The UNIVERSAL brokerage platform consists of various engines providing ..... serves as a first-level help desk in case of course-related questions. It collects ...
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
UNIVERSAL - Design Spaces of Learning Media Susanne Guth, Gustaf Neumann, Bernd Simon Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration Department of Information Systems, New Media E-mail: {Susanne.Guth, Gustaf.Neumann, Bernd.Simon}@wu-wien.ac.at
1.2. THE UNIVERSAL PLATFORM ARCHI-
Abstract
TECTURE
This paper illustrates how the model of computational media can be introduced in the field of higher education. In our practical work, we identified four distinct design spaces for learning media and named them as follows: artifact design space, agent design space, process design space, and business model design space. We have applied the design space approach in the UNIVERSAL project, an open, pan-European brokerage platform for learning resources. The UNIVERSAL initiative served as a reference project illustrating how issues can be addressed in these areas. We also emphasize the importance of a media acceptance model as part of the business model design space.
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. THE NEED FOR LEARNING MEDIA The Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration is a participant in the European UNIVERSAL initiative, which aims to develop an open business-to-business platform for the exchange of learning resources among higher education (HE) institutions over the next three years. The electronic brokerage platform promises improvements in the quality of teaching through increased competition and the ability to choose from a pool of learning resources. Since not all institutions can provide top experts in all areas of instruction, UNIVERSAL supports the interchange of expertise among the participating institutions, which enables them to enrich their course offerings [1, 2]. Moreover, HE institutions can become more effective in developing courses (e.g., UNIVERSAL provides quality control through assessment data). Knowledge management can be introduced, especially if learning resource-associated data, e.g., teaching assessment data, student assessment data and accreditation records, are stored on the platform [1]. By doing so, a teaching organization evolves into a learning organization. In addition, course development costs also decrease, since course instructors will be able to access previously developed material instantaneously, thus shortening the production time of learning resources [1].
The main purpose of UNIVERSAL is the exchange of learning resources among HE institutions. Based on the IEEE Learning Objects Metadata (LOM) standard [3], four aggregation levels of learning resources are introduced: course, unit, lesson, and fragment. A course is defined as a set of units or lessons contributing to one learning goal and lasting not longer than one semester or term. Courses can be organized in units, which in turn consist of individual lessons. A full course description does not always have to consist of units, it can also be based on lessons. A lesson is part of a course or a unit which does not necessarily have to be offered in UNIVERSAL as well. Lessons can consist of multiple fragments, which are also referred to as supporting material. The platform supports synchronous as well as asynchronous material. The following examples of learning resources are taken from the preliminary version of the UNIVERSAL catalog: • a live session of a course in international marketing dealing with a Levi Strauss case study (aggregation level: lesson; delivery mode: synchronous); • PowerPoint slides, exercises, and a term project description supporting an introductory course in information technology (aggregation level: fragment; delivery mode: asynchronous), or • a web-based training application instructing ophthalmologists on how to diagnose patients (aggregation level: unit; delivery mode: asynchronous). The UNIVERSAL brokerage platform consists of various engines providing services to users and external information systems such as knowledge servers, delivery systems, and assessment systems. The term engine is used to denote an application which has a set of services implemented, providing an interface to other applications. The administration engine, for example, maintains a logging depository. Its main operational objective is to keep track of changes in UNIVERSAL data resources. The user profile engine is in charge of user administration, including user registration and cancellation. The engine is in charge of creating and maintaining user profiles and ensuring user authentication. When it comes to the provision of learning resources, the learning resource metadata engine handles the storage and processing of learning resource-related data.
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
1
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
The learning resource metadata engine is also in charge of handling requests for learning resources. On the one hand, the platform has to perform tasks similar to those of a search engine, allowing users to enter queries and browse catalogs of learning resources. On the other hand, the platform supports community-building pushservices to keep instructors informed about recently published learning resources in a particular discipline, e.g., via e-mail. The contract engine is involved in the process of making offers (i.e. specifying terms & conditions), matching offers with requests, booking and preparing the basis for delivery. During these transactions, the platform has to handle tasks such as user authentication, transaction supervision, and billing. The contract engine will evolve from a "dummy" system (in which learning resource provision is equivalent to placing an offer and learning resource requests are equivalent to booking) into a complex system allowing providers and prospective consumers to specify several parameters such as price, copyright restrictions, duration, etc. The delivery engine coordinates the delivery of booked learning resources from the provider to the consumer. The engine will support both the asynchronous and synchronous modes of delivery. Throughout the development of a platform such as UNIVERSAL, a number of media-specific issues arise. We have identified four distinct design spaces which have to be addressed when learning media are developed. Section II gives a short overview of the media model and an abstract description of the design spaces. The representations of the design spaces in UNIVERSAL are introduced in Section III. .
