2007 - Sharing Learning Objects in An Open Perspective - SLOOP Project Results

SLOOP: Sharing Learning Objects in an Open Perspective.
Papers submitted by partners, September 2007
PARTNERS
Italy
* ITSOS (Istituto Tecnico Statale Sperimentale ad Ordinamento Speciale) ‘Marie Curie’ di Cernusco sul
Naviglio (promoter)
* CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - Istituto per le Tecnologie Didattiche - Sezione di Palermo
* Formaper – Azienda Speciale della Camera di Commercio di Milano
* Centro METID – Metodologie e Tecnologie Innovative per la Didattica- Politecnico di Milano
* Scienter – Ricerca e Innovazione per la Formazione – Bologna
Ireland
* Cork College of Commerce
* DEIS, Department of Education - Cork Institute of Technology
Romania
*Universitatea “Dunarea de Jos” - Galati
Slovenia
* Univerza v Ljubljani - Naravoslovnotehni ‘ka fakulteta, Oddelek za kemijsko izobra’ evanje in
informatiko
Spain
* FUOC, Fundación Universitat Oberta de Catalunya - Barcelona
The SLOOP Project has been funded with support from the European Commission.
This booklet reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made
of the information contained therein.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................5
The sloop idea : Sharing free / open learning objects......................................................................................10
FreeLOms : A learning object management system..........................................................................................16
Learning object metadata (LOM) in SLOOP...................................................................................................32
Open source and the co - operative relationship..............................................................................................47
SLOOP: The attempt to progress the learning economy through an open source attitude...............................57
Sloop project impact on Dunarea De Jos university virtual community..........................................................70
E - learning in public administration................................................................................................................81
Learning environment and learning objects : A successful synergy.................................................................86
E - learning in chemistry : To use it or not to use it........................................................................................95
Learning how to create learning objects: An opportunity for the teaching community..................................113
Evaluation as an inherent process to promote and support continuous quality improvement and learning
amongst the involved parties..........................................................................................................................123
1
Introduction - Vincenza Guzzi
INTRODUCTION
Vincenza Guzzi (ITSOS Principal)
After two years of hard work we are glad to present the results of the SLOOP project and the ten
participating European Institution’s thoughts on eLearning. SLOOP – Sharing Learning Objects
in an Open Perspective – is a co-financed project developed under the Leonardo da Vinci
Programme. It is the fifth project developed by ITSOS "Marie Curie" in the eleven-year duration
of the Leonardo da Vinci programme and it is the fourth project related to “open learning” and
eLearning themes.
The term “open” is common to these projects. “Open”, in SOFIA (1995), referred to Open &
Distance Learning: the idea of openness/flexibility of a system focussed on personalised learning
paths, characterised by hard copy and CD ROM learning material. “Open”, in Sofi@net (1999),
dealt more with learning environments and on line collaborative learning of teachers. SOLE
(2001) analysed eLearning as a useful tool to make learning/teaching open and flexible and the
production of learning material which was able to exploit the potential of the web and was open t o
anyone.
SLOOP focuses on collaboration as the main way to develop “open” learning objects. That is,
learning objects that are freely usable and accessible, modifiable and technically transferable.
The SLOOP partnership
Nine partners coming from several European countries have taken part in the project with ITSOS:
Italy
• ITSOS (Istituto Tecnico Statale Sperimentale ad Ordinamento Speciale) “Marie Curie” di
Cernusco sul Naviglio (promoter)
• CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - Istituto per le Tecnologie Didattiche - Sezione
di Palermo
• Formaper – Azienda Speciale della Camera di Commercio di Milano
• CENTRO METID – Metodologie e Tecnologie Innovative per la Didattica)- Politecnico
di Milano
• Scienter – Ricerca e Innovazione per la Formazione – Bologna
•
Ireland
• Cork College of Commerce
• DEIS - Department of Education – Cork Institute of Technology
•
Romania
• University “Dunarea de Jos”, Galati
•
Slovenia
• University of Ljubljana - Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering
•
Spain
• FUOC, Fundación Universitat Oberta de Catalunya - Barcelona

SLOOP : Sharing Objects in an Open Perspective
Such partnerships have been formed before: DEIS, Scienter and ITSOS have collaborated in all the
projects above mentioned. Formaper, CCoC, University of Galati and of Ljubljana have been
partners with ITSOS in other projects. The “new” partners CNR, Metid and FUOC have been
invited to enter the projects because of their rich and specific know-how in the eLearning field.
PHASES and RESULTS
SLOOP is a two-year project whose development is shown in the diagram below:
Fig. 1 – The "Creative Commons- Attribution, Share Alike" licence
In phase 1 ITSOS, ITD-CNR and Centro Metid elaborated on a number of proposals,

which were later submitted to the other partners for discussion, concerning the
following themes:
• Model of Learning Object: partners agreed to adopt the SCORM standard and the LOM
IEEE standard for metadata.
• Characteristics of the environment used to develop and share Learning Objects: it was
decided to develop software allowing users to insert and search for any kind of LOs – from
simple files, jpg, gif, doc, PDF files, sets of web pages, and SCORM content packages up t o
entire courses. All available to download and modify using simplified procedures of
scormization. The environment has been called freeLOms, a free LO management
system;
• Copyleft licences for the LOs developed in the project: it was decided to have Creative
Commons, in particular Attribution-Share alike as point of reference;
• SLOOP Site and Intranet: partners agreed to use Moodle to develop an environment
containing the presentation of the project, discussion forums, courses and a private area
for the partners.

•
Phase 2 and 3 have been carried out in parallel and focussed on developing the following
products:
• the SLOOP web site, accessible at http:// www.sloopproject.eu;

• the freeLOms website, directly accessible from the site or at this address:
http://www.freeloms.org./
• a first set of Learning Objects. These were called “metaLOs”, as they explain what LOs
are like, how they are made SCORM compliant and how they can be used on different
platforms;
• a leaflet to illustrate and advertise the project.
Phase 4 had two main objectives: the delivery of courses for “developers/users of free/open LOs”
and the involvement of Communities of Practice. The courses were delivered to developers in
both English and Italian. These developers would later be in charge of developing LOs and
delivering “cascade courses”.
In Phase 5 the MetaLOs piloted in the course were revised and translated in all the partners’
languages: English, Italian, Romanian, Slovenian and Spanish. Then they were used in “cascade
courses” addressing teachers and interested people coming from both the partners’ institutions
and directly from the Internet. The cascade courses have had about 150 participants and have
been very important both to the pilot and evaluation of the products and to advertising the
project. The MetaLOs – translated into five languages - are freely accessible and usable, in a self-
learning mode, in the SLOOP Web Site.
In Phase 6 all partners were involved in developing Learning Objects, with the exception of CNR
whose task was to implement freeLOms and for Scienter who were in charge of evaluation
procedures. The LOs developed and uploaded in the freeLOms are of the following kinds:
• LOs dealing with pedagogical theories, pedagogical use of multimedia, how to develop
teaching material for eLearning, and how to plan and carry out mobility initiatives. These
LO’s were aimed at training teachers
• Subject-based LOs for students: maths, science, chemistry, English, ECDL, economics.
• Communities of Practice were involved both in the production of LOs and in their
evaluation.
Phase 7, still in progress. This phase is devoted to internal and external evaluation of the LOs
developed.
The last Phase, Phase 8, aims to complete the project valorisation through the dissemination of
the present book and the organisation of seminars in several countries.
About this book
This book represents SLOOP partners’ opinions on the results they got from the SLOOP project,
its impact on their own organisations and their points of view on the more general theme of
eLearning.
The first chapter, which stands as a framework in which the SLOOP project has developed, also
describes the guidelines that have determined all the actions and activities carried out.
The second chapter describes one of the main products developed: the FreeLOms tool, an
environment that allows communities of teachers to search for, to modify, re-use and share sets
of digital educational resources.

The third chapter provides the definition of the Learning Object Meta-data as they are used
within SLOOP. It provides an overview on the SCORM definition of Learning Object, focusing on
the Content Aggregation Model meta-data, and proposes an approach to define SCORM
compliant Learning Objects as it has been used in SLOOP.
The following several case-studies deal with various and different aspects of eLearning:
collaborative sharing and construction of knowledge and resources, development of SCORM
compliant learning Objects, integration of face-to-face and on line learning, the potential
represented by Communities of practice, eLearning as a potential in understanding and learning
difficult concepts, and much more!
The last chapter is structured in two main parts: the first of which presents a short description of
the evaluation framework and methodology employed in the project; and the second provides a
summary of the SLOOP project evaluation results achieved.
SLOOP follow up
The development of FreeLOms, filling it with learning objects, training teachers to develop LOs
according to standards, spreading the idea of free/open Los, is only the first step. Now we need t o
convince thousands of teachers to share what they have been developing for years and the
institutions and policy makers, who have already financed and promoted the production of
learning objects and on line courses, to give up the concept of copyright "all rights reserved”, that
often mark the learning material – maybe only out of habit and not for a real economic interest.
We should try to convince such authorities/policy makers to find ways to make all the didactic
material developed over the years “open” and available and as well as trying to create synergies
with projects and initiatives sharing the SLOOP project ideas and efforts.
The SLOOP project, taking the challenge of building up the “knowledge society”, is meant to be a
project that has contributed to achieve the objectives stated in the Lisbon Agenda as far as
eLearning is concerned.
Acknowledgements
I, as the promoter of the SLOOP project, wish to thank all the partners' organisations and all
their people that have greatly contributed to the success of the project: Albert, Alberto,
Alessandra, Alessandro, Carlo, Carmen, Danica, Daniela, Darragh, Davide, Enzo, Francesca,
Gearoid, Gina, Giovanni, Ian, Iulian, Kate, Lisa, Lourdes, Lucian, Lucio, Luigi, Luisa, Manuel,
Mara, Marco, Maria, Marilena, Mario, Matteo, Metka, Michela, Monica, Nada, Pedro, Ray,
Severina, Simona, Shane, Steluta, Valeria, Vesna, Zinica. A particular thank you to Pierfranco, the
co-ordinator of the project whose commitment and efforts have greatly contributed to its success.
I am also grateful to all the people that have registered themselves in our site, that have taken
part in the courses and actively contributed to discussion forums and have made their didactic
material at disposal in the freeLOms.
Acknowledgements are due to all those that have helped us organise and run valorisation
initiatives: the magazine called RAS, Rassegna Autonomia Scolastica,
www.nuovaautonomiascolastica.com, the Evening Echo of Cork and the Centro
Documentazione e Risorse per Progetti Europei of IRRE Lombardia,
old.irrelombardia.it/dimensioneuropea. We owe many thanks to the organisers of the many
seminars and meetings where the SLOOP project has been presented: Moodlemoot 2005, 2006
and 2007, Congress SIe-L 2005, 2006 e 2007, Expo eLearning 2005, Didamatica 2006 e 2007,
WSEAS - Engineering Education 2006 (EE'06), TEL 06, QUeL, Expo del Capitale Umano,

dell'Innovazione, dell'Internazionalizzazione 2006, "E-Learning. Esperienze e prospettive future:

quali applicazioni?" (Bressanone, June 2007), Congress AICA 2007.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Direzione Scolastica of Lombardia which has
asked us to present the SLOOP project in the Seminar entitled "Formare e informare: comunicare
la formazione" and to Direzione Scolastica of Sardinia which has organised a meeting with
Sardinian teachers in Cagliari. We are also grateful to Direzione Scolastica of Sicily which is
helping us organise the conclusive meeting in Palermo. Our gratitude is also due to Direzione
Generale degli Affari Internazionali of Ministry of Education for its support end
encouragement.
The SLOOP partners gratefully acknowledge the support that ISFOL, Leonardo da Vinci national
Agency, has provided since the very beginning of the project; a particular thank to our tutor
Francesca Trani, that has always helped us to make the project go smoothly.
Finally, my gratitude is due to European Commission and to Directorate-General for Education

and Culture that has made the SLOOP project possible.

THE SLOOP IDEA: SHARING FREE/OPEN LEARNING OBJECTS

Pierfranco Ravotto (ITSOS "Marie Curie"), Giovanni Fulantelli (ITD-CNR)
Abstract
The SLOOP project places itself within the progressive movement promoting collaborative
sharing and construction of knowledge and resources. Such resources, which represent the focus of
the project, are called Learning Objects, better defined as free/open LOs, that on one hand meet
the SCORM and LOM IEEE standards, and on the other have been revised and re-defined in an
"open" view.
While the SLOOP project is finishing, new suggestions have emerged and recommend a further
development: in line with Web 2.0 it is worth thinking of a SLOOP 2.0, addressing the new
generation of students, the so-called “digital natives”, that may become involved in the
production and sharing of open LOs.
Sharing Knowledge
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you
and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea
and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas."
George Bernard Shaw
Two different tendencies lock horns: “to open” or “to close”? Shall we facilitate and encourage
access to resources – to land, to water, to medicine, to information, to ideas? Or shall we limit it
to protect legitimate interests, ownership rights, patents, the right to privacy and the ownership
of an idea?
It is an old story that acquires new and different aspects in the digital and globalised world.
Let’s think of the patent field: there are many famous cases such as that of the Indian
government versus the RiceTec company which patented, through the US Patents Office, Basmati
rice; or the case of the multinational pharmaceutical companies against the South African
government for selling of anti-AIDS medication below cost. Recently, in order to denounce how
the industrial and technological management of patents do not hold water, a young Australian
lawyer, John Keogh, has announced that he has registered a patent for a circular transportation
facilitation device: the wheel!
Let’s think, on the contrary, of the possibility that anyone, who has a computer and internet
access, can make gigabytes of music, texts, films and programmes available to everyone without
geographical, time and economic constraints apart from connection costs. Not to mention the
possibility that everyone has to publish their own ideas, their own photographs, their own films
and make them available to everyone.
In recent years the move to unobstructed access in the software industry has achieved a relevant
success. The free/opensource software model – free use, distribution and modification thanks t o
the availability of the source code – has been spreading and has already got a significant slice of
the market showing that an “open” strategy can produce economic results.
10
The sloop idea : Sharing free / open learning objects
The fact that the software is free/open is not simply a matter of rights. Linux is different t o
Windows not only in freedom to use, distribute and change but also in how it was developed. Linux
was not created, as a cathedral, on the basis of a centralised project but according to a model that
looks like a large and bewildering bazaar accompanied with the motto: "release early and often,
delegate everything you can, be open to the point of promiscuity". (Raymond, 1998).
This open software has proved to be reliable, often more reliable than proprietary software. A
proof of this is the opensource software Apache, which is the most popular web server, with over
70% share in the field of web servers. The motivation for openness and collaboration – people
use it, people adapt it, people fix bugs – has been shown to be correct.
However, combined with the motivation for efficiency it is worth remembering that the main
initial propelling force to develop free software is freedom: software is part of knowledge and
knowledge is a right that cannot be limited.
This idea has rapidly crossed over the software industry. Let’s mention two symbolic cases
concerning Open Content.
In 2002, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology launched the MIT OpenCourseWare which
would allow all their course materials available on the Web under a copyleft licence: Creative
Commons Attribution, No-commercial, Share alike (you are free to use, distribute, change for non
commercial use on the condition that the original author is credited and all derived material be
used under the same licence).
A year before this, Wikipedia was born. This used wiki software allowing people to collaborate in
the creation of a free encyclopaedia - adding, deleting and modifying the content. This is different
from the MIT project that makes material that has already been produced available. Wikipedia
adopts and transfers the “bazaar” model of Linux to the production of content, fostering quality
content by everyone’s “responsible” participation.
Wikipedia is another successful example. Just 6 years after it was created, Wikipedia exists in 100
languages and has 5,300,000 articles 1,833,620 of which are in English. 75,000 people contribute
actively to improve and further develop it. In 2005 a survey carried out on the behalf of Nature
magazine has compared the mistakes and inaccuracies present in Wikipedia with the ones in the
prestigious Encyclopaedia Britannica and the conclusion was that both encyclopedias contain
mistakes in the same way. (Nature 2005).
That was the background in 2005 when the SLOOP project was presented under the Leonardo Da
Vinci Programme. Models for a collaborative production of software and learning content were
being developed and the open/free model seemed to be the answer to the problem that many of
the SLOOP partners had encountered in their experiences with e-learning.
The critical point of eLearning: the learning material
The organisations promoting the SLOOP Project have been active for many years in the e-
learning field starting from their own specific mission: face-to-face learning, distance learning and
pedagogical research.
During their activities and in previous European projects these organisations had come to the
following conclusions:
• When compared to traditional distance training, e-learning, in the sense of on-line

training, does not only facilitate access to learning material and communication between
learners and tutors, it also allows the creation of a work environment where the trainee
can interact with the peer group and with the teacher/tutor eliminating feelings of
isolation and increasing the value of collaboration.
11
• E-learning can be successfully integrated into face-to-face training. It allows material to be

supplied to students for home study/work and to increase the possibility of interaction
with teachers and between learners outside of the school timetable and outside of the
school walls thanks to the virtual environment.
• Producing good on-line didactic material requires both the capacity to transfer good
teaching practises from face-to-face training to on-line training (Ó Súilleabháin 2003) and
the ability to exploit IT potential in order to develop interactive material allowing
learning “by discovery” and “by playing” (Berengo 2003).
Teaching material has been recognised as a critical point: producing different types of teaching
material specifically designed for the Internet - interactive lessons using multi-media, simulations
and tests - is very time consuming and an onerous task. The required resources for this are more
than those available at most schools and universities (Ravotto 2003).
Why not share learning objects that are already available on the teachers and students hard disks
(Wiley 2000)?
Why not share the teaching material that has been produced in the last 10 years thanks to the
efforts of one individual teacher or with resources made available from schools or from local,
national or European Authorities?
From our experience and from one of the open source/open content movement, we have deduced
that the following 4 elements are necessary:
• A community which is interested in sharing resources,

• The will to guarantee freedom to use, distribute or modify material,
• The will to make the material interoperable - transportable from one environment t o
another - and changeable,
• An environment in which to share such resources.
The first necessity was met: more and more people were getting interested in sharing resources. As
for the second and the third necessities it was proved that the habit of using a copyright such as
“all rights reserved” on materials prevents re-usability and that in the production of material little
attention was drawn to interoperability and modifiability.
Furthermore, there was no environment which had the necessary characteristics to promote the
sharing of learning objects and their production in a collaborative way.
Open/free Learning Object
One of the first choices we had to make at the beginning of the project was to choose a digital
content model which would facilitate the sharing of teaching material produced as mentioned in
the previous paragraph. By critically observing what was happening in the Web, we identified two
possible ways to proceed with our project. The first was based on Wiki and the idea of producing
“open” content which could be modified by any user in a collaborative way. The second was based
on Learning Objects (LO) and on a more formal approach to creating teaching material.
There were several reasons to choose the first way: the success of Wikipedia and the creation of
several initiatives based on this model; the continuing debate on the pedagogical effectiveness of a
model based on Learning Objects, etc. Many of the participants in SLOOP had an inclination t o
Wiki and a research group from the Italian National Research Council - Institute for Educational
Technologies - a partner in the SLOOP project, had already produced collaborative teaching
material using Wikipedia. (Taibi et al., 2006).
Eventually the Learning Object model was chosen on the basis of the following reasons:
12
• The standards developed for Learning Objects guarantee accessibility, reusability and
interoperability, which are central concepts in the SLOOP project.
• An approach based on LOs does not limit the digital formats used to develop content, this
is different to Wiki where there are some limitations; a solution which does not preclude
the possibility to transform any digital content into didactic material fits better with the
fundamental ideas of the SLOOP project, i.e. the sharing of digital content which exists
already on thousands of computers all over the world. Let’s think for example of the
many changes needed to adapt a power-point presentation to the wiki environment, while
a power point presentation can easily fit in to the LO model and maintain its main
characteristics.
• the methods used to search for didactic resources based on the wiki model, up until
recently, are usually based on search on free text. This places considerable limitations on
the identification of didactic resources made up of more wiki pages with hyper textual
links. The LO model overcomes this problem by an ad hoc standard which allows all the
resources to be described in a formal way (for example IEEE LOM);
• finally compliance with the SCORM standard (ADL 2004), which is widespread in the LO
world, has become the norm in Italy among organisations which supply distance learning
at a university level.
Nevertheless, we have also taken into account criticisms that have put the pedagogical value of
LOs often considered valid only for corporate education in doubt. The main criticisms are as
follows:
• the difficulty to guarantee re-usability, one of the main advantages of this model,
• the technical difficulties connected to standards in the production of LOs .
These criticisms were taken on board and a concept of a LO which would go beyond the
limitations described was researched. The conclusion reached was that an efficient model needed a
change to the Learning Object model itself. The definition of the concept of Open Learning
Object (OpenLO) (Fulantelli et al., 2007) was eventually developed:
Starting from Wiley’s definition of learning object (Wiley 2000), we define open learning object
as “any open digital resource that can be reused to support learning”. In this definition the term
open indicates open content, namely content developed in open format (e.g. Open Document) or
content in a closed format whose source files are also available (e.g. Adobe Flash). In addition it
refers to open licenses (e.g. Creative Commons) thus allowing users to freely modify and reuse
learning objects.
The implementation of this model needed specific instruments that could simplify the technical
difficulties connected to the creation and sharing of Open learning objects. The solution has been
the creation of FreeLOms - Free Learning Object Management System - an environment t o
share and collaboratively manage open learning objects. Such an environment, developed by CNR,
allows the implementation of the Open LO model.
SLOOP Version 2.0
As we write this article (June 2007) the SLOOP project is coming to an end.
The project site - www.sloopproject.eu - has become an important meeting point, especially for
the partners’ countries, but there are also people registered from all over the world, from Estonia
to Singapore, from Mexico to Qatar.
If you are looking in freeLOms for teaching material, then you will find many (often high quality)
examples. This is especially true for teachers who are training on matters connected to e-learning
and LOs. There is also several subject-based material examples for students: from ECDL t o
mathematics, from chemistry to English as a foreign language. Many of these LOs have been
13
developed during the project by the SLOOP partners, but now other people have begun to upload
their LOs.
There are many LOs in Italian but also in English, in Spanish, Romanian and Slovenian. There are
simple assets – photographs, designs,... - and small LOs but also more complex ones. Most of
them are SCORM-compliant learning objects which can be used on any SCORM-compliant LMS.
You can find also entire courses ready to be imported to Moodle platforms.
As we expected since the very beginning, the conditions exist to continue the project and t o
develop it further once the period of European finance has ended.
What has been happening around us in the meantime? There has been a lot of talk about Web 2.0
and folksonomy.
Two meaningful terms, the first launched by Tim O’Reilly and the second by Thomas Vandar
Wal, both referring to the more active role people have been playing on the web.
Folksonomy (Wander Wal 2007) is a collaborative classification system using key words, called
tags, freely chosen by the users themselves. While a taxonomy – from the Greek taxis - organises
resources according to a pre-defined framework, the organisation of a folksonomy is made by folk,
by the people who determine it on the basis of their interests, culture, vision of the world..
The origin of such social bookmarking is del.icio.us. This site allows the users to save the
addresses of their favourite sites, to label them and share them with all the other users.
It is the same in Flickr: photographs can be shared and sorted and they can be researched using
tags. This is also true with YouTube for videos.
These sites belong to Web 2.0: "they have embraced the power of the web to harness collective
intelligence" (O'Reilly 2005). They exist because of people’s collaboration. Amazon involves the
users in book reviews, Wikipedia invites users to become authors, eBay asks for comments on
the reliability of sellers and buyers and SourceForge.net promotes opensource projects.
SLOOP and freeLOms are part of this idea of the web as a space in which people interact,
collaborate and exchange ideas to build up new knowledge. This is the original idea of SLOOP and
it is what we are currently putting into practice.
But we intend to take it a step further. In order to be able to harness the collective intelligence of
all teachers we need more simplified or more user friendly instruments.
At the moment the SLOOP freeLOms is a tool mainly addressing teachers. A future development
- SLOOP 2.0 and freeLOms 2.0 – could directly involve young people, the digital natives
(Prensky, 2001).
Perhaps it is a dream that a student, instead of tagging only photos and videos and downloading
music, would tag didactic resources adding her/his personal tag to those of the teacher; or that a
student would access resources not because of the teacher’s instructions but because other students
have tagged them as useful.
Is this just a dream? Or could it be the future?
References
ADL, Advanced Distributed Learning (2004), SCORM 2004 3rd Edition, Content Aggregation
Model (CAM), Available at http://www.adlnet.gov/downloads/DownloadPage.aspx?ID=237 (viewed
10 May 2007).
14
Berengo Francesca (2003) Progettazione e sviluppo di tre elementi di matematica, Progettare

materiali didattici per la formazione in rete – Contributi dell'ITSOS al progetto BiTE, ITSOS
(http://bbs.tes.mi.it/biteweb2/fascicolo_bite.pdf viewed 14 June 2007)
Fulantelli Giovanni, Gentile Manuel, Taibi Davide & Allegra Mario (2007) Open Learning
Object: una nuova prospettiva per un utilizzo efficace delle risorse didattiche digitali in Proc. of
the Didamatica 2007 Conference, Cesena (Italy), May 10-12
Nature – International Weekly Journal of Science
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
O'Reilly Tim (2005) What Is Web 2.0 - Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software,
http://oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html (viewed 14 June
2007)
Ó Súilleabháin Gearoid (2003) Teaching difficult concepts online, Bridging the gap from the face-
to-face to the e-learning environment, BiTE Project Conference Papers, DEIS
Prensky Mark (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants
http://www.twitchspeed.com/site/Prensky%20-
%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.htm (viewed 7 July 2007)
Ravotto Pierfranco (2003) Developing e-learning lessons, Bridging the gap from the face-to-face
to the e-learning environment, BiTE Project Conference Papers, DEIS
(http://bbs.tes.mi.it/pfr/English/publications/bite/bite.html viewed 14 June 2007)
Raymond Eric Steven (1998) The Cathedral and the Bazaar
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ (viewed 14 June 2007)
Taibi Davide, Gentile Manuel, Seta luciano & fulantelli giovanni (2006) The Wiki As A Tool For
Supporting Collaborative Learning: An Experience At University , in Proc. of the 3rd IADAT
International Conference on Education, Barcelona (Spain), July 12-14
Vander Wal Thomas (2007) Folksonomy Coinage and Definition,
http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html (viewed 13 May 2007)
Wiley David (2000) When Worlds Collide. The intersection of constructivism, learning objects,
and peer-to-peer networking technologies, v1.3, 2000, http://reusability.org/collision.pdf (viewed
29 April 2007)
Authors
Ing. Pierfranco Ravotto Dott. Giovanni Fulantelli

ITSOS "Marie Curie" CNR-ITD
Via Masaccio 4, 20063 Cernusco sul Naviglio Via Ugo La Malfa 153, 90146 Palermo
pfr@tes.mi.it giovanni.fulantelli@itd.cnr.it
15
FREELOMS: A LEARNING OBJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Giovanni Fulantelli, Mario Allegra, Manuel Gentile, Davide Taibi
Italian National Research Council – Institute for Educational Technologies, Palermo
Our heritage and ideals, our codes and standards - the things we live by
and teach our children - are preserved or diminished by how freely we
exchange ideas and feelings
Walt Disney
Abstract
The main objective of FreeLOms (www.freeloms.org) is to provide a community of teachers with

an on-line platform aimed at supporting them in searching for, modifying, reusing and sharing sets
of digital educational resources by hiding technical aspects and by guaranteeing compatibility with
standards in a transparent way. FreeLOms allows teachers to concentrate on the content to be
developed as a learning object. FreeLOms also reflects the philosophy behind the SLOOP project
by implementing the idea that not only can a community of practice freely develop the software,
but also a community of teachers and educational experts can develop the educational digital
contents. This vision is enforced by the adaptation of a new model of learning object, called
“Open Learning Objects” (OpenLOs). FreeLOms is not the first tool to develop or store learning
objects; but is the implementation of a new category of software tools that we call Learning
Object Management Systems.
Introduction
In the last few years, we have witnessed an increasing interest among teachers in the application
of Information and Communication technologies in educational settings, and a corresponding
increase in teachers’ ability to use these technologies. Nevertheless, the production and sharing of
digital content, according to the Learning Object approach at school and university, is still at an
embryonic stage and practised by a limited number of teachers and professors.
In fact, despite the potential benefits of LOs in education (e.g. accessibility, reusability,
interoperability), it is necessary to consider the doubts raised by different authors about the lack of
pedagogical aspects in the production of LOs (S. Nurmi, T . Jaakkola, 2006), (P.E. Parrish, 2004). For
example: there are no references to the educational context or to the didactic process in which
the learning objects can be used (R. Butson, 2003); moreover, the model of learning resources
currently in use does not permit the reuse of learning resources in a constructivist approach
(J.Piaget, 1976). (J.D. Novak. 2002); finally, the use of technical standards such as SCORM (ADL,
2006) and IEEE LOM (IEEE 1484.12.1, 2002), on the one hand facilitates the interoperability of
learning resources, but on the other, complicates the task of developing learning objects for the
teacher.
Transforming the potential of LOs into pedagogically beneficial LOs is therefore one of the
greatest challenges faced by educators and technicians today. Bearing this in mind, we believe that
it is necessary to work towards two complementary goals: first of all, it is necessary to develop
new integrated tools to produce LOs that can overcome the limitations of the tools currently
16
FreeLOms : A learning object management system
available and hide the technical aspects of learning objects; but also, to reconsider the concept and
role of LOs in the learning processes, with particular focus on the reusability issue, which
represents the potential of LOs that has so far failed to meet the expectations of school operators
(B. Collis, A. Strijker 2004). In particular, we need to rethink the current model of LOs, moving to a
new model that we call Open Learning Objects (OpenLOs) (G. Fulantelli, M. Gentile, D. Taibi &
M. Allegra 2007).
OpenLOs: towards an open model for learning objects
Starting from Wiley’s definition of a learning object (D. Wiley 2007) we define an open learning
object as “any open digital resource that can be reused to support learning”. By this definition the
term “open” indicates “open content”, namely content developed in open format (e.g. Open
Document) or content in closed format whose source files are also available (e.g. Adobe Flash). In
addition it refers to open licenses (e.g. Creative Commons), allowing users to freely modify and
reuse learning objects.
In fact, our vision of reusability is not simply based on combining LOs but goes beyond this
towards a pedagogical concept of reusability in which a LO can evolve to meet specific
educational requirements. The OpenLO model allows users to edit LOs created by different
authors, and customize the LOs according to their own pedagogical needs. In addition,
communities of educational professionals can work on the same LO and contribute to its
collaborative evolution at content level. Finally, the replication of this process of adaptation of
LOs at content level over time is a mechanism that can provide pedagogical sustainability of LOs.
In the implementation of the OpenLO model, and in the definition of educational methodologies
based on this model, it is necessary to focus on three main aspects.
Firstly, we need to consider the life cycle of Learning Objects and consequently the methodologies
for producing these resources. In fact, the theoretical comparison of the lifecycle of an LO with
the lifecycle of an OpenLO demonstrates that the latter never reaches obsolescence, since an
OpenLO in its mature stage could undergo several phases of elaboration, thus reducing the risks of
obsolescence and overcoming the limitations of a closed LO.
Fig. 1 - Comparison of the evolving life cycles of an LO and an OpenLO
17
The second important aspect is that the OpenLO model forces one to reconsider the role and
opportunities offered by the use of LO metadata as dynamic information that evolves in parallel
with the life of the learning object. More and more often metadata is not appreciated except for
its capability to improve searching for learning objects. In the OpenLO model, metadata assumes
a key role as an essential tool in supporting the evolution of learning resources. The IEEE
learning technology standard committee assigned this role to metadata in the definition of the
IEEE Lom Specification. According to this standard, the LifeCycle and MetaMetadata sections
can be used to guide the evolution of the resource, specifying motivations and information
regarding this evolution.
Metadata, from this point of view, acts as a descriptor of the evolving process of the resources.
These considerations reveal the need for new tools which can treat metadata not only as static
data but as information that is in constant evolution, thus effectively supporting the development
of educational resources.
Finally, we need to move from the current vision of specialized tools, each supporting the
teachers during a different phase of the lifecycle of an LO, to innovative integrated tools that can
simplify the management of LOs throughout their lifecycles, as we describe in the next section.
From traditional LO tools to integrated Learning Object Management Systems
As highlighted in the introduction of this chapter, in order to support teachers in designing and
developing their LOs, they should not be forced to learn too many new technological terms and
sophisticated programs. Rather, we should offer them appropriate tools that can hide the
technical aspects of learning objects, and allow teachers to concentrate on the content to be
developed as an LO. These tools should guarantee compatibility with standards in a transparent
way.
Despite this, teachers wishing to operate with LOs in their educational processes have to learn
several different tools to manage LOs at different identifiable phases during their lifecycle.
According to the overview provided by Report of the discussion on Free and Open Source Software
(FOSS) for Open Educational Resources in October 2006 (FOSS 2006), the tools available to manage
the development of LOs can be divided into: authoring tools, tools to implement learning
technology standards, learning object repositories, learning management systems and collaborative
environments for sharing LOs. These tools are used respectively in the phases of production,
description in conformity to standards, searching, fruition and sharing of LOs.
This represents an important obstacle for teachers adopting the LO paradigm, but it can be
overcome by means of tools that integrate most of the functionalities exhibited by the many
tools listed above.
In addition to the problems caused by the plurality of tools used to manage LOs, there is a second
fundamental reason to focus on the integration of tools that can support teachers in the
management of LOs: the current tools introduced previously are not suitable for managing the
evolution of LOs and controlling the dynamics introduced by the new OpenLO model.
For this reason it is essential to design a new type of environment which can manage LOs during
the entire lifecycle of the LO, starting from its creation, followed by its development and its
sharing. This kind of platform that we call the Learning Object Management System (LOMS)
must have innovative features to:
1. support “versioning mechanisms” for LOs, in both metadata and content;
2. provide an environment for sharing resources and tools to support collaborative work;
18
3. support e-learning standards to ensure interoperability between learning environments;
4. permit the development of learning resources following an open license (e.g. creative
commons) in order to allow for their editing and effective reuse.
Following this, we can highlight the main distinguishing marks of a LOMS compared to each
category of the current tools used to handle learning objects.
As far as authoring tools are concerned, we can choose among different current tools to design and
edit a learning resource, since the typologies of didactic content can be very different, e.g. textual
content, images, videos and materials produced in an open or proprietary format.
The idea of setting up a system that allows users to edit any digital format in a simple and
inexpensive manner appears to be an over ambitious hypothesis For this reason a LOMS should
not be considered as an authoring tool; rather, a LOMS should provide functionalities that allow
the management of any kind of digital resources. For example a LOMS should provide easy access
to the digital resources (in any format) stored into a repository and through specific mechanisms,
to manage the safe download of resources by users who will modify them by using the appropriate
authoring tools. These mechanisms should guarantee that a resource is blocked (nobody else can
modify it) until the user who originally downloaded it stores the new LO version back into the
LOMS. The combination of this functionality with the versioning of the resources would provide
the type of solution that allows users to evolve the learning resources through an extremely user
friendly mechanism.
With respect to the current tools for supporting the management of learning technology
standards, a LOMS proposes an innovative and different use of the standards in order to improve
their function and to promote their employment in more effective and efficient ways, even in the
light of the new OpenLO model.
In particular, current tools are used only by expert users that have the appropriate technical
background to manage standards correctly; whereas, a LOMS has to simplify the use of these
standards by providing users with tools to organize and re-organize contents, concealing the
technical aspects and simplifying their organization. Moreover, a LOMS must provide a
transparent and, when possible, automatic mechanism for creating and modifying the dynamic
information of the OpenLO metadata during the whole process of LO production.
Learning Object Repositories aim to facilitate the finding of LOs and overcoming the limitations
of a generic search engine due to the lack of accuracy of the results.
Compared to the most popular repositories such as Merlot (R. Cafolla. 2006), that gathers the
references of learning resources, a LOMS must store the learning resources that allow users t o
search learning resources by content and not only through metadata. In addition, unlike systems
such as Careo or Connexions (G. Henry, 2004) that can manage only html contents, a LOMS
should not impose a limit to the typologies of didactic content to manage; in fact, an analysis of
the main definitions adopted in literature for the term “Learning Object” reveals that any digital
content used in a learning context may be considered as a Learning Object.
Learning Management Systems play a key role in the delivery phase of LOs, as they provide
student access to the courses. Generally, the different tools involved in the LO lifecycle are not
integrated in Learning Management Systems. In fact, the learning resources delivery and deploy
phases are considered as the final phases in the production of LOs, or they are considered
separately from the production stage. However, if the learning resources are considered as
evolving objects, according to the new OpenLO model, we have to reconsider the mechanisms of
integration between LMSs and the other tools.
Finally, collaborative environments for sharing LOs are a more recent development and provide
teachers with specific tools to support resource sharing and collaborative work. Considering the
best practices in the collaborative construction of learning resources and taking into account that
19
the typologies of didactic content can be very different, a LOMS must provide tools to support
collaborative activities during the whole lifecycle of the LO.
For this reason a LOMS should provide a private space in which users can organize the resources
needed for the production of LOs, and a public workspace in which the LOs can be shared; a forum
associated with each resource could encourage interaction and collaboration between users for the
evolution of the resource. Moreover, an RSS channel could be related to a resource in order t o
communicate updates to subscribers.
Fig. 2 - FreeLOms home page
The FreeLOms
In this section we present FreeLOms (http://www.freeloms.org – Fig.), the Learning Object

