Interoperability on e-Learning 2.0: the PEACE Case Study

Abstract. The confluence of education with the evolution of technology boosted the paradigm shift of the face-to-face learning to distance learning. In this scenario e-Learning plays an essential role as a facilitator of the teaching/learning process. However new demands associated with the new Web paradigm require that existent e-Learning environments characterized mostly by monolithic systems begin interacting with new specialized services. In this decentralized scenario the definition of a strategy of interoperability is the cornerstone to ensure the standardization communication among systems. This paper presents a definition of an interoperability strategy for an e-Learning environment at our School (ESEIG) called PEACE – Project for ESEIG Academic Content Environment. This new interoperability model relies on the application of several coordination and integration standards on several services, controlled by teachers and students, and included in the PEACE environment such as social networks, repositories, libraries, e-portfolios, intelligent tutors, recommendation systems and virtual classrooms.

Keywords: Interoperability, E-Learning, Web2.0.

1 Introduction

In the last decades the evolution of e-Learning systems was impressive. In the early times the e-Learning environments were characterized by silo applications developed for specific learning domains and with no support for content and interoperability standards. Then, new systems appeared featuring reusable tools that can be effectively used virtually in any e-Learning course. This is the case of the Learning Management Systems (LMS) that, nowadays, plays a central role in any e-Learning architecture.

These systems based around pluggable components, led to oversized systems that are difficult to reconvert to new trends such as the integration of heterogeneous services based on semantic information or the automatic adaptation of services to users (both teachers and learners). These new demands triggered the appearance of a new generation of e-Learning platforms based on services aiming to facilitate the systems’ integration in different scenarios [1]. This new approach provides the basis for Service Oriented Architectures (SOA).

The motivation for this work comes from research made by the PIGeCo (Integrated Projects for Content Management) research group at ESEIG and reinforced by a survey [2] conducted by a group of teachers of several schools of the Polytechnic Institute of Porto (where ESEIG belongs) within a study to gauge the Internet usage habits of our students. The aim of this study was to know the Internet usage habits of the Portuguese Higher Education students, in order to select the suitable tools and techniques in the teaching-learning process. Based on the survey and in several case studies [3,4,25] of ESEIG and others educational institutions we obtained the basis for

the PEACE system architecture [5]. The objective of the PEACE environment is to integrate a set of services such as repositories, social networks, intelligent tutors and recommendation systems to potentiate the learner experience and to improve the process of teaching/learning in ESEIG.

This paper presents our interoperability strategy to face the heterogeneity of services proposed in the PEACE environment. The purpose of this paper is to present our approach to address the issues underlying the communication and information sharing and to share specific good practices and recommendations, based on standards-based solutions.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: section 2 focuses on the interoperability levels regarding the communication and information sharing among services in an educational environment. In the following section we present the system architecture for our e-Learning environment at ESEIG, more precisely, its main components and interoperability model. Finally, we conclude with a summary of the major contributions of this paper and future work in this project.

2 Interoperability levels

In recent years customers demand for interoperability solutions, driven mostly by the need to cut costs and to maximize return on investments given the current economic situation [6]. At the same time, education practitioners increasingly prefer the adoption of new standards for the interchange of learning objects and learners' information boosting content sharing, interoperability and reusability in e-Learning systems. Based on this assumption, several organizations (e.g. ADL, IMS GLC, IEEE) have been developing recently specifications and standards [7] for e-Learning content [8-10] and communication [11-12].

Regarding the standardization of e-Learning content, the concept of learning object is indisputable. Learning Objects (LO) are units of instructional content that can be used, and most of all reused, on web based e-Learning systems. They encapsulate a collection of interdependent files (HTML files, images, web scripts, style sheets) with a manifest containing metadata. This metadata is important for classifying and searching LO in digital repositories and for making effective use of their content in LMS and other e-Learning systems.

The most widely used standard for LO is the IMS Content Packaging (IMS CP). This content packaging specification uses an XML manifest file wrapped with other resources inside a zip file. The manifest includes the IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM) standard to describe the learning resources included in the package. The LOM standard is being used in several e-Learning projects all over the world [13]. IMS CP was designed to be straightforward to extend, meeting the needs of a target user community through the creation of application profiles. When applied to metadata the term application profile generally refers to "the adaptation, constraint, and/or augmentation of a metadata scheme to suit the needs of a particular community" [14]. A well know e-Learning application profile is SCORM [15] that extends IMS CP with more sophisticated sequencing and Contents-to-LMS communication.