2. APPLYING THE MEDIA CONCEPT IN THE FIELD OF HIGHER EDUCATION 2.1. THE COMPUTATIONAL MEDIA MODEL The media model [4] provides the theoretical framework for this paper and is applied to the field of higher education. In the terminology of the media model, we refer to learning media as systems which enable interaction within a community for the purpose of supporting learning processes. Examples of learning media include UNIVERSAL, the Virtual University at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration
Curriculum Creation
Content Development
(vu.wu-wien.ac.at), the e-learning initiative at Deutsche Telekom (www.globallearning.de), the fathom.com initiative, the MCM Institute's NetAcademy at the University of St. Gallen (www.netacademy.org), the ARIADNE project (ariadne.unil.ch) and many others. Agents of learning media are considered to be proactive, autonomous entities which are capable of processing information [5]. They can be human beings or intelligent software systems acting on behalf of human beings. Moreover, human beings can either act as individuals or on behalf of an HE institution. The community of agents participating in a learning medium is referred to as a learning community. An organizational system described via roles and protocols controls the interaction among agents. Learning resources are artifacts stored on the platform. Learning resources and other learning resource-related artifacts, such as assessment data, contracts and transaction logs are described by a common syntax and semantics referred to as logical space.
2.2. LEARNING MEDIA DESIGN SPACES We define design space as a system design component that incorporates both an organizational and a technological perspective. Instances of these system components are interchangeable objects which can be "glued" together flexibly in order to meet the requirements of an easily adaptable system (see Figure 2). When designing learning media, the following four distinct design spaces can be identified: • artifact design space • agent design space • process design space • business model design space. These design spaces have been derived from an analysis of the literature on computational (learning) media [5, 6, 7]. However, [8], for example, identifies users, user interface, organizational integration, IT infrastructure and content as design components of a learning medium. Whereas the user design component is equivalent to the agent design space, the organizational integration design component to the process design space, and the content design component to the artifact design space, the user interface and IT infrastructure might suggest new design spaces. Therefore, the user interface and IT infrastructure system design components are not consid-
Learning Delivery
Teaching Assessment
Credentialing
Figure 1: Generic Value Chain for Delivering Education
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
2
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
ered to be design spaces in the sense of the definition in this paper, since no organizational design component is provided.
Business Model Design Space Process Design Space Agent Design Space
Artifact Design Space
Figure 2: Design Spaces
In the artifact design space, issues such as defining a common syntax for describing artifacts and solving semantic interoperability problems among heterogeneous types of agents and artifacts have to be solved. Decisions regarding the flexibility of the system for the description of a variety of artifacts are made (e.g., whereas UNIVERSAL uses a flexible representation of the artifact design space that allows easy alteration of namespaces, ARIADNE [24] is based on a hard-coded representation of the artifact design space). The agent design space defines the roles supported by a learning medium and describes a set of interactions undertaken by agents acting in these roles. A learning medium can support roles such as learner, course instructor, teaching assistant, evaluator, administrator, etc. The representation of this design space is based on the strategic decision (à see business model design space) as to whether a learning media is considered a businessto-business, business-to-consumer, or consumer-to-consumer medium. The process design space links roles, interactions and artifacts. The value chain supported by a learning medium is the basis of process design. When a learning medium is designed, the supported value chain elements have to be identified. These elements can be picked from a generic value chain [9, 1, 10]. The value chain, which is illustrated in Figure 1, starts with curriculum development, where strategic decisions regarding the target audience, course structure and instructional design are made. This is followed by content development. In the information age, this value-chain element is increasingly becoming a "make or buy" decision. UNIVERSAL contributes to this trend. Learning delivery deals with holding lectures, referring to course books and/or online material, carrying out exercises, student grading, etc. Once learning delivery has taken place (at least in part), teaching assessment might follow. The credentials process deals with the accreditation
and licensing of the curricula and can also take place in advance. A business model is defined as an architecture for product, service and information flows, including a description of the various actors and their roles, a description of the potential benefits for the various business actors and a description of the sources of revenue [11]. Thus the business model design space addresses issues such as who runs the platform, how do users benefit, and how can a sustainable revenue stream be generated. The business model design space is strongly linked to the design of an adequate media acceptance model. The media acceptance model identifies factors influencing the acceptance of learning media. The business model addresses these influencing factors in order to attain a sustainable level of acceptance of the media among agents. The implementation of an adequate business model design space is crucial for the sustainability of a learning community.
