Introduction: The DLE Concept
DLEs are considered here to be the aggregates of “knowledge repositories, and services, organized as complex information systems” (Digital Libraries…, 2003). DLE must not be seen as merely a digitized collection of information objects plus related management tools, but as an environment bringing together collections, services, and people to support the full cycle of creation, dissemination, discussion, collaboration, use, new authoring, and preservation of data, information, and knowledge (Digital Libraries…, 2003).
The notion ‘knowledge’ is used in this DLE definition as the synonym of ‘digital learning resources’ (LRs). Further the notion ‘digital learning resources’ is used as an ‘umbrella’ notion for different kinds of digital learning content such as ‘learning objects’, ‘learning assets’, ‘units of learning’, ‘learning courses’.

1.  Main DLE Components: Contemporary Lithuanian Practice
1.1 Content: Learning Objects and their Repositories
There is a lot of LO’s definitions coming from various sources. The following LO notion is considered here as the most suitable for basic component for creation of pedagogically and organizationally flexible, cost effective DLE: “LO is any digital resource that can be reused to support learning” (Wiley, 2000). A LR truly becomes a LO (a LR, reusable within another learning context) when it is associated with self–describing information – metadata. Metadata is used to implement LO repositories, to search for LOs in the repository, to share LOs, to import LOs into or export them from VLEs, to combine them with other LOs (using them as building blocks to build lessons, courses, etc.) (Jevsikova, Kurilovas, 2006). The various approaches to LOs attempt to meet two common objectives: (1) to reduce the overall costs of LOs, and (2) to obtain better LOs.
The key notion here is ‘reusability’. LO reusability is considered: (1) as is; (2) by de and re composition (lego model); (3) adapted to fit a specific context; (4) as an example; (5) by modification; (6) by localization. Learning assets (LAs) are considered here as smaller pedagogically decontextualised parts (pieces) LOs can be combined of (Jevsikova, Kurilovas, 2006).

Unit of Learning (UoL) itself and all its components are considered here as embedded LOs, including learning objectives, prerequisites, learners’ or trainers’ roles, activity assignment, information objects, communication objects, tools and questionnaire objects (Paquette, 2004).

LO repositories are considered here as properly constituted systems (i.e. organised LOs collections) consisting of LOs, their metadata and tools / services to manage them.
At the moment there are several LR repositories in Lithuania which provide several keywords–based non–standardized search possibilities for users.
Several important developments were carried out while implementing FP6 IST CALIBRATE project in 2006: (1) EUN LO metadata application profile (LOM AP) 2.0 was localised; (2) LOM repository based on MySQL database management system, PHP software package and Java technology, as well as user–friendly interface to aggregate LOs metadata into LOM repository were created; (3) metadata for more than 1000 Lithuanian LRs were created in conformity with LOM AP, and aggregated into LOM repository by specially trained indexers; (4) several distance learning courses were disaggregated to LOs level and introduced as SCORM packages to reuse in different VLEs; (5) LOM repository was connected to European learning resource exchange (LRE) system via Simple Query Interface technology and Brokerage system.

Figure 1. Communication between two Repositories

1.2 Services and Tools: Virtual Learning Environments and LeMill Learning Toolbox
The term VLE is used here as “a single piece of software, accessed via standard Web browser, which provides an integrated online learning environment” (Kurilovas, 2006a).
Scientific research results show clearly that the best open source VLEs are not less quality on module level than the best proprietary products while being more attractive for educational institutions from financial point of view. It was also investigated that VLEs are not neutral in their impact on pedagogical methods and scenarios (Kurilovas, 2005). We could divide VLEs to more ‘content centred’ and more ‘learner centred’ systems. The more VLEs are ‘learner centred’, the more they fit the aims of schools development as e-learning communities (Kurilovas, 2006b).

Scientific research on complex technical, organisational and pedagogical evaluation of the most popular open source VLEs was performed in Lithuania in 2005 (e.g., Kurilovas, 2005). Several scientific methods and frameworks were used as basic tools for this research. As the result, Moodle VLE was evaluated the best VLE suitable to use on the module level, therefore it was proposed as the most suitable VLE for wide implementation in Lithuanian comprehensive and vocational schools, as well as for teacher in–service training system. Its fundamental advantages in comparison with the other open source systems are: (1) clear social constructivist philosophy and design; (2) modular, extensible architecture; (3) wide and lively developer and user community (Kurilovas, 2005). In summer 2006 Moodle version 1.6.3 was fully localised and at the moment is downloadable for installation in schools. ATutor VLE was enriched by several functions and localised in 2005. VLEs most suitable for usage on module level were chosen for comprehensive implementation in Lithuania, therefore de facto decentralised way of VLEs implementation was chosen in Lithuania to strengthen schools as e-learning communities.

LeMill learning toolbox is under development in CALIBRATE to provide teachers the possibility of collaborative learning and creation of LOM compliant LOs. Its interface will be fully localised till March 2008, ant training is already provided to target group of Lithuanian CALIBRATE teachers.

click here to continue reading (PDF)