This paper compares three different scenarios towards the creation of learning offers and looks at corresponding interoperability issues involved. In outlining use cases that demonstrate three possible authoring/learning scenarios, restrictive and supporting aspects become obvious and eventually lead to the deduction of prerequisites and requirements that are vital for the setting up of an effective (personal) learning environment.
In professional formal learning media production, standardised process models and interoperability standards are the results of the trade-of between creative collaboration and organisational quality requirements.
Web 2.0 communities as well as efforts towards open educational resources are
built around the notion of voluntary, free and open collaboration. Interoperability
issues arise when different communities meet. However, in PLE research, little has
been said about collaboration and interoperation issues despite a strong trend towards
the notion of personal learning environments as personalized and individualized
instruments [
In a previous workshop [
Formal content production processes, community based Web 2.0 offers and the creation of mashup PLEs represent three different approaches to produce units of learning in the sense of a contextualized, self-contained unit of education or training, such as a concrete course, module or lesson.
Setting up a learning offer with a formal authoring tool very often refers to scenarios in which professional authors collaboratively create content i.e. units of learning. They collaborate in order to optimize the result by exchanging information and knowledge. Collaborative authoring implies simultaneous (real-time) and asynchronous collaboration. Authors and learners are distinct groups.
This scenario is usually applied in formal learning settings by companies, educational institutions, etc. Content delivered is usually considered to be “final” or “approved”.
Authoring tools are commonly used to produce learning content for a defined learning target, a specific learning group, etc. The content has a defined scope and extent. Its creation and delivery follows a formal mostly standardised process.
To produce learning content, authoring tools have to be interoperable along the
production chain. Most authoring systems support certain standards like SCORM [
Creating content with a community based Web2.0 tool means creating materials and providing tools for learning and also arranging them in a learning environment that encourages individual and social activities.
Creating a learning community content does not mainly focus on informing or imparting knowledge but also serves as a starting point for individual reflections as well as discussions with others. It is “alive” and changes rapidly according to community requirements. Members/learners contribute as well as consume.
The content creation process and accordingly the content itself do not necessarily
meet formal (learning) requirements. Social software systems are mostly
selforganized and characterized by communication and collaboration. Therefore they
especially suit phases of informal learning [
Still, this scenario involves the notion of content as a medium given from the
collaborative authoring team to the community of learners (which may overlap) and
different phases of its creation may be distinguished. Also, when setting up content,
interoperability issues regarding the use of tools, platforms, etc. arise and have been
addressed with standards and initiatives like OpenId [
A mashup or widget/gadget environment as part of a Personal Learning Environment takes into consideration all different sorts of learning activities (web-based and non web-based). As an individual setting it is created on a widget platform according to one’s own needs and can serve different purposes such as information, learning, gaming, etc.
To create a mashup learning environment it is necessary to collect and choose available and suitable widgets as well as different tools for communicating. No formal (learning) requirements restrict the choice; no quality assurance/control is applied except for the personal assessment of suitability.
This scenario does not involve a distinction of authoring team and learning
community: the author (or creator) of the PLE does it for his/her own purpose.
Consequently, a PLE is not primarily about content, but rather about tools, services,
and resources. In this context interoperability issues between the different components
of the PLE arise [
Formally defined processes and roles, collaboration takes place along production process Between Content and Learning Environment Well-defined standards available (SCORM, AICC, IMS LD) Collaboration is an efficiency factor supported by interoperability standards along the production chain. However, this setting does not leave much room for individual adaptation.
Community based Web2.0
Mashup PLE Self-forming teams, dynamic collaboration by volunteers Ease cross community work Standards emerge (openID, OpenSocial, OAI) Collaboration is a key success factor.
Interoperability standards ease cross community work but are not required.
However, interoperability standards also paved parts of the way towards mashup PLE.
Learners may communicate on efficient and effective constituents of a PLE Between components of the PLE Interoperability issues not yet systematically researched Collaboration is an addon feature in PLE. Key benefits (highly tailored to individual needs) come with loss of interoperability, comparability and clear collaboration facilitites.
Responsibility is clearly
given to the learner
With the shift from traditional and formal authoring processes and content delivery
scenarios towards community driven models and personal learning environments [
With respect to mashup PLEs, the term interoperability mainly refers to the
interplay between components of the PLE: how can different widgets interoperate,
while the scenario remains technically simple and open for personal adaptations [