3. DESIGN SPACE REPRESENTATION IN UNIVERSAL In the process of designing the UNIVERSAL learning medium, four distinct design spaces have to be addressed: the artifact design space, the agent design space, the process design space, and the business model design space. The remainder of this section is organized as follows: Section 3.1 describes the agent design space of UNIVERSAL. The artifact design space is introduced in Section 3.2., and Section 3.3 covers the process design space, giving the reader a glimpse at how UNIVERSAL supports the learning media value chain. Finally, we describe the business model design space of UNIVERSAL and illustrate the importance of a media acceptance model in Section 3.4.
3.1. THE AGENT DESIGN SPACE UNIVERSAL supports various roles, each of which is described in the following paragraphs. These roles may be applied to individuals, software agents, HE institutions, or stakeholders in HE institutions. Four generic types of roles can be identified [12, 13, 14]: • learning resource providers • learning resource consumers • pedagogical supporters • technical supporters. Learning resource providers include individuals such as course instructors, teaching assistants, coaches, moderators, lecturers, and learners. At the same time, course instructors can also become learning resource consumers in the same way that learners do. In addition, learning resource consumers can either be learners pursuing a degree at an associated HE institution, or independent
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
3
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
vided. The agent may also add metadata automatically. Teaching assistants support the course instructor throughout the distribution process. They might offer virtual office hours via the platform as well as other learning resource-related services such as reviewing papers. A coach, a special type of teaching assistant, serves as a motivator. The agent also supports the course instructor during interaction-intensive periods of the course. A coach provides feedback on assignments and serves as a first-level help desk in case of course-related questions. It collects feedback and forwards it to the course instructor (in aggregated form). Moderators, another type of teaching assistant, encourage discussion on discussion lists, asking and answering course-related questions. Lecturers contribute to the course by holding lectures. A learner profiler is in charge of assessing and maintaining each learner's profile. The agent has to request background information on the learner and document achievements in learning process. Depending on the way a learning medium is integrated into the various HE institutions, additional roles can arise, including the role of a learning resource evaluator, an agent that evaluates learning resources and teaching processes. Moreover, the agent evaluates the quality and quantity of the contributions of learning resource providers and reports back to university and/or platform management. In this context, the agent is in charge of providing rankings. The platform host is in charge of developing and maintaining the underlying platform. This agent evaluates the platform on a regular basis and reacts to market demands. In the case of a complex delivery system, net-
learners (lifelong learners, degree students studying nondegree-related material out of interest, etc.). Pedagogical supporters are responsible for course and curriculum management. These can be agents such as lecture program administrators, content managers, learning resource evaluators, and learner profilers. Technical support is carried out by the platform host, network administrators, and multimedia service providers. In the following paragraphs, the different types of agents mentioned above are described in greater detail. Course instructors are responsible for giving a course at their local HE institution, carrying out tasks such as selecting appropriate course strategies and deciding on instructional design issues. A learning medium supports course instructors in these activities, since they can have a look at similar courses at other HE institutions. Course instructors are supported during the distribution of course material and in accumulating feedback. They are finally responsible for assessing the students' performance and enhancing their motivation for their own learning resources. Course instructors might become learning resource consumers in the process of developing their learning resources. Content requesters search the platform by browsing through a catalog or by submitting text-based queries through a search-engine interface. Course instructors might also participate in the platform in the role of learning resource providers, thereby submitting learning resources to the platform. A content manager takes care of catalog administration and may even inform potential consumers about new course material via e-mail. The content manager is also in charge of verifying the quality of the metadata proUnorderedList (String; 10) LangString UnorderedList (LangString; 10) LangString
gen:catalogue
Date
Vocabulary
String LangString
life:role
gen:entry
OrderedList (Person; 40)
life:date
life:entity UnorderedList (CatalogEntry; 10)
String
gen:language gen:description
UnorderedList (LangString; 10)
gen:title gen:aggregationLevel
String
life:version
life:contribute meta:language tech:format
gen:catalogEntry
gen:keywords
String
UnorderedList (Contribute; 30)
OrderedList (Taxon; 15)
OrderedList (String; 10)
tech:location
LearningResource
univ:ectsCredits
tech:requirements cls:taxonPath Vocabulary UnorderedList UnorderedList tech:type (Requirement; 40) (TaxonType; 15) edu:learningResourceType cls:purpose cls:taxon tech:maximumVersion edu:ypicalLearningTime tech:MinimumVersion edu:context
cls:entry
String
tech:size
univ:integrationInProgram
Number
UnorderedList (Langstring; 40)
edu:intendedEndUserRole
tech:name
String
Vocabulary OrderedList (Vocabulary; 10)
Date LangString UnorderedList (Vocabulary; 10)
String Vocabulary
OrderedList (Vocabulary; 10)
Figure 3: Attributes of a UNVERSAL Learning Resource
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
4
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
work administrators and multimedia service providers may be put in charge of setting up the equipment. Learners use the platform to acquire knowledge. They interact with the course instructor and its/his/her various teaching assistants (coach, moderator, lecturer, profiler). They submit feedback on learning resources, thus they can also become content providers.
3.2. THE ARTIFACT DESIGN SPACE The artifact design space defines the language of the media and provides the ability to describe, categorize, and structure learning resources with universal semantics. It can be defined in both a formal and a technical manner. Learning resources have to be described with structured metadata in order to improve the efficiency of the search engine [15]. The metadata about a learning resource includes elements such as the name of the author, the format of the document or the credit hours earned. The Learning Objects Metadata standard of the IEEE [3] and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative [16] provide the basis for a common language to describe learning resources. The representation of the artifact design space in UNIVERSAL is based on the LOM standard. The LOM standard has already influenced various initiatives, including the IMS Project, a consortium of HE institutions in the USA. IMS defines 19 LOM attributes as core attributes [17]. The Shareable Courseware Object Reference Model, the outcome of a distance education initiative of the US Department of Defense, based its representation of the artifact design space on the LOM Standard [18]. See [19] for a detailed overview of several standardization initiatives in the education industry. LOM suggests nine main categories of attributes: general, life cycle, meta-metadata, technical, educational, rights, relation, annotation and classification. The artifact design space is defined by a subset of these categories and by an additional project-related category of self-defined attributes (called "universal"). 3.2.1. Formal Representation of the Artifact Design Space The formal presentation of the artifact design space is modeled by means of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) [20]. The foundation of RDF is a general model to represent the named properties and property values of resources on the Internet. Figure 3 depicts a UNIVERSAL learning resource as an RDF diagram. A UNIVERSAL learning resource has 28 assigned properties. Each property is described by both a prefix (an abbreviation for the category name) and the attribute name. For example, the LOM category
that contains the general attributes of a learning resource has the prefix "gen" for general. The prefix and the attribute describe a non-ambiguous property of a resource (e.g., gen:title). If a property is not literal but composite, the diagram shows an oval that bears the type name. The type 'LangString,' for example, consists of a language code and the string itself. The attentive reader might notice a lack of other relevant attributes for learning resources, such as the purchase price. In the UNIVERSAL data model, the purchase price is linked to another subject called "offer," to which various learning resources can be assigned. The latest release of the data model is available at http://nm.wu-wien.ac.at/universal/metadata/ 3.2.2. Technical Representation of the Artifact Design Space The Extensible Markup Language (XML) [21] is used to encode the RDF-modeled learning resource metadata on the UNIVERSAL platform. The XML:RDF approach was chosen in order to ensure openness and flexibility in the artifact design space. Openness is required in order to enable efficient data interchange among the various systems along the value chain, such as delivery management systems (e.g., ISABEL [22]), learning resource servers (e.g., ARIADNE [24]), or student modeling agents (e.g., the student assistant agent of the MADE system [23]). On the one hand, the XML:RDF files can be parsed easily by external systems like the ones mentioned above; on the other, RDF triples (i.e. subject, predicate, object sets) provide an effective tool for searching. The XML namespace facility is used to represent the various attribute categories. Figure 4 is a serialization of the RDF schema that defines the namespace "general". An RDF schema defines a set of attributes that can be assigned to a class of resource. Subsequently, this schema is used in a learning resource metadata instance. A learning resource metadata instance is a distinct representation of an artifact, e.g., the metadata description of the Levis Strauss case study. Within the instance, it has to be referenced by an XML namespace declaration. The namespace facility enables a flexible representation of the artifact design space, since namespaces can be adapted easily to an evolving and diverging artifact design space. Like the "general" RDF schema, the remaining categories of attributes are declared as namespaces as well (please refer to http://nm.wu-wien.ac.at/universal/ metadata/ for a complete list of schemas for UNIVERSAL). Figure 5 is an example of a learning resource metadata instance. The learning resource metadata instance describes a learning resource object oriented design and system development. In the metadata instance of Figure 5, a prefix is declared for each namespace that
