Menu
 

EdReNe – 2nd Strategic Seminar

June 9th - June 11th 2008, Lisbon, Portugal

The 2nd EdReNe strategic seminar in Lisbon discussed the outcomes and experiences of the first year of the network together with new developments, and prioritised themes for next year’s expert workshops.

53 participants attended the seminar, representing 21 of the 23 founding members and 10 associated members. Four participants came from potentially associated members. In addition two invited external experts (Dr. Dae-Joon Hwang former president of KERIS, Republic of Korea, and Manuela Lara, Santillana Educación, Spain) attended the seminar.

Download Proceedings
- for details and references

 

Proceedings – an introduction

The strategic seminar was opened by Leo Højsholt-Poulsen, UNI•C. Leo used the opportunity to thank the members for their commitment during the first project year: “The EdReNe network has had a brilliant start with many new associated members”.

The agenda for the seminar can be found in Annex 1 of this report. The structure of the report deviates somewhat from the agenda as the report has been structured in general themes to make it more readable.

The report is structured as follows:

  • Chapter 2 - Current repository issues and developments giving insight into:
    • The ICT strategies and initiatives in Korea.
    • Agrega - a new and very interesting repository initiative in Spain.
    • The LOGOS project – a European Commission supported project with the aim to build an innovative ubiquitous e-learning environment.
    • Klascement.net a successful web 2.0 repository initiative maintained and used by teachers in Belgium.
    • The Spider, a Swedish project which makes it easy for schools to search for and access high quality digital learning resources in many different Swedish repositories.
    • Digital Learning Resources - what are teachers looking for? Results from a study involving 800 teachers from primary and secondary education in The Netherlands.
    • A study from the UK on drivers and blockers to teachers accessing, repurposing and sharing digital resources.
  • Chapter 3 - An introduction of the five new associated members: Tallinn University (Estonia), GLOW (Scotland), APS IT-Diensten (The Netherlands), CTE (Luxembourg) and Ontwikkelcentrum (The Netherlands).
  • Chapter 4 - EdReNe annual status – where we are, how did we get there and where are we going: Leo Højsholt-Poulsen outlined the results from the first project year and looked ahead for the second year.
  • Chapter 5 - Looking ahead – a set of high priority issues to focus on in the second project year – recommendations and results from group sessions and questionnaire.
  • Chapter 6 – Administration and finances, information for the EdReNe members.
  • Annex 1: The agenda for the seminar.
  • Annex 2: The list of participants.

 

The PowerPoint presentations are available from the EdReNe website (www.edrene.org) - except the presentation given by Dr. Dae-Joon Hwang which can only be found in the Members’ Zone. A detailed summary is provided in this report.

 

Current repository issues and developments

This Chapter includes a summary of the following presentations given at the strategic seminar:

  • EDUNET: The core of Korea’s Knowledge Bank, the ICT strategy and master plans followed in Korea since 1996. EDUNET has 1 million educational resources and 5.6 million registered users.
  • Agrega – a new Spanish Educational Repository under development - 2000 different educational objects are being produced according to standards.
  • The LOGOS project – a European Commission supported project with the aim to build a ubiquitous e-learning environment. An innovative platform feature is the fact that it will provide a personalized learning experience.
  • Spindeln (the spider) – a developing brokerage service enabling teachers to search for high quality learning resources directly from the school’s own website. Easy to implement and use!
  • Share and reuse, example of a web 2.0 repository: klascement.net - a portal for and by education (teachers), more than 4.500 learning objects and 38.000 unique members. Read about the point system which is used to stimulate sharing.
  • Digital Learning Resources - what are teachers looking for and how? What are they using and how much? Results from a new study involving 800 teachers from primary and secondary education in The Netherlands.
  • A very interesting study from the UK on drivers and blockers to teachers accessing, repurposing and sharing digital resources. Drivers and blockers are found at four different levels: the technical, organisational, teacher-process and the teacher-emotional level.

 

Further details can be found in the PowerPoint presentations from the seminar at EdReNe.org - except the presentation given by Dr. Dae-Joon Hwang which can only be found in the Members’ Zone. A detailed summary is provided in this report.

 

EDUNET: The core of Korea’s Knowledge Bank

Korean ICT initiatives in education and EDUNET were presented by Dr. Dae-Joon Hwang, Ex-President of KERIS, Republic of Korea. The following is a summary of his presentation.

Overview of ICT initiatives in education

Rapid changes in society and technology, Web 2.0, globalization etc. has lead to a paradigm shift in education in Korea. As a result of the changes the educational sector had to change and innovate itself. As one solution to this demand Korea chose to use ICT to drive innovation in Education.

Policies of ICT use in education have been pursued through three Master Plans from 1996 to the present in order to achieve the goals of Korean education, which is to realize education welfare, enhance quality of education, offer equal opportunities to education, and equip itself with world-class competitiveness.

Make a note of the fact that Korea started out with “how the future education should be”. The major issues in each Master Plan were:

  • Master Plan 1 (1996-2000), the major issue was to establish the ICT environment – the infrastructure in the classroom.
  • Master Plan 2 (2001-2005), the major issues were to “enhance the effect and quality of education” through ICT integration and realize “education welfare” through promotion of e-Learning. The projects include: Education Resources Sharing System, Teaching and Learning Center, and Cyber Home Learning System (“Cyber Home Learning system” is a nationwide e-learning system).
  • Master Plan 3 (2006-present) focus on customized learning and world-class competitiveness in education. The projects include a u-Learning pilot project and the development of digital textbook to meet future demands of Korean education.

 

From 1996-present the ICT infrastructure has evolved in the following way:

Master Plan 1 MP2 MP3
Teacher/1 computer
17 students/1 computer
LAN, e-administrative network, internet
PPP strategy
5 student/1 computer
Upgrade network (2Mpbs)
Broadband
Expand PCs
Ubiquitous computing: RFID wireless, PDA, Tablet PC
Wireless Internet
Ubiquitous zone

Some of the major initiatives:

Master Plan 1 MP2 MP3
Educational information service- portal: EDUNET
ICT literacy training: CEO, teachers
Teaching-learning content
Research information system
Multimedia library
National teaching-learning center (runned by KERIS)
Cyber Home Learning System
Metadata standard
EBS e-Learning project
ICT innovative teacher training
Teaching-learning software
National Education Information System
Integrated education service platform: EDUNET
U-Learning model school
ICT integrated curriculum
e-Learning cluster
e-Cyber security
QA (quality assurance)
Global partnership for EFA

The trends and development of ICT in education in Korea is summarised in the following diagram presented by Dr. Dae-Joon Hwang (some of his comments can be found after the diagram).

 

  • The red line: From the beginning a national bureau was organised to take full responsibility for national ICT in education strategy. The ICT infrastructure was established with public-private partnerships. The national institutes designated to spearhead ICT in education were KMEC and KERIS. A regional bureau of ICT in education was established to expand central and regional government collaboration. In 2001 a regional centre for ICT in education was established.
  • The green line: First the PC’s and other hardware investments. Then the school network was completed. The e-Learning infrastructure was completed during master plan II. At the moment the focus is on expanding the u-Learning infrastructure.
  • The blue line: CAI content on computer issues was available from the beginning. Educational content was expanded with multimedia functions during master plan II. To expand the use of educational content, a metadata standard became a critical aspect. The answer was KEM 2.0 - Korea’s Metadata standard (at the moment it is in version 3.0). In the u-Learning era, it is important to use digital textbook with self-directed learning content.
  • The purple line: Korea started with computer education in schools and implemented teacher training. During master plan II, Korea initiated ICT model schools and nurtured ICT innovative teachers. The ICT innovative teachers played a critical role in training other teachers.
  • The orange line: The educational portal service named EDUNET was established together with a school administrative system. NEIS (National Education Information System) is an integrated system designed to provide access to all educational information by connecting all elementary and secondary schools.

 

Teacher training has been an important issue during the implementation process. By now all teachers must complete 90 hours of training every 3rd year. The mandatory part includes an assessment (and it is difficult to keep the job with a bad result).

Year Program Policy Program Direction Others
’96~’00
(Master Plan I)
In 1997, established ICT training for teachers Pursued policies to enable more than 25% of all teachers to receive ICT training every year.
Secured teachers’ abilities to utilize educational information and to develop educational material.
340,000 trainees
’01~’05
(Master Plan II)
In 2001, intensify teacher training.
Provided ICT training for school commissioners and leading teachers.
Pursued policies to enable more than 33% of all teachers to receive ICT training every year.
Shifted the goal of training from raising ICT literacy to enabling teachers to utilize ICT.
580,000 trainees
’06~
(Master Plan III)
Strengthened global cooperation in ICT training program, exchanges with other countries through joining hands with global firms. Revise ICT training for teachers according to their career stages.
Increased ICT application at places where teaching and learning activities take place.
Mandatory teacher training
(Every 3yrs, 90hrs/yr)

The teacher training strategy in Korea.

EDUNET

EDUNET is a national Knowledge Bank of educational resources that provides teachers and students (K12 – the Korean School system is 6-3-3 divided) with teaching-learning materials, consultations, and a community service. It is also the first (dates back to 1996) and the most popular integrated educational information portal for primary and secondary education in Korea (www.edunet.net). KERIS (Korea Education & Research Information Service) and the Ministry of Education are behind EDUNET.


This diagram shows the functional aspects of EDUNET.

In the following a few screens illustrate the user experience in one part of EDUNET.



Earthquakes – a learning resource example from EDUNET (all the content is in Korean).


