nd ed. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Padrick, N. (2003) Information you can use: A Data Mart Primer. Solutions Journal, 9(2):23–27.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    Dushay, N. (2002) Localising experience of digital content via structural metadata. In: International Conference on Digital Libraries. Proceedings of the second ACM/IEEECS joint conference on Digital libraries, Portland, Oregan. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    LTSC. (2002) IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee Mission. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/ltsc/index.html.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    Gibbons, A.S., Nelson, J., Richards, R. (2000) The nature and origin of instructional objects. In: The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version., Wiley, D.A., ed., Agency for Instructional Technology, available at http://www.reusability.org/read/chapters/gibbsons.docGoogle Scholar
  26. 27.
    Hodgins, W. (2000) Into the future. http://www.leamativity.com/download/MP7. PDF.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    Dahl, O.J., Nygaard, K. (1966) SIMULA—an algol based simulation language. Communications of the ACM, 9(9):671–678.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 29.
    Reigeluth, CM., Nelson, L.M.(1997) A new paradigm of ISD? Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 22:24–35.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    LOM. (2002) IEEE LTSC WG12—Learning object metadata. http://ltsc.ieee.org/ wg 12/.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    Newsroom. (1999) Internet growing too fast for search engines. http://www.editors-service.com/articlearchive/search99.html.Google Scholar
  31. 32.
    Cisco. (2000) Reusable learning object strategy: definition, creation process, and guidelines for building, http://www.cisco.com/.Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    Hodgins, W. (2000) Everything you ever wanted to know about learning standards but were afraid to ask. http://www.linezine.eom/2.1/features/wheyewtkls.htm.Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    Wagner, E.D. (2002) The new frontier of learning object design. http://www. elearningguild.com.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    Wiley, D.A. (2000) Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: a definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc.Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    ISO. (2002) Information technology: learning by IT. http://jtc1sc36.org/doc/ 36N0264.pdf.Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    Friesen, N., McGreal, R. (2002) International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. http://www.irrodl.org/content/v3.2/techl1.html.Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    IMS. (2001) IMS content packaging (CP). http://www.imsproject.org/content/ packaging/index.cfm.Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    UNFOLD. (2003) The UNFOLD Project. http://www.unfold-project.net/.Google Scholar
  39. 40.
    ADLNet. (2000) Advanced Distributed Learning Network (ADL Net) Advanced Distributed Learning, SCORM Past. http://www.adlnet.org/index.cfm?fuseaction= scormhist.Google Scholar
  40. 41.
    IMS. (2001) IMS simple sequencing (SS). http://www.imsproject.org/simplesequencing/index.cfm.Google Scholar
  41. 42.
    ADL. (2003) Advanced distributed learning network (ADL Net). ADL Co-Labs: overview. http://www.adlnet.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=colabovr.Google Scholar
  42. 43.
    Ariadne. (2002) ARIADNE Foundation Presentation 1.1 http://www.ariadne-eu.org/ en/about/general/benefits/index.html.Google Scholar
  43. 44.
    ISO. (2004) About ISO, introduction. http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/ index.html.Google Scholar
  44. 45.
    IEC/CEI. (2004) International Electrotechnical Commission. http://www.iec.ch/.Google Scholar
  45. 46.
    ISO/IEC. (2004) International Organisation for Standardisation/ International Electrotechnical Commission JTC1 SC 36. http://jtclsc36.org/.Google Scholar
  46. 47.
    ALIC. (2001) Advanced Learning Infrastructure Consortium. http://www.alic.gr.jp/ eng/.Google Scholar
  47. 48.
    XMLSPY. (2000) http://www.xmlspy.com/.Google Scholar
  48. 49.
    DublinCore. (1998) Dublin Core metadata element set, version 1.1—reference description. http://dublincore.org/documents/1999/07/02/dces/.Google Scholar
  49. 50.
    Ariadne. (1999) ARIADNE metadata recommendation version 3.0. http://ariadne. unil.ch/Metadata/ariadne_metadata_v3final1.htm.Google Scholar
  50. 51.