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
5
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
is utilized to describe a learning resource. Subsequently a description of one learning resource in the XML:RDF syntax follows. LearningResource Defines the Type LearningResource title Title of the Learning Resource catalogueEntries Assigns Catalogue Entries CatalogEntry This Class Assigns CatalogEntries to Learning Resources Catalogue Assigns Catalogue Name entry The Calalogue Entry language Language of Learning Resource description Description of the Learning Resource keywords Keywords of the Learning Resource aggregationLevel Aggregation Level of the Learning Resource
Figure 4: UNIVERSAL RDF Schema "general"
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
6
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
gen:language="en" gen:String="Object Oriented Design and System Development" UNIVERSAL WUW#12356 en en Introduction to the concepts of object-oriented programing object-oriented design software architecture 3 gen:language="en" gen:String="Version 1.0" Author Prof. Gustaf Neumann Susanne Guth 01.12.1999 Publisher Bernd Simon 01.06.2000 de application/pdf 56000 http://nm.wu-wien.ac.at/Lehre/oo1/01-handout.pdf Representation Tool Acrobat Reader 3.0 4.0 Narrative Text Student University Second Cycle University First Cycle 40:00 Discipline en Computer Science en Information Systems 3 3
Figure 5: Learning Resource Metadata Instance
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
7
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
her/his machine. The application takes care of interaction with the UNIVERSAL learning resource metadata engine and requests missing metadata. In Scenario IV, a spider of the UNIVERSAL platform tries to gather learning resources by discovering new resources published on selected sites (e.g., the sites of publishers that have started to extend textbooks using online resources; university web sites; learning portals). The spider automatically contacts the authors of these learning resources and asks them if they are willing to provide these resources to the brokerage platform. The value-chain elements of content development and delivery are supported by the following sequence of subprocesses: annotation, product placement, advertising, agreement, and settlement (see Figure 7). In the case of an asynchronous learning resource, the process of learning resource annotation requires that the learning resource be made available beforehand on an accessible site. Then the provider notifies the platform of the existence of the learning resource. In the case of a synchronous learning resource, the provider proceeds directly with the annotation process. During the annotation process, metadata such as author, title, language, description, objective, typical learning time, intended user role, etc. has to be provided. (Automated) Content Managers supervise this process and ask for extra metadata if required. At the end of the annotation process, the learning medium includes an additional, accessible learning resource. Once a learning resource is annotated, product place-
3.2.3. The Process Design Space UNIVERSAL focuses on the value-chain elements content development and learning delivery in the generic value chain shown in Figure 1. Although UNIVERSAL does not provide any tools for content creation, course instructors can take advantage of UNIVERSAL in the content development stage by acquiring content via the platform and having it delivered to their students. On the other hand, course instructors who want to have their learning resources incorporated into other curricula are likewise supported by the platform. All they have to do is provide a description of their learning resource. One way to provide a learning resource description in UNIVERSAL is by accessing the platform and entering the URL of an asynchronous learning resource. This procedure is illustrated by Scenario I in Figure 6. Future implementations will consider other ways of gathering learning resources and learning resource metadata, as illustrated by the other scenarios in Figure 6. Scenario II depicts a distributed, active learning resource server, such as the kind of knowledge servers provided by ARIADNE [24]. Whenever a learning resource provider uploads content and enters metadata on such a server, the server automatically interacts with the platform's learning resource metadata engine. Scenario III illustrates a Napster-like system in which an application running on the client PC provides server capabilities. Thus the only thing a provider has to do is store learning resources and their metadata in a dedicated directory on Scenario I
learning resource server
Scenario II
1
client
2
learning resource server
UNIVERSAL
1
Scenario III 2
electronic market of learning resources
client-side learning resource server 1
learning resource server
learning resource metadata 2
learning resource
Scenario IV
Figure 6: Scenarios for Learning Resource Provision
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
8
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
Annotation
Learning Resource
Product Placement
Accessible Learning Resource
Advertising
Terms and Conditions
Agreement
Listing
Settlement
Contract
Delivered Learning Resource
Figure 7: UNIVERSAL Value Chain Including Artifacts
ment can be carried out by specifying the relevant terms and conditions. In this process, the conditions under which the learning resource can be bought and used are established and indicated. Providers may offer a learning resource at a specific price or with specific copyright requirements. They may also want to indicate a maximum number of learners. Evaluators can intervene in this process and add additional data such as accreditation information. The next stage is that of advertising, when the learning resource can be found in various catalogs and its annotation and placement data is pushed to users with a matching profile. Potential consumers will find the learning resource by browsing the catalogs and entering search queries. If a buyer is found, an agreement is made. In this process, multimedia service providers can assist the buyer with questions concerning technical delivery requirements. Learning resource-related services from different providers (e.g., tutors who provide coaching sessions on the material) might be bundled into a new, aggregated learning resource at this stage of the value chain. A profiler supports this bundling activity. The result of the agreement stage is a binding contract. Then comes the settlement phase, in which the provider delivers the learning resource or grants access to it. The consumer pays for it, thereby settling the transaction.
3.3. THE BUSINESS MODEL DESIGN SPACE TOWARD A MEDIA ACCEPTANCE MODEL FOR LEARNING COMMUNITIES At the time this paper was written, no clear decision on the UNIVERSAL business model had been made. Therefore, all kinds of revenue streams, such as revenue from advertising on the platform and/or from content, subscriptions, and pay-per-view arrangements are considered valid approaches for funding. The entire process is based on the assumption that faculty members will be willing to contribute to the learning media. Therefore, media acceptance among potential learning resource providers is regarded as a critical success factor for a learning medium. It is the community of agents that constitutes economic value – not the platform [25].
Unfortunately, learning media have faced a number of problems in this area in the past. At the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, for example, instructors are reluctant to provide access to their learning resources via the Virtual University platform, while others report enthusiastic usage [26]. In the summer semester of 2000, learning resources from 48 courses were provided. This accounts for only 3 percent of the potential content (in the summer semester of 2000, 1,896 courses were held at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration). In the spring of 1998, the faculty of York University (Canada) went on a two-month strike because administrators had tried to made the use of computer telecommunications technology mandatory in the delivery of higher education [27]. These examples emphasize the importance of a media acceptance model.
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS This paper illustrates how the media model can be introduced in the field of higher education. We identified four distinct design spaces throughout the process of developing UNIVERSAL, an open, pan-European brokerage platform for learning resources. These design spaces were called the artifact design space, agent design space, process design space, and business model design space. The agent design space of UNIVERSAL was sketched by introducing a list of supported roles. In order to illustrate how issues in the artifact design space are addressed, an XML:RDF-based reference solution was presented. The learning-media value chain illustrated in Section 3.3 addressed issues of the process design space. Finally, the importance of a media acceptance model within the business model design space is stressed; the model will focus on the development of generic media acceptance and an instance representation for UNIVERSAL.
Acknowledgements This work was partly sponsored by the European Commission. We would also like to thank Thomas Enzi and Günter Ernst for their support in developing the arti-
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
9
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
fact design space for UNIVERSAL. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to our reviewers, who provided us with essential feedback which will influence our work on a generic media acceptance model.