Management System produced in the framework of the SLOOP Project, a LOMS aimed at
managing learning objects according to the OpenLO model presented in this chapter.
The main objective of FreeLOms is to provide a community of teachers with an on-line platform
to share and collaboratively produce learning resources: new learning objects can be developed
from the evolution of LOs already stored into the platform. FreeLOms is inspired by the
philosophy behind the Open and Free Source Movement, and implements the idea that not only
can a community of practice freely develop the software, but also a community of teachers and
educational experts could develop the educational digital contents. This vision is enforced by the
adaptation of the new OpenLO model.
FreeLOms includes functionalities for:
• uploading digital educational resources into a repository (LOs in SCORM terminology are
also known as: Assets, SCOs and Content Aggregations);
20
• editing LO Metadata (IEEE Standard for Learning Object Metadata 1484.12.1, IEEE
2002); editing of metadata can occur at any stage in the LO lifecycle, and not only when
it is uploaded into the platform (Fig. );
• searching for LOs shared by the users. Specialized and personalized searches can also be
defined (these features meet the needs of authors who usually apply the same search
criteria, e.g. to search some specific topics for their discipline);
• managing existing LOs in SCORM vision, by allowing users to edit Assets, SCOs and
Content Aggregations (CAs);
• creating Content Aggregations by using the resources available in the repository (Fig. );
• managing the changes made to the didactic content through versioning and differencing,
both at metadata and content levels (more precisely, these features will make it possible t o
handle the contributions supplied by each user on the same LO, thus guaranteeing the
“collaborative evolution” of LOs);
• allowing end users to access the repository as though they were accessing a shared drive
through CIFS;
• transforming digital developed in technical formats unsuitable for learning platforms, into
contents compliant with the SCORM standards;
• communicating asynchronously with other users in order to support group processes (fig.
5); this reflects the typical functionalities available in a Computer Supported Collaborative
Work system, providing an efficient environment for the collaborative management of
didactic resources.
Amongst these functionalities, we highlight the ones that come out to be more significant for the
management of the LOs.
Fig. 3 - Metadata Editor
21
Regarding the editing of metadata, FreeLOms simplifies the phase of describing LOs in different
ways. Firstly, if a document contains a basic metadata description such as author, title, keywords
(as in Microsoft documents for example), FreeLOms automatically imports them when the
document is uploaded. Secondly, it is known that filling in metadata according to the IEEE LOM
standard is a very tedious task, since the standard has nine categories of metadata, and each of
them includes a number of fields. FreeLOms adopts the same standard, but it oversees three
metadata levels in order to facilitate the metadata description: at the first level, we find the most
important fields such as title, author, description, keywords and other LO technical features that
can be automatically extracted by the system such as file size, file type, identifier and so on. The
second and third levels contain more specific metadata fields to more specifically describe the LO.
In FreeLOms only the first level is mandatory; in this way users can describe LOs at an
appropriate level of granularity.
Another important feature of FreeLOms is the availability of metadata templates that can be used
by teachers to avoid reinserting the same metadata description of LOs. For example an English
teacher that often uploads similar LOs (e.g. first-grade level grammar exercises) can define a
template specifying the author, subject, learning type fields, and reuse this template whenever he/
she uploads similar LOs.
Finally, compared to other software tools used to describe LOs through metadata (e.g. Reload),
FreeLOms allows users to describe LOs collaboratively.
FreeLOms supports teachers also in defining the structure of a LO, an operation which is
necessary to deliver LOs through different LMSs. In particular, FreeLOms allows users to define
the structure of learning objects without using technical terms. In such a way, FreeLOms hides the
technical complications of using the SCORM standard in the definition of content aggregations.
Fig. 4 - FreeLOms content aggregation
Another important feature of FreeLOms is the use of asynchronous communication tools t o

support collaborative evolution of LOs. Each LO has a forum associated with it, so teachers can
discuss any issues on the evolution of the resource.
22
Fig. 5 - A forum on FreeLOms
In order to create a complete environment for managing, sharing and even using learning objects,
we have developed a FreeLOms module that combines the learning objects repository features of
FreeLOms with the Learning Management System features of Moodle (M. Dougiamas and P.C.
T aylor., 2003). This module has been developed modifying the SCORM module used by Moodle in
order to provide direct access to the learning objects stored within FreeLOms (Fig.). The choice of
Moodle as the LMS to be integrated with FreeLOms has been directed by the following
considerations: they share a similar approach to e-learning policies, since both are based on
communities of practice and both are directed toward the collaborative approach to knowledge
sharing; finally, both projects are based on the Open Source developing model.
Fig.6 - FreeLOms and Moodle integration
23
FreeLOms use scenario
A typical scenario in the e-learning world is the following: a teacher wishes to create some digital
educational content to be published in a SCORM-compliant Learning Management System, so that
he/ she can trace students’ work through the educational content. The teacher already owns some
PowerPoint (PPT) presentations in his computer that he/ she has been using for his traditional
lectures for a long time. The teacher does not wish to create a new SCORM-compliant
presentation from scratch, since what he/ she wants is already available in the PPT presentations.
What is needed is something that can transform PPT presentations into SCORM-compliant
content.
This scenario is typical of universities and colleges, where new on-line courses are activated and
professors are involved in them. It is also typical in many high-schools, since more and more
teachers are involved in blended e-learning experiences.
According to the traditional approach to the production of LOs the teacher should:
• Transform the PPT slides into a format appropriate for scormization, such as html;
• Include, in each page, all the technical details that make the page traceable in a SCORM-
compliant LMS (e.g., Javascripts);
• Include the pages into a Content Package (CP), and to be careful to include them in the
right presentation order;
• Describe the pages and/or the single pages through metadata;
• Upload the created CP into the LMS.
As told in section 3, almost each of these operations requires a different tool.
Fig. 7 - Transforming a PPT presentation into a SCORM-compliant learning object with a single click
24
The situation is completely different when using a LOMS such as FreeLOms. All the operations
can be performed in a straightforward way using a single tool. The teacher can:
• Upload a PPT presentation into the FreeLOms;

• Transform the PPT into a SCORM Content Package by clicking on a specific button
which automatically enriches the PPT with all the appropriate technical details;
• Automatically create a CP that includes a default organization of the slides, which reflects
the original sequence of the slides in the PPT presentation. Nevertheless, the teacher can
optionally modify the default organization or add new ones;
Once the PPT presentation has been transformed into a CP, it can be immediately uploaded into a
LMS and traced according to the SCORM mechanisms.
By using FreeLOms, the teacher could also decide to associate metadata (IEEE LOM) to the CP or
to each slide included in the original PPT presentation. In addition, the teacher could decide t o
edit the content of the CP (by editing each single slide); finally, a group of teachers could even
cooperate to modify the LO generated by the PPT presentation.
In order to further simplify the sequence of operations described above, FreeLOms includes also a
mechanism that integrates the first two operations, so that the PPT presentation can be
transformed into a SCORM-compliant CP, ready to be uploaded into a LMS, by a single-click
operation (Fig. ).
FreeLOms implementation
The implementation of FreeLOms would require a tremendous effort if the design were not based
on standard specifications which improve the quality of the system to be developed. For this
reason, we have enhanced and customized the Alfresco content management system (AA.VV.
2005).
In compliance with the vision of the Sloop project, Alfresco is an open source platform based on
open standards; in fact, the Alfresco repository is compliant with the Content Repository API for
Java™ Technology Specification (JSR 170) (R. T . Fielding) while the Alfresco Web Client is
compliant with JSR-168 portal. The Alfresco portlet framework is reusable, extensible and has
been developed using the JSR-127 Java Server Faces.
Moreover, Alfresco has some other interesting features that make it an effective solution for the
creation of a modern LOR. In the following paragraphs we describe the technological solutions on
which the design of the system is based.
Content Repository API for Java
With the growing popularity of content management applications like electronic corporate
document management or web content management, the need for a common, standardized
interface for content repositories is more apparent than ever.
This landscape is fragmented, with numerous vendors offering proprietary repository engines.
These difficulties increase the complexity and maintainability of such systems, promote vendor
lock-in, and increase the need for long-term legacy support in the enterprise market.
The Content Repository for Java Technology API specification (JSR-170) provides a common
programmatic interface to content repositories. A JCR is a type of Object Database tailored to the
storage, searching, and retrieval of hierarchical data. The JCR API grew from the needs of content
management systems, which require storage of documents and other binary objects with associated
25
metadata. However the API is applicable to many different types of applications. In addition t o
object storage, the JCR provides APIs for versioning of data, transactions, observation of changes
in data, and import or export of data to XML in a standard way.
The data in the JCR object model consists of a tree of Nodes with associated Properties. Data is
stored in the Properties, which may hold simple values such as numbers and strings or binary data
of arbitrary length. Nodes may optionally have one or more types associated with them which
dictate the kinds of properties, number and type of child nodes, and certain behavioural
characteristics of the nodes. Nodes may point to other nodes via a special reference type
property. In this way nodes in a JCR offer both referential integrity and an object oriented
concept of inheritance. Additional node types include the referenceable node type which allows
the user to reference said node through use of a universally unique identifier. Another popular type
is the versionable type. This makes the repository track a document's history and store copies of
each version of the document.
The JSR-170 specifies two different levels of compliancy and a set of additional optional features.
Level 1 provides reading functions and level 2 adds additional writing functions, while examples of
optional functionalities are Transactions, Versioning, Locking and so on.
A JSR-170 content repository consists of an unbounded set of named workspaces, each of which
contains a single rooted hierarchy of items (Fig. ). An item is either a node or a property with a
name and a prefix that indicates the namespace of the item as in XML to minimize naming
collision.
Nodes provide the structure of the contents, while properties store the contents; each node can
have zero or more child items (nodes and properties) while properties cannot have children (they
represent the leaves of the tree) but have single or multiple values.
An additional difference between nodes and properties is that some nodes may support order
management of their child nodes while properties are never orderable.
In a workspace each item has a node parent, except for the root node; normally sibling items
cannot have the same name, so every item is identified by an absolute path from the root, which
distinguishes it univocally in a specific workspace.
Every node has a node type which allows users to structure the content through the definition of
specific constraints as its properties or the allowed child node types. Nodes are typified using an
extensible mechanism based on two properties jcr:primaryType and jcr:mixinTypes.
Some nodes can be referenceable and this allows those nodes to be the target of a property of type
REFERENCE. In this way the repository can support many orthogonal hierarchical views.
The referenceable nodes are also important for features like versioning or multiple workspace
management. For each versionable node there is a version history, represented by a version graph
that describes the predecessor/successor relations among versions of a particular versionable node.
Each workspace has its own name and root node and is independent of the others; i.e. the node
hierarchy and content within that workspace are not directly affected by changes in other
workspaces. A node in a workspace, however, may have corresponding relationships with nodes in
different workspaces; this is useful in collaborative applications for tracking changes within other
workspaces and performing comparisons.
There are several implementations of JSR-170 such as Jackrabbit or Magnolia Open CMS.
Alfresco is fully JSR-170 compliant and therefore supports Level 1, Level 2 and some of the
advanced features.
Although the specification does not attempt to provide methods for defining, creating or
managing new node types, Alfresco does that in a highly customizable way.
26
Fig. 8 - Hierarchical view of a JCR
Building FreeLOms on Alfresco
The implementation of Alfresco is based on the use of object oriented programming (OOP) and
aspect oriented programming (AOP) techniques.
To describe the structure of contents, Alfresco supports a rich data dictionary where the
properties, associations and constraints of content are described in terms of common object
oriented constructs.
In this way the users can define a complex hierarchy of content types; moreover, the users can
define the cross-cutting properties as Aspects to be assigned to nodes a different points of the
content hierarchy.
Alfresco provides end users with an XML language to extend the repository content model
through the definition of new types and aspects.
Taking this structure as a base and following the general guidelines of the Sloop project, we have
defined a specific model to develop “really” re-usable Learning Objects. In particular we have
defined:
• A specific profile for Learning Object Metadata,

• A content model for LOM based on the IEEE Standard for Learning Object Metadata,
• A content model for Asset, SCO and Content Aggregation based on the Sharable Content
Object Reference Model (SCORM) Version 1.2.
The system also provides full text indexing and retrieval mechanisms, using the Lucene engine;
there are multiple query models that support different types of searching and information access
27
such as the JCR/XPath query specification (as required by the JSR-170) and an extended version of
the Lucene query language that facilitates mixing of metadata and classification searches with full-
text searching.
Also, the end user can manage rule-driven processing of content (e.g. add, modify, classify,
convert or move data). As an example; after content is uploaded the system can automatically
extract metadata or convert it into another content type by calling the OpenOffice server
features.
One of the many features that make Alfresco particularly suitable for the SLOOP project is the
possibility to create collaborative spaces and control the content creation process. Other
important features provided by Alfresco include:
• Enterprise authentication systems (such as LDAP and Microsoft Active Directory),

• The definition of policy at role/group level,
• The definition of workflows (in the future Alfresco will be able to manage JBPM
processes),
• Locking: to prevent more than one person from updating the same LO at the same time,
• The versioning system.
Furthermore, Alfresco provides several kinds of interfaces such as Java-Remote Method Interface
(Java-RMI), Web Service and WebDAV and the API support for languages other than Java, such
as Perl, PHP and .NET. As a consequence it can be integrated with several external systems like
LMSs.
In addition Alfresco provides easy access to the repository by the emulation of the Common
Internet File System standard (CIFS) that allows end users to access the repository as though they
were accessing a shared drive, and in doing so, access it from any application, permitting off-line
synchronization, drive mounting and so on.
Finally, Alfresco has a Web Client that allows users to access all the features shown above.
The use of Alfresco system has required a preliminary phase of study of the software architecture.
We found Alfresco suitable for our scope, since it is configurable and easily extensible. In the
Alfresco structure, a developer can implement new so called “Actions” to add new functionalities
to the basic platform. The configuration of the web client interface to visualize the new
functionalities is also an easy task. We have developed all the actions necessary to implement the
functionalities designed in FreeLOms and we configured the web client interface in order t o
simplify the access to the main FreeLOms functionalities such as the upload of a Learning Object,
scormization of power point presentations, and so on. Moreover, we also defined roles and
permissions for the different users of the system in order to establish the policy access for
FreeLOms folders.
Conclusions
When we started the SLOOP project, most of the partners coming from schools and universities
seemed deeply disappointed at the development of Learning Objects. Often, their experiences of
using LOs failed when they had to learn lots of technical terms (e.g. SCORM, Asset, SCO, Content
Packaging, Metadata, and so on) and use different authoring tools, metadata editors, LMSs, and so
on. Their aim was to have a universal editor allowing them to transform all forms of typology of
content into a SCORM-compliant LO, in a single step or, at least, by using a single software tool.
As educational technologists, we tried to mediate between their wish for the learning object
universal editor, and real life! The idea of setting up a platform which can edit any digital form in
a simple and economical manner appeared immediately to be an utopian hypothesis. Such an
28
editor should allow the authoring of all the digital formats imaginable for the assets (defined in the
SCORM standard as “...electronic representations of media, text, images, sounds, web pages,
assessment objects or other pieces of data that can be delivered to a Web Client”). The editor
should also allow the management of its own data format for the SCO (defined as “...a collection
of one or more Assets that include a specific launchable asset that uses the SCORM Run-Time
Environment to communicate with ... LMSs”) as well for as the various proprietary formats of
firms producing SCORM compliant authoring systems (since no shared format exists).
To reduce the complexity of such a system, choices had to be made to limit the possibilities for
users in relation to:
• The format to use for creating different assets

• The authoring system to use for producing SCO.
On the one hand, this approach would simplify the development of an on-line editor capable of
producing learning objects collaboratively; however, it would also mean moving away not only
from the SCORM standard adopted for interoperability reasons, and from the idea of learning
objects, as described in the first chapter of this book.
Nevertheless, we could still do something to meet the teachers’ needs. Firstly, the management of
metadata of any learning object (independent of the digital format of content) by means of a
single editor appeared a feasible objective. This meant integrating the functions of a Learning
Object Repository with a Metadata editor. Secondly, we had to provide teachers with a platform
supporting the sharing and reuse of the LOs. To this aim, we decided that FreeLOms would
contain not only SCOs (learning objects ready to be used), but also assets freely available to create
new LOs. But we needed a further step to enable collaboration between teachers in developing LOs
and, at the same time, ensuring a pedagogical reusability of LOs; as a consequence, we defined a
new model for LOs, called Open LOs, and activated the versioning functionalities both at
metadata and content level. We had a repository of digital resources (produced with systems
external to the platform), including a metadata editor, and provided teachers with specific
collaborative tools. In order to have an integrated system, we had to offer teachers an easy way t o
create a SCORM-compliant LOs created by aggregating the resources stored in the platform;
accordingly, we added specific functionalities that allow user to edit organizations of Content
Packages by simply dragging files around the screen, and download resources that are
automatically SCORM-compliant learning objects. This is transparent to the user. Finally, we gave
the Moodle community the opportunity to upload SCORM-compliant LOs into the popular LMS
through a direct function form the Moodle platform.
To summarize, FreeLOms integrates most of the functionalities that are currently available in a
myriad of different tools. It is an example of a new class of tools, defined as Learning Object
Management Systems.
• We believe that FreeLOms, and the OpenLO model behind it, has huge potentials t o
permit acceleration in the following fundamental educational processes:
• The involvement of teachers in a more active role in the production of LOs, thus allowing
them to improve didactic strategies based on knowledge building rather than on the use of
units of learning.
• The creation of a community of practice that adopts the concept of OpenLOs;
• The activation of a collaborative processes in the authoring phase of LOs and, above all,
during the following phases;
• The involvement of students in the production of LOs, in order to enforce learning
processes based on effective pedagogical models.
The transformation of these potential processes into genuine benefits strongly depends on the
community of teachers who will join the FreeLOms platform and the SLOOP community, and
their efforts to continuously improve the FreeLOms idea.
29
References
AA.VV. “A Fresh Approach to Enterprise Content Management”, http://www.alfresco.com/media/

whitepapers/, June 23, 2005.
Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL), “SCORM 2004 3rd Edition, Content Aggregation Model
(CAM)”, Avaiable at http://www.adlnet.gov/downloads/DownloadPage.aspx?ID=237, November,
2006.
R. Butson, “Colloquium. Learning Objects: Weapons Of Mass Instruction”, British journal of

educational technology, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 667-669, November 2003
R. Cafolla. “Project MERLOT: Bringing Peer Review to Web-Based Educational Resources”.

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. Chesapeake, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 313-323, 2006.
B. Collis, A. Strijker, “Technology And Human Issues In Reusing Learning Objects”, Journal of
Interactive Media in Education, 2004 (4), pp. 1-32, Special Issue on the Educational Semantic
Web, available at www-jime.open.ac.uk/2004/4, May 2004
M. Dougiamas and P.C. Taylor. “Moodle: Using Learning Communities to Create an Open Source
Course Management System.” Proc. of EDMEDIA 2003 world conference on educational
multimedia, hypermedia & telecommunications June 23-28, 2003
R. T. Fielding, “JSR 170 Overview: Standardizing the Content Repository Interface”, available at
http://www.day.com/site/en/index/Technology/white papers.html.
G. Fulantelli, M. Gentile, D. Taibi & M. Allegra. “Open Learning Object: una nuova prospettiva
per un utilizzo efficace delle risorse didattiche digitali”. Proc. of the Didamatica 2007
Conference, Cesena (Italy), May 10-12 (2007), pp. 1006-1015
G. Henry. “Connexions: An Alternative Approach to Publishing, Research and Advanced

Technology for Digital Libraries”. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 421-431, 2004.
IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee, “IEEE LOM Working Draft 6.1 (IEEE
1484.12.1)”, 2002.
J.D. Novak. “Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or
inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners”. Science Education,
vol. 86 no. 4, pp. 548-571, 2002
S. Nurmi, T. Jaakkola, “Promises and pitfalls of learning objects”, Learning, Media and
Technology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 269 – 285, September 2006.
P.E. Parrish, “The trouble with learning objects”, Educational technology, research &
development, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 49-67, 2004.
J.Piaget. “The grasp of consciousness”. Harvard University Press. 1976
D. Wiley. “When Worlds Collide. The intersection of constructivism, learning objects, and peer-
to-peer networking technologies”, v1.3, 2000, http://reusability.org/collision.pdf (checked 29
April 2007)
Report of the discussion on Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) for Open Educational
Resources, October 2006.
30
Authors
Dott. Mario Allegra

Dott. Giovanni Fulantelli CNR-ITD
CNR-ITD Via Ugo La Malfa 153, 90146 Palermo
Via Ugo La Malfa 153, 90146 Palermo mario.allegra@itd.cnr.it
giovanni.fulantelli@itd.cnr.it
Ing. Manuel Gentile Ing. Davide Taibi

CNR-ITD CNR-ITD
Via Ugo La Malfa 153, 90146 Palermo Via Ugo La Malfa 153, 90146 Palermo
manuel.gentile@itd.cnr.it davide.taibi@itd.cnr.it
31
LEARNING OBJECT META-DATA (LOM) IN SLOOP

Alessandro Campi, Alberto Colorni, Marco Giorgetta
METID, Politecnico di Milano
Abstract
This document provides the definition of the Learning Object Meta-data (hereafter, LOM), as it
will be used within SLOOP (Sharable Learning Objects in an Open Perspective). It provides an
overview of the SCORM definition of Learning Object, focusing on the Content Aggregation
Model meta-data, and proposes an approach to define SCORM compliant Learning Objects to be
used in SLOOP.
The document is organized as follows. Section†1 provides an introduction to the concept of a

learning object. Section†2 introduces the Shareable Content Object Resource Model, as learning
object in SLOOP will be compliant with the SCORM model. Section†3 overviews the different
elements of a SCORM Content Aggregation Model Meta-data file, and provides a proposal for
meta-data definition in SLOOP objects.
Introduction to Learning Objects
A crucial problem faced by the learning community is how to produce and deliver quality content
for online learning experiences. Online learning content typically contains:
• Text, graphics and movies;

• A navigation scheme;
• Assessments.
It may also contain collaboration tools as well as other interactive elements, but the above listed
features are the basic ones.
In order for the content to support learning, it should also be aware of the learners. At a
minimum, learning content should recognize who the learner is and record information about the
learner’s experience. To make this possible, learning content has generally been developed in
conjunction with some sort of learning system that keeps track of learners. Learners log on to the
system and launch the content. As the learners interact with the content, results are passed back
to the system. If the system allows it, the content can also change its behaviour based on learner
information stored in the system. For example, learners might be sent to different places in the
course based on test scores, language preferences, learning style inventories, competencies,
certifications, organizational roles, and other data.
The development of learning content must be carried out under some guidelines. The most
important ones are relative to the interoperability and reusability of the content. Interoperability
refers to the aim of having content from multiple sources working equally well with different
learning systems; reusability refers to the goal of having content developed in one context being
transferable to another context (such as two different courses that can reuse material for a
common topic). Interoperability and reusability are imperative to the sustainability of the
eLearning content. Without them, anyone with a significant investment in either content or a
learning system is locked in to that particular content or system. Without these two
characteristics, every time a course or an interactive training manual needs to be updated, the
material to be rewritten would be far more than what would be necessary (or desirable). Without
32
Learning object metadata (LOM) in SLOOP
them, the quality of content would be undermined by the efforts spent on unnecessary duplication
of work.
Reusable learning objects represent an alternative approach to content development. In this

approach, content is broken down into chunks. From a pedagogical perspective, each chunk might
play a specific role within an instructional design methodology. The requirements for each chunk
are:
• each chunk must be able to communicate with learning systems using a standardized
method that does not depend on the system;
• the system does not influence the internal behaviour of a chunk;
• how a learner moves between chunks is controlled by the learning system;
• each chunk must have a description that enables designers to search for and find the right
chunk for the right job.
It may also contain collaboration tools as well as other interactive elements, but the above listed
features are the basic ones.
In order for the content to support learning, it should also be aware of the learners. At a
minimum, learning content should recognize who the learner is and record information about the
learner’s experience. To make this possible, learning content has generally been developed in
conjunction with some sort of learning system that keeps track of learners. Learners log on to the
system and launch the content. As the learners interact with the content, results are passed back
to the system. If the system allows it, the content can also change its behaviour based on learner
information stored in the system. For example, learners might be sent to different places in the
course based on test scores, language preferences, learning style inventories, competencies,
certifications, organizational roles, and other data.
The development of learning content must be carried out under some guidelines. The most
important ones are relative to the interoperability and reusability of the content. Interoperability
refers to the aim of having content from multiple sources working equally well with different
learning systems; reusability refers to the goal of having content developed in one context being
transferable to another context (such as two different courses that can reuse material for a
common topic). Interoperability and reusability are imperative to the sustainability of the
eLearning content. Without them, anyone with a significant investment in either content or a
learning system is locked in to that particular content or system. Without these two
characteristics, every time a course or an interactive training manual needs to be updated, the
material to be rewritten would be far more than what would be necessary (or desirable). Without
them, the quality of content would be undermined by the efforts spent on unnecessary duplication
of work.
Reusable learning objects represent an alternative approach to content development. In this

approach, content is broken down into chunks. From a pedagogical perspective, each chunk might
play a specific role within an instructional design methodology. The requirements for each chunk
are:
• each chunk must be able to communicate with learning systems using a standardized
method that does not depend on the system;
• the system does not influence the internal behaviour of a chunk;
• how a learner moves between chunks is controlled by the learning system;
• each chunk must have a description that enables designers to search for and find the right
chunk for the right job.
Such chunks are called learning objects. There is no standard for the size nor granularity of a
learning object. Larger learning objects are typically harder to reuse, and smaller learner objects
save work for those who reuse them. According to the literature of pedagogy, the happy medium
has been estimated as between five and fifteen minutes of learning material.
33
The use of learning objects is the core idea in an approach to breaking down content into so called
chunks. These chunks can be reused, independently created and maintained, and pulled apart and
stuck together like Lego™.
Learning Object definition
On the basis of the above considerations, we can now come to the definition of “learning object”.
Actually, there is no unique definition for a learning object: for example, the National Learning
Infrastructure Initiative (National Learning Infrastructure Initiative) defines learning objects as
“modular digital resources, uniquely identified and metatagged, that can be used to support
learning”, while the IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (http://ltsc.ieee.org) defines
them as “any entity, digital or non-digital, that may be used for learning, education or training”.
What emerges from the different characterizations of learning objects, is that in order for a
learning content to be a learning object, it should be:
• identifiable as a single unit of learning, typically ranging from 2 to 15 minutes of

duration;
• self-contained: each learning object can be taken independently;
• reusable: a single learning object may be used in multiple contexts for multiple purposes;
• ready for aggregation with other learning objects, in order to be grouped to form larger
collections of content, including traditional course structures;
• tagged with metadata: every learning object has descriptive information allowing it to
be easily found by a search.
The last of the above listed points is the one this document focuses on - the metadata for learning
objects. Choosing to break down the learning content of a course, let it be a college course or a
training course, leads to different advantages:
• by properly breaking content into learning objects, different parts can be maintained and
updated separately. If a suitable learning object can be found, a new one does not need to
be created. These are cost savers;
• as more and more standard-based learning objects become available, increased choice will
allow more flexibility for designers, although using standard-based learning objects restricts
the scope of learner information that is accessible by content if total interoperability is
maintained. Indeed, an individual system may also support different standards of learner
information, but only at the cost of interoperability with other systems;
• learning objects represent an implementation of many pedagogical theories, such as
constructivism. Instructional templates can be created with slots for specific types of
learning objects, basically discouraging operation in an undisciplined way- pedagogically
speaking. But, at the same time, restrictions on learner information available could restrict
effective learning: for example,lengthy discursive material may not benefit from the use
of learning objects. It must be underlined that learning objects do not replace books -
rather, they complement them;
• a larger and larger number of system vendors and content producers are supporting
learning objects standards (in particular, the most popular is SCORM, which will be stressed
in the following).
The following sections will provide an overview of the SCORM model, and the proposal of
metadata composition for the SLOOP project.
34
Introduction to SCORM
SCORM (Shareable Content Object Resource Model) is a set of standards that defines a way t o
create, share, and re-use Web-based learning content. Its main goal is to allow the objects created
with the defined standard to be sharable across different systems that conform to the same model.
The content aggregation model basically defines the way that SCORM interprets the Learning
Object. Indeed, the SCORM CAM describes the components that are used in a learning experience,
how such components must be packaged and the information about such components (meta-data)
must be organized.
The steps in creating and delivering learning objects are the creation, discovery and gathering
together, of simple assets into more complex learning resources and then organizing the resources
into a predefined sequence of delivery. The SCORM content aggregation model classifies the
needed activities into:
• Content Model: Nomenclature defining the content components of a learning experience.