DAEDO Elementary School, Seoul, Korea is connected to EDUNET via federated search

The detailed statistics on registered users and the educational resources can be found below. The one million educational resources are impressing. Dr. Dae-Joon Hwang told that 70 percent is based on SCORM (sequencing is fully supported). He added that they had experienced some problems with the 2004 version of SCORM.

EDUNET uses a Korean dialect of IEEE LOM metadata.


Statistics for EDUNET.

Educational resources sharing process

Another interesting aspect of EDUNET is the sharing process. A major part of the educational resources has been gathered in this way. As part of the process the quality is ensured. The process is illustrated by a few diagrams in the following.


The educational resources sharing process.


The quality assurance process.

Process of QA:

Process Description Type of content
Verification by quality verification officers of MPOEs
* Using quality verification system within the educational information sharing system
Content quality verification according to 7 review points
Judgment of the deletion, approval, and rewriting of information
As of 2007, 300 quality verification officers are working at 16 MPOEs.
Shared content
Automatic check by central quality verification system Automatic check of the validity of URLs
Automatic review on the basis of day, week, and month
Shared content
Content quality verification by central monitor officers Deletion of hazard information, unethical criticism, and false information
Verification of the validity of information
As of 2007, 16 designated central monitor officers are working
Shared & Unshared content
Error reporting by general users Based on 7 review points, immediate error reporting is possible by general users
In 2007, 268 errors are reported
Shared & Unshared content

The 300 verification officers: some are from schools, other from universities and local administration. They work part time.

It takes less than 3 months for a learning resource to pass through quality assurance, which is from the user to the national knowledge bank. To keep up with the number of resources submitted it could be necessary to have more persons working with quality assurance in the future.

The seven review points are:

  • Are the selected data, title, and explanation in agreement?
  • Are the attached images relevant to the applicable data?
  • Is the data classification appropriate?
  • Is the curriculum appropriate?
  • Is the copyright information, including copyright agency and author, exact?
  • Are the attached files downloadable?
  • Do the downloaded files correspond to the applicable data?

 

Assessment of EDUNET

The latest assessment (2007) places EDUNET as the most popular online service provider in Korea. The same assessment showed that teachers using EDUNET reduced the time for class preparation with 22 % (from 83.2 min. /day in average before using EDUNET to 64.9 min. /day).

Future challenges

The future challenges were summarised by Dr. Dae-Joon Hwang:

  • Expanding educational resource sharing and distribution through, institutional, regional and cross boarder partnership.
    • Encourage sharing educational resources at home and abroad.
    • Facilitate development of educational resource based on open source.
  • Service operation more adaptable to user participation.
    • Strengthen personalized and customized services for increased user satisfaction.
    • Reinforcing the UCC and building a quality control-based system by users.
  • Management of Intellectual Property Right.
    • Continuous education to change awareness to IPR and copyright in schools.
    • Increase awareness to multiculturalism: localization.
    • Collaboration in addressing interoperability.

 

 

Agrega+ - Spanish Educational Repository

The coming Spanish educational repository - Agrega - was presented by Manuela Lara, Santillana Educación, Spain.

In Spain teachers are still quite reluctant to using ICT in the classroom; some say “they are not trained enough”, others “there is not enough content”. However, interactive whiteboards are becoming quite popular; they help teachers to use digital content in the classroom: “with the interactive whiteboard the teachers still have control of the classroom”.

The initiative “plan avanca” has been launched in Spain. It deals with health, administration and education. The programme for education developed by plan avanca is called Internet en el Aula. One objective is to help teachers use technology in the classroom. The main project in the programme is the platform Agrega. However, there are also initiatives to support parents buying computers for their children, etc.

Agrega is under development at the moment. The objectives are:

  • To promote, unify and set a standard reference.
  • To generate a repository of digital educational objects.
  • To create a technological environment for the contents.

 

Agrega will be a platform of digital educational objects. The target group is schools for the age group 6-18 years. Only public schools can access agrega (private schools cannot use the content). The platform will be multilingual (5 languages in Spain, plus English).

The main aim is to provide a repository of digital educational objects. 2000 different educational objects are being produced according to standards.

Producing and sharing
The platform should be flexible enough to allow teachers to produce their own content based on (parts of) the content in the repository, and it should be possible to share the result. That is, all teachers must be able to produce content, but not necessarily to publish for all teachers in Spain (only authorised users can publish). All content will go through quality assurance. All new shared content in the repository must follow the same standards as the original content.

Metadata
Teachers will do the basic tagging. A trained editor (tagging actor) will do the advanced tagging. It is too difficult for the ordinary teacher.

System architecture and standards used

The agrega platform includes 18 federated nodes, one per autonomous community plus another one located at the CNICE / Ministerio de Educación in Spain. The nodes can have different types of content, including content which can only be used locally by registered users. All nodes are built on the same technology.

Characteristics of the repository and the content (detailed diagrams of the modules can be found in the presentation by Manuela Lara on edrene.org):

  • Each node has its own repository with contents packaged according to the standard SCORM 2004, SCORM 1.2, SCORM “Moodle” and IMS-CP.
  • The tagging information is stored following the standard LOM v.1.0 in Spanish (LOM-ES).
  • Generated content licensed as Creative Commons - Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike Spain.
  • Open Source tools and technological developments licensed as GPL-GNU.
  • All content searches are done with a federated system based on the specification “Simple Query Interface” (SQI).
  • There is also an Interoperability Interface - IMS-DRI, OAI-PMH (to support sharing with e.g. the European Repositories).

 

Status after developing less than a year: First versions of the tools are being tested at the moment. That is the searching, packaging and tagging tools.

 

Education personalised: the LOGOS PROJECT

Eva Suba, EDEN, presented the LOGOS project (www.logosproject.com) on behalf of Zsolt Markus, Antenna Hungária Ltd., Hungary. A short summary is provided in the following.

The LOGOS project has a budget of € 3,732,400. The 3 year project receives funding from the EC (€ 2,634,200). It counts 15 partners including partners with repositories (e.g. EduWeb, Sofia Digital, and University of Brighton). Antenna Hungaria is the project co-ordinator.

The main objectives of the project are:

  • To integrate IP-based, DVB and mobile technologies for cross-media delivery of learning materials.
  • To enable the use of existing digital archives as sources of adaptable learning resources.

 

The main goals are:

  • Development of learning scenarios for the use of the LOGOS platform in different learning and social contexts e.g. learning about cultural heritage, learning from mobile TV, health information with personalised tests, studying iconography.
  • Development of an environment for transforming digitised knowledge in courseware objects.
  • Development and implementation of a knowledge-on-demand ubiquitous learning platform.
  • Extended assessment and validation of the functionality and usability of the LOGOS platform by authors/lecturers and learners.

 


The LOGOS platform. Further details on the different components, e.g. the authoring studio (under development) and the LOGOS repository can be found in the presentation on edrene.org.

“Basically, it is a set of tools to create content which will then be played on the different devices.” An innovative platform feature is the fact that it will support a personalized learning experience.

The teacher/trainer/professor will store the learning design. The learner’s profile is stored with basic data. When the learner enrols he/she refines the profile, with his/her needs, how she/he learns, etc. The system combines the two and aims at providing the best learning experience for the user. That is instead of one learning strategy many should be supported by this strategy! The detailed learning model (not final yet) can be found in the presentation.

At the moment the LOGOS framework is being evaluated. A user evaluation will take place in September-October including needs for further enhancements. EdReNe members are invited to take part. Eva Suba also invited the EdReNe members to the 2nd LOGOS Open workshop, September 3rd in Varna, Bulgaria.

A comment was added by an EdReNe member: Have you studied the use a mobile phone for learning? The member’s experience from another project with mobile phones in a learning environment was: “They work in greenhouse conditions not in real life”.

 

Spindeln (the spider) – a developing brokerage service

Christina Szekely, the Swedish National Agency for School Improvement (MSU), and Fredrik Paulsson, IML, presented the Spindeln project.

Christina started with a short presentation of the changing role of MSU in Sweden and the work they focus on at the moment, e.g. the new school portal “ICT for teachers”, tools for in-service training for teachers, giving schools access to digital learning resources, etc.

The use of digital learning resources in Sweden is still limited. There aren’t any governmental initiatives within production or financing of digital learning resources. The learning resources are produced by other actors.

The Spider
The Spider (Spindeln) is a new search facility developed by MSU and IML for the Swedish schools. The purpose with the search facility is to give schools access to high quality digital learning resources directly from the school’s own website (see an example below). It has been very important to ensure that the Spider is easy to use and implement for the schools.

The spider search through the following repositories:

  • 4000 Internet resources – all curriculum subjects, The Link Library (MSU).
  • 2000 Internet resources – nature, science and mathematics, The science Hub (MSU).
  • 2000 images and sounds, Image and sound archives from Multimediabyrån (MSU).
  • Web, radio and video resources, Media archive from the Swedish Educational Broadcasting Company (UR).
  • 500 digital resources from Swedish Museums, The Swedish Museum Window a repository for schools from The Museum of National Antiquities.

 

Based on the ongoing work the general impression is that the repository owners are very interested in giving access to their repository.


This mock-up shows how Spindeln can be integrated in a website.

Fredrik Paulsson provided insight into the technical solution underlying the Spider. First of all, The Spider is only dealing with the metadata residing in the various repositories, not the learning object itself. There is support for several application profiles. Semantic web metadata is managed but not used actively yet.

The technical solution includes both harvesting and federation. Federated searches were used in the beginning. However, this solution gave the repositories a bigger implementation job. For that reason the harvesting model has been introduced.

