12.2 Learning meets technology - underlying assumptions of e-learning technology
E-learning tools very often present themselves as "black boxes" - they just work, and the teacher or the learner very seldomly ask what made these particular functionalities being filtered out among the great number of features spread out before the tools designers. The tools makers are only able to choose from the technologies present at the time of the design. As we all know, technical change has been rapid, putting all kinds of strains on the development of e-learning specifications.
As an example, let's look at the case of the familiar zip file. When e-learning specifications first started to be discussed we were back in the age of Multimedia and the CD ROM. One perspective from which IMS Content Packaging and IMS Simple Sequencing specifications can be viewed is as an effort to enable the material produced for CD ROMS to be sold over the Web. This explains why it was important to include all the resources in a single zip file, which could be delivered either on a CD ROM, or downloaded, with no difference to the performance.
This zip based solution, which was a reasonable one at the time when it was proposed, sat uncomfortably with Web based Learning Management Systems (LMS also referred to as Virtual Learning Environments, VLE), where pages were delivered one at a time, and where linked pages could easily take the user out of one site and into another. Nevertheless the suite of specifications which is available from IMS, plus some extensions and additions, provides a solid basis for interoperability between LMSs.
In a typical LMS, however, most content and all the functionality is still delivered from a single server. There is a trend, however, for the LMS or VLE to become disaggregated. There is no longer such a compelling reason to have all the functionality in a single application. It is no longer technically challenging to have a discussion in a web page, or to link this to a wiki (a wiki a type of web site that allows the visitors themselves to easily add, remove, and otherwise edit and change some available content, sometimes without the need for registration). Nowadays, we have a range of services by different providers in different locations. In this context the use of a zip file to deliver a self contained study package is an historical oddity.
At a more general level, educational institutions are finding that their students independently can now set up their own web pages, mail accounts, blogs, wikis, etc., and that these are often more powerful than what the institution can provide. Rather than seeking to keep up with the infrastructure provided by the web at large, it would as an example seem more sensible to provide aggregation mechanisms.
These reflections do not mean that the specifications which we have developed should all be thrown away. The fact that they have structured data means that it is possible to produce imaginative solutions which can make them more flexible. For example, a zip file can be disaggregated, stored, processed, and re-aggregated for transmission in a way which is transparent to the user. Nevertheless, there comes a point where the load of legacy methods and code becomes too heavy, and users start being attracted to non-standard but simpler solutions.
The zip file example underlines the historical limitations of e-learning standards caused by the rapid development of new technologies. There are other limitations that are caused by the choice of which pedagogical assumptions to guide the development of specifications.
Underlying pedagogical assumptions
The xml code which is generated when specifications are used is technical, and seemingly an objective and neutral description of a resource or an activity. Nevertheless, the choice of what to represent, and how to represent it is informed by theory and assumptions. For example the underlying assumption of the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) application profile is that learning is carried out by a learner working alone at a computer without the intervention of a human teacher. In some environments this is exactly what is required. In other situations, for example in the support of face to face teaching, it may be that SCORM resources are valuable if an appropriate methodology is used.
Similarly IMS Learning Design was developed explicitly to support large scale distance education. This means, for example, that it assumes the concept of the cohort, and of a distinction between design time and run time. IMS Learning Design is, however, being applied in a number of quite different environments, in some contexts because of its capabilities as a modelling language are required. It is also not yet clear to what extent it will be possible to create Learning Design systems which are truly user friendly for teaching practitioners, rather than professional learning designers. Still more challenging, perhaps, is the definition of small scale learning activities by peer learners, perhaps using a Personal Learning Environment (PLE). It is not immediately clear that the IMS Learning Design specification is necessarily the best solution for defining learning activities in this context.
At a more theoretical level it seems broadly true that SCORM was developed from a perspective informed by cognitive psychology. This assumes that it is possible to describe the way in which people learn and respond to stimuli with sufficient accuracy to determine the way in which they should be taught. Pedagogy, from this perspective, should consist of using the tools of psychology to identify the best stimulus at the best moment to lead to the best learning outcomes. This fits well with the use of a "single learner and a computer" approach, and is well suited to the use of computers to model the learner (perhaps using artificial intelligence) so that the ideal learning experience is provided. IMS Learning Design can also model this approach, but has a quite different focus on coordinating interactions between actors in an environment composed of resources and services. This makes it better suited than SCORM to use by teachers who assume that you cannot predict the results of a learner's exposure to learning materials, and that learning is best facilitated through dialogue.
These pedagogic issues, and indeed philosophical issues, are deeply entwined with the development and use of the specifications. This is not a criticism of the specifications concerned. Rather we argue that it is inevitable that any educational implementation will be made from a particular perspective. This will inform the way in which it is developed and implemented, and will in this way determine the limits of the ways in which it can be used. It is also true, however, that the limits of use cannot be determined simply by stating that a specification was developed from a particular perspective, or indeed by inspecting an application. The only way in which it is possible to find out the limits of use of a tool is to try it out in different environments with different users who will explore its potential, and even to subvert the intentions of the designers.
The way forward in this respect is to carry out well planned trials to establish the extent to which the benefits of these specifications can be extended to environments which were not those for which they were initially intended, and what the benefits and costs of that extension are.
Educational Institutions meet Technology
The world of education is changing rapidly. All over Europe there has been a huge expansion of higher education, which inevitably changes the nature of higher education institutions. Similarly the ideas of the Learning Organisation, and of Communities of Practice are becoming more widely accepted. These changes mean that the e-learning community is developing specifications in relation to a shifting set of educational needs.
Moreover the impact of ICT, and of the successful interoperability specifications themselves, is also changing the way in which education institutions think about themselves and do their business. So it would be quite possible for e-learning specifications to be entirely successful in meeting some of the needs of education institutions, only to find that the specifications needed to be adapted or extended because their very success changed the nature of the needs of education.
Policy at both the institutional and state level can also be a determining factor for the success of specifications. The SCORM has been heavily promoted by the ADL Initiative and through funding policies, and has had significant levels of adoption as a result. Similarly the environment within which ePortfolios will be adopted or not will be strongly influenced by the current interest of the European governments in ePortfolio initiatives, and their adoption as a required system by examining or professional bodies.
However, to be realistic, technology, and the use of technology, is changing at a such pace that our educational institutions are not able to give a precise descriptions of what services they want to have developed. Institutions are changing their role from provisioning of learning technology services to supporting use of these services. Institutions now no longer "own" their students who see themselves as part of life long learning journeys. As a consequence, institutions have to focus on design of learning, rather than delivery of learning. This will have profound implication for the way we do specifications and standards and promote interoperability in Europe.
The way forward in this respect is to analyse the evolving activities and needs of educational institutions, and to examine the degree to which these are met and/or constrained by interoperability specifications. The relationship between institutional and state policy and the success of specifications needs to be clarified, and perhaps coordinated.
