Web Platform with Role-Based Security for ...

Web Platform with Role-Based Security for Decentralized Creation of Web 2.0 Learning Content Adam Wójtowicz, Krzysztof Walczak, Wojciech Wiza, Dariusz Rumiński Department of Information Technology Poznan University of Economics Poznań, Poland e-mail: [awojtow, walczak, wiza, ruminski]@kti.ue.poznan.pl

Abstract—The paper presents a Web-based educational platform that provides a novel easy-to-use and secure environment designed to help teachers employ modern ICT technologies, and specifically Web 2.0 tools, in the education process. The platform enables decentralized creation, management and sharing of learning content. A key element of the platform is access control system, which enables the platform to be efficiently and securely managed by a distributed community of educationalists. Keywords—Web 2.0; RBAC; access control; e-learning; learning management systems, user-generated content

I.

INTRODUCTION

ICT technologies have great potential to support educational practice. However, while many large educational institutions, such as universities or high schools, widely deploy learning management systems (LMS), other types of schools and educational institutions still lag behind in the adoption of LMSs. To a large extent, it is a result of economy of scale. While, for example, introduction of an LMS in a large university brings immediate and evident benefits [1], it may be not so apparent in smaller institutions [2]. To some extent, this can be overcome by the use of freely available Web 2.0 tools and resources, which can be valuable teaching aids in different kinds of educational institutions. Moreover, introduction of Web 2.0 in the teaching process increases involvement, motivation, creativity, and interest of students [3][4]. Young people easily enter cyberspace using the Internet as a regular communication and enjoyment medium. Students are often more familiar with social Web applications such as chats, forums, wikis, blogs, and video farms than their teachers. This forms an undesired barrier between students and teachers. Most teachers, even if aware of the potential of Web 2.0 tools, consider these tools too complicated to be successfully employed in teaching practice. The fact that these tools are used habitually for enjoyment and entertainment further reduces their perceived professional importance. Such a technological – and also psychological – gap is a significant barrier, slowing down the introduction of ICT in everyday teaching and therefore should be eliminated. An effort is needed to convince teachers that Web 2.0 tools are valuable and may be successfully used in teaching. Such

effort requires not only explaining particular elements of the technology to teachers, but also providing them with good examples of use of particular Web 2.0 tools in teaching curricula. At the same time, teachers need an easy-to-use and secure Web 2.0 environment, which they could use in teaching, without the necessity of browsing through and learning different platforms, Web sites and portals. The environment should provide different types of Web 2.0 tools secured, simplified and tailored for use in education. To solve the above problems, the Web 2.0 European Resource Centre (Web 2.0 ERC) project has been founded within the European Lifelong Learning Programme [5]. As one of its main outcomes, the project brings an integrated, easy-to-use, secure Web platform supporting teachers in their first steps with Web 2.0 tools and resources in everyday teaching practice. In this paper, the Web 2.0 ERC educational platform is described. A key element of the platform is the access control system, enabling the platform to be efficiently and securely managed by a distributed community of educationalists. Since learning content is created by teachers and students in a decentralized manner, designing and applying a proper access control model for the platform is crucial for its security. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the Web 2.0 ERC platform. In Section 3, the structure of the learning content within the platform is described. In Section 4, role based security system of the platform is presented. Section 5 describes easy-to-use wizard tools for platform management. Section 6 contains short descriptions of possible usage scenarios for different types of Web 2.0 tools available within the platform. Finally, Section 7 concludes the paper and provides directions for future works. II.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

During the recent years, significant efforts have been undertaken to address the problem of using Web 2.0 tools in education. Starting from the use of isolated Web 2.0 tools such as wikis [6], podcasts [7], and blogs [8] to works focusing on integrated platforms such as [9][10][11][12]. Most of these platforms, however, are only meant to help teachers in their first steps with Web 2.0 tools and to

facilitate collaboration between teachers without providing them with a comprehensive set of Web 2.0 educational tools. At the same time, many projects and individuals create support videos and examples of using new technologies in teaching [13][14][15]. These efforts, while important and necessary, are scattered around the Web. Integrated LMS systems such as Moodle [16], ATutor [17], Sakai [18], and Blackboard [19] partially introduced social tools in teaching even before the term “Web 2.0” has become popular. Forums, workshops and other cooperation activities are an integral part of these platforms. Other Web 2.0 tools can be usually added in the form of extension modules. Efforts have been also made to integrate LMS systems with existing social tools such as Facebook [20] and YouTube [21]. The problem has been addressed in several publications [22][23], and extension modules have been developed, e.g., for Moodle [24]. Despite all these efforts, there is still lack of an integrated approach, in which an LMS system would be: • integrated with a collection of internal and external Web 2.0 tools; • equipped with easy-to-use configuration and management tools for inexperienced users; • supplied with instructional resources such as tutorials, videos, and step-by-step guidelines; • appropriately secured, by proper organization of content as well as user accounts with specific roles and privileges to support the use of the platform by a world-wide community. III.