Recently, IMS GLC proposed the IMS Common Cartridge [16] that bundles the

previous specifications and its main goal is to organize and distribute digital learning content.

Regarding the standardization of communication appeared in recent years, initiatives often called e-Learning frameworks, to adapt SOA to e-Learning and aiming to provide flexible learning environments for learners worldwide. They are characterized by providing a set of open interfaces to several reusable services organized in genres or layers and combined in service usage models. Other e-Learning interoperability initiatives (e.g. NSDL, POOL, OKI, EduSource, IMS DRI, IMS LTI) also appeared in the last decade to fulfill the specific need of e-Learning systems.

The IMS Global Learning Consortium (IMS GLC) has been a very active organization in this context. Two of the most popular communication specifications are the IMS Digital Repositories Interoperability (IMS DRI) specification for repositories and the IMS Learning Tools Interoperability (IMS LTI) specification for manage links between general e-Learning systems.

The IMS DRI provides general recommendations for repository functions, namely the submission, search and download of LOs. It recommends the use of web services to expose the repository functions based on the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) protocol, defined by W3C. Due to their growing popularity other web service interface flavours such as Representational State Transfer (REST) since it will improve interoperability with systems that adhere to a more simple and informal style of development.

The IMS LTI provides a uniform standards-based extension point in LMS allowing remote tools and content to be integrated into the LMS. The main goal of the LTI is to standardize the process for building links between learning tools and the LMS. There are several benefits from using this approach: educational institutions, LMS vendors and tool providers by adhering to a clearly defined interface between the LMS and the tool, will decrease costs, increases options for students and instructors when selecting learning applications and also potentiates the use of software as a service (SaaS).

3 PEACE architecture

In this section we present the design of the e-Learning environment called PEACE. The objective of the PEACE environment is to integrate a set of services such as repositories, social networks, intelligent tutors and recommendation systems to potentiate the learner experience and to improve the process of teaching/learning in ESEIG, a school of the Polytechnic Institute of Porto. The architecture of the system is depicted in figure 1.

Fig.

In the following subsections we detail the PEACE Core components and the Social Services of the architecture since they are in aWe also present our interoperability strategy for these components exposing the specifications and standards adopted.

3.1 PEACE Core

The LMS occupies a central position in the proposed architecture, since is currentlythe natural place where students and teachers communicate. web-based environment that enables communication and interaction with and among students. Teachers play the role of facilitator and mentor of the learning process through the educational contentprogress, who can plan their learning and collaborate between them

The LMS is fed by a digital repository that gathers information of several other systems such as libraries, esystems, and others. The set of applications that fed the repository have contributions of many different players like teachers, researchers, students, academics, librarians, professionals, etc. Teachers cafocusing to their specific

A repository of learning obelectronic objects and metarepositories is growing as more educators are eager to use digital educational contents and more of it is available.

The appropriated metadata descriptions of the together to form lessons and courseslevels of granularity. The clip, a simulation, a three dimensional image, a Java applet or any other object that might be used for online learning

Fig. 1. PEACE system architecture (adapted from [5]).

In the following subsections we detail the PEACE Core components and the Social Services of the architecture since they are in a more advanced phase of the projectWe also present our interoperability strategy for these components exposing the specifications and standards adopted.

e LMS occupies a central position in the proposed architecture, since is currentlythe natural place where students and teachers communicate. The LMS provides a

based environment that enables communication and interaction with and among students. Teachers play the role of facilitator and mentor of the learning process

ucational content publication, monitoring and analysis of progress, who can plan their learning and collaborate between them [17].

The LMS is fed by a digital repository that gathers information of several other systems such as libraries, e-Conference systems, intelligent tutors, recommendation systems, and others. The set of applications that fed the repository have contributions of many different players like teachers, researchers, students, academics, librarians,

Teachers can also add new content directly to the repository specific courses.

A repository of learning objects (LO) can be defined as a system that stores electronic objects and meta-data about those objects [18]. The need for this kind of

ries is growing as more educators are eager to use digital educational contents and more of it is available.

The appropriated metadata descriptions of the LOs permits assembled together to form lessons and courses, as modular units, interoperating at different levels of granularity. The LO can be a simple text document, a photograph, a video

a three dimensional image, a Java applet or any other object that might be used for online learning.