• Content Packaging: Defines how to represent the intended behaviour of a learning
experience (Content Structure) and how to aggregate activities of learning resources for
movement between different environments (Content Packaging).
• Meta-data: A mechanism for describing specific instances of the components of the
content model.
• Sequencing and Navigation: A rule-based model for defining a set of rules that describe the
intended sequence and ordering of activities. The activities may or may not reference
learning resources to be delivered to the learner.
The role of the content model is to describe the SCORM components used to build a learning
object from learning resources. Furthermore, the content model defines how these resources are
aggregated into units of instruction of higher level. The SCORM content model is made up of
Assets, Sharable Content Objects (SCOs) and content organization.
An asset is the most basic form of learning resource. Assets can be an image, an animation, or a
piece of text, an assessment object, or any other data that cannot be split further. An asset is
generally found as part of a more complex object, since a learning object is typically made of
multiple components.
A SCO is a collection of one or more assets, which can be thought of as the smallest learning
object that can be used. A SCO represents the lowest level of granularity of a learning resource
that is tracked by an LMS (Learning Management System, introduced below) using the SCORM
Run-Time Environment Data Model. The only difference between a SCO and an asset is that the
SCO communicates with an LMS using the IEEE ECMASScript Application Programming
Interface for Content to Runtime Services Communication draft standard (IEEE 1484.11.2).
While assets are simply pieces of media that can be used within a learning object, and SCOs are
single launchable experiences, content organizations provide a larger view of the learning object,
introducing the concept of structured units of instruction (activities). The activities represented in
a content organization may consist of other activities (sub- activities), which may themselves
consist of other activities. There is no set limit to the number of nested levels in Activities. While
learning taxonomies may be associated with hierarchical levels of Activities, (e.g., course, chapter,
module, etc.), this is not a requirement. Activities that do not consist of other activities (leaf
activities) will have an associated learning resource (SCO resource or Asset resource) that is used
to perform the activity. Figure†1 shows an intuitive representation of content organization.
Within SCORM, sequencing information is defined in the activities represented in the content
organization and is external to the learning resources associated with those activities. It is the
responsibility of the LMS to launch learning resources associated with the activities in response t o
35
applying the defined sequencing behaviours. This is important because learning resource reuse is
limited if a learning resource has embedded sequencing information that is context-specific to the
course.
Fig. 1 - Example of content organization, (SCORM Content Aggregation Model Book)

While the content aggregation model provides a way to design and build learning contents, the
IMS Content Packaging Specification was designed to provide a standard way to structure and
exchange learning content.
The purpose of the content package is to provide a standardized way to exchange learning
content between different systems or tools. The content package also provides a place for
describing the structure (or organization) and the intended behaviour of a collection of learning
content.
Content packages are expected to be used to move learning content or collections of learning
content between LMSs, development tools and content repositories. The IMS Content Packaging
Specification (IMS ) provides a common input/output format that any system can support.
SCORM Content Packaging is a set of specific requirements and guidance, or application profiles,
of the IMS Content Packaging Specification. SCORM Content Packages adhere strictly to the
IMS Content Packaging Specification and provides additional explicit requirements and
implementation guidance for packaging assets, SCO and content organization.
A content package contains two major components:
• An XML document that describes the content structure and associated resources of the
package called the manifest file (imsmanifest.xml). A manifest is required at the root of
the content package.
• The physical files forming the content package.
Figure 2 is a conceptual diagram that illustrates the components of a content package.
36
Fig. 2 - Content package conceptual diagram, (SCORM Content Aggregation Model Book)
The manifest file represents the information needed to describe the content of the package. The
manifest is composed of four major sections:
• Meta-data: data describing the content package as a whole. This is the main topic of the
document, as they shall be discussed in Section 3.
• Organization: used to describe how the content is organized in the content package. The
content organization should not be confused with the physical structure of the content
package, or with the structure of the manifest itself. For example, the files in a content
package are often organized in a hierarchy of folders, but that structure in itself cannot
tell the user of a content package how to use the content of the package.
• Resources: defines the learning resources bundled in the content package, which are
assumed to be physically located in the package.
• (sub)Manifest(s): describes any logically nested units of instruction (which can be treated as
stand-alone units).
37
<manifest identifier="SAMPLE1" version="1.3" xml:base="mycontent"

xmlns="http://www.imsglobal.org/xsd/imscp_v1p1"
xmlns:adlcp="http://www.adlnet.org/xsd/adlcp_v1p3"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.imsglobal.org/xsd/imscp_v1p1
imscp_v1p1.xsd
http://www.adlnet.org/xsd/adlcp_v1p3
adlcp_v1p3.xsd">
<metadata/>
<organizations/>
<resources/>
<manifest/>
<imsss:sequencingCollection/>
</manifest>
Fig. 3 - Code illustration of a manifest file example.
The package content structure is described in the manifest file. If the package is intended for
delivery to an end user, then the manifest also contains information about how the content is
organized. Figure†3 shows an example of a manifest file, with empty elements indicated to be
listed.
SCORM Application Profiles represent a useful description of the application of the IMS
Content Packaging to the overall context of SCORM. According to the final usage of the object, a
different profile can be chosen, and this results in different requirements on the object
composition itself. For instance, Resource Packages (introduced below) have a different meta-data
requirement from content aggregation packages.
There are currently two SCORM Content Package Application Profiles, which describe how t o
package content aggregation model components, and these are:
• Resource Packages and,

• Content Aggregation Packages.
The SCORM Resource Package Application Profile defines a mechanism for packaging assets and
SCOs without having to provide any organization, learning context or curricular taxonomy. The
Resource Package Application Profile should be used for moving SCOs and assets from system t o
system. Since there is no organization defined in a Resource Package, no logical content structure
is defined. Since no structure is defined, this type of package cannot be delivered by an LMS to the
learner. The SCORM Resource Package is merely a collection of learning resources that can be
transferred between learning systems. See pages 3-55 – 3-56 (SCORM Content Aggregation Model
Book) for different example of representation of assets and SCOs in a resource.
The Content Aggregation Application Profile should be used instead to bundle learning resources
and the content structure. This is the application profile that should be used to bundle complete
courses, modules, lessons, etc. The main purpose of this profile is to be used to deliver content t o
an end user. The IMS Content Packaging Specification also enables a separation of learning
resources from the way those resources can be organized, allowing for one or more uses of the
same learning resources within different contexts. SCORM defines a mechanism for packaging the
files and providing the structure. Figure 4 shows an example of a Content Organization being
represented in an "imsmanifest.xml" instance.
See Section 3.5.3 (SCORM Content Aggregation Model Book) for the requirements for each of
the aforementioned Content Package Application Profiles.
38
Fig. 4 - Content aggregation package, (SCORM Content Aggregation Model Book)
SLOOP Learning Object Meta-data: 3-levels approach
This section overviews the different elements of a SCORM Content Aggregation Model Meta-data
file, and provides a proposal for meta-data definition in SLOOP objects.
The SCORM Meta-data Application Profile is widely based on the IEEE 1484.12.1-2002
Learning Object Meta-data (LOM) explained in (IEEE 1484.12.1-2002). SCORM does not
impose the adoption of the IEEE LOM standard, although it strongly recommends its use to
describe SCORM Content Model Components. However, other meta-data schemata may be used.
These meta-data schemata may or may not be recognized by systems; as usual, a tradeoff between
a tailored schema and a widely adopted one should be found. We shall be compliant with the IEEE
LOM standard.
According to the IEEE, every LOM element is optional, i.e. the choice of which elements are to
be used and which are not is entirely up to the developer. In order to meet several of the key high-
level requirements of ADL, SCORM places additional requirements on which elements are
mandatory in SCORM-conformant metadata XML instances. The set of required elements varies
depending on the SCORM Content Model Component (Asset, SCO, Activity, Content
Organization, Content Aggregation) being described by the meta-data.
39
The set of Learning Object Meta-data can be broken up into nine categories. These categories are
based on the definitions found in the LOM Information Model. Here are the nine categories of
meta-data elements:
1. The General category can be used to provide general information about the whole SCORM
Content Model Component.
2. The Life Cycle category can be used to describe historical features, as well as to describe
the current state of the SCORM Content Model Component and the entities that took
part in the creation of modification of the object.
3. The Meta-metadata category can be used to give information about the metadata record
itself.
4. The Technical category can be used to describe technical requirements and characteristics
of the SCORM Content Model Components.
5. The Educational category can be used to describe the educational and pedagogic
characteristics of the SCORM Content Model Component.
6. The Rights category can be used to describe the intellectual property rights and conditions
of use for the SCORM Content Model Component.
7. The Relation category can be used to describe relationships between this SCORM Content
Model Component and other components.
8. The Annotation category can be used to provide comments on the educational use of the
SCORM Content Model Component and information on when and by whom the
comments were created.
9. The Classification category can be used to describe where the SCORM Content Model
Component can be placed within a particular classification system.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide a detailed list of the LOM elements, with some additional information,
described in the following.
The Type column indicates the type of element, among the following ones:
• CharString: a simple set of characters that are not interpreted in a language;

• LangString: a character string whose language is specified as an attribute, for instance
<string language=en>Text</string>;
• Vocabulary: an element of type. Vocabulary has a specified domain of values that can be
assigned to the element itself; such value is specified with two child-elements, "<source>"
and "<value>", which represent the source where the vocabulary is defined and the chosen
value, respectively. For instance, the "<cost>" element in the "<rights>" group can be set
either to "yes" or "no", and such result is carried out in the following way: <rights>
<cost> <source>LOMv1.0</source> <value>yes</value> </cost> </rights> Vocabularies
suggested by SCORM can be replaced of extended, and as we shall see this possibility may
be useful for our purposes;
• DateTime: this data type describes a date, see (SCORM Content Aggregation Model
Book) for details on the syntax;
• Duration: this data type is used to describe the length of a time interval, with accuracy at
least of one second;
• vCard: the vCard data type is a standard for business card description which is suggested
to be used in SCORM for the description of entities in the Meta-data file, i.e. when
describing the contributors of the Learning Object, the contributors of the Meta-
metaData, and the author of an annotation.
40
Column Type SPM indicates the Smallest Permitted Maximum (size) of the element. For
example, <title> is a LangString with SPM of 1000, which means that in order for an
implementation to be SCORM compliant, this field must be able to contain at least 1000
characters.
The Mult(iplicity) column indicates the requirements needed to be SCORM compliant in terms
of meta-data definition. For instance, the parent element <metaMetadata> has a multiplicity of
1..1, which means that in a meta-data file there must be exactly one <metaMetadata> parent
element. As outlined before, LOM does not require any element to be present, but SCORM
introduces some requirements for the sake of re-usability. The notation used in the tables is similar
to the one used in UML: a..b where a is the lower bound of cardinality, and b is the upper bound,
with * indicating “unspecified”.
Column SPM indicates the Smallest Permitted Maximum (cardinality) of the element. For
instance, element <language> can be present more than one time in the meta-data, and in order
for an implementation to be SCORM compliant there must be the possibility to add at least 10
language fields.
The Default column indicates the value that should be assigned to the element in case the user
does not specify anything. Note that not all the elements have a default value, but only those
elements that are compulsory according to the SCORM indications and are not among the few
that only the user can specify. For example, element <title> is mandatory, although we cannot
foresee a default value, since it will be filled by the author of the object. On the other hand,
elements such as <rights:cost> are mandatory too, but we can use reasonable default values in
order to allow the users to be able to quickly publish an object if they are not interested in
specifying several details.
Ultimately, column L is used to specify the level of the element, as will be explained.
LOM indicates a large number of elements that can be used to describe the various aspects of a
Learning Object. This has the unquestionable advantage of being able to re-use the object in
multiple environments and applications: the more precisely an object is described, the better a user
can evaluate the object's suitability for his/her purposes. Nevertheless, an author is seldom willing
to fill all these fields out; more likely, (s)he will specify only the ones strictly necessary in order
to publish the object leaving the others unspecified.
Therefore, we hereby propose a 3-levels approach for meta-data specification. Elements are
assigned a level, from 1 to 3, indicating their degree of importance. The authors can choose the
level of precision of their meta-data through choosing how many levels to fill in.. Namely, level 1
elements are compulsory , otherwise the object cannot be published.
For example, the title, or the description of the object would fall into level 1. Level 2 and 3
elements are those that can be omitted by the author. In the case of an element required by
SCORM (i.e. its lower bound of multiplicity is at least 1) being left out by the author, then the
tool must automatically assign the default value. For example, element
<general:aggregationLevel> is a level 2 element, and is not required by SCORM; therefore, if the
user does not specify its value it can simply be omitted in the meta-data file. On the other hand,
element <lifeCycle:status> is a level 2 element and compulsory according to SCORM indications;
for such reason, the tool must insert its default value (which is “unspecified”). The difference
between level 2 and level 3 elements is in their relevance: for instance, <educational> elements are
supposed to be more relevant than <relation> ones.
41
Element Type L Default Mult. Type SPM SPM

<general>
<identifier> T 1..* 10
<catalog> CharString 0..1 1000
<entry> CharString 1..1 1000
<title> LangString 1 1..1 1000
<language> CharString 2 (P) 0..* 100 10
<description> LangString 1 Empty 1..* 2000 10
<keyword> LangString 1 1..* 1000 10
<coverage> LangString 2 0..* 1000 10
<structure> Vocabulary 2 0..1
<aggregationLevel> Vocabulary 2 0..1
<lifeCycle> 1..1
<version> LangString T 1..1 50
<status> Vocabulary 2 unavailable 1..1
<contribute> 3 0..* 30
<role> Vocabulary 0..1
<entity> LangString 0..* 1000 40
<date> 0..1
<dateTime>
<description>
<metaMetadata> 1..1
<identifier> T 1..* 10
<contribute> 3 0..* 30
<role> Vocabulary 0..1
<entity> String 0..* 1000 40
<date> 0..1
<dateTime>
<description>
<metadataSchema> CharString T See doc 2..* 30 10
<language> CharString T 0..1 100
<technical> 1..1
<format> CharString T 1..* 500 40
<size> CharString T 0..1 30
<location> (don't use...) CharString 0..* 1000 10
<requirement> T 0..* 40
<orComposite> 0..* 40
<type> Vocabulary 0..1
<name> Vocabulary 0..1
<minimumVersion> CharString 0..1 30
<maximumVersion> CharString 0..1 30
<installationRemarks> LangString 0..1 1000
<otherPlatformRequirements> LangString 0..1 1000
<duration> Duration 0..1
Table 1 - Metadata information (1)
42

<technical> 1..1
<format> CharString T 1..* 500 40
<size> CharString T 0..1 30
<location> (don't use...) CharString 0..* 1000 10
<requirement> T 0..* 40
<orComposite> 0..* 40
<type> Vocabulary 0..1
<name> Vocabulary 0..1
<minimumVersion> CharString 0..1 30
<maximumVersion> CharString 0..1 30
<installationRemarks> LangString 0..1 1000
<otherPlatformRequirements> LangString 0..1 1000
<duration> Duration 0..1
<educational> 0..* 100
<interactivityType> Vocabulary 2 0..1
<learningResourceType> Vocabulary 2 0..* 10
<interactivityLevel> Vocabulary 2 0..1
<semanticDensity> Vocabulary 2 0..1
<intendedEndUserRole> Vocabulary 2 0..* 10
<context> Vocabulary 2 0..* 10
<typicalAgeRange> LangString 2 0..* 1000 5
<difficulty> Vocabulary 2 0..1
<typicalLearningTime> Vocabulary 2 0..1
<description> LangString 2 0..* 1000 10
<language> CharString 2 0..* 100 10
<rights> (P) 1..1
<cost> Vocabulary 2 No 1..1
<copyrightAndOtherRestrictions> Vocabulary 2 No 1..1
<description> LangString 2 Empty 0..1 1000
<relation> 3 0..* 100
<kind> Vocabulary 0..1
<resource> 0..* 100
<identifier> 0..* 10
<description> LangString 0..1 1000
<annotation> 3 0..* 30
<entity> CharString 0..1 1000
<date> 0..1
<dateTime> DateTime
<description> LangString 1000
43

<classification> 3 0..* 40
<purpose> Vocabulary 0..1
<taxonPath> Vocabulary 0..* 15
<source> LangString 0..1 1000
<taxon> 0..* 15
<id> CharString 0..1 100
<entry> LangString 0..1 500
<keyword> LangString 0..* 1000 40
Note that higher levels include lower ones: this means that if an author chose to specify level 2
elements then both level 1 and 2 elements should be filled out.
Furthermore, some fields are not assigned of level, but the letter T, which stands for “Tool”. I t
means that the element should be inserted by the tool. Such elements are explained in the
following.
Let us take a deeper look at the indications for some meta-data elements that are worth
explaining.
User profiling: In order for a subject to be able to publish an object, he must be registered on the
Web application that allows for objects to be published. A user profile can contain, information
about some default values for the meta-data of the objects that the user is going to publish. For
instance, a teacher of Italian 101 might be going to producedocuments written in Italian, hence it
might be very convenient to assign to the element <general:language> a default value of “Italian”,
rather than leaving this field empty or asking the teacher every time when meta-data are being
written.
All the elements that have the “(P)” tag can have a default value specified by the user at his
registration. In case the user did not specify any default value, then the one in the table should be
used.
<identifier> This is a parent element that is described by two child elements: "<catalog>", which is
optional, and "<entry>", which is mandatory. The former represents the name or designator of
the identification for the entry, e.g. “URI”, and the latter is the identification value itself. Rather
than delegating the choice of an identifier to the user, we think it is more convenient to set it
according to the tool. Indeed, we surely avoid duplicates, since the ID can be obtained for example
by concatenating the universal identifier of the server hosting the run time environment and a
locally-unique ID for the object published on the server.
<language> This element specifies the language of the Learning Object contents; as contents may
be of a different language, more instances of this element can be written. The tool should put, by
default, the language that the user specified as default choice in his/her profile.
<lifeCycle:version> This field must be filled by the tool, that handles the versioning system.
<technical> The tool should also automatically list the types of contents added to the object,
adding a <format> element for each type, as well as the size in bytes of the content. SCORM
CAM documentation (SCORM Content Aggregation Model Book ) suggests not to describe the
contents location with the <technical:location> element, but to use the fields in the manifest file.
44
Technical requirements deserve particular attention. First, note that multiple instances of the
<requirement> element are connected with a logical and, and different <orComponent> within a
requirement are in logical or; hence the overall requirements are expressed as a conjunction of
disjunction. Each <orComposite> contains a requirement on an application, library, operating
system, etc, in terms of version. LOM standard vocabulary actually foresees only two types of
requirements: on the browser name and version and the operating system name and version. I t
would be unquestionably more useful to be able to express constraints on the version of other
components, for instance a video codec. Hence, the LOM vocabulary will be extended in order t o
include further types of requirements, allowing a more detailed description of the object contents.
Ultimately, the other elements of the <technical> parent element should be left optional to the
user; it is improper to classify these elements, they refer to installation and platform
requirements, into the 3-levels classification afore-provided, since they strongly depend on the
object content and not on the author’s will to precisely describe the object.
<educational> Educational and pedagogical information are entirely classified in the second of the
three levels described above, since they are important for the description of the object from the
final user point of view (teachers and students), although they are not mandatory for publishing an
object.
<rights> Rights are required by SCORM, hence by default the tool should choose either no rights
or the choice of the user in his/her profile, in case the profile is defined.
The remaining elements are less useful than the others, therefore are left to the author who wants
to describe the object in deep detail.
It is likely that the set of Learning Objects produced by the same author have common values in
the meta-data. It is even more likely that a portion of the meta-data can be classified into a few
different “types” which often occur in the objects published by an author. Hence it would be useful
and handy for the users to have the chance to create and use Learning Objects types, that are
basically empty objects (i.e. with no content) with some meta-data pre-compiled.
For instance, an author that often creates LOs with a particular installation remark, could create a
LO Type to instance and fill every time it is needed, without having to re-write the installation
remark every time.
Another useful feature the tool should provide is the extraction of the LO Type from an existing
Learning Object.
References
IEEE 1484.11.2 Standard for Learning Technology - ECMAScript Application Programming
Interface for Content to Runtime Services Communication. Available at: http://ltsc.ieee.org/,
2003.
The SCORM Content Aggregation Model Book
IMS Content Packaging Information Model, Version 1.1.3 Final Specification. Available at:
http://www.imsglobal.org/ 2003.
IEEE 1484.12.1-2002 Learning Object Metadata Standard. Available at:
http://www.ieee.org/ 2002.
National Learning Infrastructure Initiative. http://www.educase.edu/nlii
IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee. http://ltsc.ieee.org
45
Authors
Alessandro Campi,
Politecnico Di Milano,
P. Leonardo Da Vinci, 32 – 20133, Milano, Italy
alessandro.campi@polimi.it
Alberto Colomi,
alberto.colorni@polimi.it
Marco Giorgetta,
mgiorgetta@gmail.com
46
Open source and the co - operative relationship
OPEN SOURCE AND THE COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIP

Ian Spillane, Cork College of Commerce
Abstract
Based on the open source philosophy, the SLOOP Project (“Sharing Learning Objects in an Open
Perspective”) aims to develop a library of freely available and modifiable learning objects for use
by educators. A case study of the open source philosophy in education, this article examines the
opportunities and challenges it has posed in one of the participating institutions.
Open Source
A computer programme, as a first day student of programming will always be told, is much like a
recipe. It is a list of commands in a structured vaguely English-like mathematical programming
language for a computer to execute - such as C++ or Basic. Students are given the recipe analogy
to introduce the basic concepts of breaking down a task into its step-by-step instructions and for
practice in thinking through the necessary sequence of events. The analogy is useful here also. A
computer programme’s code is human written in a highly structured formulaic language but it is
still not identical to the actual instructions that will be carried by a computer processor.
Computers execute millions of the tiniest instructions: moving single pieces of information
around the machine, controlling hardware, making the smallest of mathematical calculations
again and again at speed. The processor necessarily works at the lowest level of hardware and is
controlled by what is called machine code. Programmers work in high-level languages that then
must be translated, or compiled, into machine code specific for the computer processor. Compiled
computer software is able to reveal its source code as a buttered scone would be able to recite its
original recipe.
In practical terms, a software system cannot be studied, modified or developed without its
original source code.
The term “open source” originates to describe both the practicalities and the philosophy of the
free software movement - driven by computer scientists and programmers keen to create,
develop, and to share new ideas rather than to produce proprietary systems which seemed to stifle
learning and the development of their science. Indeed, the free software movement refers
primarily to its freedoms rather than it being free-of-charge. While English lacks a clear
distinction between free gratis and libre, between free and freedom, free software advocates so
often neatly explain it as the difference between “free” as in beer and “free” as in speech.
The benefits of open source beyond being usefully free-of-charge soon became apparent. Open
source was free from vendor lock-in and proprietary only systems. Communities of developers
grew up around projects; and unexpectedly high quality software was being developed outside
formal structures. In his influential essay, “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”, Eric Raymond
described what was happening (Raymond, 2000). The opposite to the grand planned designs of
the cathedral, the bazaar symbolised the hustle and bustle of the market place, or perhaps the
frenzy of a stock market tradition floor, a public space where a crowd of disparate clamouring
47
voices create something intelligent. It was proving, once again, that something fluid,
uncontrolled, almost organic (as if we needed reminding of Darwinian evolution), was creative
and could generate stable high quality computer software. To programming it has been dubbed
Linus’s Law: “Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow” (Raymond, 2000); but as an emerging
philosophy it has expanded to demonstrate that in the information age success could be
democratic and free. And proving that sharing seems to be a human trait after all.
From its roots in computer programming, the term has developed into a philosophy and a
movement based on freedom, communication and the sharing of knowledge (Perens, 1999).
The open source philosophy maintains software systems in the realm of knowledge and scientific
endeavour in a world where the information technology revolution is fast a part of everything and
the corporate world is scrambling to lock down patents and closed proprietary systems. People
still make money to live in open source and today large corporations such as Novell, Red Hat,
and Sun are working successfully in open source computing - providing customisations and
support. Closed source stifles development and freedom; and in a world where information
technology is ordinary it challenges individual liberty in everything from the annoyance of
computer operating systems that take an inordinate ownership of your computer, to digital rights
management, for example, which is confounding the media buying public when moving their
files from one machine to another (Stallman, 1997, 2002), to an electorate’s instinctive distrust of
closed source when Ireland, for instance, reversed its ill-considered move to closed-source
electronic voting (the pencil and paper system is low tech, and is truly slow, but it is open and
transparent and very much understood) (Commission on Electronic Voting, 2006), and to, let us
not forget, the freedom from poverty and the growing digital divide across the world, where the
cost of the popular computer software is well beyond the reach of individuals and the developing
world’s struggling education systems.
As well as being free of charge, open source software extends the freedom to learn from the code,
to make changes, and to participate in the development of a project as part of a community. It
becomes part of the scientific and academic process.
“Science, after all, is ultimately an Open Source enterprise. The scientific method rests on a
process of discovery, and process of justification. For scientific results to be justified, they must
be replicable. Replication is not possible unless the source is shared: the hypothesis, the test
conditions, and the results. The process of discovery can follow many paths, and at time scientific
discoveries do occur in isolation. But ultimately the process of discovery must be served by
sharing information: enabling other scientists to go forward where one cannot; pollinating the
ideas of others so that something new may grow that otherwise would not have been.” (DiBona et
al, 1999, Introdution)
Public Licenses
Described as a political manifesto as well as a software license (Perens, 1999), the GNU General
Public License provided the required legal framework for open source. To copyright something is
to claim ownership and to reserve rights. To set something free, at its most basic, is to make it
public domain. But public domain has a problem - it doesn’t stop derived work from being taken
private. The GPL, described as “copyleft”, makes a work free to use, to distribute and to modify
while insisting that all future modifications and derived works are also licensed on the GPL - thus
ensuring the freedom and open development of a project. As with the open source movement
generally, licenses have also developed to include works beyond computer programming. The
GNU Free Documentation License is a GPL version specifically for documents, including
48
websites, manuals and textbooks (http://www.gnu.org).
The Creative Commons (http://www.creativecommons.org) has extended the principles into all
forms of information and media and has developed a suite of licenses that allow authors to
specify key elements depending on the type of work. “Share-alike” requires that derived works
are distributed on the same license; “no-derivation” prevents modification of the work; “non-
commercial” requires that the work be used for non-profit purposes only, and “attribution”
requires that the original author’s credit is retained. Thus, combinations of permissions
successfully license the work depending on the needs of the author: from where perhaps only
original author attribution is required but the future development of the work is left open - much
like the GPL - to works such as academic articles requiring attribution and no-derivates so that
the author’s integrity and the integrity of the original work is maintained but it is still free to use,
to copy and to distribute.
Development
Today examples of open source software include the Apache web server which dominates the
hosting of websites around the world and the free Firefox web browser for accessing the web
which is fast gaining popularity. Notable software on the GPL includes the GNU Linux operating
system which is a complete free software system, in use worldwide by governments and in homes
and businesses and offering a real opportunity in educational systems to bridge the digital poverty
divide. MIT’s “One Laptop Per Child” programme is mass producing laptop computers for
education in the developing world using entirely free software (MIT, http://laptop.org). And
perhaps the most notable work on the GFDL and an astounding example of open source
collaboration is the free online encyclopaedia Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org).
Thinking of software, in the world of education and in other knowledge work we most likely use
proprietary closed products for which we would have to pay a license fee to use, but are unable to
learn from, to adapt to our needs, to develop, and to share with others. And besides software,
thinking of educational materials in general, the same holds true – much as the traditional
textbook is used on a copyright, and cannot be modified, corrected, or developed, and cannot be
freely distributed.
The application of the open source model to education is promising: creating and increasing the
store of necessary educational materials; promoting universal education in providing free access
to essential information and tools; fostering communication and teamwork amongst educators;
and generating a community of practice capable of developing greater projects, providing
support, and encouraging free speech and new thinking - the goal of education itself: the open
mind.
Learning Objects
Based on the open source philosophy, the SLOOP Project (“Sharing Learning Objects in an Open
Perspective”) aims to develop a library of freely available and modifiable learning objects for use
by educators.
Under the auspices of the EU Leonardo education programme, the SLOOP Project was
constituted from a number of participating European institutions. The goals were to pilot teacher
training in the merits of open source learning, the skills required to create and deploy learning
objects, and ultimately to develop amongst the various institutions a library of freely accessible
49
learning objects and a continuing community of practice.
Standards for learning objects and for the meta-data structures, which catalogue content are
already defined by the “Shareable Content Object Reference Model” - SCORM
(http://www.adlnet.org/scorm/). SCORM-compliant learning objects offer education a way of
harnessing the information and communication technology revolution and, more especially, the
Internet - which is likewise based upon open, international, and technology independent standards
and has created a familiar platform worldwide for information and communication. They offer the
educator a means to present content to students, either as self-contained lessons or perhaps more
likely as support materials and interactivities; to track student participation through the lesson;
and to create, source, and combine materials easily and effectively.
Learning objects might best be described as coherent lessons, which work independently or as a
part of an assembled course of lessons. Learning objects can be said to be self-contained objects
in that practically they are a container of all the materials necessary for the lesson in one single
encapsulating data file. They are modular in that unlike simple electronic documents they
facilitate communication with assemblies of objects and learning management systems to track
student activity and learning progress. They are reusable, in that small self-contained lessons, or
“objects”, allow themselves to be combined with other objects to form different learning paths as
required. They are portable, in that they can be copied and used in various different systems. And,
in an open source model, they are free in that they are non-proprietary, modifiable and free to
evolve within a community of practice.
Case Study
The largest further education college in Ireland, the Cork College of Commerce teaches a wide
range of post-high-school and adult education programmes including business, childcare, fashion,
health and beauty, information technology, languages, office administration, and teacher training
(http://www.corkcollegeofcommerce.ie). It has a teaching staff of close to one hundred and fifty
and over two thousands students enrolled for daytime courses.
The work of the SLOOP Project began with the introduction of an online learning management
system, Moodle (http://www.moodle.org), and the necessary staff training in first the
practicalities of using the system and then exploring its opportunities for teaching practice and
communication with students. Systems such as Moodle offer the opportunity for teachers to
create online course sites - part of a college-wide integrated intranet to host resource materials
and documentation, course calendars, assignment briefs, student grades, news and
communication; while learning management systems are also an essential structure for hosting
learning objects.
However recruitment was a challenge and participation rates faltered.
Certainly the timing was coincidentally poor for the project. The academic year is sometimes
cruel and has occasions of relentless work with students in preparation for exams and
assignments. Teachers clearly have their proprieties with their students at these times.
It might also be said that information technology usage in the Cork College of Commerce is
remarkably low by general standards. Use of email is growing but even then is still not the
College’s standard method of communication amongst staff, between staff and management, and
between staff and students. Few teachers have adopted the learning management system, Moodle,
50
in everyday practice. Necessary foundation skills such as HTML and other Internet publishing
skills are not at all widespread. Besides dedicated computer classrooms, information technology
tools are not available within generally.
Teaching techniques, we could say, are traditional “chalk and talk”; and perhaps necessarily so in
some respects. The Cork College of Commerce is a vocational training institution in the further
education sector that prides itself as in many ways “second chance” education for students. It is
not a university. Teachers do not lecture and present information to a self-motivated academic
audience but rather students invariably need individual face-to-face attention and encouragement
and the safety of a high-school classroom environment. And so, online learning objects to many
teachers outside of information technology courses may seem understandably foreign to their
everyday work. How much more do the concepts of open source and copyleft which easily reduce
to ideas of simply giving away even more their hard work?
While staff benefited from related training activities in using the learning management system
and were largely interested in the new opportunities; disappointingly, the creation of free and
open source learning objects themselves singularly failed to impress. Teachers were reluctant to
offer their own materials for free and open source publication online. Amongst a well educated,
intelligent community of teachers with an obvious dedication to working in education and to their
students; a reticence is puzzling.
The Survey
Anecdotally a number of issues concerned staff. A simple survey tried to reliably quantify the
trouble. The survey would find out if indeed open source learning objects in themselves had
failed to attract teacher enthusiasm. A questionnaire was distributed to all teaching staff in the
college (approximately one hundred and fifty, though of course actual numbers at any one time
may vary).
The questionnaire asked just six direct dichotomous questions which were deliberately simple and
closed for maximum response within such a relatively small population. The survey was
distributed both as a paper questionnaire and as an email and intranet invitation to an on-line
questionnaire. Both versions were identical. Questions were in no particular order. Returns were
anonymous. Participants themselves made the choice between paper and online returns. And,
apart from being a survey on various aspects of the role of an educator, the questionnaire purpose
was deliberately unexplained.
Designed to examine the character of the problem, respondents were asked about participation in
six different activities – comparing probable aspects of the open source relationship.
To be involved in an open source project has its challenges.
You are given the opportunity to share some of your course notes freely online, do you feel
inclined to participate?
Any project creates extra work and involvement. Are people willing or able to commit the extra
time and energy to a project? Is the problem a question of participation and teamwork in general?
In answer to a serious local grievance you are asked to actively join the community action group
committee, do you want to?
In his seminal social policy work, “The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy”,
51
Richard Titmuss studied the effectiveness of altruism over market economics in social policy
(Tittmus, 1970). Blood donations can be seen as the archetypal altruistic action: a gift relationship
from an individual to an anonymous other. An open source project does ask for altruism and quite
simply asks us to give our work away. If open source is a gift economy, or “gift culture”
(DiBona, 1999), can we measure altruism? Is the problem one of not wanting to give?
Have you ever donated blood?
An open source project places our work under the scrutiny of our peers and a worldwide
audience. Is peer scrutiny of our work unwelcome?
You are asked to write a freelance article in your subject area for a professional education
magazine, do you take the job?
Open source contribution places our work and ourselves outside the familiar classroom and into
the public arena? Perhaps an open source project challenges our privacy as individuals and
professionals at work; shifting our workplace and our performance into the public domain.
If you were invited to appear on a talk-radio show as an expert in your subject area would you
accept?
The Internet is new technology and a new cultural experience; it is a vast, public, and largely
uncontrolled space; it demands new skills and teacher training; and it is new territory for
academic work. Are open source learning objects as yet a step too far into the new technological
culture and untested as a reputable academic publication. How much more likely would we be to
contribute to a traditional, respected, academic work?
You are asked to volunteer to write a chapter for a free textbook project, do you think you would?
A total of eighty-two responses were received – a small sample but more than half of all teaching
staff.
The results confirmed the problem with participation rates in the project. Not encouraging: only
marginally more than half of respondents reported that they would even “feel inclined” to
participate in publishing some of their course notes for free online (51%). Only an appearance on
radio was less attractive (50%). By comparison, however, nearly three quarters (73%) of
respondents to an almost identical proposition would volunteer the same work for a free textbook
project – even slightly above enthusiasm for publication in a professional journal (72%).
Similarly respondents were largely amenable to participation in a community action group where
needed (73%).
Respondents were not adverse to work, to participate, or to volunteer. Remembering that for lots
of reasons people are not permitted to donate blood, a hearty forty-four per cent of the respondent
population had done so. These are not mean people. The “gift relationship” was not a problem
and indeed no correlation appeared between blood donors and likely participation.
Unexpectedly, either, no relationship appeared between whether respondents had used the online
(51%) or paper survey. While there is certainly strong evidence of marked difference between
enthusiasm for the traditional textbook and an online open source project (twenty-two percentage
points), there is no evidence in the survey to suggest that a simple superficial culture gap between
the new technologies and traditional methods is at fault.
52
Something about open source learning objects fails a teacher’s cost-benefit analysis.
A follow-up survey asked respondents to rank problem issues in order of importance.
“I believe the main drawbacks to using the Internet for publishing educational materials and
course notes for students are: A belief in traditional teaching methods. Lack of academic respect
for Internet sources. Lack of adequate teacher IT resources. Lack of appropriate teacher training.
Lack of IT resources in the classroom. Lack of students’ abilities for private study. Loss of
privacy. No motivation to take on extra tasks generally. No time for any extra tasks and training.
Questionable usefulness of putting materials online. Reluctance to have my work available for
public scrutiny. Reluctance to share hard work to benefit less diligent teachers. The possibility of
work being plagiarised.”
Fifty-one responses were received.
Looking at the top three cited issues, the results continued to be unexpected and challenge
assumptions. Personal costs were reportedly least significant. Only four per cent of respondents
ranked privacy issues and only eight per cent motivation. Only seventeen per cent included
scrutiny of peers amongst their top concerns.
The benefits of publishing online were not at issue either. Only six per cent of respondents
questioned the usefulness of online materials and only eight per cent academic respect for Internet
sources.
Educational issues were given higher priorities. Twenty-one per cent valued more traditional
teaching methods. While twenty-seven per cent included concern for plagiarism or the student’s
abilities for private study using online materials. Certainly there is an issue for teaching methods
in the further education sector where more value is placed on face-to-face tuition and
encouragement rather than the teacher as lecturer. Educators worldwide are tackling the problems
of plagiarism as students have access to more and more ready information online and are steeped
in a culture of information being downloadable and apparently free. At least with traditional
textbooks students were confronted with a clear reality of ownership – a tangible object outside
their own word-processor – whereas distinctions between what is online research and what is
plagiarism are more easily overlooked.
But strikingly, of greater concern than student plagiarism, one third of respondents (33%) cited an
honest reluctance to share work with other teachers. The third highest-ranking concern amongst
staff, it seems to be a definite blow to the goals of open source in education. Certainly open-
source and copyleft licensing are new concepts even in the programming world; and it might yet
take some effort to convince teachers of it merits; or perhaps more likely it is a realistic
assessment of the “gift relationship”.
Most importance was in fact given to workplace issues. Twenty-one per cent cited the need for
more teacher training. Twenty-three per cent cited the problem of not enough time for extra
projects in the job. Thirty-five per cent highlighted the lack of technology resources for teachers.
And, topping the poll, almost half (48%) included the lack of classroom resources in their top
three concerns.
Indeed it is less likely an ignorance of the benefits of open source or an unwillingness to