Relevance ranking between the two models is a problem, which IML still has to solve. With “federation alone” it is also necessary to sort and rank the results; otherwise the results from the repository that answers first, will simply be shown as the best results.

The front-end:
The spider can be regarded as a service. The service can be accessed in different ways:
JavaScript, portlet and webservice. The JavaScript model is the easiest to use. The result is shown on the school’s own website, which is quite important.

The future of the spider:
New archives (repositories) will be added. Some work must be done on the metadata quality (some repositories have good quality, others don’t; when they are combined it gives different problems). License management is an issue too, MSU and IML wish to support searches for resources with a specific license, etc.

The platform used for the spider is open source. Fredrik Paulsson can be contacted for further information.

It might be added that the MELT project (another brokerage service lead by EUN) actually obtain access to the Swedish metadata through the spider.

 

Share and reuse, example of a web 2.0 repository: klascement.net

Hans de Four, presented KlasCement.net. KlasCement is a portal for and by education (teachers). It is a project from the Flanders part of Belgium. The goals for KlasCement is to support the exchange of learning objects and good practices, to stimulate cooperation between everyone involved in education, and to help finding a solution for the digital divide.

The target users of KlasCement are primary and secondary education, teacher training and adult education. It is more successful in primary than in secondary except for some subjects.

KlasCement is an initiative of a non-profit organization. It is maintained by five teachers funded by the government (one working fulltime, the rest work part time, corresponding to 3 fulltime persons). In addition volunteers and persons funded by KlasCement assist in the development of the portal.

In June 2008 KlasCement had 38.000 unique members. 2/3 was teachers. They gain 50 new members a day and have 5000 unique visitors. More than 4500 learning objects in 5 categories: news, websites, docs, software and weblogs. Most of the objects are Word and PowerPoint files. However, the repository includes 700 software packages and 1000+ websites.

There is a simple and an advanced way of submitting documents. The simple method only requests the mandatory IEEE LOM metadata. The advanced method allows the teacher to fill in all details. Licensing is according to Creative Commons. In the future KlasCement will support packages following SCORM.


KlasCement.net

KlasCement has observed that newsletters with weekly changes generate many visits to the portal. The content of the newsletter is adjusted to the members’ profile (each member has a profile on KlasCement). RSS feeds are important as well. The concept is difficult to explain to teachers. However, when they see the benefits, they really appreciate it.

On the portal it is possible to save personal favourites, give comments and marks, and communicate by internal mail.

Point system stimulates sharing
A new member receives 500 points. When the members click on a learning resource they loose 2 points. When they have lost all their points, they receive an e-mail with a request to share objects. The teachers gain points when they share documents/websites etc. (1000 points). “Everything you do on the portal, you earn points” and it works!

KlasCement in other projects
Klascement.net is added to EduRep, which means the objects also can be searched by every school in The Netherlands.

At www.klascement.net/universal, KlasCement has collected the learning objects that travel well (as part of the MELT project). Metadata is not translated yet. It is considered to use Google’s translator. There are 250 learning objects on this subsite.

 

Digital Learning Resources - what are teachers looking for?

Wim de Boer presented the results from a research project SLO have conducted in The Netherlands. The results are summarised in the following. Further details can be found in Wim de Boer’s presentation at edrene.org.

First some background information. SLO is a curriculum organisation in The Netherlands. Curriculum in their definition is “a plan for learning”. The textbook is still a very important “plan for learning” in The Netherlands.

In The Netherlands an illustrative way to look at the curriculum is the spider’s web. The different parts relate. Moving one part of the web will influence the other parts.


The curriculum illustrated in a spider web model.

Learning materials are “on the move” at the moment. Although the range of schools is wide, SLO sees new educational organisation and approaches with more emphasis on independent learning, competences and authentic learning environments. New publishers (providers) address the market in new ways e.g. they go to schools and investigate the need for materials. The changes influence the existing publishers as well. The changing role of ICT (digital learning resources, VLE’s etc) is influencing the area as well.

SLO missed a broad overview of what is happening in the schools with regards to educational resources and how the situation is changing over time, in other words “what do we know about what teachers are looking for and what can we do with it?”

The monitor project was initiated. Facts about the Leermiddelenmonitor (www.slo.nl/Leermiddelenmonitor):

  • Annual examination of trends in the field of educational materials
  • two-dimension model:
    • digital & paper-based
    • coherent packages of subject-related learning resources (called “textbooks”) and learning resources that don't have the coherency and are smaller, for more flexible use (called “flexible learning materials”)
  • What is used, how much, why and how was it found and selected?

 

800 teachers from primary and secondary education participated. The study will be repeated in a few months.

Main findings

The main findings from the study in The Netherlands are:

  • The textbooks are still widely used.
  • There are interesting differences between sectors, gender, experience and topics on the use.
  • Most teachers still use paper.
  • Digital is more flexible and more used in "newer" education.
  • Searching for resources goes by Google; it costs a lot of time.

 

 

Why use flexible learning materials. The main responses from the teachers are:

  • To better connect with learners’ reality; it is more fun.
  • Flexible learning materials are enriching, and are used in projects.
  • It is often digital materials and they are found on the internet.

 

Flexible learning resources Primary education Secondary education
self made 23% 44%
made with colleagues 30% 36%
made by others 47% 20%

Google is mentioned as the first starting point when looking for educational resources. Others are mentioned, including Kennisnet but not as the first starting point.

How often do teachers search? Primary education Secondary education Pr/Se
daily 3% 6% 5%
weekly 27% 33% 31%
monthly 55% 45% 48%
almost never 16% 16% 16%
never 0% 0% 0%

The teachers have also pointed out what they find important when searching for flexible learning materials. Are the most important issues covered by the metadata? Do we need more information than IEEE LOM for some of the materials?

  • Most important: options for independent work, options for differentiation, coverage of (relation to) curriculum goals (examination requirements), instruction and didactics (pedagogy), costs, visual impression of the material, and target group.
  • Important: role of ICT, tests (evaluation), user experiences of colleagues, short description of the contents, and long description of the contents (2 a4).
  • Not (so) important: availability, required educational time, studies to comparisons between methods, table of contents, bibliographic information, reviews of third parties (such as journals), market share of the method

 

The most important issues when selecting flexible learning materials are adaptability and availability. Costs and “look and feel” are less important. In the end the content and what you can do with it is more important than how it is presented.

SLO asked the EdReNe members whether it would be interesting to have this kind of figures from other countries. If we have the same questions it would be easier to compare. SLO will be open for such an initiative.

BECTA added that a similar survey is conducted each year in the UK. It would be very useful to be able to benchmark the results. In the UK the teachers are free to choose the materials they want.

 
 

Drivers and blockers to teachers accessing, repurposing and sharing digital resources

Will Ellis, Becta, presented the findings from the study into drivers and blockers for sharing and reusing digital resources.

First of all, Will had a few observations on the situation in the UK. In the UK there is not a repository; there are many repositories of different quality and usage.

In December 2006 the learning platform framework was launched. Every school should have access to a VLE (not the same VLE, different vendors were qualified). The goal has been reached, although some schools still have to implement the VLE in their routines.

Consequences regarding educational content and resource discovery:

  • Profile of technical standards was raised. An abundance of tools, both commercial and non-commercial for SCORM and QTI. Very poor conformance to standards (packaging, metadata, runtime, sequencing, XML). SCORM Vs Core SCORM Vs Common Cartridge Vs Assets.
  • Platforms for content search, management and delivery. Shibboleth and the UK Access Management Federation, OIA-PMH for metadata harvesting, ATOM for content syndication, SRU, SRW for searching are on the way in the UK. It is necessary to that into account.

 

Further information can be found in the presentation.

 

The study into drivers and blockers

In 2007 Becta has conducted a qualitative study into drivers and blockers for sharing and reusing digital resources. The study draws on information from a range of relevant journal articles and previous reports from agencies such as Becta, consultation with academics and researchers working in the relevant areas, and evidence gathered directly from teachers via online discussion forums and email lists.

The results are given on four different levels in the following tables. The issues listed in the tables have not been prioritised.

Level 1: Technological drivers Technological blockers
Availability of Intranets, VLEs and other shared space
Availability of Intranets
Availability of email, broadband access etc
Availability of and access to online discussion groups and email lists
Availability of software that promotes grouping of images, video clips etc
Availability of repositories populated by teachers
The online availability of complete schemes of work
Huge quantity of freely available resources online
Ease in which some resources can be linked
Easier to locate software that allows repurposing
DLRs (digital learning resources) are often more up-to-date than text books
New technologies act as an affordance for sharing
Increasingly easy to share and upload
Lack of learning design tools for non-traditional pedagogies of learning
Need more effective search engine ranking mechanisms
Too many repositories – where to start?
Good content is not visible enough
Difficult to repurpose many resources
Often difficult to tell whether the resource is current
Many resources are too large: should be smaller than a lesson
Repositories are too difficult to use
Poor resource quality and relevance
Above school-level technological constraints
Poor learning platform design

Level 2: Organisational, relating to the school, LEA, or Government:

Level 2: Organisational drivers Organisational blockers
Potential to reduce costs
Schools promoting an environment of innovation
Increases school efficiency
Availability of support services
Financial incentive might promote sharing
Promotes sharing and collaboration between schools
Saves paper
Information is available from schools who have already trialled learning platforms
Few pro-active IT support mechanisms
Training focuses on how to use IT, not how to make good learning with it
Insufficient or inadequate teacher training
Little year-group specific advice
Finding resources may be left to support staff
Perceived competition with other local schools
Teachers prevented by school or LA
Lack of a widespread sharing culture
No training regarding how to harness use of social recommendations and community tagging
Training occurs in isolation, with no follow-up to promote integration into teaching practices
Too few support staff to assist with creation and sharing
Managers unsure how to deal with inappropriate use
Lack of training can lead to ineffective use of platforms
Sharing as a culture’ is less well developed than is ‘taking as a culture’

