<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>E-Learning Environments: An Integrated View</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2003</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>111</fpage>
      <lpage>115</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>The contemporary technological evolution requires higher levels of education and new skills from the work-force making people more conscious of the importance of being better educated. At the same time information and communication technologies (ICT) and in particular the Internet has enabled a great amount of information to be widely available, bringing new opportunities for learning. Hence, nowadays it is possible to notice the attention given to the elearning area and therefore its development. Many e-learning environments and tools have been developed and used. By the other hand, as developing high quality content is a complex, timeconsuming and costly task, there is a great emphasis on reusability of content material and services. This need for reusability as well as the necessity for developing e-learning as a whole has led to the creation of partnerships among institutions. However, in order to enable this collaboration it is necessary to consider interoperability problems. This paper presents an integrated view of e-learning environments dealing with interoperability through four basic aspects: content, services, agents and rules. In the proposed solution, there is a centralized management of content metadata, services' definition, agents' roles and rules.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>Nowadays, there is a great interest on e-learning topics in business world and also in
academic forums. It has led to the development of e-learning technology. Several
educational environments have been implemented and used, and a variety of e-learning
courses have been offered. Thus, there are now numerous different educational
environments with different approaches for e-learning, providing different combinations of
services. The existence of so many different environments embodies many interoperability
problems. Aware of these problems, some organizations are working to develop technical
standards, recommended best practices and guides for learning technology. Nevertheless
the main focus of their work has been on enabling content reuse especially through the
description of learning content (e.g., IMS [1], ADL SCORM [2] and IEEE LOM [3]).</p>
      <p>Addressing systems architecture, there is a draft standard proposal, IEEE Learning
Technology Systems Architecture (LTSA), which specifies a high level architecture for
information technology-supported learning, education, and training systems. This draft
standard identifies the objectives of human activities and computer processes and their
involved categories of knowledge. Therefore LTSA proposal is human-computer oriented
and it still lacks on providing a general overview of software components for an e-learning
environment.</p>
      <p>
        Other general architectural proposals focus on knowledge management [4], content
navigation [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">5</xref>
        ], project management [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">6</xref>
        ], ways of learning [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">7</xref>
        ], selection of material [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">8</xref>
        ],
enterprise learning management [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">9</xref>
        ] and general aspects of e-learning [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">10</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Other proposals ([
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">11</xref>
        ] and [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">12</xref>
        ]) consider the software development perspective.
However, the first [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">11</xref>
        ] considers e-learning from the perspective of Brokers, Educational
Service and Content Providers while the second [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">12</xref>
        ] is peer-to-peer oriented and it
considers a personal learning assistant, an educational service provider and a
rating/evaluation service provider.
      </p>
      <p>All these works define interesting aspects related to e-learning, each one according to a
specific view or approach. However, when dealing with heterogeneity and distribution of
elearning environments, it is necessary to consider the management of content, services,
agents and rules.</p>
      <p>The PGL partners have been involved on the development of e-learning content and also
in the development of methodology and technology for e-learning. Each partner has
developed and implemented its own e-learning infrastructure, with specific services, agents
and contents according to its specific rules. However an integrated view of these e-learning
environments for enabling sharing of resources and collaboration among the partners is
highly desirable.</p>
      <p>The work presented in this paper proposes an integrated view of e-learning environments
according to the four basic aspects (content, services, agents and rules). Such a view can be
useful to guide the integration of PGL partners’ e-learning environments. It was found no
other work providing a general overview of e-learning environments in an integrated
approach.</p>
      <p>The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: section 2 presents the organization
of learning content, section 3 presents the learning services definition, section 4 introduces
agents and rules to the previous definitions and section 5 presents some final remarks.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. Organizing Learning Content</title>
      <p>In order to provide education, it is necessary to develop learning content material.
However, developing high quality material is expensive and time consuming. It has led to a
demand for reusability and collaboration and therefore it is the first aspect to be considered
in an integrated view of e-learning environments.</p>
      <p>The initial approaches for sharing content have considered the course level, i.e., all
course structures and definitions were replicated to all partners or there was defined a
global centralized database to the integrated efforts. Then, course sharing was not so
reusable and there was the need for a more granular level for learning content. Learning
content material, then called learning objects, has been the new sharing level.</p>
      <p>
        The use of well-structured descriptions of the content material (metadata) has contributed
to a better search of the desired material, thus facilitating content reuse. However, as these
descriptions are not unique it is necessary to provide ways to enable interoperability among
metadata structures. As previously stated, to enable interoperability of learning content,
organizations such as IEEE, IMS Global Learning Consortium and ADL have worked to
develop technical standards, recommended practices and guides for learning technology.
Some standards specifications such as IMS Learning Resource Meta-Data Information
Model [1], ADL SCORM [2] and IEEE LOM [3] define metadata for learning content.
Other specifications such as IMS Learning Design Information Model [18], IMS Simple
Sequencing Information and Behavior Model [19] and IMS Content Packaging Information
Model [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">15</xref>
        ] are related to making semantically richer learning objects from other simpler
learning objects.
      </p>
      <p>The general approach consists on having already developed learning objects (i.e.,
learning content materials) and defining their metadata in order to allow their reuse and
composition on different educational and training programs.</p>
      <p>Up to now, each PGL partner has been developing its content according to its own
metadata structures or according to a specific standard. However there is not yet a common
defined PGL metadata structure or an adopted standard.</p>
      <p>Besides choosing and adopting a metadata definition for PGL learning objects, it would
be desirable to extend actual standard proposals. Sharing content in PGL could be even
semantically richer. It would be interesting to consider the knowledge of each content
material since from the beginning of its development according to underlying concepts of
knowledge and learning. Representing such metadata would provide better-structured
learning objects. In addition, learning material should be considered according to different
aspects such as content, context, interaction, media presentation and sequencing.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3. Choosing the Services</title>
      <p>PGL partners have being using different e-learning environments and tools. Each solution
provides different functionality according to its specific architecture and development
approach. However, from a greater collaboration perspective, it is not only content sharing
that should be considered. It would be advisable to have a web services architecture in
which would be possible to share services. Then, each PGL partner could choose the
services that are more adequate to each specific course implementation creating more
personalized environments that would be at same time sharable among the partners.</p>
      <p>A Web service defines a collection of operations that are network-accessible through
standardized XML messaging. Web services fulfill a specific task or a set of tasks. They
can be used alone or with other web services to carry out a complex aggregation or a
business transaction. For an application to take advantage of web services, three behaviors
must take place: publication of service descriptions, lookup or finding of service
descriptions, and binding or invoking of services based on the service description. Some
proposals for web services description and architecture (such as [Kreg2001]) can be found
on the specialized literature, but there is no yet consensus on which should be adopted by
the community.</p>
      <p>Among the e-learning services that should be developed and shared would be those
related to content development (such as sequencing, media selection, authoring,
composition and metadata edition), content access, groupware (communication,
coordination and cooperation), visualization (interface, hypermedia navigation and
personalization) and assessment and evaluation. Learning objects could also be defined as
web services so that sharing services would imply not only sharing functionality but also
content.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>4. Considering Agents and Rules</title>
      <p>
        In an e-learning environment several agents play roles: active learners, collaborative
learners, passive learners, content developers, professors/facilitators, administrators etc.
Although there are some proposals for describing learner, such as IEEE PAPI Learner [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">16</xref>
        ],
it is necessary to define all the agents and respective roles in the PGL integrated e-learning
environment as well as their respective metadata. The agents and roles should also be
incorporated in the web services definitions.
      </p>
      <p>Finally, in order to provide the automation of tasks related to a specific content under
certain characteristics of specific agents, a rule mechanism should be provided. It would
enrich the PGL integrated e-learning environment with active behavior and therefore
facilitate the execution of the e-learning activities.</p>
      <p>In the conceptual architecture for web services there is a service description layer. WSDL
is the de facto standard for XML-based service description. WSDL defines the interface
and mechanics of service interaction. Therefore, a WSDL document can be used to define
e-learning services, learning objects and agents. These documents are posted on the Internet
and its URL in addition with related metadata could be registered with an online web
service registry. The contents of the registry could then be searched manually or
programmatically to discover and select suitable components according to rules that would
be extensions on web service actual architecture.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>5. Conclusions</title>
      <p>This paper presented an integrated view of e-learning environments according to four basic
aspects: content, services, agents and rules. In order to accomplish such integrated view it is
necessary to extend existing standard proposals for e-learning and web services
architecture. Although web services seems to be a distributed approach for managing
learning objects, the approach presented in this paper emphasizes the use of semantic richer
schemas for content, services and agents as well as the definition of active rules. The idea
of global definitions/schemas provides easier and better management of the resources.
