A changed economy with unchanged universities? A contribution to the university of the future

International Journal of Distance Education Technologies

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 5-25

  Cunha, Maria Manuela ^a   Putnik, Goran D ^b  

^a Instituto Politcnico do Cvado e do Ave   (Portugal)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINHO   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Agile virtual university; E learning; E learning objects; Individualised learning project; Learning project; Market of teaching resources; Units of learning; Virtual university; Web based learning

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; COMPETITION; COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; DISTANCE EDUCATION; EDUCATION; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; TEACHING;

AGILE/VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY; LEARNING PROJECTS; MARKET OF TEACHING RESOURCES; UNITS OF LEARNING; VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY; WEB BASED LEARNING;

E-LEARNING;

EID: 57649138626     PISSN: 15393100     EISSN: 15393119     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jdet.2007100102     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. ACTS. (1998). Information brokerage. Berlin: Advanced Communications Technologies and Services Programme, European Commission DG XIII.
2. ADL. (2002). SCORM Version 1.3 application profile working draft version 1.0. Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative (ADL) Technical Team. Retrieved from http://www.adlnet. org/index.cftn
3. AICC. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.aicc.org
4. American Federation of Teachers. (2001). Trends in the expansion of distance education. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/higher_ed/downloadable/ VirtualRevolution.pdf
5. Anido, L., Rodriguez, J., Caeiro, M., & Santos, J. M. (2003). High-level brokerage services for the e-learning domain. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 25, 303-327.
6. Anido, L., Santos, J.M., Rodriguez, J., Rodriguez, M., Iglesias, M.J., & Nistal, M.L. (2002). A step ahead in e-learning standardisation: Building learning systems from reusable and interoperable software components. In Proceedings of WWW2002.
7. Ariadne. (2004). Alliance of remote instructional authoring and distribution networks for Europe. Retrieved August 31, 2004, from http://www. ariadne-eu.org
8. Bradley, S.P., Hausman, J.A., & Nolan, R.L. (1993). Global competition and technology. In Globalisation Technology and Competition: The Fusion of Computers and Telecommunications in the 1990s (pp. 3-31). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
9. Byrne, J.A. (1993, February 8). The virtual corporation: The company of the future will be the ultimate in adaptability. Business Week, pp. 98-103.
10. CAREO. (2002). CAREO: Campus Alberta Repository of Educational Objects. The University of Calgary.
11. Cisco. (2001). Elearning glossary. Cisco. Retrieved from http:// www.cisco.com/warp/public/10/wwtraining/elearning/pdf/ elearning_glossary. pdf
12. Commonwealth of Learning. (2003). Commonwealth Education briefing notes. No. 4 Distance Education and the Commonwealth of Learning. Commonwealth Consortium for Education. Retrieved March 2004, from http://www.commonwealtheducation.org/ccfe_briefing_potes4. pdf
13. Davidow, W.H., & Malone, M.S. (1992). The virtual corporation: Structuring and revitalising the corporation for the 21st century. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
14. de Wolf, H. (2001). Universities in the network society. In Virtual University? Educational Environments of the Future. Portland Press.
15. Dirr, P.J. (2001). The development of new organisational arrangements in virtual learning. In G. F. Farrell (Ed.), The Changing Faces of Virtual Education (pp. 95-124). Vancouver: The Commonwealth of Learning.
16. Dodds, P. (2001). Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) (Technical Report No. Version 1.2). Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative.
17. Evans, T., & Nation, D. (1996). Opening education. Policies and practices from open and distance education. New York: Routledge.
18. Farrell, G.F. (Ed.). (1999). The development of virtual education: A global perspective. Vancouver: The Commonwealth of Learning.
19. Farrell, G.F. (Ed.). (2001). The changing faces of virtual education. Vancouver: The Commonwealth of Learning.
20. GESTALT. (2003). Getting Educational Systems Talking Across Leading Edge Technologies (GESTALT) project. Retrieved December 2003, from http://www.fdgroup.co.uk/gestalt
21. Goldman, S., Nagel, R., & Preiss, K. (1995). Agile competitors and virtual organizations: Strategies for enriching the customer. New York: van Nostrand Reinhold.
22. Goldstein, M.B. (2000). To be (for-profit) or not to be: What is the question? Change, 32(5).
23. Handy, C. (1995). Trust and virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 40-50.
24. Hanish, F., & Straber, W. (2003). Adaptability and interoperability in the field of highly interactive Web-based courseware. Computers & Graphics, 27, 647-655.
25. Hicks, M., Reid, I., & George, R. (2001). Enhancing on-line teaching: Designing responsive learning environments. The International Journal for Academic Development, 6(2),143-151.
26. Hodgins, W. (2002). Draft standard for learning object metadata (LOM) - ver se foi actualizado (Technical Report No. Proposed Draft 6.4.). IEEE - Learning Technology Standardisation Committee (LTSC).
27. IMS. (2003a). IMS content packaging information model (Version 1.1.3. - Final Specification, Revision date June 12): IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.