participate and share than a reflection of the realities of the workplace. To paraphrase the
comment “you can’t eat free software” (DiBona et al, 1999, Introduction): you can’t eat open
learning objects either.
53
The Workplace
The 2003 “Report of the Steering Group to the PLC Review Established by the Department of
Education and Science, Ireland”, otherwise known as the McIver Report, described the role of the
further education teacher thus:
“The content of PLC differs significantly from that of second level programmes in that it focuses
in the main on disciplines that are directly relevant to industry. In many instances these are areas
not covered by initial teacher training and where few textbooks are available. This, allied with
the pace of change of industry needs, demands a high level of investment of teacher time in pre-
planning, dialogue with industry, cross-curricular consultation and liaison with other providers.”
(McIver,2003, Executive Summary)
As a further education institution, the Cork College of Commerce teachers work to a busy
teaching timetable and are required to constantly adapt to changing curricula and subjects based
on enrolment levels and changes in industry with little support, time or resources for teamwork,
academic research and development of materials.
“The Report concluded that the current heavy workload associated with non-teaching
educational tasks, allied with the lack of non-teaching resources and a 22 hour teaching load per
week, has led to workloads which are unsustainable into the future. It is essential to reduce the
teaching load to free up time for improved organisations and planning, co-ordination of
assessment and quality assurance, improved learning and guidance supports for students,
continuing professional development, development of programmes, syllabi and support materials,
and for review and improved external linkages.” (McIver,2003, Executive Summary)
The report also called for “an increased budget for staff development” and argued that
“continuing professional development should be a normal part of staff work which does not affect
student contact hours delivered by a college”; and we might add, does not affect teacher personal
time.
Conditions for teachers are demonstratively difficult and stressful. The recommendations of the
McIver Report, despite trade union lobbying, have yet failed to be implemented (Joint Committee
on Education and Science, 2004). For a start, the atmosphere does not support teacher morale and
enthusiasm for extra projects; while it also fails significantly in a key factor for open source
development: teamwork. Cut off from the time and resources necessary for professional
development teachers in the further education sector in Ireland have no forum for professional
teamwork – for sharing.
The Cooperative Relationship

This experience has lessons for open source development in education.
Amongst advocates, the question has been asked: what motivates the open source programmer? It
has been described as a gift culture or a gift relationship. However open source is not just altruism
(DiBona et al, 1999, Introduction). Actually open source projects are by definition communal,
social events, and different to the archetype of individual blood donations; open source
development is a conversation, it is about teamwork, and even if not necessarily highly structured
it is about having the forum within which to share. It is perhaps better described as the
“cooperative relationship”.
54
The open source movement has argued the need for freedom but it is has also only survived as a
strong supportive community. Thus the challenge here for education, the lesson from this case
study, is not about individual commitment to altruism but is to organise the time and resources for
teamwork and the creation of a community of practice.
Open source development has remarkable potential in education:
It isn’t just about giving away hard work but it is about joining a team project to develop
something useful. The impetus has been described as “scratching an itch” (Raymond, 2000); and
certainly from programming to educational materials, authorship is about empowerment -
creating the materials we actually need. It offers educators a forum for creative endeavour and it
extends our portfolios of work and our professional reputations. It offers the educator access to a
growing library of freely available materials developed by others. It allows useful projects to live
on, to grow and develop, to continue to be supported, updated and improved, rather than fall by
the wayside as wasted effort. It promotes communication, mutual support and dialogue, between
educators worldwide. Importantly, it offers a path to the goal of equality in education and the
spread of learning by promoting and distributing free texts and other materials. And, in itself, in
its appearance in education, it fosters an awareness of its ideals of community and of sharing in
the next generation.
We lose nothing by freeing our work. It is not a physical resource that is diminished as it is
shared, but it lives on and grows, and we end up with more.
Educators are a profession dedicated to freedom of thought and freedoms to learn and to
contribute as part of a community. By sharing our work we form that community and provide
others the freedoms to learn.
References
Commission on Electronic Voting (2006) Second Report of the Commission on Electronic
Voting on the Secrecy, Accuracy and Testing of the Chosen Electronic Voting System,
http://www.cev.ie/htm/report/download_second.htm.
DiBona, Chris; Ockman, Sam; Stone, Mark (1999) Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source
Revolution, http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html.
Joint Committee on Education and Science (2004) McIver Report: Presentation,

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees29thdail/jces/030604.rtf.
McIver Consultants (2002) Interim Report of the Steering Group to the PLC Review Established
by the Department of Education and Science, Ireland,
http://www.tui.ie/Policy%20Documents/PLC%20Review.html.
McIver Consultants (2003) Report of the Steering Group to the PLC Review Established by the
Department of Education and Science, Ireland.
Open Source Initiative (1999) The Open Source Definition, http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd.
Perens, Bruce (1999) The Open Source Definition, Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source
Revolution, http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html. Open Source Initiative,
55
1999; http://www.fsf.org
Raymond, Eric Steven (1999) A Brief History of Hackerdom, Open Sources: Voices from the
Open Source Revolution, http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html.
Raymond, Eric Steven (2000) The Cathedral and the Bazaar (third edition),
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/.
Stallman, Richard (1997) The Right to Read, Communications of the ACM, Volume 40, Number
2, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html.
Stallman, Richard (1999) The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement, Open
Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution,
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html.
Stallman, Richard (2002) Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman,
Communications of the ACM, Volume 40, Number 2, http://www.gnu.org/doc/book13.html.
Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org , Defective by Design
http://defectivebydesign.org
Titmuss, Richard (1970) The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy.
Williams, Sam (2002) Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software,
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/.
Author
Ian Spillane
Cork College of Commerce
Morrison’s Island, Cork, Ireland
ispillane@ccoc.ie
56
SLOOP: The attempt to progress the learning economy through an open source attitude
SLOOP: THE ATTEMPT TO PROGRESS THE LEARNING

ECONOMY THROUGH AN OPEN SOURCE ATTITUDE
Gearóid Ó Súilleabháin and Darragh Coakley, DEIS Department of Education
Development, Cork Institute of Technology
Abstract
The emergence of a series of e-learning standards designed to ensure interoperability and
reusability have yet to delivery a “new learning economy” where easily reused learning
objects in common repositories stand as the shared currency of education and training
providers the world over. At least part of the problem may have to do with a certain
disjunction at the heart of the e-learning standards project – and indeed at the heart of the e-
learning industry as a whole – between the educationalists and pedagogues, on the one hand
and the technologists, developers and engineers on the other. The Leonardo Da Vinci
SLOOP project can be seen as an attempt to apply an open source philosophy and a range of
open source technologies to building a bridge between these two camps in terms of creating a
collaborative open culture based on easy-to-use open source software for the creation and
sharing of learning objects. The authors describes in detail their own experiences in creating
and sharing a fully-SCORM compliant learning object and some thoughts on the
appropriateness of these standards as the basis for the envisaged learning economy.
Introduction
It sometimes seems that the community of e-learning professionals is composed of two very
different kinds of people: on the one hand educationalists and pedagogues, perhaps with some
knowledge and experience in traditional distance education and other forms of open or
flexible learning, likely with skills and knowledge also in areas like instructional design and
pedagogical theory; on the other hand there are those from a more technical background with
an interest in the infrastructure of e-learning, with LMSs, CMSs, and other server-based
functionality, with APIs and issues to do with integration of e-learning and other systems. Of
the two groups the latter are by far most the most likely to be interested in the whole area of
e-learning standards. Indeed the entire e-learning standards project can be seen very much as
something having its foundation in the object-orientated approach of the world of software
development, a now dominant programming methodology which essentially enables
programmers to create discrete modules that do not need to be changed when a new type of
object is added. For pieces of learning, learning objects, to be similarly flexible they must,
for example, share the characteristics of programming objects in terms of issues such as
abstraction, granularity and encapsulation (Koper 1995, p. 50).
The need for e-learning standards

Even e-learning professionals from the more pedagogically-focussed side of the e-learning
house can, generally, see the need for e-learning standards. E-learning educationalists just as
much as e-learning technologists would like to achieve true interoperability for the content
they work so hard to create; few working in the e-learning world for any substantial period of
time have not, for instance, found themselves pushed into enforced reliance on proprietary
software or formats or wished in vain on some occasion to be able to replace one management
57
system with another without any need for re-development or re-assembly. Reusability is also,
rightly, touted as a good reason for everyone to agree and use e-learning standards. Even the
most traditional of lecturers, after all, reuse content as part and parcel of their lecture
preparation: whether it be in, for example, updating their own notes each term or adopting
materials from a third party to cover a particular topic or learning outcome. To be able to do
so more systematically, in more contexts and from a far wider pool of resources seems no
more than an intelligent extension of this approach and one that leverages the ability of the e-
learning technology to quickly and easily create multiple learning paths through the same
objects. The twin aims of reusability and interoperability require a whole range of complex
standards however, which for simplicity sake may be grouped together under the following
three headings:
• Packaging Standards that define ways to package and transport the various objects that go
into making an e-learning course (or other learning units).
• Communication standards that define a language for management systems to
communicate with e-learning courses (or, again, other learning units). Typically such a
standard will specify a protocol and data model, the former to specify rules for
communications, the second that defines a common vocabulary.
• Metadata standards that specifies a sort of controlled vocabulary to use to describe e-
learning courses/units and their components. Without consistent – and consistently
applied - metadata standards it would not be possible to search and find learning objects
to combine
(Horton 2003, p. 471-501)
A new learning economy?

Out of these various standards and the promise they hold of true interoperability and re-
usability come the suggestion that we may now be at the dawning of a new “learning
economy”, with reusable learning resources the new currency of exchange. Dr. Littlejohn
elaborates on this vision of the future in which :
Learning objects, produced by publishers, teachers, support staff and students

themselves, would be stored in digital repositories, where they could be easily
accessed, recombined and reused within online courses. In an ideal world
these resources would be designed so that they could be adapted to fit
different educational models, subject disciplines and levels of study.
(Littlejohn 2003, p. 2)
Although these words were originally penned in 2003 – and the idea itself is older than that
again – it probably fair to say that, apart from a number of reasonably successful national –
and ultimately government-sponsored – “digital repository” initiatives, the learning economy
still seems like one of those good ideas that for some reason has yet come to pass. Its non-
arrival it may be argued comes back again to a certain disjunction between those two
constituent camps in the e-learning world, the pedagogues and the technologists.
It seems fair to suggest at this stage of the e-learning standards project for example that the
way the characteristics – borrowed over essentially, as suggested at the outset, from the world
of object-orientated programming – the engineers and technologists have prescribed for the
development and sharing of learning objects may not after all be regarded as ideal by those
with a more pedagogical bent. For example, although most bodies involved in the creation or
proposing of e-learning standards claim their standards to be pedagogically neutral it would
appear in reality that there is a tacit and arguably outmoded instructionalist pedagogical
paradigm at base of e-learning standards in particular with regard to the way in which they
anticipate online courses to consist entirely in linear sequences of pages or screens.
58
In addition too fine a level of granularity – which is, we are told, proportional to the re-
usability of an object and therefore desirable– sits badly with traditional educationalists who
more likely view their courses as one large and very much context-specific (in terms of
learners, learning objectives, mode of delivery, wider curricular parameters etc) multi-
dimensionally-interrelated whole, not something assembled from smaller reusable parts. If
course designers tend, and many do, more towards a constructivist view of things they will
more likely think of themselves as designing supports and experiences for their learners rather
than simply fitting chunks of content together.
Another problem this relates on to is the need, as software programmers would have it, for
“encapsulation”, for keeping each object a closed system which refers to nothing outside
itself, something again alien to traditional course designers who would tend more likely to
want their course to point “outwards” and “onwards” and see this as a more accurate
reflection of how “knowledge works” in terms, for example, of concepts such as “island of
expertise”, “communities of practice” and “epistemic frames”.
And there are cultural difficulties also, not to be underrated in their importance to the success
of the learning economy idea for, as Campbell states – and this would be the author’s
experience as well:
“although colleagues may state with certainty that they are willing to reuse and share
resources, in practice institutional culture may offer little incentive or support for
them to actively do so”
(Campbell 2003, p. 36)
Added to this is the fact that educators and facility may be, understandably, possessive of the
course materials they have spent considerable time amassing and developing.
Finally, and this is an over-looked point also, the process of making learning objects which
are fully compliant with the range of de facto standards is a complex business. Until the
advent of editors and extensions for web design applications such as Adobe DreamWeaver for
example the process of adding runtime/communication standards to a course involved pasting
a JavaScript wrapper (that which in turn communicates with the LMS’s API adapter) into the
code for each page, even today knowing what standards you want to make your course
compliant with and using the available editors and extensions is far from being a simple
business.
E-learning standards and the open source movement

The Leonardo Da Vinci sponsored SLOOP project in a sense looks again towards the world
of software development for a solution to some of these identified issues. Specifically it
looks towards the success of the open source movement in the communal development, use,
sharing and maintenance of source code and seeks to apply it to the development, use, sharing
and maintenance of e-learning objects.
The Linux operating system is often, and with good reason, held up as an exemplar of the
effectiveness and benefits of an open source approach to development and distribution, as
such it is worth examining in the light of the SLOOP project and its ambitions. Linux
software is available free of charge from a number of download sites – or is alternatively
available for a fraction of the cost of a commercial OS in packaged distributions like Red Hat
and Fedora – and can also be freely modified and distributed on. Significantly – for this is
the hoped-for future model for the new learner economy – development and maintenance is
carried out for free and the resultant software is widely maintained to be more robust that
anything developed by Microsoft because, essentially, it has been debugged and tested to
destruction by a larger army of skilled programmers than Microsoft could ever hope to
assemble. (Naughton 2000, p. 204). John Naughton offers an interesting insight into the
59
nature of the community behind Linux and the open source software movement in general in
the following anecdote.
When IBM…tried to strike a deal with the group of Open Source hackers who created
the Apache Web-server program, the company’s lawyers were baffled to discover that
there seemed to be nobody to whom the company could pay a licence fee…Even more
puzzling was the face that the twenty or so hackers involved in the Apache project
seemed completely uninterested in money. Their own concern was that any deal with
IBM would have to respect the copyleft principle.
(Naughton 2000, p. 205)
A deal was eventually made however, with IBM being allowed to incorporate the Apache
software into an online commerce system it was building at the time in return, not for money,
but for an improvement to the Apache software worked out by IBM programmers – a clever
“hack” in their lingo. Rather than coming from the kind of culture that might be said to
dominate with regard to the creation and protection of learning materials in a traditional
education settings the open source movement is far more about free collaboration and
collective gain; about the removal of intellectual property restrictions, and, as the above story
illustrates, a greater collective interest in improving the product than in any personal or
financial gain. Can such an attitude be engendered in the world of e-learning? Could it
possibly bridge the disjunction between the technologists and the pedagogues? There are a
number of positive indications.
First of all the open sources principle has more recently been successfully applied to content
as well as software. The obvious example here is Wikipedia which, at the time of writing, has
very nearly two million articles, written collaboratively by volunteers around the globe and
covered by the GNU Free Documentation License. The open source approach has also been
applied to educational content, most famously by the MIT OpenCourse project which
essentially makes available “materials from virtually all of MIT's undergraduate and graduate
courses”. (“About OCW”).
Secondly the open source software movement also provides the right technology as well as
the right attitude. Two useable open source products promoted by the SLOOP project, eXe
and Reload, are off-line authoring environments which can create SCORM-compliant content
packages. In addition a system dubbed “FreeLOMs” has been developed by the technical
partners to the project, The Institute for Educational Technologies of The Italian National
Research Council, which provides the necessary portal for project partners and the general
public to create, upload, share and search for SCORM packages – as well as other non-
SCORM digital content– as well as creating SCORM packages from html pages and from MS
PowerPoint files.
Our Story
The DEIS Department of Education Development in the Cork Institute of Technology in the
southwest Ireland are one of the partners on this project, part of whose role involves testing
out some of the SLOOP ideas by creating and attempting to share some learning objects of
their choice. Much of the remainder of the article explains this process. First however a few
words about the department in order to contextualise this work.
The department has a mission to “innovate in education for quality and access” and, in
pursuing this goal, engages in the design and implementation of a wide range of innovative
interventions in the field of education and training. Typically these are integrated into
mainstream provision as appropriate in conjunction with evaluation by senior staff of the
Cork Institute of Technology, a higher education institution with a student population of
nearly 15,000. The actual range of interventions researched and implemented is extensive but
ODL and e-learning play a major role and the department is, for instance, responsible for the
60
administration of the institute’s learning management system, WebCT ,and has, over the
years, completed a range of, largely EU-funded, research in the e-learning area, dealing with
topics such as, online assessment, authentic online learning, serious games and m-learning.
The department, more recently, has also begun developing e-learning solutions for outside
companies in a range of disciplines and industries areas including publication,
pharmaceuticals, finance and sport.
Despite such exposure the department has not, over the years, made much use of e-learning
standards or had call to do so. E-learning developed for mainstream institute use for instance
is for deployment via WebCT system which does not require SCORM-compliance (though
WebCT, like many LMSs, itself can export the assembled content subsequently as a SCORM
package if required). The range of projects the department has also participated in has not
required anything beyond a theoretical understanding of the range of existing standards and,
though outside clients sometimes do request it, the “version” of standards, particularly
runtime standards, that need to be implemented for commercial developed work can vary and
the software used to achieve them is 100% commercial.
The DEIS approach was to be this then: to develop a learning object with a real use within a
“real” course and to use the open source tools recommended by the SLOOP project to make it
SCORM compliant, and afterwards try, essentially, to share it with the world.
It was decided to use a module taught by the author entitled “E-learning theory and
technology”, an elective module for years three and four of an honours degree in multimedia,
as the basis for the pilot. Part of the content of this module involves a focus on the main
modern pedagogical schools of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism and their
implication for the process of e-learning design. After some thought with regard to ideal
dates for piloting and the schedule of lectures the topic of “cognitive information processing”
was chosen as a relatively self-contained area which suggests a number of useful illustrations
and animations to support the learning. As part of the pilot all students of the elective module
in e-learning would be given access to the course and would be motivated to participate in the
course by reason of the assistance the materials would lent them in completing a final
assignment which in turn required them to design and develop their own short piece of e-
learning.
Our Learning Object

The course is relatively short, eleven linear pages or screens in all with a number of Flash
animations, static images and hyperlinks provided throughout. As can be see from the
screenshot of the table of contents below the course overviews each stage in the cognitive
information processing model from the sensory store through to working memory, long term
memory and the process of encoding and attempts for each of these to provide clear principles
to be followed by the would-be e-learning designer.
In addition a short self-test of twelve questions is also provided along with a discussion area
where participants are asked essentially, in one thread, to talk about areas of the course that
they enjoyed or found useful as well as areas they were less happy with, and in another, more
searching thread, to add further examples of how the cognitive information processing model
might be applied to the world of e-learning design and development. The self-test was
produced using another well-known piece of educational software, recommended in the
guidelines for teachers provided by the SLOOP project, called “Hot Potatoes” which, while
not strictly open source, is free for use for not-for-profit educational institutes. Hot Potatoes,
like Reload and eXe, also exports tests as fully compliant SCORM packages.
61
Fig. 1 - Table of Contents for Course in Moodle
The Development Process

The development process worked as follows:
A version of the course was created in Microsoft Word. This Microsoft Word document was
designed using Style tags. A program called C o u r s e G e n i e – see
http://www.wimba.com/products/coursegenie/ – which facilitates automatic generation of a
number of HTML pages based on the styles used in the Microsoft Word document was
initially used to cut up the Word document into a number of html pages. (In point of fact this
software can actually be used to create SCORM packages also but in the project context is
was decided to use the free source product Reload for this purpose instead).
The original HTML as produced by CourseGenie appeared as follows:
Fig. 2
62
The HTML pages were then modified using cascading style sheets (css) essentially to
improve their appearance and to add one or two visual cues to certain types of content (such
as web links for instance)
Fig. 3
Where appropriate, images were created, these images included illustrations, examples of
theories in action, and diagrams of elearning concepts.
Image a: a “made-up” example of a violation Image b: an illustration to accompany some

of the “Coherence Principal”. text regarding “rehearsal”
Fig. 4
A number of areas were identified where Flash animation could work effectively. Much of
this Flash content was based upon existing diagrams used already to teach this aspect of the
module or else where designed as mini-simulations of scenarios outlined in the text but more
suited ultimately to animation. From a pedagogical perspective animations in general were
used to command the user’s attention, and to better illustrate processes and other concepts and
models involving movement or progression.
63
Animation a: an example of an animated Animation b: an example of a short flash

version of a diagram illustrating CIP animation illustrating dual coding theory
Fig. 5
Making our learning object standards-compliant

Finally, and most importantly, once the content was complete e-learning standards were
added.
Two approaches were taken here. The first was a manual approach, as advised in the SLOOP
online course for teachers, to adding runtime standards. The initial step here was to add two
JavaScript files – downloaded from the ADL website – into the object folder (i.e. the folder
that contained all the files and subfolders associated with the object). The purpose of these
two JavaScript files may be summarised as follows:
• APIWrapper.js - provides a number of key functions that allow the SCO to find and
communicate with the LMS Run-time Environment. It does not initialise the API
functions, but rather contains the information needed to find the API adapter in the LMS
framework, call the desired API function and handle any errors that may be generated by
calling the API function.
• SCOFunctions.js –contains several navigation functions used by all of the object’s HTML
pages that are used when the user navigates between pages, or exits the LO. The
SCOFunctions file contains the commands required to initialize the API functions on a
page per page basis
(above based on Sharable Content Object 2007)
Following the inclusion of these two files, commands were added to each of the html pages in
the objects folder (in the <body> tag), referencing certain actions within the JavaScript.
Second of all the SCORM packing was carried out using an open source content package and
metadata editor called Reload, again a piece of software recommended in the SLOOP online
course for teachers. The process of creating a SCORM package from the html and other files
which constitutes our learning object consists in adding titles to each of the HTML files, and
defining the other files required by the LO.
The software is relatively straightforward to use. The location of the content package is first
defined and then the manifest is built by dragging the HTML pages into a particular
organisation – which provides a structure and titles for the HTML pages in the package that
will appear in the ‘table of contents’ ultimately provided in the LMS. A range of schema and
schema versions may also be chosen from.
64
The Cognitivism LO in Reload Editor
Fig. 6
Testing our SCORM package

The finished LOs were first tested in Reload Editor, which provides a “Preview Content
Package” feature. This allows users to preview their course in a simulated LMS environment
and is a quick way to test essentially whether the manifest file correctly corresponds to the
HTML pages. It gives no indication however whether the runtime standards run correctly.
We found with our pilot material that it worked correctly in this environment first time.
The second LMS in which we tested the LOs in was the well-known open source LMS
Moodle, v 1.8.2 with the SCORM module added, also the LMS-of-choice for the SLOOP
project. The LO successfully tested here also.
The LO in the Reload Editor “Preview Content The LO in the Moodle LMS
Package” environment
Fig. 7
Following on from this, the LOs was tested in another LMS called “SumTotal”, a popular
commercial solution used by a range of well-known companies such as Citi, Ernst & Young,
Novartis and a range of US DoD forces. Again the LO worked as intended, without errors.
65
After testing in Sumtotal, the LOs were tested in the WebCT LMS, which as indicated earlier,
is the main LMS used in the Cork Institute of Technology. This was the first LMS which did
not run the LOs correctly: the manifest appeared intact and the various page titles were
displayed but on attempting to navigate the content the LMS constantly output error messages
such as “Error finding API – too deeply nested” and “Unable to find an API adapter”, clearly
a runtime issue. It should be noted in fairness however that the version of the system used is
far from being the latest available (at the time of writing The Cork Institute of Technology
still uses WebCT CE version 4.1.5.8, a version which has been superseded over a year ago.)
After the Pilot

The online course was initially piloted with fifteen students, all of whom finished the course
and many who took a reasonably active part in the discussion area. Results and feedback
from this pilot are provided as part of the SLOOP report output entitled “PE2 Report by The
DEIS Department of Education Development on Initial SLOOP Pilot” available from the
SLOOP project website (http://www.sloopproject.eu/).
Main highlights here include the following:
Technical
• Work needed to be done on the animations to increase their effectiveness and also to
answer some comments for participants that they needed to be “slowed down”; the central
animation that outlines the CIP model as a result was completely revised
• Some broken links had to be fixed
• All hyperlinks provided throughout the course were gathered together in one area at the
request of a number of course participants
• Some of the styles were changed to improve the appearance and, in some cases, the
visibility of the content
• A pdf of all the content (with suitable jpegs replacing the animations) was produced,
again at the request of pilot participants, and included as part of the package for download
by participants
Pedagogical
• The self-test was revised to better match the learning objectives for this short course, this
test now includes questions that go beyond the level of basic comprehension
• Some further assessment methods are still being considered, short paragraph answers may
for instance be integrated into the course (e.g. “Give me your best 50 word definition of
the process of Mayer’s Contiguity principle”)
• Activities in the discussion area will be given more structure and a range of tried-and-
tested techniques will be considered to find one to encourage more meaningful discussion
Reuse
The learning object has already been reused also in a number of other contexts:
• In its incarnation as a WebCT-based course the learning object was provided to 2nd year
multimedia students taking a mandatory module entitled “Media and Culture” (students
are given a short introduction to pedagogy and educational psychology as part of the
module.)
66
• Access to the course has also been provided to a group of high-ranking personnel from
the Irish Defences Forces who were taking a short training programme delivered by the
DEIS Department as part of a special course for instructors.
• As with all the learning objects produced for the SLOOP project this learning object was
uploaded to the freeLOMs site where it could be viewed by all members. Once the
project is complete these learning objects can be accessed by anyone who joins the
SLOOP community
• The object was chosen by the SLOOP co-ordinators as one of those to be translated in
other partner languages and reused in another local context. In this case partners were
able to work from the SCORM package as provided in the freeLOMs site though fla files
– i.e. editable Flash files – had to be provided for any of the Flash content separately
• The object, and significantly from the point of view of re-usability, sections of the
learning object have been uploaded to the Irish National Digital Learning Repository, a
pilot project between Irish Universities and the Institutes of Technology to support the
online collaboration and sharing of learning and teaching resources (see
http://www.ndlr.ie/ )
• It is also likely going forward that this online mini-course will become part of a larger
online course to be used as part of a planned post-graduate diploma for lecturers in
various aspects of teaching and learning
Conclusions and Reflections

Participating in the SLOOP project has made real for the authors a number of important issues
relating to the whole e-learning standards and learning objects debate. Although the
experience of testing our SCORM package with a number of LMS solutions seemed to
suggest to us that true interoperability and reusability are much closer to becoming a reality
than we might have guessed based on earlier experiences some important lingering issues
were also brought to life.
For one there is the issue of granularity. It passes as a sort of manta among proponents of the
learning object project that the size of an object is inversely proportional to re-usability (a
single image to take an extreme example can potentially be used in more places than a full
course can and that therefore greater granularity is to be seen as something of a virtue. For
other technical and non-technical reasons there must is seems still be limits as to how small a
learning object can or should be. The learning object developed by the DEIS Department for
the SLOOP project could easily take half an hour or more for students to work through, more
again for them to complete the discussion-based activities at the end, giving a total average
learner workload of as much as an hour.
This is by no means a small learning object then yet it is difficult to see how a properly
formulated learning objective, beyond one only dealing with very basic cognitive levels of
identification and definition, could be addressed by something smaller. Moreover, and still
talking now about granularity, it must be considered how difficult a job it would be for a
teacher or lecturer to take something of a smaller size and try to reassemble it with other parts
to make a coherent – or “pedagogically meaningful” – new learning object. Even with a
reasonably successful learning object repository to work from there would still inevitably be a
high effort cost in terms of searching, finding and finally modifying and reassembling the
content.
This scenario more or less supposes the existence of a learning repository in which every item
has been appropriately tagged, a reasonably straightforward, if time-consuming process, if the
object, like ours, is a large-ish one but an endlessly difficult one if the object is extremely
small. Thinking about fields in the IMS metadata schema such as keywords, description,
contexts etc how does one tag a picture of a horse, or a fish or a piece of machinery? An
67
object which, due to its granularity, is endlessly reusable would also appear to lend itself to
endless description.
It seems too – and perhaps this is a far greater issue – that unresolved issues remain regarding
the pedagogical assumptions implicit in the e-learning standards project. Consider the
learning object piloted by the authors as part of their involvement in the SLOOP project:
although conventional enough in terms of form and structure this learning object still
consisted of something more than just linear content; as many online courses do it concluded
with an opportunity for online discussion, in fact with our learning object participation in this
discussion was considered a essential part of the experience we were trying to design for our
learners. In the e-learning standard specifications however it did not seem possible to the
authors to call the discussion function, as it were, from the LMS when it was required, all that
could be done was to signpost the discussion forum from the course content and then make
sure to add the discussion list along with all the various necessary posting from the lecturer
using LMS-specific tools. This seems like a shortcoming, and one that sits badly with an
alternative view of a “course” as a designed set of experiences and supports (or opportunities
for experiences and supports) rather than a series of linear pages or screen.
Nonetheless there are a lot of positives too. The SLOOP project has been presented here as
one which aimed to apply an open source philosophy and a range of open source technologies
to creating a repository of shared learning objects. In this much the project would appear to
have been a runaway success. The project’s freeLOMs platform at the time of writing
contains almost one hundred SCORM-compliant learning objects in a range of languages.
The process of translating some of those already available into other languages is ongoing
also at present so even if no further new objects are created the total number of objects will
have grown again by the end of the project’s lifetime. SLOOP has been successful then, to
judge from both the sheer number of learning objects developed and the enthusiastic
discussion which have sprung up around them, in getting participants to freely share on a
Europe-wide scale what traditionally teachers and lecturers have often been loathe to pass on
even within their own schools and institutes. Doubtlessly the framing of the efforts of the
participants within wider and well-known open source success stories like Linux and
Wikipedia etc contributed in some part to this success. How long and how well this sharing
attitude will continue on after the period of funding will tell a tale and ultimately decide
whether the entire project recedes into history as an interesting once-off pilot or an ongoing
initiative that will continue to grow over time and become another open source success story.
References
“About OCW”, http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Global/AboutOCW/about-ocw.htm (2007).