References [1]
P. Meier and B. Simon, "Reengineering Undergraduate Teaching by Introducing Internet-based Learning Information Systems," in Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems, vol. 1439-1444, H. R. Hansen, Ed. Vienna: Springer, 2000. [2] J. R. Young, "Moving the Seminar Table to the Computer Screen," The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 46, pp. A33, 2000. [3] O.A., "IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) Learning Object Metadata - Draft Document v3.8, Abruf am 1.2.2000," http://ltsc.ieee.org/ doc/wg12/LOM3.8.html, 1999. [4] Schmid, The Concept of Media. Maastricht: Electronic Markets Workshop Maastricht, 1997. [5] M. Klose and U. Lechner, "Constructing New Media," in Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems, H. R. Hansen, M. Bichler, and H. Mahrer, Eds. Vienna: Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, 2000, pp. 779-786. [6] V. Porak, U. Geissler, and S. Einwiller, "Corporate Media - An approach for corporate community management.," in Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems, H. R. Hansen, M. Bichler, and H. Mahrer, Eds. Vienna: Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, 2000, pp. 771-778. [7] C. P. Hoffmann, M. Klose, U. Lechner, B. F. Schmid, and H.-D. Zimmermann, "Analyse und Modellierung von Geschäftsmedien," in Modellierung '99 Workshop der Gesellschaft für Informatik, März 1999 in Karlsruhe, J. Desel, K. Pohl, and A. Schürr, Eds. Stuttgart, Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1999. [8] B. Simon, "Designing Learning Information Systems to Customer Needs," in Proceedings of the 5th Americas Conference on Information Systems, W. D. Haseman and D. L. Nazareth, Eds. Milwaukee: Association for Information Systems, 1999, pp. 34-37. [9] D. Oblinger and J. Kidwell, "Distance Learning - Are We Being Realistic?," Educause Review, vol. 35, pp. 31-38, 2000. [10] D. Tsichritzis, "Reengineering the University," Communications of the ACM, vol. 42, pp. 93-100, 1999. [11] P. Timmers, "Business Models for Electronic Markets," Electronic Markets, vol. 8, pp. 3-8, 1998. [12] S. Seufert and P. Schubert, "Die NetAcademy als Medium für die Learning Community eines Masterprogramms," in Tagungsband der GeNeMe99 (Gemeinschaften in Neuen Medien), M. Engelien and J. Homann, Eds. Lohmar, Köln: Eul Verlag, 1999, pp. 307328.
[13] A. Geyer-Schulz, M. Hahsler, and G. Schneider, "Virtual University - Ein Überblick," WU-Memo, vol. 1999, pp. 14-17, 1999. [14] A. Geyer-Schulz, M. Hahsler, and G. Schneider, "The Virtual University as a Network Economy," in Proceedings Workshop Unternehmen Hochschule, Informatik '99, G. Engels, K. Beiersdörfer, and W. Schäfer, Eds. Paderborn: Gesellschaft für Informatik, 1999. [15] F. Arcelli and M. De Santo, "An Agent based Internet Infrastructure for Learning Commerce," in Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000, O.A., Ed. Maui, 2000. [16] O.A., "Dublin Core, The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative," http://purl.oclc.org/dc/, 1999. [17] T. D. Wason, T. Anderson, and S. Griffin, IMS Learning Resource Meta-data XML Binding Specification: IMS, 1999. [18] P. Dodds, Shareable Courseware Object Reference Model: Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative, 2000. [19] E. N. Forte, "Standards for ICT-Based Education: Facts, Promises and Pitfalls," in Campus 2000: Lernen in neuen Organisationsformen, vol. 10, F. Scheuermann, Ed. Innsbruck: Waxmann, 2000, pp. 41-54. [20] D. Brickley and R. V. Guha, Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification: W3C Recommendation: REC-rdf-syntax-19990222, 1999. [21] T. Bray, J. Paoli, and C. M. Sperger-McQueen, Extensible Markup Language (XML): W3C Recommendation : REC-xml-19980210, February 1998, 1998. [22] J. Quemada, T. de Miguel, A. Azcorra, S. Pavón, J. Salvachua, M. Petit, D. Larrabeiti, T. Robles, G. Huecas, D. Rodriguez, F. Echevarrieta, and E. Castro, "Tele-service Creation with ISABEL in Heterogeneous Network Environments," Interoperability of Networks for Interoperable Services, 1998. [23] S.-G. Han, J.-B. Park, J.-E. Jung, and G.-S. Jo, "Intelligent Gathering of Contents on Distance Education using Mobile Agents," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Commerce 2000, S. H. Kim, O. Sheng, J. K. Lee, A. B. Whinston, and B. Schmid, Eds. Seoul, Korea: International Center for Electronic Commerce, 2000, pp. 267-273. [24] O.A., ARIADNE: http://ariadne.unil.ch/, 2000. [25] U. Lechner and B. F. Schmid, "Communities and Media - Towards a Reconstrucion of Communities on Media," in Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences 2000, O.A., Ed. Maui, 2000. [26] S. Carr, "George Washington U. Tries to Sell Software It Created to Put Courses Online," Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 46, pp. A37, 2000. [27] D. F. Noble, "Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education," First Monday, vol. 3, 1998.
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
10
