Building a Learning Resource Exchange (LRE) Service for Schools
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Building a Learning Resource Exchange (LRE) Service for Schools



A presentation on European Schoolnet's Learning Resource Exchange service for schools at IMS Learning Impact 2009

A presentation on European Schoolnet's Learning Resource Exchange service for schools at IMS Learning Impact 2009



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 1 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Building a Learning Resource Exchange (LRE) Service for Schools Building a Learning Resource Exchange (LRE) Service for Schools Presentation Transcript

  • Building a Learning Resource Exchange (LRE) for Schools Jim Ayre European Schoolnet (EUN)
  • What is European Schoolnet (EUN)? Dedicated to Supporting schools in bringing about the best use of technology in learning Promote the European dimension in schools and education Improving and raising the quality of education in Europe Network of 31 Ministries of Education in Europe founded in 1997
  • Range of projects and services EUN Activities ICT policies and practice Peer Learning ICT Cluster eTwinning School Innovation Internet Safety School Validation … Xplora Xperimania School networking and services Spring Day Development Youth Prize eLearning Awards Insight Portal PIC LIFE LRE ASPECT Interoperability and content exchange MELT CALIBRATE CELEBRATE
  • CELEBRATE demonstration project 2002- 2004 CALIBRATE connecting repositories 2005-2007 MELT content enrichment 2006-2009 ASPECT content standards 2008-2011 Building a Learning Resource Exchange LRE 2008… emapps iClass
  • Large scale projects
    • CELEBRATE - €5M funding from IST Programme
      • 22 partners
    • CALIBRATE - €3.3M funding from IST Programme
      • 17 partners
    • MELT - €3M funding eContent plus Programme
      • 18 partners
    • ASPECT - €3.7M funding eContent plus Programme
      • 22 partners
  • Initial Questions 2001?
    • Do teachers like LOs and do LOs support innovative forms of teaching and learning?
    • Is investment by public/private sectors worthwhile?
    • Do emerging standards (for interoperability - IMS content packaging, SCORM) actually make it easier to exchange and re-use content within LMSs, LCMSs, VLEs etc.)?
    • Can teachers and pupils make their own standards’ compliant, interoperable LOs?
  • Key Technical Issue: federated search
    • Can CELEBRATE demonstrate a working technical solution (a ‘Brokerage System’) that allows Ministries, publishers, other content providers and individual schools to access and exchange Learning Objects across national borders?
  • CELEBRATE achievements
    • 1400 Learning Objects, 2400 Learning Assets and 25 authoring templates
    • Demonstrated a ‘Brokerage System’ architecture that supports federated searching
    • Tested content in 319 schools in six countries
    • Independent evaluation led by OU (UK)
  • CELEBRATE demo portal
  • Conclusion and outlook 2004
    • CELEBRATE demonstrated the LRE concept
      • but connecting to a federation of repositories required effort and commitment
    • A licensing mechanism needed for open content
      • Creative Commons licensing scheme developing momentum
    • Business models of commercial content providers?
  • CELEBRATE project
    • MoE lukewarm about some SCORM features and other standards
      • Content packaging – yes!
      • Simple sequencing?
      • Student tracking?
      • QTI?
    • Does SCORM support a vision for eLearning that can be taken to scale in European schools?
    • Too US centric?
    • Too focused on constant assessment?
    • Too part of a VLE/LMS/learning platform solution being driven by commercial vendors?
    • Too aligned with H.E. rather than schools?
    • Personalised learning - not flexible enough for group and collaborative learning?
  • Verdict of 13 MoEs on CELEBRATE
    • “ The Demo Portal ought to become a European repository of Learning Objects and other material. It should be open also to other EUN countries so that they can put there their material and translate existing material to their own language.”
  • Content that ‘travels well’
  • Content that ‘travels well’?
  • Content that ‘travels well’??
  • Content that ‘travels well’???
  • CALIBRATE Oct 05 - Mar 08
    • Made it easier to connect repositories to an open source BS architecture
    • CELEBRATE - 2 to 3 months to connect
    • CALIBRATE - 2 to 3 days to connect
    • Helped to develop the LRE as a service for MoEs and other content partners
  • CALIBRATE Portal for Schools
  • LeMill open source authoring/collaboration tools
  • Creative Commons?
    • Many MoE and teachers almost automatically select a Non Commercial option
    • Problems with remixing content (LeMill)
    • CC currently reviewing and obtaining feedback on NC license
  • MELT Oct 06 - Mar 09
    • Federating repositories little use if we cannot solve problem of volume metadata creation
    • MELT - a new ‘metadata ecology’ involving
        • expert indexers
        • automatic metadata generation
        • folksonomies and social tagging
    • Provide a scalable, cost-effective solution to meet the challenge of volume metadata creation
  • Lessons from CELEBRATE
    • Educational budgets struggle to cope with the demand for more/better metadata created by trained indexers
    • It is more useful to think of LOs having ‘affordances’ or lending themselves to a particularly pedagogical method or learning style
    • We need metadata that more accurately reflects how LOs are actually used in different learning contexts
    • Social tagging by teachers
  • MELT findings on social tagging
    • Social tagging adds value for experienced indexers
    • Tags not yet used by teachers for searching for learning resources