180507.
Campbell, L. M. (2003) Engaging with the learning object economy, in: Allison Littlejohn
(Ed) Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to e-Learning, pp. 20-35 (London,
Kogan Page).
Horton, W. (2003) E-Learning Tools and Technologies: A Consumer's Guide for Trainers,
Teachers, Educators, and Instructional Designers E-Learning Tools and Technologies: A
Consumer's Guide for Trainers, Teachers, Educators, and Instructional Designersners (John
Wiley & Sons Inc).
68
Koper, R. (2003) “Combining reusable learning resources and services with pedaogical
purposeful units of learning”, in: Allison Littlejohn (Ed) Reusing Online Resources: A
Sustainable Approach to e-Learning, pp. 46-60 (London, Kogan Page).
Littljohn, A. (2003) “Issues in reusing online resources”, in: Allison Littlejohn (Ed) Reusing
Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to e-Learning, pp. 1-9 (London, Kogan Page).
Naughton, J. (2000) A Brief History of the Future: The Origins of the Internet (London,
Phoenix).
“Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) : Sample Run-Time Environment”,

www.adlnet.gov/downloads/AuthNotReqd.aspx?FileName=scorm_rte11_readme.zip&ID=21
2" (2007) (ADL). 250407.
Authors
Gearóid Ó’ Suilleabháin, MscEcon MA
DEIS department,
CIT,
Rossa Avenue, Cork, Ireland
gearoid.osuilleabhain@cit.ie
Darragh Coakley
DEIS department,
CIT,
Rossa Avenue, Cork, Ireland
darragh.coakley@cit.ie
69
SLOOP PROJECT IMPACT ON “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY

VIRTUAL COMMUNITY
Lucian Oprea, Carmen C_t_lina Rusu, Iulian Ilie, Zinica Gur_u, Steluta Stan, Gina Necula,
“Dunarea de Jos” University
Abstract
The paper is a short presentation of the objectives of the SLOOP Project and the activities run by
“Dunarea de Jos” University, as a partner in the project.
The authors provide information regarding the electronic platforms used by the Distance Learning
Department. The first platform was Ariadne, created by the European Consortium, coordinated by
the Polytechnic Institute in Lausanne, Switzerland, in a SOCRATES Project. Starting from the
experience acquired developing Ariadne, our department created its own electronic platform,
named PIED. In the future, the MOODLE platform might be utilized to good effect.
Working from the results of the SLOOP Project, we intend to enlarge the university virtual
community with other trainers from “Dunarea de Jos” University, and also from other
universities, and develop new individualized LOs. Reaching the objectives of the SLOOP Project,
implementing and ensuring its sustainability in “Dunarea de Jos” University, alongside with the
new national standards, will guarantee a higher level of quality for distance learning activities.
Keywords: e-learning, distance learning standards, open source platforms, Ariadne, PIED,
Moodle
SLOOP Project philosophy
SLOOP (Sharing Learning Objects in an Open Perspective) Project’s main goal is t o

promote and facilitate e-learning, practical training and face-to-face education, with a view t o
improving the quality and eficiency of the didactic process.
Through its objectives, the project finds a place in the Romanian context of distance learning and
observes the new standards and criteria established by ARACIS for this type of learning.
The use of the e-learning technologies MOODLE platform, and the development of LOs (learning
objects) with strict observation of the new standards concerning the use of the technologies in
distance learning make a greater familiarity of the teachers/ trainers with the e-resources. possible,
SLOOP Project objectives
• to define a methodology for the creation of LOs, according to international standards (for
both pedagogical and technological aspects);
• to produce an Open Management System meant to create/ collect/ use LOs, easily and
freely accessible both to training institutions and individual teachers/ trainers, i.e. a
common environment where contents and methodologies of e-learning can be
interchanged;
• to create collections of LOs meant to:
develop and use LOs (metaLOs);
apply training paths at the workplace (training stages);
recognize the competences acquired during the non-formal and informal learning paths.
70
Sloop project impact on Dunarea De Jos university virtual community
• to create individualized LOs, for students and people who work;
• to promote and enhance the value of the LO model, of the System of Management and of
the collections of LOs, encouraging the communities of practitioners inside or outside the
institutions to develop new LOs, to use and modify the already existing ones, according to
their own learning needs, goals and contexts;
• to trigger a process capable of ensuring the sustainability of the management/ model
system even after the project is over.
LOs in “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati
Beginning November 17 and November 21, 2006, a number of 29 trainers/ teachers, working with
the Department for Distance Learning and Reduced Frequency, attended a training course,
introduced by a description of the SLOOP Project goal and objectives. Initially, it was meant as a
distance course, the teachers not being physically present in a certain location. at a certain
moment.
Due to objective reasons and some unforseen technical aspects, we had to improve the
communication between us and the participants, and transformed it into an online intensive
course.
The course used the SLOOP Project website for different group activities (materials, information
or collaborative characteristics). The trainees accessed the website before, during and after the
course, in order to better understand the concepts subsequently discussed in the course.
Course duration
The course was developed in 2 stages, the first one from November 15, 2006, till December 23,
2006 (5 weeks), and the second stage, from January 15 to February 28, 2007 (6 weeks). The main
requirements regarding the implementation of the course were:
• creation of access to course related information (user name and password);

• creation of e-mail box;
• providing hardware and software resource requirements;
• preparing trainees for an online course (instruments for the management of time, etc.);
• description of the distance learning environment and the characteristics of the course;
• providing the proper knowledge regarding the tutorial discussions by using the forum, the
electronic resources available on the SLOOP site;
• providing the HelpDesk support;
• providing electronic support.
The two stages of the course were:
Stage I – November 15, 2006 – December 23, 2006
• selection of trainees;
• face-to-face meetings with the 2 groups (course concepts, requirements and
characteristics, goal and philosophy, etc.);
• online course initiation (registration of participants: self-registration and registration-
confirmation of the group by ITSOS partner – PE2 Romanian Course, 29 participants).
Stage II – January 15, 2007 – February 28, 2007
• individual assisted training;

• online activities (MetaLOs, questions and answers on the forum, e-mail and individual
assisted training, applications, instruments for the creation of MetaLOs using programs
like eXe and ReLoad Editor, completion of online questionnaires);
71
• applications, instruments for the creation of MetaLOs using programs like eXe and
ReLoad Editor, completion of online questionnaires).
Technical characteristics of the course

• Course characteristics: face-to-face, individual and group training, online activities;
• Platform: MOODLE (the platform of the SLOOP Project);
• Materials: 8 MetaLOs created by ITSOS partner and translated in Romanian, online and
offline CD;
• Online and face-to-face interactivity:
Number of trainees:
registered – 29;
course graduates – 12;
active on the platform – 15;
4 face-to-face tutorial meetings (with the 29 registered trainees);
6 MetaLOs uploaded on the platform in the testing sector;
3 sections, 1 answer on the forum, 16 individual and group e-mail exchanges.
National standards concerning the use of electronic learning platforms in Distance

Learning
The rapid evolution of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), in direct relationship
with the Internet evolution led to a more intense involvement of these technologies in the
learning process. This happens with all forms of education, but it is more obvious with the
Distance Learning. The effects on the quality of the programmes are spectacular if the newest
technologies are well understood and efficiently put into practice.
Through internet based educational technologies (E-learning), the Distance Learning programmes
become accessible and communication between people involved in the process, i.e. administrators,
students, discipline coordinators and tutors, can become more efficient. This system can provide
varied and particularized, even personalized supplementary learning materials trying to meet each
and every students needs. The use of these technologies necessitates proper information and
handling of these systems, in order to elaborate and use the on-line educational materials and
efficient communication technologies spread through internet.
The university, through its Distance Learning Department has initiated learning programmes
using electronic platforms, will prove that it can utilise the necessary technical equipment for the
implementation and managing of the electronic learning system, that it has already implemented
specific data administrating systems vital for the on-line educational process, that security
systems are in use, in order to protect the Electronic Learning Platform, that the interface for
internal or external users is flexible and can be adapted to the dynamics of the learning processes,
that it has qualified personnel for implementing, developing and maintaining the platform.
Services for the students

The learning platforms that are to ensure the electronic educational support, have to facilitate the
use of the learning environment. The minimum demands are:
• students selecting and matriculating procedures to be active and functional;

• to facilitate synchronous and asynchronous communication between students and
teachers/tutors and the technical-administrative staff.
• to have implemented specific instruments for recording, monitoring and storing in good
security conditions of all the necessary costs for the services supplied;
• to offer technological solutions able to assist students – on-line as well as off-line –
individually or in team works.
72
• to use specialized programmes for collecting statistical data about students and also for
improving services delivered;
• to provide the users information about managing the appealing and using of the available
educational services;
• to facilitate students access to: help online, the map of the learning environment, the web
page structure (where it is to be found the course or the tutorial), pictograms use;
• to grant accessibility to different learning and communication resources: online data, news,
mail, synchronous or asynchronous chat, virtual seminaries, virtual library;
• to offer the specific necessary means for online or offline evaluation and self-evaluation;
• to allow facilities in periodically checking students feed-back on the educational system
offered;
• to make available for the students detailed electronic information concerning activities
that are to take place or that have already taken place. This information will speak about
the technical resources needed for accessing the platform, the structure of the platform
and the evaluation methods.
A good performance requires the implementation of special monitoring and intervention measures
in case of some repeated technical problems.
Specific learning resources

The electronic learning platform includes specific instruments and procedures that are meant t o
facilitate individual studying (to an individuals own tempo) with varied learning aids, easy to be
accessed. For this to happen it is necessary that:
• the didactic staff involved in developing, implementing and using the courses on the
electronic learning platform has to have access to guides for developing and updating their
courses in an electronic format as well as for using the platform;
• testing new courses procedures should be implemented on the platform;
• updating courses procedures should be implemented on the platform;
• promoting specific instruments for developing and implementing multimedia courses,
accessible on the internet.
Services provided for the didactic staff

The Electronic Learning Platform is to be promoted and managed by the Distance Learning
Departments from the respective universities that take the responsibility of training the staff
involved in the process. The Distance Learning Departments guarantee:
• specific guides and teaching aids necessary for didactic staff training in order to accustom
to the implemented technologies from the electronic learning platform;
• training for using specific instruments necessary for updating and developing multimedia
or web page courses;
• periodical evaluation of the teachers’ performance (made by the students).
Access to the services provided by the electronic learning platform

The platform in case must be implemented on a communicational infrastructure that has to allow
constant and simultaneous access to a large number of users and to handle correctly various
electronic aspects of the learning resources. The following aspects are to be held in view:
• the platform allows simultaneous access to a large number of users;

• the network in use with the institution in case allows access to the platform to all the
registered users, no matter the location of the solicitors;
• the university has a strategy for maintaining and updating hardware and software products
specific to the electronic learning platform.
73
Learning platforms used at “Dunarea de Jos” University
ARIADNE Platform
The "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati is member of the "ARIADNE Foundation for the
European Knowledge Pool" since 1999.
The Association works for the widespread adoption of educational technologies by European
Society at large, in their state-of-the-art and - as far as possible, platform-independent, best
practices. The ARIADNE approach and tools, given their generally neutral pedagogical character,
are well suited as a starting, practical point, to such an ambitious purpose.
The following educational technologies and methodologies are immediately available to Members:
• learning objects multilingual indexation

• learning objects capitalization, sharing and reuse
• learning objects authoring (courseware-type-specific authoring)
• capture of socio-geographical learners' data
• design of socio-geographically targeted curricula
• learning objects selection and assembling in targeted curricula
• design of web distributed distance courses
• best practices in the use of interactive communication technologies
• best practices in management of small, medium and large ODL courses
Software design and development expertise, accumulated by Europe's best IT/ODL academic
departments and ARIADNE engineers in building educational software tools, might also be
exchanged and transferred to those members that volunteer to participate in the Foundation tools'
further development: 'Open source' or "Free/Libre software" development models may, later on,
be used by the Foundation to maintain/improve its tools.
74
Fig.1 – the Knowledge Pool System
Presentation of the PIED platform

Recent developments in the field of information and communication technologies have triggered
an essential change concerning both the necessity to acquire knowledge and the ability to react,
and the manner in which the offer for programs of study by education institutions is made.
PIED is a platform characteristic to distance learning activities where the courses, the testing and
the evaluation, as well as the applications, are performed at a certain (and more often than not,
significant) distance in space between the teacher/ tutor and the student.
PIED is a simple, user-friendly platform, focused on the pedagogical preoccupations of teachers,

tutors, trainers and students.
The application falls into the category of educational software. It is characteristic to any distance
system of electronic education (e-learning). It is this type of e-Learning application (LMS -
Learning Management System) which allows the trainers and the institution itself to provide one
or more groups of students with one or more training modules consisting of the course support,
tutorial applications and complements, as well as other course materials, self tests and partial
tests, automatic evaluations, students’ activity monitoring etc. The application is supported by
state-of-the-art instruments of communication (online audio and video conferences, webmail,
forum, chat, material distribution and management, animated sessions etc.). In short, the platform
supports online tutoring, successfully
practicing traditional methods used by
educational systems.
75
Fig. 2
Facilities offered by PIED

• platform for the management of the educational system, modern, user-friendly, with
many facilities for management and communication;
• monitors the whole activity of the students along the training period;
• provides a complete communication interface between the students and the subject
coordinators, as well as access to all learning resources;
• ensures support for learning and advisory activities, in conformity with the analytical
programs of the courses, as well as the tutoring and partial evaluation activities;
• represents a flexible system which allows for personalized tailoring of content (?) and
includes online access to didactic materials (modules/courses, lessons, applications, tutorial
activities, units of study etc.);
• allows for self-instruction, self-testing and self-evaluation, all monitored from a distance;
• has an attractive interface, can present course materials in alternative formats, with the
possibility of selecting the most convenient form of access;
• offers the trainers the possibility to create and test all the course materials online;
• minimises the trainers work through the maximum use of existing resources, allows for the
creation of personnel qualified for this activity;
• the platform also allows for working offline.
• it is an open source platform, subsequent development along with reorganising and adding
new educational practices being possible.
What PIED provides
Pied was developed for the following group of users:
• trainers (teachers and/or tutors):

organisation and planning of the courses
placing and distribution of course materials
organisation of online/ offline conferences/ seminars
monitorization of student activity
statistics and other complementary course materials.
• groups of students:
one or more training modules with course support
tutorial applications and course complements
self tests
virtual tests
automatic evaluations of the test results.
• administrator:
76
rights to update the PIED database
possibility of access rights administration
ability to monitor the download and upload activities between PIED members.
PIED Modules
PIED nucleus – monitoring system of distance learning activity
allows access to training modules

monitoring information, reports, syntheses
individual statistics concerning: log-ins, evolution stages, evaluations etc.
group statistics concerning evolution stages, evaluations etc.
individual and group evaluations
most recent messages posted on the e-mail and on the forum
documents available in the library, schedules and announcements included
online videoconferences schedule etc.
Virtual TESTER – testing and virtual evaluation system
the trainers can add to a FAQ database of a course module (domain) corresponding to a
particular spacialization
the students can take random tests, with a view to self instruction, testing or self testing
the results of the tests/ evaluations are kept in the database and viewed by those
with special rights.
PiEditor – generation and electronic document distribution system
PiConvertor – document conversion system (.doc, .xls, .rtf, .txt, .pdf, .html etc.)
TestArt – packed tests elaboration system
TestArtX – safe support system for distance tests
Financiar PIED – financial-accountant administration of the distance learning activity
PIED Catalog
ability to monitor of all the students’ activity

management of the archive data detailing a students progression during the years of
study
PIED admission
management of the enrolling and admission activities in all the faculties of the distance
learning system
management of the admission in a faculty
Online Conferences – management of the video and audio online conferences
PIED also includes an original system of video and audio conferences, as a useful means
of communication between the trainers with their students
the trainers can deliver a live course, at distance, using images, texts, diagrams etc.,
directly on the student’s monitor, simultaneous with the verbal explanations
PIForum – management of the forums organized in groups
allows message posting and visualization for forums initiated and moderated by tutors
discussion topics are chosen by the tutors and the chat rooms are organized in study
groups
77
PIDialog – management of chats (free discussions between students and/or teachers)
E-mail – management of e-mail messages
PIED has its own system of communication between the members (students and
teachers), based on the e-mail
sending and receiving e-messages, with or without attachments
PiLibrary – management of the documents on PIED
modules/courses, lessons, tutorial applications, units of study

individual tests and compulsory tests
schedules
announcements
miscellaneous info
Educational services and resources

Course module (support) = totality of Internet folders (having the above-mentioned format)
containing:
• course support (tutorial applications and other course materials, animated sessions,
simulations in interactive environment). A course module can be produced in Word, Excel,
HTML, Acrobat, Text or RTF, PDF etc. formats. The course materials have all the
benefits of the Internet environment (dynamics, interactivity, multimedia
• tests. Tests are used for self examination and evaluation. The test is automatically and
randomly generated from a database. Thus, tests differ almost completely from one
generation to another and are balanced in what degree of difficulty is concerned. They are
usually multiple-choice tests. The evaluations are direct and immediate, automatically
registered and can be viewed as a history which provides the tutor with a complete image
of the student’s evolution along the training period. The use of tests in self training is
good practice in knowledge assimilation. The students can thus evaluate themselves while
the tutor can find out what difficulties each individual student faces. The web technology
allows the registration and individualization of these results, as well as their full
‘monitoring’.
• registration and tracking of the students’ results and development, as well as the
permanent connections with the students, individualized during the formation period
• course session e-formation period) = set of administration procedures and rules of a
course module for a group of students. During each course session, the students and the
tutors use collaborative tools (forum, chat, schedule, messaging etc.) and have access to
the e-formation support. The session can switch between online work and real meetings of
the tutors with their students.
Means of communication used by PIED:
• Messaging – way of communication between the members of the groups, based on sending
and receiving electronic messages (e-mails), with or without attachments.
• Forum – allows posting messages accessible to everyone in the group, answers to such
messages and engaging in given topics for discussion.
• Chat (instant messaging) – allows the groups to discuss in real time different topics of
interest.
• Online audio/ video conferences – on the trainers’ demand, online audio and video
conferences can be organized, moderated by one or more trainers, for one or more groups
of students
• E-docs library contains electronic documents (course support, e-books, pedagogical
materials, tutorial applications and other course materials, articles, notes, reviews etc.)
placed by the members of the platform, using different formats (Word, Excel, RTF, TXT,
PDF, HTML etc.)
78
based on their precise placement in a catalogue, in order to be easily identified and
viewed
can be accessed by with access right (included in the controlled access system).
MOODLE Platform
Taking into account the facilities offered by the MOODLE platform, we intend to use it beginning
in the academic year 2007-2008. Due to its flexibility and characteristics (open source, the
possibility to modify it to our own needs, simultaneous access of a great number of users), we
intend to transfer the already existing database on PIED, the latter thus becoming an archive of e-
courses for the MOODLE platform.
Fig. 3
Conclusions
Accepting to take part in the course, the trainees from the Faculties of Economic Sciences,
Letters and Theology, and Computer Science, created a virtual community in “Dunarea de Jos”
University of Galati, meant to support an optimum development of Distance Learning.
This virtual community allows access to e-learning by providing an Open Management System of
LOs, in which one can create, modify and use LOs, according to the collaborative methodology of
the Free/Open Source Software model: “users use, adapt and correct it”.
At the beginning of the training course, the trainees had difficulties in using the new technologies
but, due to individual and group assisted training, they proved to be able to acquire new pedagogical
and technical competencies, meant to help them create LOs, plan and develop quality training
activities for distance learning.
Starting from the present results of the SLOOP Project, we intend to enlarge the universities
virtual community with other trainers from “Dunarea de Jos” University, and also from other
universities, and develop new individualized LOs.
Reaching the objectives of the SLOOP Project, implementing and ensuring its sustainability in
“Dunarea de Jos” University, alongside with the new national standards, will guarantee a higher
level of quality for distance learning activities.
References
Mackenzie, L., (2006) ISO/IEC standard benchmarks quality of e-learning,

http://www.trainingpressreleases.com/newsstory.asp?NewsID=1767
79
Brut, M., (2004) Perspective pentru utilizarea mediilor de instruire FOSS în sistemul universitar
românes, Proceedings of the seminar "Linux and Virtual Learning Environments - the second
edition of e-Learning International Seminar, 8 pag., în "Studia universtit__is Vasile Goldis Arad",
nr. 14/2004, Vasile Goldis University Press, Arad, 2004, ISSN 1584
Griffiths, D., (2004), Three metaphors inhibiting progress în Free / Open Source Educational
Software (FOSS), SIGOSSEE Seminar Limerick
www.aracis.ro, Evaluarea extern_ a programelor de studii oferite prin înv___mânt la distan__,

Bucure_ti, Romania
www.ariadne-eu.org, ARIADNE Foundation of the European Knowledge Pool
Authors
Lucian Oprea, PhD
Dunarea de Jos University
Domneasca 47 St., Galati, Romania
lucian.oprea@ugal.ro
eng. Carmen C_t_lina Rusu

carmen.rusu@ugal.ro
eng. Iulian Ilie

iulian.ilie@ugal.ro
Zinica Gur_u
zinica_gurau18@yahoo.com
lect. Steluta Stan

stelutastan@yahoo.com
lect. Gina Necula

ginanec@gmail.com
80
E - learning in public administration
E-LEARNING IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

By Alessandra Conci and Carlo Bramati
Formaper, Agency of Milan Chamber of Commerce
Abstract
This article is about the use of e-learning in Public Administration, which is a strategic policy both
of EU and Italian Government.
In particular, the Milan Chamber of Commerce and its Special Agency (Formaper and
CedCamera), adopted and embraced these indications by equipping themselves with a property
learning management platform.
The experience of Milan Chamber of Commerce and its Agencies is described in detail concerning
objectives, targets and contents.
In the end it is underlined the importance of Sloop experience for working with open source, from
one hand, and from the other to learn a new methodology for creating didactic material based on
Learning Objects construction improving qualitatively and quantitatively the realized products.
Introduction
In the last five years, the European P.A. has developed a strong interest in the applications of
new technologies in training which help to accelerate and optimize the spread of information and
knowledge formerly weighed down by space and time in the traditional manner of training.
In fact, at the European Union meeting in Lisbon in March of 2000, they agreed to accelerate the
adoption of computers for training purposes in order to reach a higher standard of training needed
to propel Europe into the new millennium. On the basis of such guidelines the European
commission has adopted the initiative “e-learning, the instruction of tomorrow”. Member states
were asked to persevere in the efforts concerning the effective integration of ICT in the
educational and training system. Their aim was to optimize to the fullest potential: the Internet,
multimedia, and virtual learning to reach better, faster, and permanent achievements in education.
Another European initiative called the “European Action Plan 2005” has initiated a two year
program for the effective integration of information and technology and system communications
pertaining to training in Europe. The minister for innovation declared, in the government
guidelines for the development of an information society, that training delivered via e-learning is,
in fact, one of the ten objectives in the government plan.
E-Learning, The Chamber of Commerce and its agencies (Formaper and Cedcamera)
As a result of these developments, the Milan Chamber of Commerce and its agencies (Formaper
and Cedcamera) over the last few years, have purchased an e-learning platform. This was done t o
promote e-learning to their internal employees and to fulfill additional targets.
The economic landscape has created a need to develop an economy based on competitive and
dynamic knowledge.
81
Life – long learning represents a key element in this new economy, not only for personal, social
and civic reasons, but above all, for occupational reasons; for example, finding a job or being up-
to-date in the workforce. As a result of this, life – long learning needs an increase in the
investment in human capital, with the intention of creating awareness, of promoting the
acquisition of basic competencies (e.g. computer science education) and expanding opportunities
to create forms of education in an innovative and flexible manner.
It is in this formative context that the association of the Milan Chamber of Commerce and its
agencies (Formaper and Cedcamera) is defined as promoting a development program for long
distance training. Using advanced technologies and innovative methodologies, long distance
training has been promoted not only for the growth of internal staff, but also to compare external
users, particularly in the entrepreneurial world.
The choice of E-learning, internally and externally from the Chamber of Commerce of Milan has
had a revolutionary impact in bringing noteworthy changes to how we look at training and the
path we need to follow. It also represents an effective combined approach (blended learning),
which takes traditional classroom training and compliments it with technology-based training,
producing a more homogenized course. This blend allows for the construction of training in a
highly personalized, and therefore more efficient, way. The strategic choice that the Chamber of
Commerce of Milan has taken in the direction of utilising e-learning as the preferred training
instrument and form of communication is due to its recognised value and capacity to shorten the
distance between information and people that need it; to construct continuous training systems
that are in contact with the knowledge management and to distribute and manage in a new and
more efficient way the training and updating of people’s skills.
The important investment that the Chamber of Commerce of Milan made when confronted by e-
learning was in terms of human resources, instruments and time. The sole objective was not t o
place e-learning and traditional training side by side, but to promote a more flexible approach
based on utilizing new technologies. Again, the aim is not only to facilitate the communication
exclusively among the Milan Chamber of Commerce and its agencies (Formaper and Cedcamera)
but to realise a real connection between individual learning and its organization and to open the
door to the entrepreneurial world. The knowledge management system is, in this light, the true
and proper development tool to grow and multiply the intellectual capital of enterprises.
For these reasons the Chamber of Commerce of Milan, for some years now, has decided to equip
itself with an e-Learning platform that over time, has become the main vehicle for spreading
knowledge, support training, and the increase of staff competences. In particular e-learning in the
Milan Chamber of Commerce and its agencies (Formaper and Cedcamera) has become a strategic
choice, in effect it plays a fundamental role in:
• Supporting computer science and linguistic training, through blended learning courses
available on-line, employees have access to training at anytime of the day, from any PC,
at any location, thereby accommodating their individual professional and personal needs.
• Supporting transversal training on several topics of interest (on the job training, legal
training, emergency procedure training, etc.). The Chamber of Commerce of Milan has
always paid particular attention to providing training to their employees, organising
courses that help each individual develop the necessary competences to grow in tune with
the organisational culture.
The e-learning platform allows the publication of audio and video material from the courses and
all employees can access the training material and share and exchange information.
This renders e-Learning a precious and effective resource for not only the Milan Chamber of
Commerce and its agencies (Formaper and Cedcamera) but for society in general. As the pace of
living and technological change is continually increasing one needs to adapt to these changes and
therefore is obliged to re-train in some shape or form. Thanks to e-learning, traditional, passive
learning within the four walls of a classroom is no longer the only option. All this is done in the
hope that society will never stop learning and embracing new technologies and the opportunities
they provide.
82
Formaper
Formaper, one of the associated companies of the Chamber of Commerce of Milan, has e-learning
training with much on offer, geared towards aspiring entrepreneurs, start-up enterprises, managers
and employees, enrolling hundreds of participants per year. (see their website for more
information www.e-Learning.formaper.it ).
Formaper has matured its experience in on-line training over the years, experimenting with the
numerous advantages that this methodology can offer: personalized contents and the modalities of
learning giving the user the possibility to construct the learning according to their own
preferences; flexibility in terms of time and place, constant accessibility anytime of the day and
from any web connection. The possibility also exists to stimulate group learning, through the
communication services offered by platform, chats, messages and forums.
The group of Formaper e-learning experts identify the topic that the course will deal with, find
the teacher or the expert and, in contact with graphic designers, put together an initial story board
for the training course. The content development is constantly monitored; therefore reaching a
final product that meets all of the projected requirements. The contents can consist of multimedia
paths; a mix of theories, descriptions of real business case studies, and simulations. Courses can
also contain video that simulate or show real company business situations. All the courses offer
tutoring services in the form of on-line support from an expert on the training process. There is
also the opportunity to find more information on the topic thanks to the possibility of
downloading hypertextual links, tests, case histories and exercises which can supply the learner
with the possibility to self evaluate their own level of improvement.
The content dealt with by Formaper courses is user friendly, its purpose being to define the
entrepreneurial idea; to create an enterprise, to construct a business plan; to understand the
management and development of small and medium sized businesses, to finalise the marketing and
sales strategies, economic-financial planning, to plan international business through ICT
instruments and to manage the human resources relating to the activities of recruitment and staff
selection. The Formaper e-learning platform provides general info on entrepreneurship and a free
demo for every course.
Cedcamera
Cedcamera, the other service company of the Chamber of Commerce of Milan, has, for three
years now, offered on-line guides and manuals (http://e-Learning.mi.camcom.it). In these guides
one can find very technical and precise information pertaining to specific administrative
procedures.
These guides have been created for small businesses, craftsmen and their intermediaries: notary
publics, accountants, bookkeepers, and other professionals. There is also a helpful support section,
which makes it easy and flexible to use in the daily development of business activities. Every guide
is structured in independent modules that can be tailored to suit the specific requirements needed,
text is then integrated with graphics and animation, simulations, outlines of synthesis, interactive
practices, video streaming, thematic glossaries, facsimiles, forms, questionnaires, quizzes, tests and
optional audio support.
The guides are made available through the customized e-learning platform of the Chamber of
Commerce of Milan.
The SLOOP project
The SLOOP project (Sharing Learning Objects in an Open Perspective) was set up under the
Leonardo da Vinci grant. The partnership is composed of academic and public bodies, schools,
83
universities and college faculties from five European countries. The project started in 2005 and
will conclude in September 2007. The objective of the SLOOP project is to promote the sharing
of free/open LOs (learning objects). The original idea was to apply freeware philosophy to the
production of pedagogical materials for e-learning, thus joining the Open source movement. By
using FreeLOms the user can create content which is AICC and SCORM standards compatible.
The term “open source” was initially, and is most commonly, applied to the source code of
software that is available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent intellectual property
restrictions. This allows users to create software content through incremental individual efforts or
through collaboration, with no added restrictions or fees there to limit the user. Open source
cannot be taken to mean “free of charge” as it does not allow the user intellectual property rights
but offers itself as a tool to the development of the content.
Overall the movement is to be considered as an ongoing process of international collaboration and

cooperation. This collaboration and cooperation has been essential to its growth. Two
unavoidable conditions for the existence of the open source movement are therefore the sharing
of know-how and the collaboration through digital infrastructures
Formaper’s experience in Open source and the production of the LOs
Formaper is one of the public bodies invited to participate in the SLOOP project. Formaper has
already used the open-source approach in creating LOs to expand its knowledge related to the
production and the reusability of the new technology involved
The use of FreeLOms, (a free LO management system), has allowed the contents to be rapidly and
easily created by the trainers themselves, doing away with the need to source technical support.
Without this need, the adoption of Open Source products can offer remarkable advantages, both
with regard to the saving of time and money, as it can be soundly inserted in the internal
organisation of any company whether it has an IT department or not.
Another important fact to keep in mind is that the Open Source products are reliable, have a
higher quality and greater adaptability than other products. In fact, behind the development of the
Open Source product there are a vast number of users and so the system is continuously tested t o
verify if the software is functioning correctly.
The methodology employed in creating an LO makes one reflect more deeply on one’s method of
planning and developing an e-learning course. It is a method after all that greatly facilitates the
trainer in creating the general building blocks needed to create the foundation of any course.
However, the LOs are often not created in the most optimal manner possible. This results in a
lack of flexibility due to the way they are constructed. Large LOs lose their adaptability when
they are too focused on a specific topic which therefore renders it impossible to reuse the LO in
other courses and ultimately undoing the benefits inherent in open source philosophy.
The creation of a subdivided course in a number of smaller, self-sustainable LOs, widens the vision
of creating didactic material and maximises the reusability of the product which should ultimately
be the objective of the course creator.
In the end the lessons learned through collaboration with the SLOOP project will be of benefit t o
all of us in the organisation who have assisted in creating content for e-learning, improving
qualitatively and probably also quantitatively the realised products. Moreover the experience has
led to a deeper understanding of the creation and management phases of an e-learning system
organized by LOs, the MOODLE LMS platform, the development of LO tools, and the use of an
LO management and sharing tool such as FreeLOMs. All of this will ultimately, because of our
reliance of e-learning technology, enrich the skills of our existing employees and those to come in
the future.
84
To conclude, the experience with SLOOP has permitted us to find new ways of constructing
didactic materials which can be deployed and reassembled within our existing learning management
system.
Moreover such content in turn allows us to expand our target rang by creating new open and
flexible learning paths
References
E-Learning Team CCIAA di Milano (2006) “Processi e-learning di qualità” / “L’e-learning nel
sistema camerale milanese” Lettera ASFOR.
Centro Nazionale per l’informatica nella Pubblica Amministrazione (2004), N 7 I Quaderni Anno I.
Regione Lombardia Linee guida per la FAD : http://formalavoro.regione.lombardia.it
Authors
Alessandra Conci,
Formaper, azienda speciale della Camera di Commercio di Milano Via Camperis,
1 – 20123 Milano, Italy
conci@mi.camcom.it
Carlo Bramati,
Formaper, azienda speciale della Camera di Commercio di Milano Via Camperis,
1 – 20123 Milano, Italy
bramati@mi.camcom.it
85
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND LEARNING OBJECTS :