    CUBER. (1999) EU 5th Framework 1ST Programme, Personalised Curriculum Builder in the Federated Virtual University of the Europe of Regions, final version of metadata specification. http://www.cuber.net/web-v1/publications/cuber-d9-1.pdf.Google Scholar
  51. 52.
    GEMSTONES GESTALT, ACTS (Advanced Communications Technologies and Services) project, courseware metadata design V3 (GEMSTONES). http://www.fdgroup.com/gestalt/D0401_3.pdf.Google Scholar
  52. 53.
    Moodle Moodle Web site, http://moodle.org.Google Scholar
  53. 54.
    Gruber, T.R. (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowledge Acquisition, 5:199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 55.
    Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L. (1999) Ontology developement 101: a guide to creating your first ontology. http://www.standford.edu/.Google Scholar
  55. 56.
    Poggi, A., Bergend, F. (2000) Multi-agent systems: ontology. In: ESAW Workshop at ECAI 2000, London, England.Google Scholar
  56. 57.
    Protege. (2000) Technical report: using Protégé-2000 to edit RDF. http://www.smi.Stanford.edu/projects/protege/protegerdf/protege-rdf.html.Google Scholar
  57. 58.
    Bechhofer, S., et al. (2001) OilEd:a reasonable ontology eclitorfor the semantic Web. In: KI2001, Joint German/Austrian conference on artificial intelligence, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  58. 59.
    Sure, Y., et al. (2002) OntoEdit: collaborative ontology development for the semantic Web. In: International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC02), Sardinia, Italy.Google Scholar
  59. 60.
    Farquhar, A., Fikes, R., Rice, J. (1996) The Ontolingua server: a tool for collaborative ontology construction. In: 10th Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, Banff, Canada.Google Scholar
  60. 61.
    Arpírez, J.C., et al. (2001) WebODE: a scalable ontological engineering workbench. In: First International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP 2001), Victoria, Canada.Google Scholar
  61. 62.
    Duval, E., et al. (2002) Metadata principles and practicalities. http://dlib.org/dlib/ april02/weibel/04weibel.html.Google Scholar
  62. 63.
    Brennan, M., Funke, S., Anderson, C. (2001) Learning Content Management Systems: a new e-learning market segment emerges http://www.idc.com.Google Scholar
  63. 64.
    Concannon, F., Johnson. K. (2002) Learning through learning content management systems. In: Human Computer Interaction, HCI, Brighton, England.Google Scholar
  64. 65.
    Cross, J., Hamilton, I. (2002) The DNA of E-learning. http://www.austrainer.com/ elearning/dna-of-elearning.htm.Google Scholar
  65. 66.
    Kearns, D. (2004) Open Source all stars. http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/ nt/2004/0322ntl.html.Google Scholar
  66. 67.
    O’Droma, M., Ganchev, I., McDonnell, F. (2003) Architectural and functional desgin and evaluation of e-learning VUIS based on the proposed IEEE LT SA reference model. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(3):263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 68.
    Cisco. (1999) Cisco Systems—reusable information object strategy. http://www.dsco. com/warp/public/779/ibs/solutions/learning/whitepapers/el_cisco_rio.pdf.Google Scholar
  68. 69.
    MySQL. (1995) http://www.mysql.com.Google Scholar
  69. 70.
    SPAW. (2002) http://www.solmetra.com/spaw/.Google Scholar
  70. 71.
    dotLRN. (2001) http://dotlrn.org/.Google Scholar
  71. 72.
    IMS. (2001) IMS Global Consortium, Inc IMS Background. http://www.imsproject.org/ aboutims.cfm.Google Scholar
  72. 73.
    Collins, A., Brown, J.S., et al. (1991) Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible. American Educator: The American Federation of Teachers, 15(3):6–11, 38–46.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Johnson
    • 1
  • Timothy Hall
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept of Computer Science and Information Systems (CSIS)University of LimerickLimerickIreland
  2. 2.EMRC-Educational Media Research Centre Dept ECEUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations