1. Standards and interoperability - a Norwegian perpective Project Coordinator Tore Hoel, the Norwegian eStandard project www.estandard.no www.estandard.no

3. The first learning technology standard was developed by ”electrical engineers” IEEE LOM (Learning object metadata) standard, June 2002, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc

5. e-learning standards does not carry any learning theory?  Standardization of e-learning technology is a complex negotiation of meaning and interests within large actor-networks…  Inscription, translations and delegations  We are modelling specific worlds – not any worlds  Tools come with embedded ideology – e.g. Powerpoint vs. Mindmaps

6. Be aware of easy ways out of the alphabet soup SCORM IEEE - LTMS AICC ARIADNE DCMI W3C CEN/ISSS We do not have any de facto standard!

7. Stakeholders in standardization  Governmental authorities  Educational communities  Vendors  Publishing houses  Content developers  Individuals All have different agendas and strategies for learning and teaching

8. Authorities Mediating negotiation Vendors Teachers Universities Schools Learners Content providers We need a bodies that are neutral, respected by everyone, and able to facilitate the negotiations between the stakeholders

9. The eStandard project of Norway  Funded by the Ministry of Education as part of the Programme for Digital Competence (2004 – 2008)  Raise awareness - not do research  Convey international best practice  Give advice to Norwegian projects  Participate in international standardization bodies (ISO & CEN) coordinated by Standard.no

10. www.estandard.no Do not ignore the academic discourse – there are no good answers yet!

11. The importance of a driving force Somebody has to put the questions!

12. The need for a pedagogical framework for e-learning to build a technical framework  Learning is a Social Phenomenon: Negotiation of meaning through dialogue, collaboration collaboration, and reflection  Learning is more than consuming content  IMS Learning Design – do we care – or are we content with SCORM’s tracking and simple sequencing the single, self paced learner?

13. Architecture for learning  We are locked into content centric platforms - how to break out?  Identity management (the au-au) Federated identity for education (FEIDE)  Today gigantic components - tomorrow a webservice architecture?

14. User Agents Application Services Common Services Institutional Infrastructures (TCP/IP etc) E-learning architecture

15. LMS Component Content Mgt Library Component SearchContent MgtPackagingSearchPackagingActivity MgtCollaborationAssessmentAuthentication SRS Component Learner InfoEnrolmentReportingAuthentication TODAY: LAND OF THE GIANT COMPONENTS Messaging Cataloguing LMS in an e-learning architecture From CETISCETIS

16. User Agents Application Services Common Services Institutional Infrastructures VLEPortalLibrarySRSAuthoring tool Activity MgtContent Mgt Search Collaboration Assessment Messaging Authentication AuthorizationDRMGUIDs Cataloguing Packaging Sequencing Course Mgt Enrolment Learner Info PDP Competency Mgt Reporting/BI A service-based model of architecture From CETISCETIS

17. From CETISCETIS

18. Learning resources - navigation and distributions  LOM profiles Secondary metadata  Topic Maps Digitalization of the curriculum - a topic to be explored  Distribution of learning resources: How to achieve interoperability between repositories?

19. Digital Rights Management - where to start?  As they stand, DRM solutions designed to protect commercial interests are unsuitable for the education sector. (JORUM Scoping and Technical Appraisal Study, UK)  User Licences to communicate better about digital rights!

20. Items for cooperation  Metadata RDF, TopicMaps  ePortfolios  Designing for social constructivist learning theories How to capitalize on the highest penetration of LMS systems in the world?

21. Thank you! Tore.Hoel@estandard.no