A SUCCESSFUL SYNERGY
Pierfranco Ravotto, Francesca Berengo, Luisa Farinati, Mara Masseroni, Luigi Petruzziello,
Monica Terenghi, Marilena Vimercati (ITSOS "Marie Curie")
Abstract
This article focuses on the reasons why a secondary school has decided to get involved in
eLearning and illustrates two of the main activities carried out by ITSOS in the SLOOP project:
the development of learning objects and the planning and delivery of online courses.
SLOOP's outcomes confirm what ITSOS had already learned through experimentation in the
field of eLearning : successful eLearning takes place when the learning objects fully exploit all the
potential of the web and the learning environment favours interactions between people.
All this makes learning more effective and enjoyable.
E - learning in a traditional face-to-face environment
Every morning at 8.10 – from Monday to Saturday, from mid September to mid June – 1,400
students and 180 teachers start their day at ITSOS, an upper secondary school that delivers
training to 14 – 19 year-old students.
If by eLearning we mean the use of electronic devices (computer) in teaching, arguments in

favour of its use in a face-to-face institution are obvious and varied:
• students are often fascinated by such a device and this supports their learning motivation;
• computer activities, as any other lab activities, require an active mode that is more suitable
to learners rather than the traditional and more passive way of learning;
• the computer allows simulation activities promoting learning by doing and learning by
discovery.
But if eLearning stands for “online learning”, why should we use it in a face-to-face environment?
Online and face-to-face isolation

The danger of isolation in online learning is a drawback often denounced by some critics. But
although it may be considered a contradiction, isolation does exist also in face-to-face learning:
students are often alone while studying.
Such feelings of isolation are often linked to school failure. Absent – minded students who are not
independent learners tend to get lost in the information provided by the textbook. These are the
danger group of students who often fail: they are unable to find their own way in what, where and
when to study.
ELearning at ITSOS and the use of FirstClass

Since the mid 90s ITSOS has had its own intranet - based on FirstClass software - that is a node
within a larger Milanese school net called SiR. Each teacher or student, who applies, is provided
with an e-mail address, a private mail-box, the access to a “conference” system based on
86
Learning environment and learning objects : A successful synergy
permissions (private and public conferences, reading and writing or only reading permission) and
the possibility to chat with other users regularly enrolled in the system.
It is years since ITSOS teachers started using such an environment for teaching activities, from a
mere exchange of messages with students to the opening up of class conferences, structured into
subject-conferences that can be further subdivided into topics, modules, activities. Such
conferences are work environments often rich in messages. A survey carried out by ITSOS in
2004/2005 showed that there were 6 subject-conferences containing over 1,000 messages.
(Ravotto 2005).
Students show an appreciation of the communication environment and use it in an effective way:
sometimes in a collaborative way, sharing scanned notes or summaries in preparation for a test.
Web-based eLearning at ITSOS

FirstClass is a messaging system, it allows the exchange of lessons made up of texts and messages,
but in a broader perspective of eLearning web potential goes far beyond. It allows for:
• multimedia ; that is, a combination of texts, and images with sound and video;
• interactivity : that is, the possibility to propose activities where the students can directly
interact with the learning material and be provided with immediate feedback;
• simulation activities :that is, the possibility to act and see the results of one’s own action;
• personalisation of learning paths thanks to hypertextual navigation and/or on the basis of
the feedback received.
These are the reasons why ITSOS teachers have decided to become involved in the development
of web-based lessons, a field already explored in other national and European projects, such SiR2
(Bocchetti 2003), SOLE (Ravotto 2003), BiTE (Berengo 2003).
Thanks to these projects ITSOS has realised that, while the creation of a work environment is
easily and quickly done, the development of teaching material suitable to be delivered online
requires large resources. What’s worse, such an amount of resources often doesn’t guarantee the
re-usability of such material in diversified learning contexts, with different targets and courses and
the possibility to transfer it onto different Learning Management Systems.
Learning environment and teaching material

ITSOS has chosen to promote the SLOOP project – a project of sharing and developing learning
objects – on the basis of its ten-year long experience of blended learning, that is integration of
eLearning and face-to face learning. Such an experience has highlighted the following crucial
points:
• the central role played by an environment that could favour communication between
students, teachers and peer-groups in the view of building a shared knowledge (Calvani
2004);
• the need for teaching material purposely planned for the net (Colorni 2002);
• the importance of re-usability, from the technological (standardisation) and pedagogical
point of view;
• the benefit of a collaborative mode for the development and sharing of learning objects.
SLOOP production of metaLOs and subject-based LOs
In the SLOOP project, ITSOS staff, along with all the other partners, have been involved in the
production of learning objects. First step was the planning and development of LOs called meta
LOs, namely LOs describing what LOs are, how they can be used and how they can be developed.
87
The choice has been to develop SCORM 1.2 compliant LOs and to choose IEEE LOM standard
for metadata (Fini, Vanni 2004).
MetaLOs
Eight metaLOs have been developed and translated into the partners’ languages (IT, EN, ES, RO,
SL):
• Learning Objects,
• LO: pedagogical approaches,
• SCORM standard,
• The Metadata,
• How to make a LO SCORM compliant,
• The packaging of LOs,
• Communication between LO and platform,
• Sharing free LO.
The first 4 MetaLOs are descriptive, they deal with the “ status of art” on this matter. The
eighth, also descriptive, illustrates the aim of the SLOOP project, that is developing, sharing,
using and modifying LOs in a free way. These MetaLOs are basically hypertexts with self-
evaluation tests.
The MetaLOs no. 5, 6 and 7 aim to train teachers with basic computer knowledge, not web
masters or computer experts, to develop SCORM compliant LOs, to save them as Content
Package SCORMs and to upload them on a Learning Management System. These Web-based LOs,
apart from texts and images, are also provided with “film clips” that show, with the help of a
speaker, the several activities to be performed (launching the programme, opening the file,
clicking on, ...”) A sense of achievement is provided through successfully performing these
activities.
The above mentioned LOs require about one hour of learning each – they are formed by 5-7 SCOs
(Sharable Content Objects) of a considerable size.
These metaLOs have been tested by all partners in courses delivered in virtual class or supported
self-learning modes. They are available, in a self-learning mode, in the SLOOP site
(www.sloopproject.eu) and they can be downloaded from the SLOOP freeLOms to be modified and
used in other learning contexts.
Subject-based LOs
ITSOS staff has also developed:
• LOs for teachers’ training on mobility initiatives;

• Maths LOs on parabolas addressing 15 - 17 year-old students;
• LOs to learn English as a foreign language;
• LOs to train students to face ECDL (modules 1, 2 e 3) addressing a diversified target
• Science LOs on the cell;
• An LO describing three schools of thought concerning company management.
Considerations on the LOs developed
Granularity, contextualisation and re-usability

The term LO is often associated to the idea of a “chunk” of knowledge that is a tiny-sized LO
completely de-contextualized. Chunks of knowledge and de-contextualization are the key points
88
of re-usability: the possibility to put together the same objects in different, simple and automatic
ways. The idea is to develop a lesson or a course in a personalised way: just in time and on
demand.
The LOs developed in SLOOP are, on the contrary, content aggregation formed by more SCOs
and corresponding to a complete teaching unit. Even a single SCO is not a chunk, in fact it often
represents a set of interrelated and contextualised concepts. All this is in line with modern
constructivist theories that consider the context as a necessary element in the learning process.
The value of a learning object, at the expense of its re-usability, is proportionally related to its
ability to integrate into specific situations where the learners face real problems (Alvino, Sarti
2004).
The re-usability of our LOs is given by the possibility to use/modify them in a free way so that
any teacher could adapt the learning object to her/his own teaching context.
This happens, for instance, with the metaLOs: they have been developed for a specific course, but
they can be used separately and form other courses as well. For example, metaLO 8 can be used in
a law course dealing with copyright matters as well as in a philosophy course dealing with
knowledge sharing; MetaLOs 5 & 6 can address both teachers interested in online courses and
technicians involved in the production of SCORM compliant learning objects.
Types of LOs
Various types of LOs were developed in the SLOOP project:
• expository LOs (LOs about mobility, ECDL, the cell and companies management);
• internally interactive LOs (maths and English);
• externally interactive LOs (a few activities within the English LOs);
They can be used in different learning environments: self-learning, supported self-learning, virtual
class and collaborative learning.
Some are designed to include texts, images and self-evaluation tests. Others, like the ones for
teaching English as a foreign language, contain audio files to practise listening skills, some others,
for example the maths LOs, use a dynamic geometry software with a high level of interactivity
which favours learning by doing, while others present clips showing step by step how to reach a
result/how to do things.
The choice of how to develop these LOs has been made on the basis of targets and type of
content. It is obvious, for example, that, to show the features of a parabola, a dynamic graphic is
more suitable than a clip. The user can interact with such a graphic until she/he gets to understand
how a parabola is connected to its equation parameters. On the other hand, the use of a clip t o
indicate how to perform a set of operations as in MetaLOs 5, 6, 7, is better than a text with static
images. It is also clear that an object addressing a group of adult trainers does not need the “special
effects” that are effective in attracting the attention of a young public.
The SLOOP idea was to develop web-based material able to promote a more active and
independent role of the learner and not simply to transform textbooks into web pages.
SCORM compliant LOs
The possibility to upload the LOs on platforms enabling the traceability of the activities
performed is considered an added value compared to an independent learning in the Internet. All
LOs are SCORM compliant, that is, they are traceable by an LMS. This means that a tutor can
check who has navigated the various LOs, who has completed them and how long it has taken
them to do that.
89
To make an LO traceable does not demand high technical skills, it is enough to place some java
script files inside the LO as shown in MetaLO5. What’s more, if an already SCORM compliant
LO is available, one can change it and re-pack it (using Reload for example) without having t o
change its file structure. Saving time and resources.
Considerations on the possibility of modifying LOs

Special care has been devoted to the possibility of modifying the LOs. An object can be modified
if:
• the file source is available,

• the software used to create it is open source or at least widely used in training /educational
institutions ,
• the SCO can be used separately, that is, it does not contain links with other SCOs outside
the content package in which it is located.
Dealing with MetaLO translations, the partners have also become aware of the necessity t o
provide specific instructions to the translators about which files to translate. This is why both
MetaLOs and subject LOs are accompanied by
• a Readme file containing information on the LO structure as well as on the software used
to develop it,
• a style-sheet,
• a folder containing the sources of tests or interactive graphics (avi files, being heavy, are
kept in a separate folder so that only people interested in changing the LO can decide to
download them),
• a web page enabling the navigation outside a LMS.
Consideration on licences
As the philosophy of the project was to develop objects that could be used and modified freely,
the partnership has chosen to use the licence named Creative Commons Attribution-Share alike.
Fig. 1 – The "Creative Commons- Attribution, Share Alike" licence
90
The course for “developers/users of free LOs”
Within the SLOOP project several online courses have been carried out. They aimed to pilot the
metaLOs developed and to involve communities of practice.
ITSOS, as the promoter of the project planned and ran the first two courses, one in Italian and
one in English. They were for the partners that were expected later on to develop LOs and run
“cascade” courses in their own countries.
The use of MOODLE

The courses were delivered on MOODLE, an open source Learning Management System, born in
Australia, but rapidly spreading all over Europe and the world. This choice has come out from
several reasons:
• the constructivist pedagogy on which Moodle is based gives importance to a high

interaction between trainers, trainees and peer groups;
• its open source nature is coherent to the project’s philosophy;
• It is SCORM compliant, thanks to a module developed by the MOODLE Italian
community;
• the existence of several MOODLE national communities, with which it is possible to
interact in the view of promoting a community of users/developers of free LOs;
• the possibility to use MOODLE both for the delivery of courses and the development of
interactive sites like SLOOP - www.sloopproject.eu – which has plenty of forum/courses.
As for ITSOS, this has been an occasion to pilot, after more than ten years with FirstClass, a new
online environment.
91
The course structure
Fig. 2 – The work environment of the internal course
The course – both the internal and the “cascade” edition – has got the following characteristics:
• 100% online (only possible solution as the participants were from all over Italy and from
different European countries).
• virtual class: the courses – with two tutors and a common schedule for all the trainees,
propose weekly tasks and the sending of the material developed to an area open to all the
trainees. Forums are provided to encourage discussion and exchanges of ideas.
• methodology: learning by doing and collaborative learning. The trainees are required to
develop SCORM compliant LOs tackling any problems may arise in a collaborative way.
The outcomes of the “cascade” course"

The results of the cascade course have been particularly interesting. The courses lasted 9 weeks,
some of the 39 trainees were from supporter schools while most of them came directly from the
net. The latter have been the more active in the course, maybe because they were more motivated
and more familiar with online work.
Very few trainees have not participated in the activities offered and a few have not developed any
LO. 23 trainees have successfully finished the course developing 25 learning objects of a certain
complexity and quality.
92
The level of interaction that took place is considered extremely good:
• in the discussion forum we have had 41 discussions, 14 of which started by the tutors and
27 proposed by the trainees themselves. The forum has hosted 687 messages.
• another two forums, entitled "Post here the title of the learning object you intend to
develop” and “Post here the learning object you have developed" have received 137
messages. During the 9 weeks of the course 833 messages have been sent, more than 13 a
day. Sound proof of vivacity and real participation;
• some of the participants have simply read others’ messages, or sent their own work,
others have played a more active role, answering questions, proposing solutions, launching
new threads of discussion.
The self-learning course

The course in terms of its structure, activities, SCORM compliant LOs, forums (empty of the
trainees’ messages) has been exported as a zipped file and made available in the SLOOP freeLOms.
Here it is ready to be uploaded and used on any other MOODLE platforms. The courses, as well as
the LOs developed, are released under CreativeCommons "Attribution-Share Alike".
The same course – in a self-learning mode- is available in the SLOOP site.
Conclusions
ITSOS as the promoter of the SLOOP project which is about to end, is deeply satisfied with the
results obtained. The in-progress development of the project, the relationships with the partners
and the many occasions – national and international - where the project has been presented, have
confirmed the starting hypothesis: it is possible to boost a process of sharing eLearning material,
whose quality is the result of a circle made up of development, use, modification, re-use.
There are lots of teachers in schools and universities who have developed and are developing
material they would like to share with others. The students themselves are already used t o
developing and sharing digital content: let’s think of the phenomenon represented by You Tube.
Lots of students – especially University students - are able to develop online learning material,
that, even if not complete and as complex as the material proposed by teachers, could be in some
way attractive and incisive.
Students could help us to produce learning material more suitable to them, as digital natives. We
could encourage them to share their class notes as well as the teacher’s pod cast while he is reading
a poem, or explaining a maths problem, or showing a physics experience.
"Guys, please switch your video mobiles, your pocket PCs, your iPods on, are you ready for the
class?”. Could this be the very near future?
References
Pierfranco Ravotto (2005) Il potenziale della didattica in rete in una scuola secondaria
superiore, EXPO E-Learning 2005, Atti del convegno (accessibile anche all'indirizzo
http://bbs.tes.mi.it/pfr/italiano/pubblicazioni/articoli2005-06/SLOOP_expoferrara2005_IT.pdf)
Pierfranco Ravotto (2003) SOLE Project - Guide 4: Methodologies and instruments for planning
and developing online modules,
http://www.tes.mi.it/sole/ENGLISH/download/PDF/Guide4_EN.pdf
93
Francesca Berengo (2003) Progettazione e sviluppo di tre elementi di matematica, Progettare

materiali didattici per la formazione in rete – Contributi dell'ITSOS al progetto BiTE, ITSOS
(accessibile all'indirizzo http://bbs.tes.mi.it/biteweb2/fascicolo_bite.pdf)
Carlo Bocchetti, Pierfranco Ravotto (2003), Il Progetto SiR2: Intranet regionale per la didattica
e la formazione in rete. Documento conclusivo,,
http://www.tes.mi.it/sir2portale/documento_conclusivo.pdf
Antonio Calvani (2004), Costruttivismo, progettazione didattica e tecnologie,

http://www.scform.unifi.it/lte/doc/Costruttivimo%20e%20progettazione.doc
Alberto Colorni (2002), Web Learning. Esperienze, modelli e tecnologie, Mondo digitale n°1,
AICA
Antonio Fini, Luca Vanni (2004), Learning Object e Metadati. Quando, come e perchè
avvalersene, I Quaderni di Form@re, Erickson
Serena Alvino, Luigi Sarti (2004). Learning Objects e Costruttivismo. Atti di Didamatica 2004 a
cura di A. Andronico, T. Frignani, G. Poletti, Ferrara 10-12 maggio 2004 (accessibile anche
all’indirizzo http://www.comunedasa.it/elearning/lo_costruttivismo.pdf)
Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org
SOLE (2001-2004) http://www.tes.mi.it/sole
BITE (2002-2004) http://www.tes.mi.it/biteweb2
SIR2 (2002-2003) http://www.tes.mi.it/sir2portale
Authors
Prof. Pierfranco Ravotto, pierfranco.ravotto@tes.mi.it
Prof.sa. Francesca Berengo, francesca.berengo@tes.mi.it
Prof.sa. Luisa Farinati, luisa.farinati@tes.mi.it
Prof.sa. Mara Masseroni, mara.masseroni@tes.mi.it
Prof. Luigi Petruzziello, luigi.petruzziello@tes.mi.it
Prof.sa. Monica Terenghi, monica.terenghi@tes.mi.it
Prof.sa. Marilena Vimercati, marilena.vimercati@tes.mi.it
ITSOS "Marie Curie"
Via Masaccio 4, 20063 Cernusco sul Naviglio
http://www.tes.mi.it
94
E - learning in chemistry : To use it or not to use it
E- LEARNING IN CHEMISTRY: TO USE IT OR NOT TO USE IT?

Margareta Vrtacnik and Rahela Cemazar
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education
Abstract
The paper presents the results of a study on the impact of e-learning chemistry concepts. The
purpose was to find out whether students are able to learn new chemistry concepts using e-learning
exclusively and later apply newly acquired knowledge, and what are their attitudes towards e-
learning. Specially designed learning objects (LOs) were prepared and students were working in the
Moodle e-learning environment. Prior to the experiment students’ pre-knowledge was tested,
followed by post-knowledge testing and a structured interview, where their performance and
feelings were also tested. The results were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. The study
shows that learning chemistry using technology may result in actual learning of new and difficult
concepts, however the learning effect primarily depends on students’ prior knowledge. On the
other hand student attitudes towards e-learning were positive.
Introduction
Most researchers on e-learning agree that that e-learning is undoubtedly a powerful and valuable
extension to traditional educational initiatives which will change education tremendously within
the next years (Ulbrich, A., Pacnik, H. 2004). Thus, a fair amount of research and development
programs into the ways to improving the impact of e-learning have been carried out and are still
ongoing. These programs traditionally focus on two different views of e-learning: technological
issues on the one hand and general educational issues on the other (Ulbrich, A., Pacnik, H. 2004)..
However, in spite of all these efforts, there is still much controversy on whether computer-
supported learning is better than learning in conventional environments such as in a classroom or
from a textbook. Mayer (Mayer, R. E. 2003) correlates this controversy with the fact that studies
and reports which promote e-learning are rather doctrine-based, very often not built on research
evidence.
Specific reports on the impacts of e-learning on students’ performance in different study

disciplines are relatively rare. One exception is the Fisher Family Trust reports on how e-learning
improves pupils exam grades. The Trust carried out independent research running four consecutive
years on the relationship between e-learning and its contribution to pupils’ performances. The
results refer to the performance of primary and secondary grade pupils in the United Kingdom,
who are using an online exam practice programme (SAM Learning, created by SAM Learning,
Ltd.). SAM Learning is cross-curricular, covering more than 15 subjects at primary (KS2, KS3)
and secondary (GCSE) level and encourages independent e-learning by students, with nearly 60%
being used outside school hours. Independent evidence shows that 10+ task hours, using SAM
Learning, improves GCSE by 4.6%, KS3 pupils who achieve L5+ by 3.6%, and KS2 pupils who
achieve L4+ by 2.6% (Samlearning.com).
Since research evidence on the impact of e-learning on students’ knowledge and performance,
particularly in chemistry teaching/learning are non-existent, we decided to conduct empirical
research in which we focused on the impact of e-learning organic chemistry concepts on students
95
performance and also their feelings, such as acceptance, resistances and fears during working with
e-learning units.
The Department of Chemical Education of Informatics, Faculty of Natural Sciences and

Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, has a long-time experience in working with
Slovenian chemistry teachers and students. Our recent engagement in the international European
project SLOOP (Sharing Learning Objects in an Open Perspective) offered a chance to design a
series of e-learning units, the so-called “learning objects”. As for the topics, we selected two from
the 3 rd grade high-school chemistry curriculum: Mechanisms of organic reactions, and Proteins.
These two topics were specifically selected because they can cause many difficulties to teachers. I t
is claimed that mechanisms are too difficult to be taught at the high school level, while proteins
should not be taught at all since they are not related to student life experiences (according t o
popular opinion). Thus, we were challenged to develop six learning objects on organic reaction
mechanisms and four learning objects on proteins. Additionally, we developed two LOs on
hydrocarbons for lower secondary school students.
We took the task with great enthusiasm and motivation, yet we were not sure how this new e-
learning approach would be accepted by students: will the student really be able to learn new
concepts, and how would they feel when working alone in a new learning environment? For this
reason we decided to conduct research to find the answers to these two questions.
Background
The theoretical part of the organic chemistry course for high schools is primarily focused on
meeting three goals: (1) to introduce bonding and stereochemistry of organic molecules, including
types of isomerism found in these molecules, (2) to describe and explain the reactivity of organic
molecules in terms of functional groups, (3) to introduce the basic concept of organic reaction
mechanisms.
Experience has shown that in particular, the concept of reactivity in relation to the concept of
reaction mechanisms is extremely difficult for an average high-school student to cope with.
Consequently, chemistry is regarded as one of the least popular school subjects. According to our
research on student affinity towards chemistry (Vrta_nik, M. et. al. 2007), which included 201
high-school students, this subject was graded 3 on the scale from 1 to 5. One of the reasons why
reactivity is such a problematic topic because this concept is very poorly defined in the majority
of textbooks and teachers are not experienced enough to find suitable strategies to build a firm
bridge between the observable data of wet-experiments with rational explanations of experimental
results on the sub-microscopic level. Therefore, the LOs to be developed within the SLOOP
project were a good challenge, where by using visual aids, the students should be able to better
understand the concepts of reactivity and organic reaction mechanisms on the sub-microscopic
level. The idea was that these LOs should be used as complementary material to organic chemistry
textbooks and to teacher explanations of these concepts in the class room.
LOs design approach
The first step in developing the LOs was designing an expert concept map, showing the relation
of concepts on which the concept of reactivity is based (Figure 1). The central term in the
concept map is electronegativity. Electronegativity is a chemical property that describes the
power of an atom (or, more rarely, a functional group) to attract electrons towards itself
(Compendium of Chemical Terminology, 2007). Electronegativity is not strictly an atomic
property, but rather a property of an atom in a molecule, and as Mulliken proposed, it can be
calculated from the arithmetic mean of the first ionization energy and the electron affinity of
atoms. In fact, electronegativity is a measure of the tendency of an atom to attract electrons of
the chemical bond (Mulliken, R. S. 1934). Students can predict electronegativity of a pair of atoms
as greater or smaller, from the position of elements in the Periodic Table. For more precise
96
calculations they can use different scales, e.g. the Pauling or Mulliken scale. As a result of
differences in electronegativity of atoms in the molecule, the partial negative or positive charges
are generated on the atoms, while the molecule remains electrically neutral. The distribution of
these partial charges can be further visualized by displaying the distribution of electrostatic
potential on the surface of the molecule (Figure 2).
Fig. 1- The expert concept map on “reactivity”
Electrostatic potentials are calculated by using special molecular modelling and computer graphics
programs. For secondary school level we can simply define the electrostatic potential as a
distribution of electron density on the surface of the molecule. The colour of the electrostatic
potential is a measure of the electron density of the molecule. Red colour usually represents
regions with higher electron density (), while blue colour defines regions with lower electron
density (+). An uneven distribution of electron density, as well as different spatial orientation of
atoms in the molecule, result in the formation of dipole moments whose values define the polarity
of the molecule. The latter is crucial for understanding the concept of reactivity.
In the subsequent step two LOs were designed to present the following ideas: (1) Visually similar
substrates react with the same reagent in a different way, (2) Reasons for the differences in the
reactivity of molecules. In developing these LOs we used Dreamweaver html editor and
information communication tools (SPARTAN and MoluCAD) for modelling and visualizing of 3-
D structures of molecules.
97
Fig. 2 - Distribution of electrostatic potential on the surface of the model of a water molecule
The first LO was experimental. The first two introductory stages of the LO were meant as
motivators. Students are presented with the data on the production and consumption of some
widely used consumer products, such as aspirin, nylon, polyethylene, which are all produced from
petroleum. In the following stage students are challenged with a question: how is it possible that
such different and yet useful products can be obtained from relatively simple molecules of
hydrocarbons derived from petroleum? The central stage of the LO contains some experiments
with sodium and water, ethanol, acetone, and hexane. The reagent and substrates were selected t o
intuitively develop a notion of the relation between structure and reactivity in students by
observing the results of the reactions and looking at virtual models of substrate molecules. We
expected that by knowing the reaction of sodium with water, students would be able to detect the
differences and similarities of the reactions of sodium with ethanol, acetone and hexane and
correlate observations with the structure of the molecules.
The second LO was designed as a theoretical basis, explaining the reasons for differences and
similarities in reactivity of water, ethanol, acetone and hexane. The notion of the reaction site is
thus evolved by a step-by-step presentation of the molecular structure, the distribution of partial
charges on the atoms calculated from the differences in electronegativity of atoms, and the
electron density distribution by superimposing the electrostatic potential on the surface of the
model of the molecules (Figure 3).
98
Model of water molecule Values of EN from Pauling’s Formation of partial charges on

scale oxygen and hydrogen atoms
Water molecule is electrically Distribution of electrostatic Distribution of electrostatic

neutral, hence the sum of partial potential on the surface of potential on the surface of water
charges must be 0. water molecule: red colour molecule: red colour denotes
denotes negative potential, negative potential, blue positive
blue positive potential – potential – deficiency of
deficiency of electrons. View 1 electrons. View 2
Fig. 3 - Explaining the polarity of a water molecule
The same approach, yet more interactive, was used for explaining the polarity of ethanol and
acetone molecules, and non-polar nature of hexane molecule. Partial presentations of structures
and electron density distributions were summarized (Figure 4) by correlating even or uneven
distribution of electron density on the surface of a molecule with the notion of the reaction site.
The reaction site in the molecule was thus defined as a part of the molecule with a surplus or
deficiency of electron density: the sites can be “seen” clearly by visualizing the distribution of
electrostatic potential on the surface of the molecule. The polar nature of the reaction site can be
predicted by knowing the electronegativity of atoms and spatial distribution of atoms in the
molecule by using real or virtual molecular models.
99
Fig. 4 - Presentation of the reaction sites of the molecules.
In the subsequent step students are given a chance to practice the correlation between
electronegativity of atoms and electron density distribution through a series of exercises. At the
end of the LO students can assess the learning impact of the unit by taking a self-evaluation
knowledge test.
Research Design
Our research was designed in such a way as to get the answers to the following research questions:
• Does the approach we used in the LOs enable students to acquire deeper understanding of
the concept? Can they later apply the knowledge on electronegativity of atoms for
predicting the polar or non-polar nature of molecules and their reactivity? Do the students
possess sufficient pre-knowledge to cope with the concepts presented through the Los?
• What are their general and more specific attitudes toward e-learning and how can e-
learning contribute to the improvement of the classical teaching approach in the
classroom?
The research design is presented in Figure 5.
100
Fig. 5 - Research plan
Students were tested individually in the period from March to May 2007. Each session started by
creating a relaxed and informal atmosphere, e.g. small talk, offering refreshments, etc. Students
could also practise computer skills for working with videos and using Chime plug-in for virtual
model presentation. Following this they took a computer-based interactive pre-test, and then
proceeded to work with the two LOs. After a short break they took the post-test. After
approximately a week the same students came back for a structured interview. The results were
analysed quantitatively and qualitatively.
The sample
There were 16 high-school students (3rd or 4 th graders) age 17 – 18 years from the Ljubljana
region, who volunteered to take part in this research.
Instruments
The instruments for evaluating the impact of LOs on students’ knowledge and attitudes toward e-
learning were: pre-test, post-test and structured interview. We also used TV camera for filming the
students’ while working with this new teaching media. The pre-test and post-test were designed by
101
using the “Quiz” option installed in the Moodle learning management system which allowed for
automatic collection of the results. Both tests were composed of nine test items, mainly multiple-
choice questions with only one correct answer, or multi-correct answers.
Results & Analysis