Level 3 (L3) - Teacher-process, impacting upon the process by which teachers work:

Level 3: Teacher-process drivers Teacher-process blockers
Teachers want access to useful datasets
Special needs teachers have the mindset to alter and adapt from the ‘norm’
Teachers acknowledge that ICT can have a positive influence on students
Saves teachers’ time
Improves quality of teaching
Teachers like to incorporate e-assessments and quizzes
Teachers increasingly influenced by students
Furthers personal knowledge and employability
Can reduce time and increase productivity
Allows teachers to personalise learning
Saves teacher time
Teachers can see how students work outside of school
Takes time to create materials relevant to a range of abilities
Requires technical skills beyond teacher competence
It can take more time to repurpose than create
Many teachers prefer to create their own than re-purpose
Teachers lack technical knowledge
Lack of an extensive culture of re-purposing
Teachers don’t want to spend time repurposing, and at most will only make minor edits
Teachers unsure how to search for and manage so much information
Low teacher and student technical ability
Confusion as to whether teacher owns the copyright
Teachers feel their resources are only relevant to their specific class context
Few teachers use learning platforms

Level 4 (L4) - Teacher-emotional, caused by teacher feelings and emotions:

Level 4: Teacher-emotional drivers Teacher-emotional blockers
Teachers often curious to view other teachers’ work
The importance of a sense of ownership
Lack of a sense of mastery
Sharing is an informal, human action and should be recognised as such
Teachers need a sense of ownership over resources
Teachers are very picky about resources that aren’t their own
Teachers unsure whether to trust another’s work
Valid concern that work will be ‘stolen’ by others
Fear of looking stupid in a very public forum

How do we help teachers to find the digital learning resources they need? Every teacher in the UK has access to a learning platform; it should be possible to search from them. However, different standards are used on the platforms.

Will Ellis told that Becta wants a commercial provider to establish a resource discovery service. However, before the technology is established Becta will focus on the quality issues, to ensure that the teachers will get the results they are searching for.

Will Ellis has written the following about quality principles and the BETT Awards:

The quality principles

Work on this was completed in March 2006 building on existing knowledge of quality standards such as those applied to Curriculum Online, NGfL, and NLN. The principles were developed through research and consultation with partners such as QCA, TTA, NCSL, JISC, Futurelab as well as with commercial companies and groups and individuals representative of the project’s audiences.

Within the aims of this work were the development of sample toolkits for practitioners and advice documents for schools and post-16 providers. Case studies were commissioned based the BETT Award winners 2008, again with the aim of being able to promote the principles and encourage adoption. The Team have repurposed the Quality Principles guidance for teacher trainers as part of the 2007/8 IA05 project work, together with exemplification of how they can be used in reviewing and choosing quality digital learning resources for the learner and the benefits of choosing resources using the criteria. This information is published on the NEN, Teachernet and Becta Websites. The principles were not developed with the intention of enabling a content or provider quality accreditation system but provide information and experience that could support such a process.

The BETT Awards

The BETT Awards were started in the late 1990s by BESA and Emap with Becta providing support from 2002 onwards. Funding has previously been provided by the DfES and is now given directly by Becta. Becta’s role has been to ensure that the testing and judging processes are robust and meet the needs of the e-Strategy. Becta has used the awards as a way of helping practitioners identify ICT products suited to their needs and promoting innovation and creativity. Categories have evolved over the years but normally include digital learning resources and ICT technology used to deliver learning experiences in the classroom or support leadership and management.

The awards have faced the ongoing challenge of having to ensure that they deliver value for money by supporting improvements in the education system as the demand for resources changes. Recently it has been acknowledged that the awards should be less product-focused and take effective use into greater consideration. Another challenge has been the requirement to identify resources that meet standards of quality whilst at the same time identifying and promoting innovation. The providers of resources generally support the awards however a range of views are apparent and consideration of the need for improvements is required. The work of the awards team has been supported by expertise from across Becta, in particular technical testing and the content directorate who have been instrumental in developing the evaluation criteria and most recently ensuring consistency with the quality principles.

Becta is currently reviewing the Awards for the coming year with an interest in ensuring that the appropriate messages are given that keep pace with our strategic objectives. A rationalisation and reconsideration of the evaluation criteria is being considered, again in line with work Becta is involved in to help identify “quality” in the complex market.

 

An introduction of new associated members

This chapter gives a short introduction to the five new associated members:

  • Tallinn University (Estonia), presenting e.g. LeMill a web community for teachers looking for and sharing learning resources (with1398 reusable learning content resources, June 2008) and Waramu an open source repository system developed with the purpose of learning resource exchange.
  • Glow (Scotland) a digital network (national schools intranet), connecting every person involved in Scottish education, in a safe and secure online environment. Many services for learning and teaching including a repository with a selection of the best online resources.
  • APS IT-Diensten presented the content chain model from The Netherlands: “Making, sharing, searching, rearranging and using learning materials together”
  • Centre of Technology of Education - CTE (Luxembourg) and “mySchool”, Luxembourg’s Educational Portal.
  • Ontwikkelcentrum (The Netherlands) and the Educational Content Catalogue with more than 50.000 learning objects for agricultural education.

 

Further details can be found in the PowerPoint files at the EdReNe.org website.

 

Tallinn University, Centre for Educational Technology, Estonia

Maart Laanpere and Martin Sillaots gave an introduction to the centre at Tallinn University and the initiatives in Estonia.

Tallinn University is the third largest public university in Estonia. It has 7500 students. The Centre for Educational Technology is an R&D unit within the Institute of Informatics employing 14 researchers, educational technologists and software developers. The Centre for Educational Technology works closely together with Tiger Leap Foundation (one of the founding members of EdReNe).

The Centre has worked with repositories in Estonia since 1997. One of the initiatives was opetaja.ee, a portal that was later transformed into Koolielu.ee by Tiger Leap Foundation. Koolielu (means “school life”) is a portal where teachers can find and share learning material (not compatible with standards). The content is created by teachers – approximately 5000 learning resources.

As part of research projects the Centre has developed other services as well, e.g. an entry-level LMS, CMS for schools (content management system based on Plone) and a test delivery system. The primary interest of the centre is the research.

Repositories – LeMill and Waramu

Martin Sillaots gave a demo of LeMill http://lemill.net/. LeMill is a web community for teachers looking for, authoring and sharing learning resources.

Development of LeMill is lead by the Learning Environment Research group at the Media Lab, University of Art and Design in Helsinki.

The software development team is international with partners from Finland, Estonia, Hungary and Norway. LeMill is also part of the European Schoolnet's Learning Resource Exchange initiative.

The LeMill website has been developed in the period 2006-2008 as part of the Calibrate project funded by the European IST program. At the moment the website is hosted by the Media Lab in Helsinki. Although Calibrate has ended, Martin Sillaots told that LeMill will be further developed in cooperation with Tiger Leap Foundation.


Lemill.net

Waramu
The latest initiative is Waramu (2007). It is the first Estonian repository with LER-LOM metadata. It has been established within the Calibrate framework (an initiative by EUN).

At the moment the learning resources (3000 LOM records) must be accessed through web services or viewed through the Calibrate learning portal (it is connected to the Learning Resource Exchange). The repository does not have a user interface on its own. Waramu supports metadata harvesting (OAI-PMH) etc. The java code is classified as Open Source.

Further information (documentation and download) can be found at:
http://trac.htk.tlu.ee/modules/wiki/Waramu

The following diagram shows how the different components are related.

The Waramu development plans include integration with the learning portal interface www.koolielu.ee.

 

Learning and Teaching Scotland / Glow - lighting up learning

- digitally linking Scotland’s 800.000 educators and pupils

Andy Pendry, Learning and Teaching Scotland, presented Glow. (http://www.glowscotland.org.uk/)

Glow is a digital network (national schools intranet), connecting every person involved in Scottish education, in a safe and secure online environment.

Andy explained how a new curriculum had changed many things in Scotland. The Curriculum for Excellence is consolidating 3 to 18 (previously the curriculum covered pre 5, 5-14, and national qualifications). The goal is to enable all young people to become successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors (further details can be found in Andy’s presentation)

In Scotland “glow is the vehicle for delivering curriculum for excellence”, says Fiona Hyslop Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning.

Glow facilitates learning (customized/personalised learning spaces), teaching, communication, collaboration, planning, development, assessment and sharing nationally.

On the technical side: glow is a cross platform solution (MacOs, Linux and Windows), a requirement in Scotland. The platform is based on SharePoint Portal, Shibboleth, SRW/SRU, etc.

In Scotland the best online learning resources can be found in a repository maintained by Learning and Teaching Scotland.


The repository with learning resources: http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/resources/index.asp.

 

APS it-diensten, The Netherlands

Dolf Gagestein, APS it-diensten (APS), presented a Dutch content chain model: “Making, sharing, searching, rearranging and using learning materials together”. The presentation is summarised in the following. Further details can be found in the presentation on edrene.org.

APS is the National Center for School Improvement in The Netherlands. APS employs approximately 130 educators with a wide variety of professional backgrounds. APS’s staff works with teacher trainer, education consultant, evaluator, curriculum developer, interim manager and resource provider.

In The Netherlands traditional educational publishers have a very strong hold on primary and secondary education that is with paper based material. Digital material is used in the margin. A small percentage of pilot schools and teachers try to organise a new market. APS supports them with both tools and knowledge.

The tools offered (with the help of Kennisnet – one of the founding members of EdReNe) support the various steps in the content chain.


Content chain: building, sharing, finding, arranging, using.

The tools are:

  • SamenMaken.nl (building together) – Tools for the editing process are Exelearning.org, Wimba Create, standard export (IMS-CP or SCORM), etc. Most of the Dutch secondary schools use eXe (http://exelearning.org/). Although simple, it is not simple enough! For that reason a new very simple online SCORM editor is under construction.

    A screenshot from the online SCORM editor (under construction).
  • SamenDelen.nl (sharing in primary and secondary education) – When the teachers have produced the material, sharing a link or an object should be as simple as “one click”. The tools must provide semi-automatic metadata, as many fields as possible must be filled with defaults. The metadata tool at the moment looks into SCORM objects and collects the metadata. Furthermore, it looks into a profile (the first time you log in, you get a set of questions), etc. Sharekit.nl is for sharing in higher education.
  • SamenZoeken.nl (finding/searching) – search is based on metadata and your personal profile. It is done using EduRep (the Dutch initiative for searching across different educational repositories based on metadata harvesting and indexing).
  • SamenStellen.nl (arranging together) – tools like eXe. SamenStellen.nl is a new tool which is under construction (see the presentation).

 

The last step in the content chain is “using”. The content chain and the tools involved in each step are illustrated in the following diagram:


The new content chain.

 

Centre de technologie de l’éducation (CTE), Luxembourg

Daniel Weiler, Centre of Technology of Education (CTE), presented CTE and “mySchool”, Luxembourg’s Educational Portal. Daniel Weiler’s PowerPoint presentation includes many valuable notes; find it on edrene.org.

CTE is a Department of the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training. CTE works with Identity and Access Management, School Networking Operations & Security, School IT Infrastructures and Maintenance, Teacher Technical Training, etc.

Daniel Weiler writes:

“In 2001, as part of the ‘eLuxembourg’ initiative to raise awareness and use of technology in education and business, the Luxembourg Ministry of Education commissioned the creation of a Web-based ‘virtual digital learning place’. The project was built to promote e-learning and ensure that by 2003 children were computer literate by the time they left school.

The Luxembourg Ministry of Education’s concept was a simple one: to provide the country’s students with easy access to reliable validated educational tools and content to assist them with their studies within and outside school hours. And with home PC penetration topping 90 percent in Luxembourg, the Web was considered an ideal medium to bring together these disparate sources of data within a single interface on the desktop.

However, the vision – or ‘mySchool!’, as it became known – did not end there. Ease of use, particularly with respect to navigating and searching for information was absolutely critical if mySchool! was to be a hit with students. In addition, we had a definite vision for collaboration, between students, teachers, parents, employers and information providers all facilitated through this unified interface. And not just any interface, but one which was suitably intuitive for even the youngest users and – most importantly – absolutely safe.”


The personalised starting page from mySchool, in this case Daniel Weiler’s own page.


Platform overview of mySchool (generation 5) – www.myschool.lu. MySchool is built on a centralised technology platform with BEA’s portal framework.

One of the green boxes in the above figure corresponds to “Knowledge Directory”, a set of document repositories (15.000 docs with metadata) and a federated search mechanism providing access to publisher’s repositories e.g. online databases/encyclopaedias.

At the moment one of the challenges for generation 6 of mySchool is to find out e.g. how the document repository should be structured in the future (Web 2.0), should all metadata be converted to tags and accessed via tag clouds?

 

Ontwikkelcentrum, The Netherlands

Marco Meurink, Ontwikkelcentrum (www.ontwikkelcentrum.nl)

Ontwikkelcentrum was founded by the Ministry of Agriculture in 1993. The mission was to ensure educational materials for schools of agriculture. There was a great lack of suitable learning materials (which at that time were mostly books) for the schools. These schools do not have a large numbers of students, so they do not represent an interesting market for commercial publishers.

In 1997 a database was established with relevant educational content. In this initial database all content was encoded in SGML. The content was primarily produced by Ontwikkelcentrum. Schools could order a book with the content they needed for the specific situation (chapter by chapter). The result was a publication ‘on paper’ (books) or a Pdf file on a CD.

In 2005-6 the content was converted to XML. The current repository is called the Educational Content Catalogue (ECC). All content in the ECC contains IEEE-LOM metadata (Dutch version which is used widely in The Netherlands). Users must have a log-in. The log-in gives access to all content directly from the database (50.000 objects). The schools pay for access (35 Euro per person a year).

Changes in schools demand new learning materials; students follow individual learning-routes, they spend time outside the walls of the school building. In the new solution users can e.g. make their own courses/arrangements using content from ECC, EduRep etc.

Ontwikkelcentrum has also shifted its objective. They do no longer focus on creating new learning materials themselves. In stead they locate suitable learning materials which are already available, for instance from companies, other publishers, schools etc. These learning materials are then made available through the ECC. They remain in the database of the producer/owner of the material, but are harvested etc.

Future steps:
50.000 learning objects are a great deal! Users find it very difficult to find what they really need.

User generated content should also be stimulated more. The schools must be informed about the digital learning material and what they can do with it – the students will be used to “lift” the teachers.

 


The Educational Content Catalogue (note, it is behind login).

 

EdReNe annual status

“Where are we, how did we get here, and where are we going” – An introduction by Leo Højsholt-Poulsen, UNI•C

The most important achievement in EdReNe is the establishment of the network of professionals working together. It is a success that many new associated members find it relevant to be part of the network. We will continue to expand the network bearing in mind that the workshops and seminars should be of value for those attending.

The EdReNe project is divided into three phases. The emphasis in the first phase has been on identifying, studying and prioritising issues, identifying relevant stakeholders and engaging them (to learn from them) and discussing access and use in relation to repositories of educational content.

A prominent result from the first year has been the report: “State of the Art of Educational Repositories in Europe”. The public version (submitted as a deliverable) of the report can be found on the EdReNe website. However, the report has been and will continuously be updated with new information, e.g. the UK chapter has been updated. The newest version can be found in the Members zone. Leo reminded the members to supply new and updated information for their countries. A new version of the report will be published by the end of year two.

The five events from the first project year were:

  1. First strategic seminar, 11 – 13 June 2007, Naples, Italy.
  2. WS 3.1, 4 – 5 December 2007, Brussels, Belgium, Repositories and resources, repository strategies at general level. On this workshop focus were on:
    1. Quality assurance strategies (editorial policies, technical quality assurance)
    2. Connecting and cooperating with existing repositories
    3. Educational repositories in a Google world
    4. Identifying successful policy actions (government support, public-private partnerships)
  3. WS 4.1, 8 – 9 January 2008, London, UK, Standards and interoperability. The following topics were on the agenda:
    1. Metadata standards (application profiles, strategies for vocabularies, curriculum mapping)
    2. Providing best practice examples of the use of standards with proven benefits - and examples not to follow
    3. Facilitating exchange of metadata across repositories and between repositories and VLE/LMS.
  4. WS 5.1, 2 – 3 October 2007, Aarhus, Denmark, Engagement of producers and users, operational level. The topics discussed were:
    1. Ensuring ease of use (usability, wizards, help and support…)
    2. Web 2.0 and repositories? (Shared queries, social book marking, tagging…)
    3. My repository - the need for personalization (profiles, reviews, collections…)
  5. WS 6.1, 4 – 5 March 2008, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Rights issues. The topics discussed were:
    1. Providing guidelines for users/teachers/producers
    2. Rights management (Digital Rights Management, Creative Commons, Protection of rights, Identity management…)
    3. Rights clearance practices
    4. Strategies for providing copyright cleared material for education

The results from the workshops include:

  • A draft collection of repository design patterns, describing best practice examples of repository functionality and interface design.
  • An overview of current quality assurance strategies of major European repositories – and how these could be further developed.
  • Survey results on how repositories currently employ and interact with Google technology, and what major new players/technological trends could influence educational repositories in the near future.
  • Survey results on the current case for automatic metadata creation and where emphasis should be put to further develop this area in order to minimize costs while still ensuring as detailed (descriptive and other) metadata as possible.
  • A detailed mind map providing input for the continued discussion on how to most effectively deal with rights issues relating to educational repositories, along with an example collection on how, where and when to provide information to repository users on rights issues.

 

These results can all be found in the Members’ Zone. Some of the results are also available on the public website.

Future scheduled events are:

Name Location Date
Expert workshop WS 3.2 Tallinn, Estonia September 16th – 17th, 2008
Expert workshop WS 5.2 Husseren-les-Chateaux, Alsace, France October 20th – 22nd, 2008
Expert workshop WS 4.2 Zoetermeer, Netherlands February 2009
Expert workshop WS 6.2 Birmingham? UK March 2009
Strategic seminar III Stockholm, Sweden May 2009
Expert workshop WS 3.3 Linz, Austria September 2009
Expert workshop WS 5.3 Vilnius, Lithuania October 2009
Final Strategic seminar Barcelona, Spain March 2010

Deliverables during the second year:

  • Updated version of the State of the Art report on educational repositories in October 2008. We will be looking for evidence of success and impact (quantity and/or quality).
  • Templates for agreements between repositories and content owners/providers are planned for December 2008. At the moment the relevance of this report is reconsidered, members’ input on this issue is requested. Should we define another, better type of deliverable more useful to the network?