28. IMS. (2003b). IMS digital repository interoperability model (Version 1.0 - Final Specification, Revision date July 25). IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.
29. IMS. (2003c). IMS learner design information model (Version 1.0 - Final Specification, Revision date January 20). IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.
30. IMS. (2003d). IMS learner information packaging (Version 1.0 - Final Specification, Revision date July 25). IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.
31. IMS. (2003e). IMS question and test interoperability (Version 1.2.1 - Final Specification, Date revision March 26). IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.
32. IMS. (2004a). IMS metadata (Version 1.3 - Public Draft Specification, Revision date May 2003). IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.
33. IMS. (2004b). IMS question and test interoperability (Version 2.0 - Public Draft Specification, Date revision June 24). IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.
34. IMS. (2004c). IMS resource list interoperability information model (Version 1.0 - Public Draft Specification, Date revision May 24). IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.
35. IMS. (2004d). IMS specifications. Retrieved September 2004, from http://www.imsglobal.org
36. Ismail, J. (2002). The design of an e-learning system: Beyond the hype. The Internet and Higher Education, 4, 329-336.
37. Khakhar, D., & Quirchmayr, G. (1999). Report 1: A survey of open and distance learning activities in participating institutions. Project: An ODL framework for design of trans-national business information systems (European Union Socrates Project, 56605-CP-1-98-SE-ODL-ODL). Brussels.
38. Kidd, P. (1994). Agile manufacturing: Forging new frontiers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
39. Kiernan, V. (2002, November 8). Technology will reshape research universities dramatically, Science Academy report predicts. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle. com/ free/2002/2011/2002110801t.htm
40. Kieslinger, B., & Simon, B. (2004). Smart spaces for learning: A new tool for effective human capital development. In M. Kelleher, A. Haldane, & E. Kruizinga (Eds.), Researching Technology for Tomorrow's Learning. Bilthoven: CIBIT.
41. Lagoze, D., & Van de Somple, H. (2002). The Open Archive Initiative protocol for meta-data harvesting (Document version 2002-05-15). Retrieved from http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/
42. Lin, F., Holt, P., Korba, L., & Shih, T.K. (2001). A framework for developing online learning systems. In Proceedings of SSGRR 2001.
43. LionShare Team. (2004). LionShare: Connecting and extending peer-to-peer networks. LionShare White Paper. State College, PA: Penn State University.
44. Looms, T., & Christensen, C. (2002). Technologies for the design of learning objects repository. (Report No. Version 1.0). Alexandria: Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL).
45. Mesarovic, M.D., Macko, D., & Takahara, Y. (1970). Theory of hierarchical multilevel systems. New York: Academic Press.
46. Miles, R.E., & Snow, C.C. (1986). Organizations: New concepts for new forms. California Management Review, 28, 62-73.
47. Muzio, J.A., Heins, T., & Mundell, R. (2002). Experiences with reusable e-learning objects: From theory to practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 21-34.
48. National Research Council. (2002). Preparing for the revolution: Information technology and the future of the research university. Washington, DC: Policy and Global Affairs, National Research Council, The National Academy of Sciences.
49. Nejdl, W. (2002). EDUTELLA: A p2p networking infrastructure based on RDF. In Proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
50. Ong, S.S., & Hawryszkiewycz, I. (2003). Towards personalised and collaborative learning management systems. In IEEE (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'03).
51. Porter, D. (2000). Learning in a wired world: Moving beyond the course as the unit of learning. Vancouver: Product Development and Research Group, Open Learning Agency.
52. Putnik, G.D. (2000). BM virtual enterprise architecture reference model (Technical Report RT-CESP-GIS-2000-). Portugal: University of Minho.
53. Putnik, G.D., Cunha, M.M., Sousa, R., & Ávila, P. (2005). BM virtual enterprise: A model for dynamics and virtuality. In G.D. Putnik & M.M. Cunha (Eds.), Virtual Enterprise Integration: Technological and Organizational Perspectives. Hershey: Idea Group Publishing, Inc..
54. Richards, G., & Hatala, M. (2001). A peer to peer architecture for learning object repositories. Retrieved May 2004, from http:// www.edusplash.net
55. Rivera, G., Simon, B., Quemada, J., & Salvachua, J. (2004). Improving LOM-based interoperability of learning repositories. In Proceedings of the OTM 2004 Workshop on Ontologies, Semantics, and E-Learning.
56. Schoder, D., & Fischbach, K. (2003). Peer-to-peer prospects: The P2P design philosophy needs far more detail before we can appreciate a clear picture of its potential. Communications of the ACM, 46(2), 27-29.
57. Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. London: Century.
58. Vassileva, J. (2004). Harnessing P2P power in the classroom. In J. Lester, R. Vicari, & F. Paraguacu (Eds.), Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 305-314). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3220.
59. Vernadat, F. (1996). Enterprise modeling and integration. Chapman & Hall.
60. Villano, M. (2005). Meeting the P2P challenge. Campus Technology.
61. Wiley, D.A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Online Version. Retrieved August 31, 2004, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/ wiley.doc