OVERVIEW OF THE PLATFORM

The Web 2.0 ERC platform has been developed in order to provide an easy-to-use, secure environment for applying Web 2.0 technologies to teaching. Within the platform, creation and structuring of educational content is simplified due to wizards implemented as extensions to the Moodle 1.9 learning environment [16]. The main wizard is named Create New Course Wizard (in short Course Wizard). Its role is to simplify creation of new courses and filling it with Web 2.0 educational resources. Moreover, there are two more wizards used for simplified management of social communities of users: Create New User Wizard (in short: User Wizard) and Create New School Wizard (in short: School Wizard). All wizards are described in detail in Section VI. During implementation of the Web 2.0 ERC platform, code of the Moodle system has been also extended to support appropriate content structuring and mapping of the content structure to user roles. New functionality related to content structure management, user management, and role assignments has been developed. Finally, a new system of roles has been designed and new user privileges have been created. A number of Web 2.0 resources and activities are accessible for teachers and students on the platform in learning courses. These activities are usually based on thirdparty open source Moodle plug-ins and include blog, social bookmarking, e-portfolio, wiki, friends IM, Twitter feeds, and video embedding.

The platform provides easy access to the most commonly used tools through a system of menu (Figure 1). In the menu, a user may find links to Web 2.0 ERC tutorials and step-bystep guides; quick access to Wizards and their courses and schools; and a convenient list of popular external Web 2.0 tools and resources. All these elements support beginners facilitating their first steps on the platform.

Figure 1. Web 2.0 ERC platform – main page

IV.

LEARNING CONTENT STRUCTURE

Learning content is created, modified, managed, and used within the Web 2.0 ERC platform in a decentralized manner. The platform is used Europe-wide by a number of educational institutions. Their members produce large amounts of learning resources, Web 2.0-based activities, and courses. Therefore, proper structuring of content within the platform is critical for accessibility and security of the content [25]. Organization of learning content in the Web 2.0 ERC platform is hierarchical. It is based on the Moodle category concept [26], however, unlike in Moodle, semantics of the particular levels are defined a priori. The content structure forms a tree that has height equal to 6. The first level (level 1) node is the root-category node. The second level (level 2) nodes represent different countries (or culture areas) in which Web 2.0 based education takes place, e.g., Poland. The third level (level 3) nodes represent types of educational institutions involved in Web 2.0 education in the given country, e.g., university, adult education, or primary school. The fourth level (level 4) nodes represent educational institutions, e.g., Poznan University of Economics. The optional fifth level (level 5) nodes represent departments in the institution, e.g., Department of Information Technology. Finally, the nodes of the last level (level 6) correspond to courses run by the institution represented by the ancestor node. Courses associate Web 2.0 educational resources (e.g., wikis, blogs) with teachers and students. A fragment of the content structure with visible levels 2, 3, and 4 is presented in Figure 2.

TABLE I.

Figure 2. Fragment of the learning content structure (levels 2-4)

V.

ROLE-BASED SECURITY

It would be extremely difficult to manage and secure Web 2.0 learning resources and user communities in a Europe-wide educational platform, such as Web 2.0 ERC, in a centralized manner, by a single administrator (cf. Mandatory Access Control). Therefore, for general access control model the Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) [27] and its Moodle implementation [28] have been chosen. However, in order to delegate privileges and responsibilities in the Web 2.0 ERC platform, the simplistic Moodle built-in role set has been replaced with a comprehensive set of interrelated roles consistent with the multi-level learning content structure. In the RBAC model, privileges are assigned to roles instead of single users, which makes privilege management less error-prone and more consistent. RBAC can simulate older access control concepts like Mandatory Access Control or Discretionary Access Control and it can be extended to support role hierarchies, constraints, profiling, sessions, context, and authorization rules. A. Roles in the platform and their mapping on the content structure A set of 13 roles have been set-up within the platform in order to delegate responsibilities. The roles are listed in Table 1. The “Role context” column informs about relation between a particular role and the element of the learning content structure described in Chapter IV. Precisely, the role context defines a sub-tree to which roles apply for a given user. The “Role type” column informs about general type of the role (technical, school management, user management, course management, resource management, school access, or course access).

ROLES WITHIN THE WEB 2.0 ERC PLATFORM

Role name Administrator Site Manager School Creator School Manager

Role context platform (level 1) platform (level 1) country (level 2) school (level 4)

School Teacher Simple Teacher

school (level 4) course (level 6)

Course Updater Non-editing Teacher File Manager Backup Manager School Member Student Guest

course (level 6) course (level 6) course (level 6) school (level 4) school (level 4) course (level 6) course (level 6)

Role type low-level technical high-level technical school management school management, user management course management resource management, user management resource management user management resource management course management school access course access course access

The Administrator role is given only to a user responsible for technical administration of the platform. An administrator can create, modify or delete data of any kind in the platform: platform settings, content structure, learning content, and user profiles. The Site Manager role is meant for a user responsible for high-level technical administration of the platform such as updating visual layout of the user interface. The Site Manager cannot influence learning content. Both the Administrator and the Site Manager roles are assigned to users in the context of the whole platform (level 1), not selectively to sub-trees of the content structure. The School Creator role is assigned to a user in the context of a country (level 2). This role allows its holder to create new types of educational institutions in the country and to create new educational institutions using a special wizard. The use of this role facilitates the process of Europewide, decentralized development of learning content structure. School Creator, in a given country, waits for requests sent from educational institutions from that country willing to start their activities on the Web 2.0 ERC platform. In response, the School Creator establishes a new school and assigns the School Manager role for that school. The School Manager role is assigned to a user in the context of an educational institution (level 4). The role enables to manage users and courses of the given educational institution. User management facilitated by wizards includes not only creating, modifying, and deleting user profiles, but also granting and revoking the School Teacher and the School Member roles to the managed users. The School Manager role is an important element supporting the idea of delegation of competences in the management of courses and users. In turn, the School Teacher role is crucial for secure and easy creation of learning content in a decentralized manner. As in the case of the School Manager role, the School Teacher role is assigned to a user in the context of an educational institution (level 4). It allows its holder to create a new course in the holder’s educational institution and to fill it with Web 2.0 activities using a special wizard. A user with the School Teacher role, when creating a new course, automatically obtains the Simple Teacher role in this course.

While the School Teacher role is designed for users acting at the whole school level and allowed to freely create new courses within the school, the Simple Teacher role is assigned in a course context only (level 6). A user with the Simple Teacher role can manage learning resources within the course and add or remove students and other roles in the context of the course. The Simple Teacher role without the School Teacher role can be applied for example to a visiting teacher allowed to manage one existing course only. The Simple Teacher role is similar to regular Moodle teacher. The difference is that the Simple Teacher’s user interface is simplified in order to make the course management more straightforward and also a Simple Teacher can use Web 2.0 resources (such as blogs or social bookmarking) in his or her course. The Course Updater role is used to allow users to contribute to the creation of learning resources within a particular course (level 6), but without privileges related to student evaluation, enrolment or attendance verification. The Non-editing Teacher role is the opposite to the Course Updater role. A holder of this role can evaluate or enroll students within the course (level 6), but he or she cannot add, modify, or delete any learning resources. The File Manager and Backup Manager roles are related to administrative actions, namely: management of files at the course level (level 6), and creation and restoring of course backups at the school level (level 4). The School Member role is assigned to a user in the context of his or her educational institution (level 4). This role enables grouping of users. Every user in the platform must have this role assigned in the context of an institution. As a result, a School Manager can manage users related to the institution that he or she is responsible for. Also this role allows students or teachers to browse the list of available courses within their institution for the enrolment purposes. Last but not least, there are the Student and Guest roles that give users access to courses (level 6) and their Web 2.0 activities and resources in non-anonymous and anonymous manner, respectively. B. Inter-role dependencies In Table II, inter-role dependencies, i.e., lists of roles that can be assigned to other users by a holder of a given role, are presented. Both the rows and the columns represent roles. “X” in a cell means that holder of the role from the row can assign to some users the role from the column. The privilege delegation chain enabling decentralized management is clearly visible in Table II. The following scenario can be performed according to these constraints. An Administrator user assigns the School Creator role to a person. The new School Creator creates a new school representation in his/her country and then he/she grants a trusted user from the given school the School Manager role. Then, the new School Manager grants a group of users from his/her school the School Teacher role. One of that School Teachers creates his/her own course, and – in consequence – the Simple Teacher role is granted automatically to her. Next she can assign users to a number of roles (e.g., Non-editing Teacher or Student) in the context of the course. Finally, a