 

Parallel to this work, the members will continue to address how to establish and operate a successful repository with many titles and many users. The members will continue their ongoing collaboration on other issues, as e.g. the interactive whiteboard initiative by BECTA.

Leo Højsholt-Poulsen concluded by inviting members to provide suggestions for seminars where EdReNe should give presentations, experts to invite to EdReNe seminars, new associated members, themes for expert workshops etc.


EdReNe.org

 

Looking ahead

An important outcome of the strategic seminar in Lisbon is a set of high priority issues to focus on in the second project year. Tommy Byskov Lund and Michael Viskum had prepared an online questionnaire and arranged the group sessions.

The results are summarised in the following.

 

Selected results from the member survey

Please note, all topics were prioritised according to the scale “essential”, “important”, “not important” and “don’t know”. The tables in the following only list the percentage of respondents, who categorised the topic as essential.

Repository strategies

The five most important topics are highlighted in the table.

Score in percentage Topic
59 Quality assurance strategies (editorial policies; technical quality assurance)
53 Identifying the decisive benefits that trigger repository use by important target groups: professional publishers, public institutions, teachers…
44 Connecting and cooperating with existing repositories (including overcoming barriers such as language, IPR, technical issues …)
44 The cost of building and maintaining a repository (business models; initial costs; establishing a critical mass of content; sustainability …)
44 Strategies for involving key actors in development process
41 Identifying successful policy actions (government support, public private partnerships …)
29 Marketing strategies for repositories
29 Integration and interaction with other online services
24 Metadata only or content repository? Pros and cons of hosting content
24 Defining which types of learning resources to include/exclude in a repository (digital/non-digital; commercials in educational material; types of producers…)

Many new issues were suggested by the EdReNe members, e.g.:

  • What about the European strategies in the European networks like EUN? What is beyond EdReNe?
  • Integration of paid and user-generated-content.
  • Exchange strategies.
  • It is suggested to:
    • Analyse the complete educational value chain: from publishers, tool providers, VLE's, school (management, teachers, etc), etc and analyse their situation to determine where to go: which benefits are they looking for, which problems do they have, which core USP's do they have; their central problem; and how to go further.
    • Create a future vision on this chain in maybe 2 or 3 scenarios: what role will the VLE have? Will publishers work closely together with teachers to create content? Will school management support teachers creating content, and how will this be organised?
  • Criteria for assessing the quality of content so that teachers can have confidence in search results returned.
  • Evidence of success and impact, number of titles and users, the importance of teachers sharing knowledge and resources
  • How do we motivate teachers to contribute their UCC to a repository? EU wide integration of national repositories
  • Etc.

 

Engaging users

The five most important topics are highlighted in the table.

Score in percentage Topic
60 My repository - the need for personalization (profiles; reviews; collections; automatic recommendations…)
60 Building your own content from repository resources (allowing teachers to combine content from different producers)
57 Analyzing repository use (statistics; identifying popular functions; interpreting search strings and results; user surveys; characterization of user types)
54 Implementation of user generated metadata (evaluations; reviews; tagging; collaborative filtering; information on actual usage …)
51 Ensuring ease of use (identifying/developing design patterns; usability; wizards …)
43 Community building (online forums/chat; integration with existing/popular communities; communication with content producers…)
34 Incentive schemes for educators to share inspirational material
34 Incentive schemes for: professional publishers, public institutions and other content producers
29 Pushing information to users (newsletters; web services; RSS feeds; embedding in other services…)
23 Supplementing metadata by linking to the outside world (reviews; libraries; purchase systems…)
20 Repository functionality: Identifying need to have vs. nice to have
17 Help and support functions - end users / producers (implementation: online, mail/phone support, screen casts/video tutorials)
11 Establishing a design pattern catalogue for repositories (building upon experiences from 1st workshop)

The members also suggested additional topics to be addressed in the workshops on “Engaging users”, e.g.:

  • Engaging users over long distances, e.g. users from Chile accessing contents in Portugal.
  • How repositories engage users (including parents) outside the school and connect with informal learners.
  • The value chain has to be addressed.
  • Mobile device support - looking at how learning resources behave on phones, PDA's, small laptops, WII, PlayStation etc.

 

Standards and interoperability

With only one workshop left on “Standards and interoperability”, this member survey suggests that the focus should be put on the three topics highlighted below:

Score in percentage Topic
69 Metadata standards (developing application profiles; strategies for vocabularies; curriculum mapping; interoperability issues; automatic metadata creation; including user generated metadata; collection and service descriptions …)
60 Facilitating exchange of metadata across repositories (harvesting; federated search; search protocol; query language …)
51 Mapping the landscape of standards (identifying current use; which standards help providing which functional requirements of educators/learners; best practise examples)
46 Facilitating exchange between repositories and virtual learning environments/ learning management systems
46 Content standards (such as IMS Content Packaging / Question and Test Interoperability / Common Course Cartridge, SCORM…)
40 Providing guidelines/tools for producing standard compliant content
23 Strategies for following/influencing standardization work
20 Authentication strategies
14 Facilitating exchange of structured content (e.g., content packages, ePortfolios)
11 Resource identifiers (central service; internal ID; URN/DOI/ …)

The members also suggested additional topics to be addressed in the last workshop, e.g.:

  • Successful/less successful use of OpenID (and possibly other SSO standards) is also very welcome.
  • A workshop on A&A, to share knowledge and best practices on the topic; federated search is hot in the NL: technical / standards, implications on the value chain: what are best strategies to create a situation for future growth in stead of publishers of “the old world” staying in control and limiting innovation.
  • The creation of metadata must be as automatic as possible. It’s important to know what kind of metadata is important and needed to find fast the content.
  • Knowledge about what kind of research there is conducted in the area of using and improving metadata standards and how we can learn from it. In our institution we are making a distinction between resources for learning and learning materials. We are interested in other experiences and ideas about this.

 

Rights issues

With one workshop left on “Rights issues”, this member survey suggests that the focus should be put on the three topics highlighted below:

Score in percentage Topic
68 Licensing schemes (consequences for remixing; Creative Commons; presenting usage rights; cross border concerns …)
56 Relevant policies and initiatives (open educational resources; education of content creators; free access to content produced for public money; incentives for commercial producers …)
53 Rights clearance practices (guidance to educators; strategies for providing copyright cleared material for education …)
47 Providing guidelines for educators using/depositing resources
35 Agreements between repository and content producers - sharing examples and experiences
27 Rights issues - Ownership of repository data (database/collection, metadata, content…)
24 Digital Rights Management / Digital Rights Expression Languages
24 User interface issues (presenting/expressing usage rights; search-ability …) Ownership of repository data (database/collection, metadata, content…)
24 Screening strategies for repository material, to avoid copyright violations
18 Monitoring copyright infringements (defining responsibility; response strategies …)
15 Risk Management strategies for repositories (legal analysis; monitoring/logging; technical measures to secure content …)
12 Defining/examples of fair use

The members also suggested additional topics to be addressed in the last workshop, e.g.:

  • Rights versus open source contents, payable contents and free contents … mix the two.
  • There must be more engagement at a political level regarding OER and a new dialogue with commercial publishers on publishing strategies for education.
  • Copy right issues are important but they are not in the mind of the users of educational content. We need several court cases for motivating LOR developers and users to think about those problems.
  • We have a special interest in the question of providing free and commercial content at the same time (maybe in a federation of content providers/repositories).
  • DRM are not the core problems and issues; the new world is threatening the old world (publishers protecting there income; teachers are very reactive and anti-digital learning). How can we get all these defensive drivers turned into positive: the new world gives chances for everybody!
  • Experiences with and models for paying for rights of educational resources.

 

 

Recommendations from the group session

The group session was planned with focus on the four EdReNe themes. Eight different groups discussed one or two of the following themes in detail:

  • Repository strategies (general level)
  • Engaging users (operational level)
  • Standards and interoperability
  • Rights issues

 

The results from the first workshops (see edrene.org) and the member survey (see above) were available as a starting point for the group discussions.

The groups gave recommendations on the most important topics for the future workshops and they suggested strategies for producing the thematic synthesis reports. In addition some groups provided suggestions for improving the workshops.


Presentations from the group sessions: Fiona Iglesias, Zaira Miranda, Nikos Zygouritsas, Wim de Boer, members attending and Matija Lokar.

Repository strategies

Four groups presented their recommendations. All four groups agree that “Quality assurance” is among the most important topics (this issue/topic got the highest score in the survey, see above). Two groups agree that “Identifying the decisive benefits that trigger repository use” is very important (second highest score in the survey). The remaining topics have been suggested by one group only. In this case the project coordinator must compare the recommendations with the result of the survey. Further details from the group session can be found in the PowerPoint presentations on the website. The most important topics are:

Most important topics Comments made by the groups
Quality assurance strategies (editorial policies; technical quality assurance) One of the groups said: Quality assurance is a broad topic. In the next workshop we need to investigate “the drivers” for quality, focus on best practises, why does one model (QA policy) work when others don’t and focus on how we organise it (experts evaluation vs. users perception, moderation, costs etc).

We need models for quality assurance, models that can be discussed with repository owners that might need to make changes.

The remaining technical issues can be solved; they do not represent high priority issues in the EdReNe network.

The real quality is the quality that is perceived by students and teachers. In the end the user decides/judge what quality is.

The “new” publishers work closely with teachers, they have feedback loops etc – that is the new way to produce materials, a completely different model.

One group suggested a Workflow for creation of metadata, evaluation, modification.

Another group points out: It is necessary to separate the technical and the pedagogical aspects, which is metadata and content. Content quality must be dealt with specifically. Quality vs. quantity is an issue as well.