In the following subsections we detail the PEACE Core components and the Social more advanced phase of the project.

We also present our interoperability strategy for these components exposing the

e LMS occupies a central position in the proposed architecture, since is currently The LMS provides a

based environment that enables communication and interaction with and among students. Teachers play the role of facilitator and mentor of the learning process

publication, monitoring and analysis of student’s

The LMS is fed by a digital repository that gathers information of several other rence systems, intelligent tutors, recommendation

systems, and others. The set of applications that fed the repository have contributions of many different players like teachers, researchers, students, academics, librarians,

n also add new content directly to the repository

system that stores . The need for this kind of

ries is growing as more educators are eager to use digital educational contents

assembled them , as modular units, interoperating at different a simple text document, a photograph, a video

a three dimensional image, a Java applet or any other object that

The Jorum Team made a comprehensive survey and noticed that most of these systems do not store actual learning objects, they just store meta-data describing LOs, including pointers to their locations on the Web.repository collects the LOs and the correspondent describing meta

To exploit the new web paradigm, the LMS interacts also with new Web 2.0 services. These services are well known by the students as they use it quite often in other contexts [2].

3.2 Social Services

The use of Web 2.0 applications in Education enables improvements[19]:

• More interaction between teachers and students, without the usual constraints in face-to-face relationships;

• More students’ participation in course units (CU)• Improvement in research, stud, writing and discussion of subjects.These benefits were confirmed through an educational experiment carried out

which followed the work

Fig. 2 - Methodology used in carrying out activities in Moodle

This strategy also promotes a regular exchange of experiences, creating an ad

learning community or community of practice But the use of web

especially assessment, because it is not services and the content created [23]:

• The service can be stopped at any time (possibly without any announcement) and this result in the loss of the content publ

• The service that was free become charged;

Jorum Team made a comprehensive survey [18] of the existing repositories and noticed that most of these systems do not store actual learning objects, they just

data describing LOs, including pointers to their locations on the Web.y collects the LOs and the correspondent describing meta-data.

To exploit the new web paradigm, the LMS interacts also with new Web 2.0 services. These services are well known by the students as they use it quite often in

The use of Web 2.0 applications in Education enables improvements in several areas

More interaction between teachers and students, without the usual constraints face relationships;

More students’ participation in course units (CU) activities available in LMS;Improvement in research, stud, writing and discussion of subjects.

These benefits were confirmed through an educational experiment carried out work methodology presented in Fig. 2 [17].

Methodology used in carrying out activities in Moodle

This strategy also promotes a regular exchange of experiences, creating an adlearning community or community of practice [20, 21].

But the use of web-based services poses difficulties in learning and teaching, especially assessment, because it is not possible to ensure the availability of the services and the content created [22]. These are some of the problems that may occur

The service can be stopped at any time (possibly without any announcement) and this result in the loss of the content published an not backed up; The service that was free become charged;

of the existing repositories and noticed that most of these systems do not store actual learning objects, they just

data describing LOs, including pointers to their locations on the Web. This

To exploit the new web paradigm, the LMS interacts also with new Web 2.0 services. These services are well known by the students as they use it quite often in

in several areas

More interaction between teachers and students, without the usual constraints

activities available in LMS;

These benefits were confirmed through an educational experiment carried out

This strategy also promotes a regular exchange of experiences, creating an ad-hoc

based services poses difficulties in learning and teaching, possible to ensure the availability of the

. These are some of the problems that may occur

The service can be stopped at any time (possibly without any announcement)

• Reduced regulation by the teacher;• Possible dispersion of the content.To reduce this inconvenient, PEACE

Web 2.0 applications, as Fig. 1 shows,way, ensures the preservation of the content published.

The PEACE Social Services provide an environment that allows students to create and configure their personal learning environments (PLE) and eto each of the CUs attended (interaction with LMS Moodle, created contentactivities, relationship with peers and teachers, etc.). The student can enrich his/her PLE with external content from Internet and with material not necessarily relacademic activity (e.g. personal data, resume, etc.) thus preparing the process of entering the labor market.can be represented by Fig.