Non-editing Teacher can also assign the Student role to a group of users in the context of the course. TABLE II. Role id 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

ALLOWED MUTUAL ROLE ASSIGNMENTS

Role id Role name Administrator Site Manager School Creator School Manager School Teacher Simple Teacher Course Updater Non-editing Teacher File Manager Backup Manager School Member Student Guest

VI.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

USING THE PLATFORM WITH WIZARDS

In order to enable efficient management of learning content and roles by non-expert users, three wizard tools have been implemented within the platform, namely: Course Wizard, User Wizard, and School Wizard. A. Course Wizard The Course Wizard can be used by a School Teacher. The Course Wizard guides a teacher through the process of establishing a new course, configuring it, and filling it with Web 2.0 activities. On the first page of the Course Wizard, the teacher enters basic data about the course: school to which it belongs, name, number of topics, start date, information whether grades will be used or not, and enrolment data. These settings still can be changed later, after the course is created. On the second page of the Course Wizard, the teacher enters data regarding presence of student groups in the course, availability of the course, language of the course and custom naming of course roles. On the third page of the Course Wizard (Figure 3), the teacher selects which Web 2.0 tools (and how many) are going to be used within the course (e.g., Social bookmarking, Video, Blog, e-Portfolio, Resume Builder, Twitter Reader). The tools will be added to the course during its creation. These tools can be also added or removed later after the course is already created. Subsequent pages are devoted to configuration of the Web 2.0 tools. The teacher is asked to enter information about the Web 2.0 tools selected on the previous page such as name, description or tool-specific data (e.g., blogging mode – common or separate blogs). The number of wizard pages depends on the number of Web 2.0 tools that have been chosen.

Figure 3. Step 3 in the Course Wizard

The next page is named “Activities & Resources” (Figure 4) and it is devoted to activities and resources that are not perceived as strictly Web 2.0. Examples of such activities are: chat, choice (voting), discussion forum, glossary, lesson (set of linked pages designed by a teacher), quiz, feedback (survey), and wiki. The teacher selects which (and how many) activities or resources of this type are going to be used within the course. On the following pages, the teacher is asked to enter information about the selected activities and resources. The number of pages depends on the number of activities and resources that have been chosen. Finally, the teacher can browse the home page of the new course. It contains all Web 2.0 tools, activities and resources that have been added during the creation process. B. User Wizard An important element of each Web 2.0 application is the process of management of user communities involved in the social media. In order to participate in a course enriched with Web 2.0 tools, students must have their individual user accounts and must be enrolled to the course. In order to obtain an account, a user is asked to go through a self-registration process. However, often it is preferred to create an account for a student manually by a School Teacher or a School Manager (e.g., for security or competence reasons in case of younger children). Also, an account for a School Teacher can be created by a School Manager, and for a School Manager or a School Creator by an Administrator. To this end, the User Wizard has been implemented.

Figure 4. “Activities & Resources” page of the Course Wizard

In the first step in the User Wizard (Figure 5), after the teacher fills the basic and required information about the user (username, password, etc.), a proper school must be set using the “School member” drop-down listbox (precisely, School Member role is set for the user in the context of the given category at the level 4 or 5) It influences the content that the user can see on the "My School" page.

Figure 5. Step 1 in the User Wizard

If the User Wizard is used not by a School Teacher but by a School Manager, in the first step it is possible to grant the new user the School Teacher role (an ability to create new courses and to teach within these courses) by setting the

school name in “School teacher” drop-down listbox. If a School Manager sets the "School teacher" role to a user, then that user can use the Course Wizard in order to create new courses within the school. Also, if the User Wizard is used by an Administrator, in this step it is possible to grant the new user the School Member or the School Creator role. In the second step in the User Wizard, optional information (picture, contact info, etc.) can be set. In the third step, the teacher can enroll the new student to a course. The teacher can use a drop-down listbox to select the course to which the new student should be enrolled or can select “none” if the teacher does not want to enroll the student at the current stage (or if the course is not created yet).