The last group said: Quality assurance and all the different aspects of this were discussed the most: It is a choice between volume of content and costs of applying standards and validating content.
Identifying the decisive benefits that trigger repository use by important target groups: professional publishers, public institutions, teachers… One of the groups describes the issue in the following manner: Teachers will benefit most in discovering effective learning resources.
  • Federated repositories
  • Commercially acquired resources
  • Sharing network of User Generated Content
  • Commissioned content
  • Safe searching ensuring educational integrity
  • Targeted/subject specialised repositories
Commercial and public content suppliers will benefit from access to usage data
  • Increases market reach
  • Monitoring usage and uptake statistics
  • Targeting future development
  • Driving strategy and policy
  • Stimulating the market
  • Understand better how the customer base consumes their content
Strategies for involving key actors in development process The group added:

The repository in itself is not the target. We need to look at the process from a marketing perspective. Could we look at the whole value chain for digital content, analyse it, and identify the players, needs and key drivers? That is the role of the ministry, the role of school management (if they do not have a strategy for using digital materials, the teachers will not use them), the portals (statistics)…

At the moment we are focusing on bits and pieces. That is we need a more structured process. It will require more preparation from the EdReNe participants and perhaps also another profile of the persons attending the workshops on this theme.
Defining which types of learning resources to include/exclude in a repository (digital/non-digital; commercials in educational material; types of producers…) The group added:

It depends on local users, decisions best made locally
  • Learning resources/Assets vs. metadata
  • Only electronic content?
  • Moderated with educational integrity
  • Restricted/Open
  • Commercial/Commissioned/User Generated
  • Curriculum ‘fit’
Type of Material? On this new topic the group added:

I.e. single source for complete course vs. multiple sources, it depends on what the individual prefer.

How to treat different types of resources? I.e. Interactive vs. Worksheets. E.g. Interactive: www.ltscotland.org.uk\learningaboutlearning
Target User? On this new topic the group added:

Content for teachers vs. directly to the learner.

Different interfaces/strategies depending on the target user.
Learner vs. Teacher generated strategy? The group added: And who should define the strategy, should we look at the teachers or the learners?
Awareness building on the importance of standards among local decision makers I.e.:
  • Existing standards and emerging standards should provide a development without too many setbacks
  • Keep the players together
  • Protect the backbone established in the repositories
Integration and interaction with on-line services (VLE, PLE) For this new topic, the group added:
  • Repositories should be open for interaction
  • The community may be restricted
Focus on metadata not on content No further comments on this new topic.
Sustainability Sustainability; the repositories established must be efficient and available in the long term (business model, private/public partnership…)

Engaging users

Three groups presented their recommendations. Two groups agree that “Building your own content from repository resources” is very important (highest score in the survey). The remaining topics have been suggested by one group only. Most of the topics can be found among the top five topics of the survey result (see above). However, new topics were also suggested. Further details from the group session can be found in the PowerPoint presentations on the website. The most important issues are:

Most important topics Comments made by the groups
Building your own content from repository resources (allowing teachers to combine content from different producers) One of the groups added: User friendly, enabling to build courses using LO from repositories.

Another group pointed out the benefits:
  • Reduce costs - more content (universities, public organisations)
  • Motivate teachers, not only a consumer but also a producer
  • Learning by doing, sense of owning what they’re doing
  • More targeted to learning needs (if the teacher is doing a good job)
  • Tailor-made to students’ learning styles and learner’s pace
  • More suitable for the learning environment
  • Suitable for blended learning
Example: Klascement.net
Analyzing repository use (statistics; identifying popular functions; etc.)
Implementation of user generated metadata (evaluations; reviews; tagging; collaborative filtering; information on actual usage …) Suggested by one of three groups. They added: It is an important issue, as it makes the search in the database faster, it can renovate old databases, and it is closer to everyday school life (expressed in their own terms). Examples: del.icio.us, YouTube, etc. The Reward system for contributing (KlasCement from Belgium) is really interesting.
Ensuring ease of use (identifying/developing design patterns; usability; wizards …) The group gave some examples:
  • Templates - pedagogical models, learning design specifications
  • Adopt successful - familiar interfaces
  • Help on line
  • Clear - easy to use instructions
  • Interoperability of different platforms
  • Tools for editing
Example: “Hot potatoes”
Promotion among users (communities of interests) New topic with the focus on showing the best practice examples.
User engagement in general One group suggested this new topic and added:

How to pursue further engagement through parents? What can be done to further engage teachers reluctant to use ICT? How to engage more students in using a repository in pursuing their specific needs as learners?

Standards and interoperability

Three groups presented their recommendations. In general the three groups agree that the top five topics from the survey are the most important ones. It is suggested that “mapping the landscape” is a way to address the two topics “Metadata standards” and “Content standards”. All three groups agree that “Facilitating exchange between repositories and virtual learning environments/ learning management systems” is a very important interoperability issue.

The most important topics and a few comments:

Most important topics Comments made by the groups
Facilitating exchange between repositories and virtual learning environments/ learning management systems One group discussed whether this issue is important now or it is to soon.

The first examples are seen, e.g. in The Netherlands and Austria. In The Netherlands they have already connected VLEs and repositories enabling teachers to search the repository from the VLE.

Facilitating exchange is important to make it easier for users to access resources. The benefit will be increased use of Learning platforms and easier access to resources across repositories

Examples, reports, experts, activities
  • Swiss project: integrating the search interface for the repository into the national VLE (www.educanet2.ch)
  • Becta is developing a national strategy for resource discovery
  • VLE and repository in one system (Austria): learn.bildungsserver.com
Metadata standards (developing application profiles; strategies for vocabularies; curriculum mapping; interoperability issues; automatic metadata creation; etc) Standards lasting in the long term!

Consistent standards across Europe, success stories! The benefit could be European integration? pressure on suppliers, shared lessons.

Examples, reports, experts, activities:
  • The MELT project will report on user generated metadata at the end of 2008.
  • A curriculum mapping demonstrator was tested in CALIBRATE
  • LOM KEM of Korea
Mapping the landscape of standards (identifying current use; which standards help providing which functional requirements of educators/learners etc.) Examples, reports, experts, activities
  • links to work that will be carried out in the new ASPECT project - starts September 2008
  • The Agrega Project
Facilitating exchange of metadata across repositories (harvesting; federated search; search protocol; query language …) The topic is important when speaking of federation and wider integration. As a benefit users are linked to content across multiple repositories (perhaps across countries).

Examples, reports, experts, activities
  • EduRep as a transparent, open middleware system is growing rapidly!
  • Quite a lot of work has been done already (MELT, CALIBRATE, …)
  • http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html
  • Developing a German Network including Swiss and Austrian partners.
Content standards (such as IMS Content Packaging / Question and Test Interoperability / Common Course Cartridge, SCORM…)
New interoperability challenges beyond SCORM specification This new topic was commented by the group:
  • arranging SCORM packages in different SCORM editors
  • content production workflow
  • content repository integration with the different environments (VLE, LMS, portals, other repositories)
Resource types are very different among repositories Simple vs. complex

Rights issues

The last EdReNe theme was discussed by two groups. Both groups had compared the list of high priority topics with the topics discussed at the first workshop. It is still the same topics that top the agenda.

One of the groups recommended that external legal experts should be drawn in if the rights issues should be discussed further, as the number of experts within EdReNe is very limited. At the same time rights issues are handled differently in the European countries, perhaps there are no global answers?

Finally, one of the groups suggested that user interface issues connected to rights issues could be an interesting topic to discuss.

The topics with a few comments made by the groups:

Most important topics Comments made by the groups
Licensing schemes (consequences for remixing; Creative Commons; presenting usage rights; cross border concerns …) One of the groups suggest that these problems are addressed:
  • Teachers will not publish their contents, if they have copyright concerns.
  • Lack of awareness on licensing schemes.
Relevant policies and initiatives (open educational resources; education of content creators; free access to content produced for public money; incentives for commercial producers …) Issues to be considered:
  • Still not enough practical examples
  • Lack of education of users and content creators
  • How to "protect" public repository owners (and who are the owners)?
Rights clearance practices (guidance to educators; strategies for providing copyright cleared material for education …) How can a repository owner cope with the amount of material to be screened?
Providing guidelines for educators using/depositing resources Good practise examples, variants of disclaimers, and fair use policies. That would be a very valuable outcome of EdReNe.
 

Thematic synthesis report

During the group session many of the groups gave recommendations on the process of writing the thematic synthesis reports. The comments are summarised in the following. Further details can be found in the presentations at the website.

  • Internet surveys should be used, e.g. a survey of member strategies. The coordinator should ask concrete questions.
  • The coordinator must give a deadline.
  • The major headings in the reports should correspond to the topics with the highest priority.
  • Relevant mappings according to country/member should be included, e.g. existing repositories, profiles, how important is the curriculum, handling of curriculum binding (field 9), etc
  • Best practice vs. Good practice (theory versus what can be done, benchmarking, what criteria should we use to find out what is best practice).
  • Flash meeting/online meeting could be used in the preparation of the report.
  • Collaborative summary report compiled.

 

 

Suggestions for improving the workshops

As a result of the group session the coordinator also received the following set of guidelines for improving the workshops.