Fig. 3

These PEACE Social Services are based in a Mahara implementation, integrated with LMS Moodle. This integration is done through the M

The completed environment creinto other platforms since Mahara includes an import/export facility that supports LEAP2A protocol [24]

3.3 Interoperability strategy

In order to face the heterogeneity of services proposed in the PEACE environment it is important to define, in the design/model phase, aunderlying systems. These strategies will

Reduced regulation by the teacher; Possible dispersion of the content.

To reduce this inconvenient, PEACE architecture include the implementation of , as Fig. 1 shows, inside the infrastructure of ESEIG and

, ensures the preservation of the content published. The PEACE Social Services provide an environment that allows students to create

and configure their personal learning environments (PLE) and e-portfolios, to each of the CUs attended (interaction with LMS Moodle, created contentactivities, relationship with peers and teachers, etc.). The student can enrich his/her PLE with external content from Internet and with material not necessarily relacademic activity (e.g. personal data, resume, etc.) thus preparing the process of entering the labor market. The activity between these Social Services and the Core

Fig. 3 [22].

3 – Integration of PLE, E-Portfolio and LMS [22]

These PEACE Social Services are based in a Mahara implementation, integrated with LMS Moodle. This integration is done through the Moodle Portfolio API.

The completed environment created by the student can be exported and integrated into other platforms since Mahara includes an import/export facility that supports

[24].

Interoperability strategy

the heterogeneity of services proposed in the PEACE environment it is important to define, in the design/model phase, an interoperability strategy for the

These strategies will beneficiate:

architecture include the implementation of side the infrastructure of ESEIG and, in this

The PEACE Social Services provide an environment that allows students to create according

to each of the CUs attended (interaction with LMS Moodle, created content in CU activities, relationship with peers and teachers, etc.). The student can enrich his/her PLE with external content from Internet and with material not necessarily related with academic activity (e.g. personal data, resume, etc.) thus preparing the process of

The activity between these Social Services and the Core

These PEACE Social Services are based in a Mahara implementation, integrated oodle Portfolio API.

ted by the student can be exported and integrated into other platforms since Mahara includes an import/export facility that supports

the heterogeneity of services proposed in the PEACE environment it interoperability strategy for the

• the selection of the appropriate tools based ostandards;

• the communication• the adoption of good practices by readers facing similar problems

The interoperability strategy is organized at two levels: content and communication. For each level a set of specifications/standards is presented and based on their support a set of tools is identify as good candidates to be included in the PEACE environment. Notice that other criteria will be used to select tools and to potentiate communication among systems such as availability, cost, maturity, security, development effort and communication type. However due to page size limitations only the standardization study is presented on this paper.select to base the communication among the LMS and the repository and the social services.

Table 1. Content level interoperability

System types LMS

LMS Repository IMS CCE-Portfolio Leap2ASocial Network RSS/AtomBlog/Wiki RSS/Atom

The communication between the LMS and the repository will rely on the IMS CC specification. Its main goal is to organize and distribute digital learning IMS CC package can be organized hierarchically in four levels as depicted Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

In the lower layer the content is distributed within the cartridge and stored in the LMS database. Examples of such resources are HTML or PDF files or even image files

the selection of the appropriate tools based on the support of emergent

communication and information sharing among systems; the adoption of good practices by readers facing similar problems.

The interoperability strategy is organized at two levels: content and communication. level a set of specifications/standards is presented and based on their support

a set of tools is identify as good candidates to be included in the PEACE environment. Notice that other criteria will be used to select tools and to potentiate communication among systems such as availability, cost, maturity, security, development effort and communication type. However due to page size limitations only the standardization study is presented on this paper. In Table 1 we present some of the content standards

base the communication among the LMS and the repository and the social

Content level interoperability.

LMS Repository E-Portfolio Social Network

Blog/Wiki

IMS CC Leap2A RSS/Atom RSS/AtomIMS CC Leap2A

RSS/Atom RSS/Atom

The communication between the LMS and the repository will rely on the IMS CC specification. Its main goal is to organize and distribute digital learning content. The IMS CC package can be organized hierarchically in four levels as depicted Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 – Common Cartridge Content Hierarchy.

