E-learning standards : Open enablers of learning or compliance strait jackets ?

E-learning standards have attracted a substantial and growing amount of attention from practitioners, institutions and governments over the past decade. Millions of dollars are being invested in a process of standardisation that, while aimed at supporting e-learning, seems to have neglected important aspects of learning that consequently appear to be at risk of being devalued. The current standards agendas of interoperability and discovery seem more closely aligned with the desire to commoditise learning and create new economic opportunities than with the needs of learners. This paper casts a critical eye over current developments and suggests closer attention to the role of standards in improving quality and supporting teachers and learners rather than constraining them. While standardisation implies a comforting sense of security, reliability and consistency, we may have to remain at least partially outside of the standards “comfort zone” if we wish to obtain real benefits from technology integration into education.

[1]  P. Twining Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom , 2002 .

[2]  Jon Mason,et al.  The EDNA Metadata Standard , 2003 .

[3]  Ronald A. Phipps,et al.  What''s the Difference? A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning , 1999 .

[4]  P. David Mitchell The impact of educational technology: a radical reappraisal of research methods , 1997 .

[5]  Norm Friesen Learning objects and standards: pedagogical neutrality and engagement , 2004, IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2004. Proceedings..

[6]  P. Dean Using standards to improve performance , 1990 .

[7]  Tom Boyle,et al.  Design principles for authoring dynamic, reusable learning objects , 2003, ASCILITE.

[8]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies. 2nd Edition , 1993 .

[9]  N. Friesen Three objections to learning objects , 2004 .

[10]  R. C. MacGregor Are we recognising the organisational impact on educational software design , 1993 .

[11]  Neal P. Curtin,et al.  Military Transformation: Progress and Challenges for DOD's Advanced Distributed Learning Programs , 2003 .

[12]  Bernard Blandin ARE E-LEARNING STANDARDS NEUTRAL? , 2004 .

[13]  Vannevar Bush,et al.  As we may think , 1945, INTR.

[14]  Erik Duval,et al.  Learning technology standardization: Making sense of it all , 2004, Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Mark Bullen,et al.  What’s the Difference: A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education by Ronald Phipps and Jamie Merisotis , 1999 .

[16]  Joscha Bach,et al.  The Immaturity of the CMM , 1994 .

[17]  Richard Cornell AECT's Technology in Instruction: Standards for college and university Learning Resources Programs... How viable for Australian institutions of higher education? , 1988 .

[18]  Darrell L. Butler,et al.  Barriers to Adopting Technology for Teaching and Learning , 2002 .

[19]  Marek Hatala,et al.  Global vs. Community Metadata Standards: Empowering Users for Knowledge Exchange , 2002, International Semantic Web Conference.

[20]  Ron Oliver,et al.  Seeking best practice in online learning: Flexible learning toolboxes in the Australian VET sector , 2001 .

[21]  Rachel Heery Review of metadata formats , 1996 .

[22]  Erik Duval,et al.  A LOM Research Agenda , 2003, WWW.

[23]  Andrew Ravenscroft The Changing Face of Learning Technology , 2002, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[24]  J. Kenny Managing innovation in educational institutions , 2002 .

[25]  Edward Welsch SCORM: Clarity or Calamity. , 2002 .