Before the workshop:

  • Members are prepared to do some work before the seminars/workshops (consensus among the members attending the seminar).
  • Survey in advance (a month or so before the workshop). As a result the members will be more prepared for the workshop.
  • From ‘nice to hear’ to ‘need to know’ (topics must be more driven from participants’ needs). The participants must be clearer about the needs and communicate them in the project area. The members must suggest issues they want to discuss.
  • Ask the members to annotate raw materials (obligatory) and focus the discussions in the group session on topics with the most annotations.
  • Provide a clear description of the subject and global aims.
  • Every participant should pre-fill learning targets and bring in discussion points (or best practices) on the subject.

 

During the workshop:

  • More analysis and discussion. More in-depth discussions on specific issues rather than general ones.
  • Better moderation in the group session (e.g. by a more experienced person)
  • Smaller work groups
  • More focus on the learning targets (presentations are great, however we need to understand why that worked, what we can learn from it).
  • Time limits for presentations must be controlled by a moderator making a connection between presenter and audience.
  • More exchange of links to follow-up on what was mentioned in the presentations: research reports, documentation etc.

 

 

Administration and finances

By Leo Højsholt-Poulsen, UNI•C.

This chapter is only relevant for the EdReNe members.

 

Deliverables

All deliverables submitted to the EC can be found in the Members’ zone. The deliverables are: the annual report, progress reports (2 per year), the state of the art report (newest version) and proceedings from all events (seminars/workshops).

 

Finances

The financial statement for the EC is due (will be submitted mid June 2008). UNI•C will mail the member’s balance to founding members. Some members haven’t had any expenses yet, a fact which will be investigated further by UNI•C in the near future. If a founding member cannot use the grant or only part of it, it may be decided to pay some expenses for associated members, and/or invite more external experts, and/or invest more in dissemination.

Leo Højsholt-Poulsen asked the founding members to be aware of eligible costs:

  • Bank transfer charges, both at UNI•C and receiver. The costs should be included in travel statements. It is acceptable to include first year’s charges in the next statement/invoice.
  • Costs in connection with members’ participation in other European events, when the member represents and present EdReNe (ask UNI•C before attending! UNI•C will ask the EC when in doubt).

 

Please note, phone, mail and courier costs are not eligible!

Some of the founding members haven’t submitted bank account details. It is also important that UNI•C receives a formal letter from all the founding members that are legally requested to keep originals of invoices.

Leo concluded this section by reminding all network members about the following:

  • In connection with all event it should be noted that UNI•C charges all participants an equal share of the event costs, e.g. rooms, equipment, and conference dinner.
  • Please inform UNI•C about contributions by network members (i.e. articles, presentations) to events related to the subject. It is one of the EdReNe performance indicators.
  • Please inform UNI•C about any changes in legal representative, address etc.

 

 

Members’ presentations

UNI•C wishes to make all presentations from workshops and seminars available from edrene.org (status = public).

Please inform UNI•C before September 2008 if your presentations are NOT licensed “Non-commercial-share alike”

 

Network Management board

The EdReNe management board gave the following advices:

  • Ask members, who have not been very active so far, about their contribution and commitment (change of status to associated member?)
  • Provide more public, easy-to-understand articles, best practice white paper, materials (e.g. State of the art report as an interactive document in country bits).
  • Advice on organisation (fewer presentations after lunch, fine-tune questionnaire before workshop, profile themes, gap analysis …)
  • Advice on recruiting new members, inviting external experts etc.

 

 

Members zone

In the Members zone the members can find all relevant information on EdReNe (contract, agreements, deliverables, addresses, output of expert workshops etc.).

All members have access. All members are not active. Leo Højsholt-Poulsen gave a short introduction to the members’ zone and how it is structured, e.g. the list of deliverables, contract, members profile (remember to upload a photo and relevant information), etc.

 

Annex 1: Agenda

The 2nd strategic seminar took place at Hotel Tryp Oriente, Lisbon from June 9th-11th 2008.

The agenda for this strategic seminar was settled on the basis of invited input from the network members and a set of issues which had to be covered to ensure the planning of the second project year, e.g.:

  • Status after the first project year.
  • Prioritized input from the members to be used in the planning of the expert workshops in the second project year.
  • Introduction of new associated members.

 

The result was the following agenda:

Monday June 9th 2008
15.00 Registration, Welcome Coffee
16.00 Opening of the Seminar
Leo Højsholt-Poulsen, UNI•C
16.15 Current repository issues and developments I:
  • Edunet, Korea’s educational repository
    Dr. Dae-Joon Hwang, KERIS, Republic of Korea
  • Agrega – Spanish Educational Repository
    Manuela Lara, Santillana Educación, Spain
  • Education personalised: the LOGOS project
    Eva Suba, EDEN
18.00 First day finishes
Tuesday June 10th 2008
09.00 “EdReNe – Where are we, how did we get here, and where are we going” – an introduction.
Leo Højsholt-Poulsen, UNI•C
09.30 Status and looking ahead – group session I:
The session will briefly sum up the results from the first workshops on:
  • Engagement of users and producers
  • Repository strategies
– the introductions will serve as input for group work on what to focus on in year two.
Introduction by UNI•C followed by group sessions
12.00 Current repository issues and developments II:
  • Spindeln (the spider) – a developing brokerage service
    Christina Szekely, MSU, and Fredrik Paulsson, IML
  • Share and reuse, example of a web 2.0 repository: klascement.net
    Hans de Four, Belgium
13.00 Lunch
14.00  …continued
  • Digital Learnng Resources - what are teachers looking for?
    Wim de Boer, SLO
  • Drivers and blockers to teachers accessing, repurposing and sharing digital resources
    Will Ellis, Becta
Introduction of new associated members:
  • Tallinn University, Centre for Educational Technology, Estonia
    Maart Laanpere / Martin Sillaots
  • Glow - lighting up learning. Digitally linking Scotland's 800.000 educators and pupils
    Andy Pendry, Learning and Teaching Scotland
  • APS it-diensten, Netherlands
    Dolf Gagestein
  • Centre de technologie de l'éducation (CTE), Luxembourg
    Daniel Weiler
  • Ontwikkelcentrum, The Netherlands
    Marco Meurink
16.00 Status and looking ahead – group session II:
This session will briefly sum up the results from the first workshops on:
  • Standards and interoperability
  • Rights issues
– the introductions will serve as input for group work om what to focus on in year two.
Introduction by UNI•C followed by group sessions
Meeting of the EdReNe management board
18.00 Second day finishes
20.00 EdReNe dinner: A SEVERA Rua das Gáveas, 51 a 61, 1200-206 Lisboa.
Wednesday, June 11th 2008
09.00 Project related issues (procedures; organization; administration and finances)
Leo Højsholt-Poulsen, UNI•C
09.45 Looking ahead – presentations from group sessions:
Results from the group sessions are presented – 15 minutes per group.
5-10 minutes for Q&A per group.
EdReNe Members
13.00 Seminar finishes / Lunch
 

Annex 2: List of participants

21 of the 23 founding members were represented (35 participants) together with 10 associated members (12 participants). 4 participants came from potentially associated members.

In addition two invited external experts (Dr. Dae-Joon Hwang former president of KERIS and Manuela Lara, Santillana Educación) attended the seminar.

This gives a total of 53 participants.

Name Organisation Country
Giulia Marangoni AIE Italy
Maria Loi AIE Italy
Dolf Gagestein Apsit - apsIT-diensten The Netherlands
Andrew Kitchen Becta UK
Will Ellis Becta UK
Jens Viggo Moesmand BFU Denmark
Adolf Selinger BMUKK Austria
António Castro CID ALPHA project
(potential associated member)
Portugal
Sandra Bucarey CID ALPHA project
(potential associated member)
Chile
Christine Champion-Bibard CNDP France
Rosa Maria Gómez de Regil CNDP France
Daniel Weiler CTE Luxembourg
Orland Cardona Perez EAPC Spain
Eva Suba Eden European network
Anna Grabowska Eden Poland
Astrid Leeb Education Highway Austria
Fernanda Ramos EduWeb Portugal
Herculano Rebordão EduWeb Portugal
Zaira Miranda EduWeb Portugal
Jim Ayre EUN European network
Dr. Dae-Joon Hwang ex Keris Republic of Korea
Friedhelm Schumacher FWU Germany
Fabrizio Giorgini Giunti Lab Italy
Fredrik Paulsson IML Sweden
Eugenijus Kurilovas ITC Lithuania
Mantas Masaitis ITC Lithuania
Henk Nijstad Kennisnet The Netherlands
Hans De Four klascement.be Belgium
Andy Pendry Learning and Teaching Scotland UK
Jim Henderson Learning and Teaching Scotland UK
Nikos Zygouritsas Menon Greece
Alma Taawo MSU Sweden
Christina Szekely MSU Sweden
Fiona Iglesias North West Learning Grid
(Invited by Becta)
UK
Marco Meurink Ontwikkelcentrum The Netherlands
Manuela Lara Santillana Educación Spain
Paul Sire sDae Spain
Leonne Leurink SLO The Netherlands
Wim de Boer SLO The Netherlands
Jean-Luc Barras Swiss Agency for ICT in Education (CTIE) Switzerland
Mart Laanpere Tallinn University/EENET Estonia/European Network
Martin Sillaots Tallinn University Estonia
Aimur Liiva TLF Estonia
Triin Kangur TLF Estonia
Anne-Marie Pedersen UNI•C Denmark
Leo Højsholt-Poulsen UNI•C Denmark
Michael Viskum UNI•C Denmark
Tommy Byskov Lund UNI•C Denmark
Iztok Kavkler UNI-LJ-FMF Slovenia
Matija Lokar UNI-LJ-FMF Slovenia
Susana Leitão University of Porto
(potential associated member)
Portugal
Stian Berger utdanning.no Norway
Christian Komonen Vetamix Finland