In the lower layer the content is distributed within the cartridge and stored in the LMS database. Examples of such resources are HTML or PDF files or even image files

n the support of emergent

The interoperability strategy is organized at two levels: content and communication. level a set of specifications/standards is presented and based on their support

a set of tools is identify as good candidates to be included in the PEACE environment. Notice that other criteria will be used to select tools and to potentiate communication among systems such as availability, cost, maturity, security, development effort and communication type. However due to page size limitations only the standardization

we present some of the content standards base the communication among the LMS and the repository and the social

Blog/Wiki

RSS/Atom

The communication between the LMS and the repository will rely on the IMS CC content. The

IMS CC package can be organized hierarchically in four levels as depicted Fig. 4.

In the lower layer the content is distributed within the cartridge and stored in the LMS database. Examples of such resources are HTML or PDF files or even image files

with the JPG/PNG/GIF formats. Moving up the pyramid follows the content accessed at runtime though an URL (weblinks). This approach allows the cartridge to minimize its storage space and to have content updates after distribution. The next level is occupied by the XML content. In this layer we stress the use of QTI to describe specialized questions and tests. In the top of the pyramid comes the IMS LTI specification. In this context, the content can be an application still supporting results for tracking. In Table 2 we present some of the communication standards select to base the communication among the LMS and the repository and the social services.

Table 2. Communication level interoperability.

System types LMS Repository E-Portfolio Social Network

Blog/Wiki

LMS Repository API

Portfolio API

OpenSocial OpenSocial

Repository IMS DRI/LTI E-Portfolio IMS Portfolio Social Network OpenSocial Blog/Wiki OpenSocial

The communication between the LMS and the repository and the e-Portfolio system relies on the APIs (Fig. 5) founded in the new Moodle version (v. 2.0 released in November 2010) that aims to enable the development of plug-ins by third parties to access repositories and portfolios, such as: Repository API for browsing and retrieving files from external repositories; Portfolio API for exporting Moodle content to external repositories.

Fig. 5. Moodle Repository and Portfolio APIs.

These two APIs are based on the File API - a set of core interfaces to allow

Moodle to manage access control, store and retrieve files. The new File API aims to enhance file handling by avoiding redundant storage, when the same file is used twice. Using Moodle 2.0 File API every file is saved into a file pool (a directory in moodle data) with a filename that is calculated as a SHA1 hash of the file content. If a file is copied (e.g. course cloning) no file duplication happens, just a new record in a special table of files is created.

Two other emergent specifications stress in Table 2: the IMS LTI and the OpenSocial API. The IMS Learning Tools Interoperability provides a uniform standards-based extension point in LMS allowing remote tools and content to be integrated into LMSs. This approach is a good alternative to the Repository/Portfolio APIs since it is not tightly connected to the Moodle adoption. The OpenSocial API is the new trend for connecting social networks to other systems and defines a common API for social applications across multiple websites. With standard JavaScript and HTML, developers can create apps that access a social network's friends and update feeds. Several social network support this API such as HI5, LinkedIn, MySpace,

Netlog, Ning, orkut, and Yahoo! Some of these social services can be usefulness in the educational context to gauge student’s attention and potentiate the teaching/learning process.

4 Conclusion and future work

This paper presented an e-Learning environment called PEACE, whose aim is to integrate a set of applications (such as repositories, intelligent tutors, recommendation systems and virtual classrooms) and social services (such as social networks, blogs, wikis and e-portfolios), to potentiate the learner experience and to improve the process of teaching and learning. The paper focused on the PEACE architecture, its components and interoperability strategy to face the heterogeneity of services proposed in the PEACE.

The interoperability strategy outlined in this study is guided by the recently specifications and standards for e-Learning content and communication interoperability levels, providing a set of recommendations to base the design and modeling phase of the PEACE project. For each interoperability level, a set of specifications and standards was presented and a set of tools was identified as potential candidates to be included in the PEACE environment.

This study will help the authors to select the appropriate tools based on the support of emergent standards and to potentiate the communication and information sharing among systems.

Future work will focuses on the modeling and implementation phases of PEACE environment, followed by the system evaluation.

References

1. Leal, J., Queirós, R.: e-Learning Frameworks: a survey, in International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain (2010).

2. Babo, R., Lopes, C., Rodrigues, A., Pinto, M., Queirós, R., Oliveira, P.: Gender Differences in Internet Usage Habits – A Case Study in Higher Education, 14th IBIMA Conference - International Business Information Management Association, Istanbul, Turkey (2010).

3. Gras M.: Internet Usage and Digital Divide Among Spanish University Students. In: Revista Media e Jornalismo, vol. 14 (8), Nº 1 - A EUROPA E OS MEDIA (2005).