B. Advanced Programming Contest with Blog Teacher usage: A teacher writes a blog post describing a programming problem. Student usage: The student, who provides the best code in the comment under the post, gains extra points (extra points increase his/her final grade).

C. School Wizard Using the School Wizard, new schools (e.g., Poznan University of Economics) and school types (e.g., Universities) can be created by School Creators. Schools and school types constitute a hierarchical structure for course organization. Proper organization of courses is crucial in Europe-wide application of the Web 2.0 ERC platform where hundreds of teachers and thousands of students use it, since it sets an appropriate representation of resources, needed for definition of user roles and privileges. In the first step in the School Wizard, a School Creator selects a country in which he or she is going to create a new school. The School Creator cannot change the country since his or her role is assigned in the context of the given country only. However, if an Administrator is using the School Wizard, the country can be freely changed or even created. In the second step in the School Wizard, the School Creator enters the name of the new school and selects the school type. The School Creator can also add a new school type. However, he or she cannot select nor add a school type if the School Creator role has been assigned to the user in the context of a specific school type, i.e., at level 3. Finally, in the last step in the School Wizard, the School Creator can assign the School Manager role to a selected user in the context of the new school.

D. Project progress monitoring with Blog Student usage: Students describe in blog posts what they have done so far in a project, what is the extra functionality of their software, how they have coped with difficulties, what is too difficult to implement, etc. Teacher usage: A teacher comments on these posts pointing out solutions or future work directions.

VII. USAGE SCENARIOS FOR WEB 2.0 TOOLS In this section, examples of usage scenarios for Web 2.0 tools available within the Web 2.0 ERC platform are presented. These usage scenarios have been developed for undergraduate students attending a computer programming course. A. In-class Programming Contest with Blog Teacher usage: During the class a teacher writes a blog post describing a programming problem. Student usage: The first student, who provides a correct piece of code in the comment under the post, gains extra points (extra points increase his/her final grade).

C. Questions regarding a lecture with Blog Student usage: If the lecture is given in a computer lab, students post questions regarding concepts they do not understand during the lecture. Teacher usage: A teacher answers these questions after the lecture or provides a more in-depth explanation during the next lecture.

E. Mutual tests with Blog Student usage: A student, who is the author of a computer program, posts a description of the implemented functionality and usage instructions in a blog. Other students describe in comments all errors they have found in the application during the tests phase. Students who find the highest total number of errors in applications of their colleagues gain extra points. F. Collective knowledgebase building with Wiki Student usage: Students create wiki pages for computer programming and other IT-related concepts. Students can also create pages by translating to national languages existing documentation of programming platforms. Each student has to provide a number of pages, or number of page updates, or pages for specific concepts, depending on teacher requirements. Teacher usage: A teacher tracks page updates committed by students. G. Presentation of the project results with e-Portfolio Student usage: Presentation and sharing of the final project results. Students build e-Portfolios by uploading: project source code, technical documentation, diagrams, readme files, and links. The e-Portfolio can be shared with selected groups of users. H. Internet resources sharing with Social bookmarking Student usage: Students bookmark online tutorials, manuals, and useful examples related to programming languages and platforms, especially if they are tightly related to their projects and programming challenges found during the project implementation. Bookmarked links should be carefully tagged with keywords in order to be searchable.

VIII. CONCLUSIONS In this paper, the Web 2.0 ERC platform designed for creation, management and sharing of Web 2.0 educational resources within a secure and easy-to-use environment has been presented together with examples of usage scenarios. The platform has been designed to be managed by a selfsupporting community of educationalists, and therefore proper handling of access control mechanisms becomes a critical issue. Learning content on the platform must be properly secured against intentional and non-intentional misuse and – at the same time – tools for maintaining system security must not be too complicated to prevent their use by non-specialists. In the initial piloting phase, the Web 2.0 ERC platform has been tested with more than 200 teachers and over 700 students in both teacher training courses and regular school courses. We plan to open the platform to a wider community of users in the near future. The current version of the platform is designed as an extension and customization of the Moodle 1.9 system. In the future, we plan to port the platform to the new Moodle 2.0 system. We also intend to include a set of instructional videos and sample courses on the platform, demonstrating how particular tools can be used in the educational process.