Although this approach seems to be adequate to the PGL project, further research is
necessary to enable its full implementation.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Acknowledgements</title>
      <p>The author would like to thank the PGL project, the database technology group from
PUCRio (TecBD) and the e-learning technology research group from ICIST/DECivil who
actively participated in the discussion of these issues. This paper was partially supported by
CNPq – Brazilian National Research Council, and FCT - Foundation for Science and
Technology, Portugal, through the Multi-annual and Programmatic funds of ICIST.
[1] IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.: “IMS Learning Resource Meta-Data Information Model
- Version 1.2.1 Final Specification”; 28 September 2001.
[2] Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative: “Sharable Content Object Reference Model
(SCORMtm) - Version 1.2 - The SCORM Overview”; October 1, 2001.
[3] Learning Technology Standards Committee of the IEEE: “Draft Standard for Learning Object
Metadata”; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 15 July 2002.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.E.S.</given-names>
            <surname>Mendes</surname>
          </string-name>
          , E. Martinez, and L. Sacks, “
          <article-title>Knowledge-based Content Navigation in eLearning Applications”</article-title>
          ;
          <source>Proc LCS</source>
          <year>2002</year>
          , London (
          <year>2002</year>
          ), Available at: http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/lcs/papers2002/ LCS115.pdf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>McLoughlin</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>and J.</given-names>
            <surname>Luca</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>An E-Learning solution to creating work-related skills and competencies for the knowledge-based economy”; Proc</article-title>
          . Apple University Consortium Academic Conference, Townsville, Australia (
          <year>2001</year>
          ), pp.
          <volume>14</volume>
          .
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>14</lpage>
          .
          <fpage>13</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Lotus</given-names>
            <surname>Software White Paper</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>: “The 4-tier Model: Managine the New e-Learning Curve”</article-title>
          ;
          <source>International Business Machines Corporation</source>
          ,
          <year>2002</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Brusilovsky</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Nijhavan</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>A Framework for Adaptive E-Learning Based on Distributed Re-usable Learning Activities”</article-title>
          ;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Proc. E-Learn</surname>
            <given-names>2002</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Montreal, Canada (
          <year>2002</year>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>154</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>161</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            <surname>Singh</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “Achieving Interoperability in e-Learning”, American Society for Training &amp;
          <source>Development (ASTD)</source>
          ,
          <year>2000</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.H.</given-names>
            <surname>Khan</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>A framework for Web-based learning”; Englewood Cliffs</article-title>
          , NJ: Educational Technology Publications, (
          <year>2001</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.E.R.</given-names>
            <surname>Anido</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.M.G.</given-names>
            <surname>Santos</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.S.E.</given-names>
            <surname>Ródríguez</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.R.</given-names>
            <surname>Caeiro</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.J.I.</given-names>
            <surname>Fernández</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.N.</given-names>
            <surname>Llamas</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>A Step ahead in E-learning Standardization: Building Learning Systems from Reusable and Interoperable Software Components”; Proc. WWW2002 Education Track, Hawaii</article-title>
          , USA (
          <year>2002</year>
          ), Available at: http://www2002.org/CDROM/alternate/136/
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
            <surname>Simon</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Z.</given-names>
            <surname>Miklós</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
            <surname>Nejdl</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            <surname>Sintek</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Salvachua</surname>
          </string-name>
          , “
          <article-title>Elena: A Mediation Infrastructure for Educational Services”</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Proc. WWW2003</source>
          , Budapest, Hungary, May
          <year>2003</year>
          ; Available at: http://www.kbs.uni-hannover.de/Arbeiten/ Publikationen/2002/elena_draft_simon.pdf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>IMS</given-names>
            <surname>Global Learning</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Consortium</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Inc.: “
          <source>IMS Learning Design Information Model - Version 1.0 Public Draft Specification”; 18 October</source>
          <year>2002</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>IMS</given-names>
            <surname>Global Learning</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Consortium</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Inc.: “
          <source>Simple Sequencing Information and Behavior Model - Version 1.0 Public Draft Specification”; 17 October</source>
          <year>2002</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>IMS</given-names>
            <surname>Global Learning</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Consortium</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Inc.:
          <source>“IMS Content Packaging Information Model - Version 1.1</source>
          .2 Final Specification”;
          <year>August 2001</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Heather</given-names>
            <surname>Kreger</surname>
          </string-name>
          . “
          <article-title>Web Services Conceptual Architecture (WSCA 1.0)”</article-title>
          , IBM Software Group, May
          <year>2001</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <article-title>Learning Technology Standards Committee of the IEEE: “Draft Standard for Learning Technology - Public and Private Information (PAPI) for Learners (PAPI Learner) - Draft 7”; 28 November 2000</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>