4. Misko, J., Choi, J., Hong, S., Lee, I.: E-learning in Australia and Korea: Learning from Practice, Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education &Training (2004) [online], http://www.ncver.edu.au/research/core/cp0306.pdf.

5. Queirós, R., Oliveira, L., Pinto, M., Silva, C.: Towards e-Learning 2.0: Case Study of an e-Learning Environment. In: Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on e-Learning, pp. 812-815 (2010).

6. [IAC] Interoperability Strategy: Concepts, Challenges, and Recommendations. Industry Advisory Council (IAC) Enterprise Architecture SIG. Concept Level White Paper Developed for the Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office, FEA-PMO (2003).

7. Friesen, N.: Interoperability and Learning Objects: An Overview of E-Learning Standardization. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects (2005).

8. IMS-CP – IMS Content Packaging, Information Model, Best Practice and Implementation Guide, Version 1.1.3 Final Specification IMS Global Learning Consortium Inc. (2010) [online], http://www.imsglobal.org/content/packaging.

9. IMS-Metadata - IMS MetaData. Information Model, Best Practice and Implementation Guide, Version 1.2. Final Specification IMS Global Learning Consortium Inc. [online], http://www.imsglobal.org/metadata.

10. IMS-QTI - IMS Question and Test Interoperability. Information Model, Best Practice and Implementation Guide, Version 1.2.1. Final Specification IMS Global Learning Consortium Inc. [online], http://www.imsglobal.org/question/index.html.

11. IMS DRI - IMS Digital Repositories Interoperability - Core Functions Information Model. [online], http://www.imsglobal.org/digitalrepositories/driv1p0/imsdri_infov1p0.html.

12. Simon, B., Massart, D., van Assche, F., Ternier, S., Duval, E., Brantner, S., Olmedilla, D., Miklos, Z.: A Simple Query Interface for Interoperable Learning Repositories. In: Proceedings of the WWW 2005 Conference (2006). [online] http://nm.wu-wien.ac.at/e-learning/interoperability/www2005-workshop-sqi-2005-04-14.pdf

13. Godby, C.: What Do Application Profiles Reveal about the Learning Object Metadata Standard? Ariadne Article in e-Learning Standards (2004).

14. IMS Application Profile Guidelines Overview, Part 1 - Management Overview, Version 1.0. [online], http://www.imsglobal.org/ap/apv1p0/imsap_oviewv1p0.html.

15. ADL SCORM. [online], http://www.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm 16.IMS Common Cartridge Profile, Version 1.0, Final Specification. [online],

http://www.imsglobal.org/cc/ccv1p0/imscc_profilev1p0.html 17. Oliveira, L., Moreira, F.: Use of Web Social as a Supplement to Learning in Higher

Education - a Case Study. In: M. P. Cota (Ed.), Proceedings of the IIIrd Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies, vol I, pp. 51-62 (2008).

18. Holden, C.: What We Mean When We Say “Repositories”. User Expectations of Repository Systems, Academic ADL Co-Lab (2004).

19. Oliveira, L., Moreira, F.: Integration of Web 2.0 applications and content management systems on personal learning environments. In: A. Rocha, C. F. Sexto, L. P. Reis, & M. P. Cota (Eds.), Sistemas y Tecnologías de Información - Actas de la 5ª Conferencia Ibérica de Sistemas y Tecnologías de Información, CISTI2010, pp. 45-49 (2010).

20. Downes, S.: E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine (2005). [online], http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1

21. O'Hear, S.: e-learning 2.0 - how Web technologies are shaping education (2006). [online], http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/e-learning_20.php

22. Oliveira, L., Moreira, F.: Personal Learning Environments: Integration of Web 2.0 Applications and Content Management Systems. In: Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM 2010, vol. 2, pp. 1171-1177 (2010b).

23. Franklin, T., Van Harmelen, M.: Web 2.0 for content for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. JISC (2007). [online], http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/digitalrepositories/web2-content-learning-and-teaching.pdf

24. JISC-CETIS. PIOP Mahara – CETISwiki (2010). [online], http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/PIOP_Mahara

25. Oliveira, L., Moreira, F.: Teaching and Learning with Social Software in Higher Education - Content Management Systems integrated with Web-based applications as a key factor for success. In: Proceedings of International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, ICERI 2008, Madrid, Spain (2008).