[8]

[9] [10] [11] [12]

[13] [14] [15]

[16] [17]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

[18]

The research work described in this paper has been partially supported by the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme project Web 2.0 ERC (European Resource Centre for Web 2.0 Education), Grant No. 504839LLP-1-2009-1-UK-KA3-KA3MP and by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education under the Grant No. 1457/LLL/2010/7.

[19]

REFERENCES [1]

[2] [3]

[4]

[5] [6]

[7]

S. Lonn and S. D. Teasley, “Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of Learning Management Systems,” Comput. Educ. 53, 3, Nov 2009, pp. 686-694. A. Trotter, “Blackboard vs. Moodle: Competition in coursemanagement market grows,” Digital Directions, 2008, p. 3. M. Lee and C. Mcloughlin, “Teaching and Learning in the Web 2.0 Era: Empowering Students through LearnerGenerated Content”, Int. Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, Vol. 4, No. 10., 2007, pp. 21-34. C. Redecker, K. Ala-Mutka, M. Bacigalupo, A. Ferrari and Y. Punie, “Learning 2.0: The Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe,” Final Report, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, http://ftp.jrc.es/ EURdoc/JRC55629.pdf (last visited 20.08.2011). Web 2.0 ERC project, http://www.web20erc.eu/ (last visited 10.08.2011). N. Augar, R. Raitman and W. Zhou, “Teaching and learning online with wikis”, Proc. of the 21st Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) Conference, Perth, Dec. 2004, pp. 95-104. M. N. K. Boulos, I. Maramba and S. Wheeler, “Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of Webbased tools for virtual

[20] [21] [22] [23]

[24] [25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

collaborative clinical practice and education,” BMC Medical Education, 6(41), 2006. M. Rashtchi and H. Hajihassani, “Blog-assisted Language Learning: A Possibility in Teaching Reading to Iranian EFL Learners,” Int. Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 4(4), 2010, pp. 1-18. Language Learning Portal, http://www.vlconline.co.uk/ (last visited 10.08.2011). Aviary tools, http://www.aviaryeducation.com/ (last visited 10.08.2011). ICT for Language Teachers, http://www.ict4lt.org/ (last visited 10.08.2011). Integrating Technology for Active Life-long Learning, http://www.integrating-technology.org/ (last visited 10.08.2011). Teacher training videos, http://www.teachertrainingvideos. com/ (last visited 10.08.2011). Open Universiteit, http://portal.ou.nl/en/home (last visited 10.08.2011). Web 2.0 Tools for Teachers, http://www.scribd.com/doc/ 19576895/Web-20-Tools-for-Teachers (last visited 10.08.2011). Moodle, http://www.moodle.org/ (last visited 10.08.2011). ATutor, http://atutor.ca/ (last visited 10.08.2011). Sakai, http://sakaiproject.org/ (last visited 10.08.2011). Blackboard Learn, http://www.blackboard.com/Platforms/ Learn/Products/Blackboard-Learn.aspx (last visited 10.08.2011). Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/ (last visited 10.08.2011). YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/ (last visited 10.08.2011). S. P. Hillar, “Moodle 1.9 English Teacher's Cookbook,” Packt Publishing, 2010. R. Alpana et al., “Promoting a participatory culture using Moodle and Web 2.0 technologies,” at School of Eductaion Talanga Seminar 2010, http://www.youblisher.com/p/148014Promoting-a-participatory-culture-using-Moodle-and-Web-20-technologies/ (last visited 10.08.2011). Moodle plugins, http://moodle.org/mod/data/view.php? id=6009 (last visited 20.08.2011). B. Baruque, Á Herrero, E. Corchado and J. Sedano, “Implementation of the European Computer, Science Course under the Spanish University Education System,” International Conference on European, Transnational Education (ICEUTE 2010), Universidad de Burgos, 2010. Moodle documentation: Course categories, http://docs.moodle.org/19/en/Add/edit_course_categories/ (last visited 10.08.2011). R. Sandhu, D. Ferraiolo and R. Kuhn, “The NIST model for role-based access control: towards a unified standard,” Proc. of the Fifth ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control (RBAC 00), ACM, 2000, pp. 47-63. Moodle documentation: Manage roles http://docs. moodle.org/19/en/Manage_roles/ (last visited 10.08.2011).