    • Not a final conclusion - there is a need to reassess the effectiveness of tags for searching as improvements are made to how one can combine and display tags on the portal
  • LRE public portal
    • LRE public portal officially launched Dec 2008
    • A ‘re-branded’ version of the MELT portal
    • Over 130,000 resources/assets in May 2009 from 25 providers
    • Being promoted initially to 60,000 eTwinning schools
  • What is the LRE Vision?
    • LRE is a service for MoE driven by MoE and involves private sector partners
    • Aim is to improve use and reuse of educational content in schools
      • better technical interoperability between repositories
      • improve semantic interoperability of content
      • develop best practice in how to implement content-related standards
  • What is the LRE Vision?
    • It is NOT a centralised portal…
    • but a framework that supports semantic and technical interoperability of content repositories
    • Adds value to national content strategies
  • Why join the LRE?
    • T he most important Europe-wide (and potential global) player in e-learning content may become the European Schoolnet (EUN) through their European Learning Resource Exchange which is currently under development.
      • Open Educational Practices and Resources: OLCOS Roadmap 2012, January 2007
  • Learning Resource Exchange
    • An infrastructure for:
    • Federating applications/platforms that provide learning resources to schools (repositories, learning platforms, authoring environments)
    • Providing seamless access to K-12 resources to applications that consume these (portals, VLEs)
  • MoE LRE Partners
    • Initial LRE partners inc. partners in the CALIBRATE and MELT projects - 16 Ministries of Education in Europe :
      • Austria, Belgium (Flemish community), Region of Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden
      • plus Czech Republic repository April 2009 - 17 MoE
      • plus France and Portugal in ASPECT project - 2009 - 19 MoE
    • MoE LRE Working Group defining strategy
  • Why work with EUN?
    • “ We want to bridge the gap between community publishers and professional publishers.”
    • John Tuttle, Cambridge University Press
  • Content partner benefits
    • Reach a a global audience with your content
    • LOM-based application profile for schools
    • Multilingual thesaurus/vocabularies
    • Feedback on your resources - popularity, ratings, comments
    • Discover which of your resources ‘travel well’
    • Enrichment of your metadata - LRE social tagging
    • Automatic metadata generation
    • Automatic metadata translation
    • Expert support on semantic interoperability and standards for content exchange
  • LRE global alliances
    • There is a shared vision with other global players - OER Commons..GLOBE..
  • Some LRE Associate Partners
  • How to Join?
    • Send us an example of your metadata
    • One-to-one meetings to discover your requirements
    • Send staff to a LRE technical workshop
  • Flexible technical solutions
    • Connect a repository, portal or VLE to the federation
    • Let the LRE harvest your metadata using OAI-PMH
    • ‘ mass upload’ of your metadata - just complete an Excel spreadsheet
  • New solutions
    • LRE search from within a national portal already implemented (Scoilnet)
    LRE widget that can be integrated in other applications - eTwinning
  • ASPECT Sept 08 - Feb 2011
    • eContent plus Best Practice Network
    • € 4.6 million budget
    • 9 MoE - Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovenia
    • Commercial partners - Cambridge University Press, Icodeon, Siveco, Young Digital Planet, Vocabulary Management Group
    • Experts from all international standardisation bodies and consortia active in eLearning: CEN/ISSS, IMS, IEEE, ISO, ADL...
  • ASPECT Rationale
    • The standards organisations are inherently top-down and reactive. There is no other way for them to be. Inevitably they have to work on historic data. They have to tend to the restrictive rather than the enabling - even though some will argue, correctly, there are some fine borders. I think they are doomed to fail or if they don’t fail we are doomed.
    • Martin Owen, September 2007, Naace newsletter
  • ASPECT Aims
    • Assess standards and specifications through their implementation on a critical mass of educational content - plugfests and workshops
    • Develop best practice in terms of implementing those standards
    • Make recommendations on the combination of a number of standards to ensure more transparent interoperability
  • Scope & Structure
    • Metadata: IEEE LOM, Dublin Core
    • Vocabulary: XVD, VDEX, ZTHES, SKOS
    • Protocol: SQI, SPI, SRU/SRW, OAI-PMH
    • Query Language: CQL, PLQL, LRE-QL
    • Registry: CORDRA, ADL Registry
    Content discovery
  • Scope & Structure
    • Format: IMS Content Packaging, SCORM, IMS Common Cartridge, IMS QTI
    • Identifier: Handle System, DOI
    • Content access control: Creative Commons, IMS Common Cartridge, LRE access controls
    Content discovery Content use
  • Best Practices Content use Content discovery Best practices
  • LRE Service Centre
    • Registry for Learning Object Repositories
    • Vocabulary bank for education
    • Application profile registry
    • Automatic translation service for metadata
    • Compliance testing
    • Transformer service (turn metadata and vocabularies into another format)
    • Information on known interoperability issues
    • Learning Technology Standards Observatory
  • Further Information
    • [email_address]
    • d [email_address]
  • Discussion
    • Perceived benefits of specific content standards may depend upon
      • Unspoken assumptions by policy makers and teachers about what constitutes ‘good learning’ with ICT in Europe
      • Wider social perceptions of how publicly funded content should be used for commercial gain