Table 1 presents the concepts tested by the pre-test and students’ major mistakes.
Table 1: Conceptual structure and results of the pre-test
Number Number of
of incorrect or
Test item Concepts tested correct incomplete Mistakes
answers answers
Alcohols defined as
1. Definition of alcohols 13 3 compounds of
hydrogen, oxygen and
carbon .
Incorrectly selected
2. Rational formula of propanal 11 5 formula as: acetone,
IUPAC name aldehyde (2 x), ethanal
(1 x),or no answer (1 x)
Incorrectly selected
3. Rational formula of butanone - 15 1 formula as butanal
IUPAC name
Picture of models of
4. hydrocarbon molecules - 7 9 Model of pentane
recognition of hydrocarbon molecule not recognized
types (1 x), the majority of
(saturated, unsaturated, cyclic, models not recognized
acyclic, ..) as saturated/acyclic
hydrocarbons (8 x
),models not recognized
as hydrocarbons (1 x),
confused model of
benzene molecule with
cyclohexane (2 x)
5. Picture of the model of ethanol 16

molecule - molecular formula,
functional group, IUPAC name
6. Picture of the model of ammonia 13 3 Incorrectly defined

molecule– assignment of number of unshared
number of unshared electron electron pairs at N atom:
pairs on N atom two ( 1x), three (2 x)
7. Picture of the model of acetone 12 4 Incorrectly defined polar

molecule– recognition of polar or nature of acetone
non-polar nature of the molecule molecule.
8. Picture of the wire model of 16
102
hexane molecule– recognition of

hexane molecule, and its
molecular and rational formulae
Chemical equation (Na + water)–

9. recognition of the rightly 11 4 NaOH (s), Na2O,
balanced and presented Selection of incorrectly
equation balanced chemical
equation
The average time the students needed to complete the pre-test was 7.21 minutes, and the average
scores achieved 8.26 (out of ten scores). Nine students achieved above average results at the pre-
test and seven below the average. The differences between students’ scores achieved in the pre-
test and the average scores (ScorePt-AveragePt) and time that each student spent working with
the pre-test are presented in Graph 1.
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
ScorePr-AveragePr
0.00
-0.500.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
-2.50
Time (min)
Graph 1 - Time used by students to solve the pre-test vs. the difference between the scores achieved and the
average scores at the pre-test
103
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
ScorePr-AveragePr
0.00
-0.500.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
-2.50
Time (min)
Graph 1 - Time used by students to solve the pre-test vs. the difference between the scores achieved and the
average scores at the pre-test
Above average scores were achieved by students who needed from 4 to 11 minutes to complete
the pre-test. The highest scores were achieved within 5.5 to 7.5 minutes by those who were able
to finish the pre-test in time. The results below average were noticed within a slightly more
scattered time range, i.e. 4 to 13 minutes. Three students gave general definitions of alcohols, five
students confused rational formula of aldehyde propanal with keton acetone or gave general name
aldehyde. Nine students were not able to recognize all correct answers from the picture of
molecular models of hydrocarbons. Four students did not recognize the molecule of acetone as
polar one and four students had problems with the selection of the correctly balanced equation of
the reaction of sodium with water. The results of the pre-test are in accordance with our
expectations: to successfully work with both LOs students needed appropriate pre-knowledge.
Table 2 presents the concept tested in the post-test and descriptions of the mistakes.
Table 2: Conceptual structure and results of the post-test
Test item Concepts/observations No. of Mistakes

correct No. of
answers incorrect or
incomplete
answers
1- multiple Observations: reaction of 14 2 No reaction observed; evolution of

selections Na with water hydrogen not observed
2 Recognition of ethanol 16 0
molecule from its virtual
model
3 Properties of 15 1 Number of unshared electron pairs

NH3 molecule on nitrogen atom defined incorrectly.
from its virtual model
4 – multiple EP on model of acetone – 11 5 Type of reagent for the reaction of C

selections reaction site properties atom of C=O group selected
incorrectly (3 x); Type of EP on
oxygen atom of C=O group wrongly
assigned (1 x); no correct selections
104
(1 x)
5 – multiple Distribution of EP on the 7 8 Planar distribution of atoms in BCl3

selections model of BCl3 molecule, molecule not recognized (7 x); all
spatial arrangement of selections wrong (1 x)
atoms
Formation of suspension not

6- multiple Observations: reaction of 11 5 observed (2 x); reason of changing
selections Na with acetone colour of indicator not selected
correctly (2 x), comparison with
reaction of Na with water neglected
(1 x)
7 Distribution of EP on the 15 1 Type of EP on hydrogen atoms

surface of CH3NH2 incorrectly defined.
molecule – reaction sites
8 – multiple EN, EP, reaction sites 3 13 One or two selections wrong

selections
9- multiple Pauling scale of EN – type 4 12 Wrong selection of bond types:

selections of bonds between pair of Zn-O (5 x ); P-S (6 x); Mg- Br (3 x); C-
atoms Cl (4 x)
Legend:
EP – electrostatic potential
EN – electronegativity
On the average students needed 8.6 minutes to complete the post-test. The average scores
achievement was 8.34 (maximum was 10). Students spent 1.39 minutes more to complete the
post-test but the differences in the average scores achieved between the post test and the pre-test
are negligible. Graph 2 indicates that students who achieved the scores above the average solved
the post-test in a narrow time-span, between 6 to 9 minutes, while those students whose results
were below average, needed between 6 to 14 minutes to finish the test. Seven students achieved
results above average in the post-test, and 9 students achieved results below the average. This
situation was just the opposite in the case of the pre-test.
105
2
1.5
1
0.5
ScorePo-AveragePo
0
-0.50.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
Time (min)
Graph 2 - Time needed to complete the post -test vs. the difference between the scores achieved in the post-test
and average scores in the post-test
Learning effects of both LOs can be partially deduced from Graph 3.
1
ScorePo-AveragePo
0
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-2
-3
ScorePr-AveragePr
Graph 3 - Differences between the Scores and Post Test Average vs. Scores and Pre Test Average
Five students who achieved above average results in the pre-test, also achieved above average
results in the post-test. Two students, who were below average in the pre-test achieved above
average results in the post-test. It is possible to conclude that those seven students learned the
concepts presented in the LOs to a satisfactory level and were later able to use this newly acquired
knowledge. Two students whose results were above average in the pre-test achieved below average
results in the post-test. From these two students we can conclude that although they had enough
pre-knowledge to be successful in learning the concepts presented in the LOs, they did not pay
enough attention to the content presented and probably did not follow the e-learning units
carefully enough. Two students whose pre-test results were far below the average managed t o
decrease this difference during the post-test. In spite of the fact that their results were still below
the average, the difference between their post-test results diminished. The results of other students
were close to the average. From the analysis of the mistakes of the post-test, we can conclude
that the majority of students (12 or 13 from the total of 16) did not grasp the concepts of
106
electronegativity, electrostatic potential and their relations with types of reaction sites in
molecules. They were also unable to learn from the LOs how to use the Pauling scale of
electronegativity of atoms for predicting the type of bonds between atom pairs. These results are
not in accordance with our expectations. It is for us, however, an important message - to improve
the second LO. The lessons learned from this part of the research results were that only the best
students were able to learn difficult concepts on their own through the e-learning environment,
without a teacher’s help. These students are internally motivated and do not need any additional
external encouragement. If we compare the results of the post-test with the time students spent
working with both LOs we found another important indication; namely that time does not
necessarily correlate with their achievements in the post-test (Graph 4). On the contrary, as can
be seen from the trend line on Graph 4, more time spent resulted in lower achievements. Those
students who completed the units within 19 to 28 minutes achieved the best scores.
2
10 R = 0.0294
9.5
9
Post-test scores
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
Time (min)
Graph 4 - Time spent working with LOs and the scores achieved at the post-test
Analysis of the structured interview
Fifteen students took part in the structured interview. The interview consisted of six parts: general
questions about the use of computers at home and at school, students’ feelings when working with
LOs, their satisfaction with the results of the pre-test, the level of student’s understanding of
concepts presented in the first LO, and about the second LO and their satisfaction with the post-
test results.
General part of the structured interview

All students who took part in the research have access to a computer at home. The majority of
students (12/15) use computers every day, mostly for school work, chatting or discussion forums,
or simply for their own pleasure and entertainment. Only one student claimed occasional use of a
computer. The majority of students (8/15) assessed their capabilities for working with different
computer programmes on the scale 1 to 5 - three with mark 3 and the rest with marks 5, 4.5 and
3.5 respectively. The results also revealed that the majority of students (9/15) never use
computers in the classroom. Five students said that computers are only occasionally used in the
classroom, and one student claimed that a computer is used in the classroom at least once a week.
The majority (14/15) of students also said that a computer is never used during chemistry lessons
(only in one case, where the teacher used PowerPoint presentations for lecturing). One can
conclude that computers are a natural companion of student life, but teachers are still reluctant t o
107
use it, either due to a lack of computer skills or a lack of computer technology available in
schools.
Students’ feelings of working with LOs in Moodle environment

Thirteen students of 15 were relaxed and felt comfortable working with LOs in Moodle
environment; two students felt uneasy at the beginning because they did not know what to expect,
however, they soon adapted to the new learning environment. They found the wealth and
diversity of elements included in the LOs very attractive (10 /15 answers). Students also welcomed
instant feedback when testing their comprehension of the concepts presented. They liked the
possibility to work at their own pace when progressing through LOs (5 /15) and being able t o
adapt to their concentration level (4/15 answers). Three students also noted that they liked
moving back and forth while working with LOs.
As for the negative features of working in this new learning environment, six students found no
distracters, six students missed teacher’s explanations or a hard copy of the material presented on
the computer screen, one student did not like the TV camera, and two students were confused
when taking the tests (they did not know what they were supposed to do). Analyses of student’s
answers about their feelings while working with both LOs in the Moodle environment showed that
students can adapt very quickly to a new environment, and if the learning unit is not overloaded
with too many concepts, yet versatile, they are motivated and eager to work and learn with it.
Pre-test
In the pre-test 13/15 students stated that the test is simply part of the research design for
analysing the impact of e-learning on their feelings and knowledge. Only two students answered
that the pre-test served as a tool for assessing the level of pre-knowledge needed for understanding
new concepts. Fourteen students claimed that pre-test was appropriate for their knowledge of
chemistry. One student claimed that it was too easy for his level of chemistry knowledge
(however, this claim was not confirmed by his achievements at the pre-test, where only average
8.33 points were achieved).
Understanding concepts included in the first LO
For the first LO we expected that while observing reactions of sodium with four structurally
different solvents, students would intuitively develop the notion of a correlation between structure
and reactivity. Therefore, with the first five questions in the structured interview we wanted to get
answers about the types of molecular models that are used in their chemistry classes, and how
often they are used, and whether students are able to perceive molecules as planar, linear or
spatial. The answers were beyond our expectations. All students claimed that they are using
models in the classroom, 8/15 said that models are very rarely used, while four claimed that
models are frequently used when they are discussing the structure, and only one claimed that
models are always used when the concepts related to the structure are discussed. Two students said
that teachers never use models during chemistry classes, while no one claimed that models are used
in relation to the problems of reactivity. In most cases physical model sets are used, and only two
students claimed that their teacher also uses virtual models of molecules. The fact that models of
molecules, either physical or virtual, are rarely used is reflected in students’ misunderstanding of
the concept of planarity. When students had to select the model of a planar molecule (ethene),
among three optional models, eight students either did not know the meaning of the term
“planar”, or they showed models of ethane (spatial), or ethine (linear) instead of the model of
ethene molecule.
Further, we tested whether students are able to correlate the title of the LO with the concepts
presented. They had to choose among four possibilities. Five students claimed that the title refers
to the fact that visually similar substrates are used in the experiments. They also explained that
that similarity refers to their appearance (colourless liquids). Eight students were convinced that
the title of LO refers to the fact that results of the experiments are different. These students also
explained the differences – different speed of reaction, different colour of indicator, formation of
suspension and similar. Two students correlated the title of the LO with the fact that the same
108
reagent, namely sodium, is used in all experiments. None of students correlated the title with the
reaction conditions; it is obvious that they did not pay any attention to this important feature of
the experimental procedures. Nevertheless, we considered the answers correct: they reflected a
certain level of understanding of the concepts presented in this unit.
In answering questions about the reaction of sodium with water, seven students knew that the
hydroxide ions formed in the reaction caused the change of colour of the indicator, they noticed
correctly that sodium floats on water surface, and that it melts due to the evolution of heat, and
that one of the reaction product is hydrogen, while five students needed help to explain why
sodium melts. Three students did not give the right explanations of the observed reaction: they
were even not familiar with hydroxide ions since they claimed that sodium caused the colour
change of the indicator. These three students also achieved below the average results at the post-
test.
In answering questions about the reaction of sodium with ethanol eight (8) students correlated the
change of the colour of the reaction mixture with the formation of hydroxide ions (the answer is
wrong). They noticed the evolution of hydrogen gas; they even noticed that sodium sank at the
beginning of the reaction to appear on the surface again. They were also able to correlate the
results of this reaction with structural similarities between the molecules of water and ethanol.
Other students either did not see the reason for the similarities between the reaction of sodium
with water and ethanol in the structure of both molecules, but they rather correlated similarity
with the reactivity of sodium, or they needed a lot of help and used models to deduce the right
answers.
In describing the reaction of sodium with acetone, 13 students noticed that sodium did not float on
the acetone surface and that the indicator changed the colour of the reaction mixture, which at
the end of the reaction turned colourless, or that suspension was formed, but they all wrongly
correlated the colour change to the formation of hydroxide ions. Two students did not notice the
formation of suspension at the end of the reaction. All students claimed that there is no structural
similarity between molecules of water and acetone.
Twelve students correctly observed that sodium does not react with hexane. They also gave the
right explanation, mentioning that hexane does not have reaction sites, or else that: the molecule
is not polar, hexane is a saturated hydrocarbon, or hexane does not include oxygen. Two (2)
students were not able to give any explanation, and one student incorrectly claimed that hexane
does not dissolve in polar solvents.
We can conclude that students are generally good observers; the only problem was with observing
the formation of a suspension in the reaction of sodium with acetone. However, when they were
presented with explanations of the observable facts, we often detected model thinking. For
example, students always correlated the colour change of the indicator phenolphthalein with the
formation of hydroxide ions, although water was not present. Three students also had insufficient
pre-knowledge of acids and bases, since in the case of the reaction of sodium with water they
correlated the colour change of the indicator with the formation of sodium ions.
Understanding concepts from the second LO
With a set of tasks and questions we wanted to get a deeper insight into students’ understanding of
correlations between the concepts of electronegativity, polarity, distribution of electron density
on the surface of molecule and the meaning of electrostatic potential on the surface of a
molecule.
In the first task students were presented with a model of a water molecule and the Pauling scale of
electronegativity. They were asked to find the electronegativity of oxygen and hydrogen atoms,
to calculate the difference and to assign the number of valence electrons on oxygen atom and the
number of unshared electron pairs on oxygen atoms. Then, using a water molecule, they had t o
point out which atom attracts the electrons of the covalent bond and describe the result of this
attraction. Then they had to determine whether the picture of electrostatic potential on the
surface of the water molecule confirms their answers. Seven (7) students who achieved 8.06 – 9.72
109
scores at the post test answered all questions correctly without any help. Two students with post-
test scores below average (6.42 and 7.22) were not able to answer questions without substantial
help. Basic concepts were not clear to them; they did not understand the meaning of
electronegativity, and they did not differentiate between electonegativity and electrostatic
potential. Other students were able to answer the questions correctly with minor help.
In the second task the students were presented with a physical model of 1-chlorobutane molecule,
a picture of the distribution of electrostatic potential on the surface of the molecule, and the
Pauling scale of electronegativity. The questions we asked were similar to the questions about the
water molecule, with an additional question: which type of the reagent would preferably react with
the carbon atom to which the chlorine atom was attached? We expected that students, using a
picture of electrostatic potential distribution on the surface of 1-chlorobutane molecule, would be
able to deduce the nature of the reagent (with negative electrostatic potential). Five students, who
previously gave correct answers in the case of water molecule, answered correctly also in this task.
Those five students were joined by two student who needed help in the case of water molecule, but
they obviously learned from this direct help and gave all correct answers in the case of 1-
chlorobutane molecule. Three students made only one mistake in answering questions: they
selected a wrong type of the reagent which should react with 1-chlorobutane molecule. By the
mistakes they made in answering questions five students proved that they did not understand
concepts presented in the second LO to such an extent that they would be able to apply their
knowledge without some help from the teacher. Students were also asked to self-evaluate their
capability in using the Pauling scale of electronegativity for predicting the distribution of electron
density and the polarity of the molecule. On the scale 1 – 5, two students assessed themselves with
the highest score (5), nine students were more cautious and graded themselves with 4 (among them
were also the students who achieved the poorest results at this part of the structured interview).
Four students chose grade 3, and interestingly, among those students was also a student who was
overcritical: he answered all questions correctly without any help, and achieved 9.26 scores at the
post-test. All but one student (14/15) claimed that the picture of electrostatic potential on the
surface of 1-chlorobutane molecule helped them in answering questions about the properties and
reactivity of the molecule. The student who claimed that this picture did not help, was the one
whose achievements at the post-test were the lowest. She explained that her visualization
capabilities are very poor and therefore pictures do not help her to better understand the
concepts.
Post-test
In this section of the structured interview we wanted to find out the level of difficulty of the post-
test. Students had to choose among the following possibilities: a) the post test was too difficult for
their level of understanding of the concepts presented by the two LOs, b) the post test was
appropriate for their level of understanding of the concepts presented by the two LOs, c) the
post-test was too easy for their level of understanding of the concepts presented by the two LOs.
Secondly, we wanted to know whether their achievements at the post test met their expectations.
Lastly, we were interested whether similar e-learning units could be of any help in learning
chemistry. There were four possible answers: (1) Yes, as a supplementary learning material, (2)
Yes, as a substitution for chemistry lessons, (3) No, because I do not want to learn by computers,
(4) No, because I need teacher’s support and help.
Regarding the first question, 14 students decided that the post test was adequate for their level of
understanding of the concepts presented in both LOs. One student said that that the post test was
too difficult and his result confirmed his claim (his achievement was below the average - 7.69).
For the second question, nine students said that the results from the post test met their
expectations and gave a series of explanations, e.g.: “My result was expected because the post test
included such items which were directly related with the concepts taught through the LOs.”
Another student gave the following explanation: “I understood the concepts presented, but t o
achieve better results I should work through the LOs once again.”, and yet he got 9.72 scores out
of 10 at the post test. Five students were only partially satisfied with their post-test results but
were critical enough and blamed themselves for the outcome. One student was disappointed with
the results (7.22), claiming that “I could have been better but I made some stupid mistakes”.
110
As for the last question, 13 students assessed e-learning units as a valuable supplementary material
for learning chemistry; one student would replace traditional chemistry classes with e-learning, and
one student rejected e-learning, explaining that “I do not want to learn alone, I need somebody t o
encourage me, and answer my questions”.
Conclusions
Our research results prove that e-learning approach in chemistry may result in actual learning of
new and difficult concepts, but the learning effect primarily depends on students’ prior knowledge.
Only one third of students (5), who took part in this research, actually learned new concepts t o
such an extent to apply newly acquired knowledge in a new learning situation without any help
during the structured interview. Those students also achieved scores above the average in the post-
test. With other students some misunderstanding or even the lack of some basic chemistry
concepts was noticed during the structured interview (the concepts of chemical bond, valence of
electrons, spatial arrangement of atoms in molecules, bases and acids, etc.).
We are particularly glad that students felt relaxed and safe when working with LOs in the Moodle
environment and that even those who had some fear at the beginning quickly adapted to the new
environment. They also assessed the structure of LOs very high. Thus, on the one hand these
findings are very encouraging for us, but on the other raise a great responsibility. In designing new
LOs special attention should be paid to interactivity and versatility of LOs and quality of visual
elements so that students working with LOs would learn new concepts and be motivated and
challenged.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank all the students who took part in our research; without their
engagement and dedication our research would not have been possible. We also wish to thank the
chemistry teachers of three high schools: Gimnazija Vi_, Gimnazija Ledina and Gimnazija
Be_igrad for allowing and supporting their students to participate in the research. Our great thanks
also to the Leonardo da Vinci authorities and all participants in the SLOOP project. Without
them we would not have been able to design our LOs, since our knowledge on LO design was gained
from this project and people involved in it.
References
Ulbrich, A., Pacnik, H. (2004) Human Issues in Implementing eLearning Technology, Journal of
Universal Computer Science , Vol. 10. No. 1, 1-3.
Ausserhofer, A. (2002), eLearning and Knowledge Management Towards Life-long Education,

From Proceeding (355) Computers and Advanced Technology in Education - 2002
Mayer, R. E. (2003) Elements of a Science of E-Learning Journal of Educational Computing

Research, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 297–313
On line learning, Samlearning.com, http://www.samlearning.com/, 29.05.2007
Vrta_nik, M. et. al. (2007) Could visualization tools bridge the gap between students’ perception
and understanding concepts related to molecular reactivity? (unpublished research)
Electronegativity.", IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology,

http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/goldbook/index.htm, 06.06.2007
111
Mulliken, R. S. (1934). J. Chem. Phys. 2:782. Mulliken, R. S. (1935). J. Chem. Phys. 3:573.
Authors
Margareta Vrtacnik
Department of Chemical Education and infomatics,
Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering,
University of Ljubljana,
Vegova 4, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
metka.vratcnik@guest.arnes.si
Rahela Cemazar,
Faculty of Education,
University of Ljubljana,
Kardeljeva pl. 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
rahela.cemazar@gmail.com
112
Learning how to create learning objects : An opportunity for the teaching community
LEARNING HOW TO CREATE LEARNING OBJECTS: AN

OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TEACHING COMMUNITY
Pedro Fernández Michels, Albert Sangrà Morer and Lourdes Guàrdia Ortíz
Open University of Catalonia
Abstract
This article presents the SLOOP-project's PE2 course, an online course about how to produce
SCORM-compliant Learning Objects. The Spanish version of the course, on which the article is
based, has been conducted by the author between January and March 2007. The author defends the
opinion that the PE2-course proved itself to be a useful tool to transmit key concepts and crucial
know-how regarding the creation of LOs. It therefore constitutes an excellent opportunity for the
teaching community to learn how to integrate high quality digital resources in their classes.
Introduction
Nowadays the use of ICT in education and training is not only an opportunity to enhance the
teaching and learning process, motivate, dynamize and support teachers and students but also a
"must" that is currently described as the “Digital Imperative”. The pressure felt by many
traditional institutions and their teachers to integrate elements of ICT-supported teaching and
learning can be explained from different angles:
a) The new generations of students are “digital natives”. They consider the use of digital devices
natural – in any context, including education.
b) Societies are undergoing an accelerating process of digitalization of a growing number of

segments of every day life. Shopping, banking, retrieving information, communication,
administrative affairs and many more day to day life activities are or are going to be carried out
online. The transversal skills needed to be able to manage these changes and use them to their own
advantage can only be learned or acquired in a teaching and learning environment that exposes
students to technology.
c) There are clear advantages in using ICT in teaching. Some of them are
• the possibilities to increase flexibility in the processes

• the development of well-designed content that can be more effective than the traditional
transmission methods
• the promotion of advanced learning skills
• the improvement of the access to information
• the possibility to foster collaborative learning methods.
Nevertheless, the teaching community – mostly consisting of “digital immigrants” – does not yet
feel completely comfortable with the current opportunities of integrating ICT in their work. In
many occasions, the existing range of digital resources does not meet the individual needs and
requirements of a single teacher who wishes to take advantage form ICT in a particular class, on a
particular topic and under a determined objective.
Missing coincidence between concrete needs and existing resources can basically lead to two
reactions:
113
a) the teacher turns away from trying to integrate ICT in his day to day professional activities, or
b) the teacher decides to improve and adapt the existing material or to create his own resources.
Considering the initial idea in this article, the second option is clearly more desirable than the first
The question is, how to produce high quality digital learning material or convert existing resources
into such, without turning this task into a colossal endeavor? Huge amounts of additional workload
due to technological difficulties and the need of creating new materials from scratch could hardly
lead teachers to embrace digitalization with positive feelings.
The SLOOP project holds a proposal that can help to overcome technical hurdles and mountains
of additional editing work.
The invitation to “Share Learning Objects in an Open Perspective” provides teachers and
interested practitioners with two basic tools:
• An online course integrated in a Moodle-platform about the creation of SCORM

compliant Learning Objects.
• A Learning Object Management System that allows uploading, modifying and sharing
Learning Objects.
Consequently, the SLOOP-project promotes the use and creation of free and open software and
digital materials with a clear message: sharing digital educational resources in an open perspective
can be a way of making the integration of ICT in teaching and learning less work intensive and
difficult.
This chapter will discuss the experiences gathered in one of the pilot courses offered to a group of
26 Spanish university teachers that had little or no knowledge in the field. The aim was t o
highlight relevant aspects in the process of learning how to create LOs and to analyze comments
and opinions of the participants which could be of interest to members of the teaching
community who are considering improving ICT-integration in their own working context. The
article can also be seen as the validation of the effectiveness of the course in the process of
capacity building on the subject of the production of shareable high quality digital learning
material.
Course Statistics
General Data
The PE2-course was offered to 26 university teachers working in different institutions all over the
Spanish territory. 21 of these teachers participated actively in the course. At the end of the
course, 12 Learning Objects had been created and 9 of them uploaded into a Moodle-trial space t o
be tested regarding their communication with the VLE.
The course started on January 22n d 2007 and finished on March 18th. It was structured in eight
thematic blocks (one per week) with one or two metaLOs (Learning Objects about Learning
Objects) to be studied and discussed in each block. Exceptions were week three and week eight
where work was centred in the use of free authoring tools (NVU, eXe, RELOAD) and the project’s
Learning Object Management System, the FREELOMS.
The metaLOs offered in the course were the following:
• Learning Objects,
• LO: pedagogical approaches,
• SCORM standard,
• The Metadata,
114
• How to make a LO SCORM compliant,

• The packaging of LOs,
• Communication between LO and platform,
• Sharing free LOs.
Fig. 1 - Virtual Learning Environment for the PE2-ES course
The pedagogical model applied in the course had some instructive aspects due to the
characteristics of the metaLOs and the lineal progression of the course activities. But the learning
process was constantly supported by lively debates in the forum which lead to scenarios of
efficient collaboration and social learning. The different backgrounds and skills of the participants
was certainly an advantage in the process of rounding off the contents of the course, making them
more relevant for each individual.
A single tutor accompanied the participants through their learning process. His role was clearly
the one of facilitator of resources and activities. At the same time he was responsible for the
prompt fulfilment of the timetable and the deadlines. The dynamics achieved in the course made
it possible to count on the expertise of the participants in several situations where technical or
pedagogical knowledge was needed.
Participant profile
It is important to point out that the vast majority of the participants of the course did not have
any previous experience in the creation of Los when they started the course. However, all of
them had basic knowledge about the development of simple websites. About 20% had developed
dynamic websites. Due to these initial facts, all of the participants expressed that the main
motivation to do the course was to learn about how to create LOs and about the standard SCORM
and the Learning Object Metadata.
115
The tasks
After a descriptive phase covered by the first 4 metaLOs that had the aim of introducing the
participants into the state of the art in the field, metaLO five, six and seven offered instructions
and information about how to produce an LO, make it SCORM compliant, create a package and
place it on a virtual platform. The participants were offered additional resources, namely
RELOAD, NVU and eXe, three free authoring tools that allow the creation of html documents
and organizes them in content packages. The last metaLO offers an illustration of the aims of the
SLOOP-project.
The provision of information about free software to support the process of LO production is
essential if we think about single users that have to carry out the digitalization of their teaching
material based on their individual initiative.
Each of the first 4 descriptive metaLOs offered a test for self-evaluation. The learning outcomes
in metaLOs 5, 6 and 7 were reflected in the final result of the LO production process.
Following the process
Learning about Los

The content relating to free and open programs and resources,Learning Objects, the pedagogical
approaches they have been related to, the SCORM standard and metadata offered in the first four
metaLOs was simultaneously discussed in the general forum of the PE2-course. The discussion
threads give interesting information on how participants made their way through the metaLOs
and what concerns the new information raised. The following examples are representative for the
high interest shown in the materials and the critical view with which Learning Objects were looked
at.
What is the value of an LO from a teachers point of view?

On the positive side, participants pointed out the possibilities an LO gives to systemize and
classify pedagogical resources and to increase their value thanks to reusability. It also was seen as
very positive that LOs, due to their digital format, are easy to update. LOs can help to structure
the design process of educational material in the sense that its production obliges teachers t o
reflect on what is needed, how it is going to be delivered or executed and what means are necessary
to carry out the whole process. Finally, LOs are considered a tool that can help to reduce time and
effort due to the systemization of many elements that intervene in a learning process.
The fact that technology and Learning Objects tend to standardize pedagogical resources is seen
with mixed emotions. The positive effect of standardization is the possibility to identify much
more quickly which resources work well in a teaching situation and which do not. On the other
hand, the risk of mechanizing the teaching and learning processes through the use of LOs is
mentioned as a point to keep in mind: too much standardization can lead to a dehumanization of
the process, especially when the applied methodology is very expositive. The final outcome would
be a teaching process disconnected from the needs of the learning individual.
Some doubts were raised against the assumption that LOs could reduce the teacher's workload just
because they are available in a repository: Reusability is only effective when an LO is not too
contextualized. But this leads to the need of further adaptation of the existing LO to a determined
context, which results in more work for the teacher. On the other hand, a number of LOs
understood as minimal units of educational content, could be reassembled into a bigger module or
course without too much effort. In this sense, customization (as the counterpart t o
standardization) can be achieved by offering the students a set of different LOs to choose from.
Finally, LOs are considered an interesting resource for the teacher, but always within a context
where a wider variety of resources and educational strategies coexist in an environment that
initiates meaningful learning processes. In this context the widely used test format as an
116
evaluation method within an LO was criticized as too simple, memoiristic and not oriented
towards real application of knowledge.
What can LO’s offer to the students?

The most repeated advantages of the LO’s as seen by the students are the potential to adapt
contents to the students' needs, the possibility for the student to choose his/her own personal
learning path and the fact that the same material can be used repeatedly without time restrictions,
the latter being a quality given through virtual learning environments in general. Another point
that is seen as positive and as a help for the students is that an LO constitutes a pre-selection of
content that can be useful for individuals that have difficulties in identifying and choosing relevant
information from a wider source.
On the other hand and regarding the same concept of deeply pre-designed materials, some
participants expressed their concern about giving too much guidance to the students through an
excessively structured and selected content. Such a procedure would abort the students' motivation
to explore and build their knowledge in a more independent way not letting them synthesize the
contents by themselves. An interesting proposal for the use of LOs regarding this concern was t o
make the students themselves produce their own LOs about the topic and demonstrate that way
their level of assimilation.
Fig. 2 - Threads in the course's main discussion forum
Learning how to produce LOs

The practical part of the course was expected to be more complicated than the theoretical one.
Discussion groups in the general forum were established in order to give mutual help and assistance
in the process of producing the first own Learning Object with the help of the information and
instructions given in the meta LOs and some crucial free authoring tools. In this phase especially
the parallel use of the asynchronous communication channels was vital for many participants in
the sense that they received valuable information from their peers that kept them on the way of
producing their LO. The group proved to be very active and motivated which led to the edition of
a considerable number of informative documents that accompanied the learning and production
process in a very positive way.
117
LO production : Pedagogical concerns

The pedagogical concerns regarding the production of Learning Objects were mainly related to the
structure of the Object and the use of sound and effective learning activities. In this sense, eXe was
considered a useful tool thanks to the possibilities of structuring the LO in different pages and
levels with a variety of activities and formats like readings, reflection activities, different types of
tests, images, audio files etc. However, the common opinion was that there is no essential
difference between the basic pedagogical design of an online Learning Object and the design of a
conventional learning activity or material. As pedagogical material should always be structured
based on the general learning objectives that can be clustered into specific goals, units and
modules. A tool like eXe reproduces this structure and converts it into the organization of a
content package that can be used as a SCORM compliant Learning Object.
LO production : Technical problems

In comparison to the pedagogical concerns that produced 18 messages in the corresponding thread
of the course's discussion forum, the technical problems encountered while producing LOs based on
the instructions given in the metaLOs 5, 6 and 7 where much more numerous. Technical
difficulties were the reason for 39 messages in the corresponding thread. General comments on the
production process were discussed in parallel in the threads related to each of the 3 metaLOs with
a total number of 35 messages. All participants decided to work with eXe, some of them
combining this program with some other web page editor. Some of the main points raised in the
forum are the following:
- Problems with graphics and formula that are difficult to introduce into eXe devices.
- Some problems defining the structure of the future LO with the hierarchy proposed in
eXe.
- Temporary Problems of visualization of the LO produced with eXe, probably due to
browser specifications. The index frame overlapped the rest of the page or the headings
did not appear completely.
- Problems with eXe that does not save work automatically when users quit the
program.
- Sporadic problems choosing the correct export path using eXe.
- Problems using RELOAD due to the relative complexity of the steps to be carried
out.
- Lack of orientation editing metadata with RELOAD.
- General lack of orientation regarding the use of the different tools offered; confusion
in respect of the function of the tools and materials (Javascript file, eXe, Reload, NVU,
FreeLOM).
The vast majority of the encountered problems could be solved in an assisted process of trial and
error in which communication between the course participants was immensely important. The
intensive use of the communication channels offered in the course in order to overcome the
mentioned initial difficulties led to the collection and production of very valuable explanatory
material. The information and guidelines produced by course participants are, at the same time, an
interesting insight in the learning process of the authors.
118
Fig. 3 - Document produced by Artemio Mojón Ojea: ""Scormization" of Learning Objects. Summary provided by an
ignorant"
It has to be pointed out that the 12 Learning Objects that were finally produced within the course
belong in 7 cases to the participants that discussed their production process and the encountered
problems in the forum. The other 5 LOs were produced by participants that did not take part in
the discussions. Only one of the 8 participants that indicated to have problems and contributed t o
solve them did not submit a finished LO. This proves that unavoidable technical problems with
tools and processes that were new for all participants have not stopped them from producing their
own LOs which might be a good indicator for the value of the course as an instrument to transmit
the necessary knowledge to produce SCORM compliant Learning Objects.
At the same time, the commented problems give valuable hints on the aspects of the course and
the used metaLOs that can or should be improved.
Content of metaLO5 : To “scormise” a Learning Object

In this sense the process of producing SCORM compliant web pages that can communicate with a
Virtual Learning Environment could be introduced from a different perspective. The current
version of the course is based on the assumption that teachers already have finalized web pages
that could be converted into SCORM compliant Learning Objects. It therefore offers a simple way
of introducing Javascript into an existing web page and thus finalizing the desired product without
applying any other editing work to it, with the exception of the structure definition of the page or
pages.
If the target group of the course is not likely to have digital resources that can be made SCORM-
compliant but needs to create these resources from scratch, it might be better to approach the
topic introducing first an editing tool like eXe and its possibilities of exporting the created work as
SCORM packages.
More time and space for practice

Another aspect that could be improved is the balance between the different parts of the course. I t
might be useful to put more emphasis on the description of the functions and the possibilities of
119
the presented editing tools in order to provide some more guidance beyond the standard help files
provided in the programmes themselves.
More time and space to learn about the Free Learning Object Management System created by the
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche would reflect in a better way the importance of this tool within
the SLOOP-project. From the point of view of a teacher who is interested in quickly building a
competence in the production of LOs it might be worth to consider introducing a better defined
learning path through practical exploration and use of the four mentioned tools.
Conclusion
The value of the course could be evaluated from different angles. Comparing the number of
finished LOs with the initial number of course participants could lead to certain disappointment.
Hardly 50% of the enrolled participants managed to produce a Learning Object. This data has t o
be put into context. Firstly it has to be said that only 21 of the 26 enrolled individuals took part
in the course. The other five did not carry out any of the proposed course activities. Secondly it is
important to point out the voluntary nature of the course. In this context, the achieved number
of 12 finished Learning Objects can be considered as very satisfactory. In addition,the fact is that
those participants that took advantage of all aspects of the course, especially the possibilities of
communication and mutual assistance, were in the end very successful in creating their own
Learning Objects.
The course could also be analysed by looking at the activity in the general forum and the
secondary forums related to the process of LO-production and feedback.
The activity in the forums generated the following quantitative outcome:
• General forum PE2_ES:

26 threads
309 messages
• Forum for the LO titles in PE2_ES:
14 threads
24 messages
• Forum for LO submission in PE2_ES
12 threads
20 messages
• Forum to post final feedback on the course; PE2_ES
1 thread
7 messages
Also worth mentioning are the three wikis for collaborative document edition and one folder with
complementary material provided by the participants themselves. This activity along with the
generous contributions of a considerable part of the group in the form of documents and related
links can be described as very positive and indicates the potential of the course and its content t o
generate meaningful learning activities.
A third angle is given by the analysis of the communication created around the learning process.
The examples in point 3 of this article clearly show that the course materials had sufficient
quality and were vigorous enough to initiate an intense process of information processing,
practice, debate and negotiation, assimilation and improvement of the previous practice. All this
was supported and kept alive by a virtual learning environment that allowed for asynchronous
120
communication in discussion forums, collaborative document editing in wikis and file sharing in
folders for common access.
The course evaluation carried out by SCIENTER reflects that the participants considered the
experience of high relevance form a personal (rating: 4,1/5) and professional point of view
(rating: 4/5). Online debates were considered interesting (4/5) and useful (4/5). The usefulness of
the metaLOs was also seen in a very positive way (4/5) although determined aspects like the tests,
the legibility, the language and the coherence with the stated objectives received a lower rating
(between 3,6 and 3,9). It is interesting to see that the vast majority of the participants mentioned
the practical aspect of LO production as the best element of the course. As the worst elements
many participants mentioned the very technical contents and the considerable amount of
programs that had to be downloaded and learned. Both data underpin the opinion that increasing
time and space for practicing in order to get used to the proposed programs and receive better
guidance through the process of LO production might contribute to an improvement of the
course.
The success of the course might be reflected in the following data: None of the participants
discarded the possibility of future employment of new Learning Objects in class. Almost 72, 5 %
of the replies given in the SCIENTER survey indicate that the participants are clearly willing
create new LOs for future teaching activities. The rest are uncertain, arguing that more time would
be needed to improve production skills.
The meta Learning Objects are available for everybody under Creative Common Attribution –
Share Alike License. The MOODLE-platform is also a free, open source Course Management
System that can be downloaded from www.moodle.org. Courses can be visited as examples at
www.sloopproject.eu. It is therefore possible to recreate the PE2-course, improve it in the terms
mentioned above or adapt it to a specific situation. With the PE2-course the SLOOP-project has
generated a tool that has proved to be useful and relevant for teachers and fully respects the
criteria of open and free software. It has the potential to distribute skills and knowledge needed for
the production of SCORM compliant Learning Objects and represents an example of the
communal benefit that can be gathered from the development, distribution, use, modification and
re-use of free and open course/software.
References
http://www.nvu.com/index.php
http://exelearning.org/
http://www.reload.ac.uk/
Related links
www.sloopproject.eu
MOODLE: www.moodle.org
NVU: http://www.nvu.com/index.php
eXe: http://exelearning.org/
RELOAD: http://www.reload.ac.uk/
LORI: http://elera.net/eLera/Home/About%20%20LORI/
RLO-CETL: http://www.rlo-cetl.ac.uk/index.htm
121
Authors
Pedro Fernández Michels,

Open University of Catalonia,
Av. Tibidabo 39 – 43 – 08035 Barcelona
pfernandezmi@uoc.edu
Prof. Albert Sangrà Morer,

asangra@uoc.edu
Prof. Lourdes Guàrdia Ortíz,

lguardia@uoc.edu
122
Evaluation as an inherent process to promote and support continuous quality
improvement and learning amongst the involved parties
EVALUATION AS A INHERENT PROCESS TO PROMOTE AND

SUPPORT CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AND LEARNING
AMONGST THE INVOLVED PARTIES
Michela Moretti, Scienter, Bologna, IT
Abstract
Within the Sloop project, evaluation activities have accompanied the project lifecycle in order t o
support the decision making process, technical work, the development of project activities as well
as to generate learning amongst the different parties involved at different levels. This article is
structured in two main parts: the first of which presents a short description of the evaluation
framework and methodology; and the second provides a summary of the SLOOP project
evaluation results achieved to date (July 2007). It should be mentioned that the evaluation
activities will continue until the end of the project (September 2007) but obviously due to time
constraints relating to the completion of this publication, it was not possible to include the results
of the overall project evaluation. They will be subsequently made available on the Sloop web site.
Evaluation within the SLOOP Project
To design a coherent, relevant, valid, precise and useful evaluation framework, it is necessary that
the steps undertaken be founded on the following key questions:
• What purpose does the evaluation serve?

• On the basis of which principles will the evaluation framework be defined?
• Who will be interested in the evaluation results and in the success of the project?
• What is going to be evaluated within the Sloop project? What are the “objects” of the
evaluation activities?
• On which criteria should the different evaluation “objects” be evaluated?
• Who will evaluate the different objects?
• When are the evaluation activities to be carried out?
• Who will use the evaluation results and how/when will they be made available to them?
Evaluation aims
The main evaluation purposes within the SLOOP project have been defined as follows:
• To accompany project management by providing updated information on project

achievements and critical aspects
• To evaluate the intermediate and final results of the project
• To "generate" learning amongst involved parties
The evaluation activities pursue both formative and summative aims in order to log the
implementation of the SLOOP outputs (e.g. set of Meta Learning objects, Web Site and Intranet
Design, production of LO.s etc.) and to assess the results and the impact of any significant phase
of the project. The monitoring system will aim at interactively refining the development process
by collecting data on a regular basis (continuous feedback).
123
In particular, significant efforts are made to develop the formative component in order t o
disseminate an “evaluation culture” among all participants.
The SLOOP project and outputs have to be tested and assessed but at the same time the process
has to produce “learning” among the different individuals involved in the project at both national
and European level.
The Evaluation Principles and Criteria

The SLOOP evaluation framework is based on seven main principles:
1. It has a solid common core;
2. It is flexible enough to be applicable to outputs of different nature (e.g. learning

environment/platform, metaLOs, different project testing phase, etc.)
3. It is aware and in line with state of the art evaluation methodology;
4. It is simple enough to be used by a non-expert audience;
5. It is accompanied by appropriate user guidelines
6. It does not necessitate the commitment of exaggerated validation resources;
7. It is perceived as immediately relevant by users.
The stakeholders’ analysis

By “stake holder” we define all actors who have an interest in the project, its outputs and its
implementation process. The stakeholders’ analysis represents a key point of the evaluation
system.
Different stakeholders are interested in different questions relevant to the kind of decisions they
have to make. In some cases, they have different or competing views about what is important,
what constitutes success and how success might be measured. Several project stakeholders have
been identified and different evaluation questions proposed in order to:
• orientate the evaluation activities,

• pre-define their involvement in the activities and
• plan what kind of data or information needs to be provided to them at different stages in
the project life-cycle in order to inform their decision-making process.
The following table presents the main results of the stakeholders’ analysis
STAKEHOLDER EVALUATION INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION

GROUP QUESTIONS
Partners • Is the project They are active in all The project foresees
contributing to our evaluation phases. a transparent
business/image/inst communication flow
itutional learning in order to keep all
objectives? partners informed
• Is it acceptable in and give them the
organisational and possibility to express
economic terms? their suggestions,
feedback and needs
• Do we learn
anything useful
from the project?
• Do I feel satisfied
124

GROUP QUESTIONS
with project
participation?
• Could we generate
further activity
through the
project?
Teachers, tutors, • Is the project They will be involved in
and practitioners helping me to face the various training
in education and my teaching courses (PE 2, PE3 and
training sectors problems? PE4).
• Is the project
helping me learn
new ways of
teaching?
• Are the SLOOP
outputs ready to be
used?
• Are the SLOOP
outputs easy to
use?
• Are the SLOOP
outputs useful?
• Are the SLOOP
outputs relevant to
me and to the
current context I
am in?
• Are the SLOOP
outputs flexible
enough to be
adapted to
different needs?
• What kind of
changes (in
processes and/or
procedures) need
to be introduced if
I apply the
SLOOP outputs in
my
organisation/instit
ution/school?
• Is the project
helping me learn
anything useful or
producing any
other benefits?
• Do I feel satisfied
from my
participation in
Sloop?
125

GROUP QUESTIONS
Learners • Do the SLOOP They will be involved in
outputs make me the testing of the LOs
learn in a more (PE4).
efficient way?
• Do the SLOOP
outputs provide
added value to my
learning process?
• Can I improve my
autonomy and my
ability to learn?
Researchers in • Does the SLOOP They will be invited t o Articles, documents,
Education and Project help the dissemination events report will be
Training educators to delivered in order to
modify and/or keep them informed
ameliorate existing of the project
methods of developments (e.g.
teaching and Sloop newsletter and
learning? the project web site)
• Does the SLOOP
project contribute
to the innovation
process within the
education and
training systems?
• Does the SLOOP
Project help to
develop new
and/or upgrade
existing
teachers’/trainers’
skills or
competencies?
• Does the project
produce any other
benefits?
• Does SLOOP
support the
establishment of
quality standards
regarding metadata
International and learning
Bodies Working objects?
with Standards • Does the SLOOP
project help to
support the
harmonisation of
standards in
education and
training?
126

GROUP QUESTIONS
Free Open source • Does the SLOOP
movement project support
the creation,
exchange and
multiplication of
knowledge and
resources amongst
practitioners in
the education and
training sectors?
• Does the SLOOP
project develop
something new
that is in line with
our philosophy /
thinking?
European • Does the project It will be informed
Commission deliver on what it through deliverables
promised? and reports
• Does it reflect the
Leonardo Da Vinci
programme in a
positive manner?
• Does the project
support the
improvement of
quality and
innovation in
education?
The objects of the evaluation

A set of “objects” to be evaluated and validated during the project life-cycle were identified and
articulated in the following different categories:
1. Project, Phases and Results
2. Outputs and Outcomes:
• Internal Products (IP1, IP2, IP3, IP4, IP5, IP6, IP7, IP8)
• Work Packages (WP1, WP2, WP4, WP3, WP5,, WP9, WP10)
• Process Events (PE1, PE2, PE3, PE4, PE5) such as training and dissemination events
The Evaluation Criteria

The following tables present the list of criteria articulated by evaluation objects. The criteria have
been “clustered” as defined in the approved project proposal.
127
OBJECT : SLOOP PROJECT, PHASES AND RESULTS

SUB-OBJECT CRITERIA
Working Process/Phases Effectiveness
Methodology Efficacy
Coordination/Management Appropriateness
Communication flows Satisfaction
Collaboration amongst partners Coherence
Task distribution Cost-effectiveness
Planning and timing Learning
Activities (design, production, Efficiency

dissemination, valorisation, evaluation,
data processing) Relevance and timing
Relevance of the activities with reference to the

identified needs and priorities
Intermediate and final objectives achievement

Results
Relevance to the context and the target users
Innovation produced
Cost-effectiveness
Transferability
Sustainability
Usefulness
European Added value
128
OBJECT : INTERNAL PRODUCTS (IP)

SUB-OBJECT CRITERIA
IP 1: Pedagogical and technical
specifications for LO development
Coherence with the purpose
IP 2: Specifications of FLOMS (free LO
management system) for LO Methodological and technical quality
development, storage and use
Soundness of the approach
IP 3: Web Site and Intranet Design
Scientific correctness
IP 4: Model of License
Usability
(copyright/copyleft) to be adopted for
the LOs developed Usefulness
IP 5: Design of the course for LO’s Clarity of the language
developers/users
Applicability
IP 6: Procedures for evaluating
metaLOs and the training course Completeness
IP 7: Evaluation tools and procedures to Innovative content

crosscheck the LOs developed.
Current Relevance
IP 8: Tools and procedures for Internal
and external validation process
129
OBJECT : WORK PACKAGE (WP)

SUB-OBJECT CRITERIA
WP 1: Website
WP2: FreeLOms for LOs development Coherence with the purpose

storage and use
Soundness of the approach
WP 3: Leaflet
Usefulness
WP4: Meta Learning Object
User-friendliness
WP 5: Evaluation report on internal
and external staffs’ satisfaction as far as Clarity of the language
metaLOs are concerned
Completeness
WP6 and Wp7: set of LOs (6a, 6b, 6c)
Clarity of the contents
WP 8: Evaluation report on students’
satisfaction as far as LOs are concerned Relevance to user needs
WP 9: Brochure containing partners’ Usability and Transferability in/to different contexts

final contributions
Completeness
WP 10: Report on the project’s results
and future prospective
OBJECT : OUTPUTS: PROCESS/EVENT (PE)

SUB-OBJECT CRITERIA
PE 1: Partnership staff training Learning achievement
PE 2: Communities of practice Satisfaction

information and training
Usefulness
PE 3: LOs Internal evaluation process
Relevance
PE 4: Internal and external validation
process (final users) Soundness of the approach
Reliability
Scientific correctness
PE 5 Public events to present the Efficacy of dissemination actions: number of people

project’s results reached and contacted, interest and awareness raised,
added value created with reference to the project.
The source of evaluation

Three are the main evaluation sources within the SLOOP Project:
• The SLOOP partners;

• Teachers, trainers and learners/students which represent the main target groups;
• Policy and decision makers in education and training, eLearning providers, research
centres, experts and practitioners in education.
130
Timing and use of the evaluation results.

The project envisaged a very detailed work plan. The evaluation activities were designed in
advance in order to let all partners and their relevant staff familiarise themselves with the
methods and tools to be used. The results of the evaluation exercises, (both formal and non-
formal), were immediately communicated to ITSOS (project coordinator) and to relevant partners
in order to avoid time delays and assure the continuous improvement of the project processes and
outputs. Furthermore, Scienter was responsible for collating the feedback and issuing reports in
which the analysis of the evaluation results were structured and presented in a more formal and
standardised manner.
Tools
Different evaluation tools were designed in order to collect data and feedback on the different
evaluation objects. The table below synthesises the tools used and the typology of evaluation
applied:
• Self-evaluation: for project partners considering the use of an internal self-review process;
• Peer review: for teachers /experts who are actively participating in the SLOOP project;
• External Evaluation: for teachers and students not directly involved in the project but
considered key sources of external evaluation.
OBJECT OF THE TYPE TITLE OF THE EVALUATION TOOL

EVALUATION
Project phases, Internal Project phase grid
development process and self-
results evaluation
Internal Internal Evaluation Questionnaire about the Sloop

self- Project Development and intermediate Results (for
evaluation partners)
Internal Grid for presenting and evaluating

self- dissemination/valorisation events
evaluation
Internal Open grid for collecting evaluation on project results

self- and future perspectives
evaluation
Set of Meta Learning Internal Grid for conducting the scientific validation of the
Objects (metaLOs) SLOOP Meta Learning Objects
External SLOOP Questionnaire for the evaluation of Meta

Learning Objects by participants
WP1: website External Grid for collecting feedback on the Sloop website
FreeLOms Internal Validation of the FreeLOms using test case scenarios
PE1 course: partnership External Learners questionnaire at the end of the course (PE1)
staff training
External Tutors questionnaire at the end of the course (PE1)
PE2: Community of External Questionnaire at the end of the course (PE2)

practice training
131
OBJECT OF THE TYPE TITLE OF THE EVALUATION TOOL

EVALUATION
practice training External Tutor Logbook to be filled in during and at the end of
PE2
PE3: Cross checking Internal Cross Check Grid

validation of LO.
Peer review
PE 4: Internal and External Grid for forum discussion or group interviews

external validation with
final users Semi-structured questionnaire for students
Report on the PE4 course
Results achieved
Introduction
The project internal products (IPs) and the work packages (WPs) were reviewed by the entire
partnership and monitored by Scienter as the partner responsible for evaluation and ITSOS as the
project coordinator. The feedback was collected by formal and informal means and a suitable time
slot was assigned during partner meetings in order to promote discussion and the sharing of
viewpoints. The remarks and suggestions for improvement were collected and taken into great
consideration by those partners responsible for a specific product or work package.
A very positive and collaborative atmosphere characterised the development of the SLOOP
project. The formative dimension of the evaluation was deeply embedded in each phase and/or
output.
The following paragraphs present a short summary of the main evaluation results collected within
the different evaluation exercises.
Meta Learning Objects

The set of Meta Learning Objects (metaLOs), the product of WP4, which was considered to be
one of the key outputs of the Sloop Project was evaluated. The SLOOP metaLOs are learning
resources through which both teachers and trainers can understand the philosophy and theoretical
background of the Learning Objects as well as learning how to create new learning objects which
are SCORM and LOM IEEE compliant.
Eight Meta LOs were initially developed by ITSOS, and focused on the planning and development
of Learning Objects related to the following themes:
1. Learning Objects
2. LO: pedagogical approaches
3. Interoperability: SCORM standards
4. Traceability: metadata
5. SCO packaging
6. Communication between SCOs and LMS
132
7. Sharing LOs
8. The SLOOP FreeLOms
In order to assure quality in the learning process, the metaLO should not only be clear, relevant,
useful and motivating from the users’ point of view, but should also assure “quality” from a
pedagogical, content and technical view point. In this respect, the project foresaw that the
metaLOs would not only be tested by final users but also that a Scientific Committee (formed by
experts in the field of eLearning, ICT and Instructional Design domains belonging to the
partnership) should validate each single metaLO before putting it at the disposal of external
project partners as well as any potential beneficiaries in Europe.
Due to the complexity of the themes addressed in the metaLOs, their development took longer
than expected. It was therefore impossible to proceed with the scientific validation of the
developed materials prior to the delivery of the first edition of the course (named PE1).
Therefore the scientific validation of the metaLOs was conducted at the same time as first edition
of the Pilot SLOOP course which was addressed to teachers/partners who would develop new LOs
in phase 6 of the project.
In other words, while the Scientific Committee validation was carried out as a “single, stand alone
process” for each of the metaLO, the evaluation of the metaLOs by teachers/partners was
conducted as part of the PE1 learning course.
The scientific validation exercise was conducted from mid May to mid June 2006. The validators
had at their disposal a “pre-defined validation grid” which provided a means of collecting feedback
and suggestions for improvement in a structured and standardised manner (the grid was structured
in three sections: methodological, content and technical). It was recommended that for each
metaLO an individual grid should be completed. The synopsis and the validators’ specific
comments were sent to ITSOS and used by the relevant metaLO authors to improve the version
of the metaLO.
Generally speaking, the Scientific Committee have rated the MetaLOs in a very positive way. The
focus of the metaLOs shifts from a theoretical perspective to an operational/technical and
practical one and in doing so involves increasing levels of complexity and the introduction of the
necessary tools required to create new LOs.
As mentioned before, the PE1 course was delivered at the same time as the scientific validation
exercise took place. This involved about 30 participants (mainly project partners actively
involved in the project) who were to be responsible for delivering cascade courses and producing
new LOs in subsequent project phases. The participants delivered a very positive judgment on the
set of metaLOs produced. The metaLOs with which the majority of the learners had the greatest
learning difficulty were the most technical metaLOs (n.5, 6, 7).
In this respect the metaLOs were modified accordingly with the comments received and a new
improved set of metaLOs was made available (in particular metaLO number 5 was split in two
distinct metaLOs).
The evaluation activity served the envisaged purpose: the results of the validation from the
Scientific Committee and from initial course participants (PE1) provided the necessary feedback
to improve the current version of the metaLOs before they were translated into various partners’
languages and tested with a larger audience.
First edition of Sloop course (PE1)

A first edition of the course, named PE1, addressed at the SLOOP partnership and delivered in two
versions – Italian and English - commenced in May 2007 and ended in June 2007.
The course was delivered in a collaborative learning mode: Learning occurred by means of
individual study (the Meta Learning Objects) and online discussion (various forums). The course
participants were supported in their learning path by tutors.
133
The methodology chosen was based on “learning by doing”. The partners decided to use Moodle as
the Learning Management System for the first course (PE1). Each trainee participating in the
course had the possibility to provide feedback on a single Meta Learning Object (see previous
paragraph) as well as feedback on the course as a whole.
Four tutors and about 30 trainees/teachers took part in PE1. Due to organisational (end of the
school year workload) and personal reasons, not all participants concluded the course. Many of
them asked permission to continue the training action in Autumn.
As far as the tutors’ opinion on the course is concerned, they judged the quality of the online
training delivered within the PE1 course in a very positive way. All considered the quality level t o
be sufficient or better for the required purposes. In particular they were of the opinion that the
key aspects/elements of the course were: the resources (metaLOs) and the learning platform
(which provides both flexible and effective support to the tutors their assigned roles, as well as
supporting interaction).
The entire experience was considered useful and interesting. The individual course topic, despite
its complexity, was considered relevant and challenging for the target group. In this respect it has
to be mentioned that some participants successfully published new LOs (the publication of new
LO. was the output expected from each course participant). The total number of new produced
LOs in this Sloop course edition was seventeen.
FreeLOms evaluation
The testing phase of the Free Learning Objects Management System (FreeLOms) took place
during the month of October 2006 and all partners were actively involved in testing the system
and in providing suggestions and comment in order to improve the FreeLOms. The FreeLOmS has
been developed by CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - Istituto per le Tecnologie
Didattiche - Sezione di Palermo.
CNR together with Scienter prepared the evaluation exercise by developing Test Case Scenarios.
Test Case Scenarios aim to provide a real world description of the use of the software by a final
user. They were built on, and dynamically linked to, the functionalities of the FreeLOms. The
progression of these Scenarios aims to walk the validators though the major steps of FreeLOms
from a final user point of view, from the beginning, as an anonymous browser accessing FreeLOms
for the first time, to a registered user searching for or uploading specific LOs. Slightly fewer than
30 test case scenarios were identified and validated by partners. The comments/answers given by
the partners have been classified by CNR according to the following criteria:
1. Bugs
2. Requests for usability improvements
3. Suggestions for usability improvements
4. Requests for new functionalities (not planned in the original FreeLOms project)
5. Suggestions for new functionalities
6. “Open issues”: requests for improvements and/or new functionalities that need further
discussion amongst the partners
7. Answers that include a direct enquiry to the developers
8. General comments (including positive comments)
9. Comments/requests that are not necessarily compatible with the FreeLOms design principles
and /or the Sloop philosophy
134
The comments classified at point 1 have been immediately answered by CNR (i.e: bugs have been
fixed); comments belonging to the categories 2 to 5 have been fulfilled only when considered
critical for the usability of the FreeLOms. Comments classified from 6 to 9 have been a matter of
discussion at partners’ meetings and are considered worthy of further discussion.
Second edition of the Sloop Course (PE2)

The second edition of the Sloop course took place in each project partner’s country (IT; RO; SI;
IRL; ES) during the period from October 2006 to March 2007. More than 70 trainers and
teachers participated in the course. The comments collected during the first course edition (PE2)
allowed partners to better structure and organise (from methodological, organisational, content,
communication and support view points) the local edition of the course. The new version of the
metaLO set (which was translated into different partners’ languages) was tested. The large
majority of the respondent commented positively on the relevance of the course, the clarity,
usefulness, coherence of the content and the language used. The second version of the Sloop
course was considered a useful, interesting and very satisfactory experience by all participants
from both a personal and professional point of view. As was the case with the first course edition
PE1, participants successfully developed new LOs.
Cross-Checking of LOs (PE3) and External Validation with final users (PE4)
Currently the project partners are involved in two different evaluation exercises.
The first one, an internal cross check of LOs produced within the project life-cycle is conceived
as a peer review evaluation conducted by colleagues who are experts on the specific topics.
In order to define the strategy for conducting this evaluation activity, some elements were taken
into consideration:
• The large number of LOs produced during the PE2 course

• The LOs content specificity - subject-matter (e.g. chemistry, maths, etc.)
• The LOs language specificity (EN, ES, SI, RO, IT..)
In this respect, SCIENTER as the partner responsible for the evaluation, proposed to simplify the
evaluation procedure and maximising each partner’s effort and contribution by :
• Using a simple and straightforward GRID for cross check evaluation”

• Agreeing that those LOs not written in English would be primarily checked by colleagues
from the same country in question (e.g. this does not preclude that teachers from Italy
cannot check a LO from Spain or Slovenia if interested and confident to do so)
As part of the Cross-check evaluation, the partners are currently uploading on to the Sloop
website intranet the completed grid.
The second activity is focused on the external validation of existing LOs with students (in this
context a student can be anyone, e.g: teachers, learners enrolled in a school/university, a person
interested in the specific LO topic who is studying the LOs for learning purposes). At this
moment the testing phase is taking place and the results will be collected during the month of
September 2007.
Conclusions
The Sloop outputs and outcomes have been evaluated and validated during their development and
finalisation. The people involved in the evaluation exercise have played a key role in the overall
success of the project. It is clear that the evaluation activities have served the purpose of
improving the quality of the outputs and processes within the project as well as generating and
supporting learning amongst the involved parties. Up to now the SLOOP project outputs and
activities have been considered to be extremely positive and satisfactory from both a personal and
135
professional viewpoint. The final evaluation activities will provide additional elements which will
no doubt find future use in supporting project sustainability and expanding its usage.
References
• BECTA, “Innovation in e-learning: lessons to be learned” BJET, July 2005, Volume 36, Number 4 -
ISSN 007-1013
• C. Dondi, M. Moretti “Why quality is a key factor in the speed of adoption of e-Learning”, Economia
Global e Gestão, Global Economics and Management Review, Volume IX , N.3/2004 , ISSN 0873-
7444
• European Foundation for quality in eLearning (EFQUEL) “Learners as active stakeholders of eLearning
quality”, 2005, http://www.qualityfoundation.org/
Author
Michela Moretti (mmoretti@scienter.org)

Head of Evaluation and Training Design Unit
Scienter – Ricerca e Innovazione per la formazione,
Via Val D’Aposa 3, 40123
Bologna , Italy
136

2007 - Sharing Learning Objects in An Open Perspective - SLOOP Project Results

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2007 - Sharing Learning Objects in An Open Perspective - SLOOP Project Results

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SLOOP: Sharing Learning Objects in an Open Perspective.

Papers submitted by partners, September 2007

The sloop idea : Sharing free / open learning objects......................................................................................10

FreeLOms : A learning object management system..........................................................................................16

Learning object metadata (LOM) in SLOOP...................................................................................................32

Open source and the co - operative relationship..............................................................................................47

Sloop project impact on Dunarea De Jos university virtual community..........................................................70

E - learning in public administration................................................................................................................81

Learning environment and learning objects : A successful synergy.................................................................86

E - learning in chemistry : To use it or not to use it........................................................................................95

The SLOOP partnership

PHASES and RESULTS

SLOOP is a two-year project whose development is shown in the diagram below:

Fig. 1 – The "Creative Commons- Attribution, Share Alike" licence

In phase 1 ITSOS, ITD-CNR and Centro Metid elaborated on a number of proposals,

• the SLOOP web site, accessible at http:// www.sloopproject.eu;

About this book

dell'Innovazione, dell'Internazionalizzazione 2006, "E-Learning. Esperienze e prospettive future:

Finally, my gratitude is due to European Commission and to Directorate-General for Education

THE SLOOP IDEA: SHARING FREE/OPEN LEARNING OBJECTS

The critical point of eLearning: the learning material

• When compared to traditional distance training, e-learning, in the sense of on-line

• E-learning can be successfully integrated into face-to-face training. It allows material to be

• A community which is interested in sharing resources,

Open/free Learning Object

SLOOP Version 2.0

Is this just a dream? Or could it be the future?

Berengo Francesca (2003) Progettazione e sviluppo di tre elementi di matematica, Progettare

Ing. Pierfranco Ravotto Dott. Giovanni Fulantelli

FREELOMS: A LEARNING OBJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Giovanni Fulantelli, Mario Allegra, Manuel Gentile, Davide Taibi

Italian National Research Council – Institute for Educational Technologies, Palermo

The main objective of FreeLOms (www.freeloms.org) is to provide a community of teachers with

OpenLOs: towards an open model for learning objects

Fig. 1 - Comparison of the evolving life cycles of an LO and an OpenLO

From traditional LO tools to integrated Learning Object Management Systems

1. support “versioning mechanisms” for LOs, in both metadata and content;

3. support e-learning standards to ensure interoperability between learning environments;

Fig. 2 - FreeLOms home page

In this section we present FreeLOms (http://www.freeloms.org – Fig.), the Learning Object

FreeLOms includes functionalities for:

Fig. 3 - Metadata Editor

Fig. 4 - FreeLOms content aggregation

Another important feature of FreeLOms is the use of asynchronous communication tools t o

Fig. 5 - A forum on FreeLOms

Fig.6 - FreeLOms and Moodle integration

FreeLOms use scenario

As told in section 3, almost each of these operations requires a different tool.

• Upload a PPT presentation into the FreeLOms;

Content Repository API for Java

Fig. 8 - Hierarchical view of a JCR

Building FreeLOms on Alfresco

• A specific profile for Learning Object Metadata,

• Enterprise authentication systems (such as LDAP and Microsoft Active Directory),

• The format to use for creating different assets

AA.VV. “A Fresh Approach to Enterprise Content Management”, http://www.alfresco.com/media/

R. Butson, “Colloquium. Learning Objects: Weapons Of Mass Instruction”, British journal of

R. Cafolla. “Project MERLOT: Bringing Peer Review to Web-Based Educational Resources”.

G. Henry. “Connexions: An Alternative Approach to Publishing, Research and Advanced

J.Piaget. “The grasp of consciousness”. Harvard University Press. 1976

Dott. Mario Allegra

Ing. Manuel Gentile Ing. Davide Taibi

LEARNING OBJECT META-DATA (LOM) IN SLOOP