Trip Report #3: Standards & Accessibility - SIF, SCORM, IMS, GEM, etc.

	US Delegation to Europe, 2002: Internet Technology and Schools Agenda Working Groups Delegation Members London Briefing Materials Paris Briefing Materials Brussels Briefing Materials Bonn Briefing Materials Sponsor Background Information US Education System Review Trip Report #1: Government Demand/Resource for Education Technology/ICT Trip Report #2: Assessing ICT's Educational Impact Trip Report #3: Standards & Accessibility - SIF, SCORM, IMS, GEM, etc. Trip Report #4: As a Member of the European Delegation of CoSN Trip Photos

By Larry Snowhite

We heard consistent desires for open architecture and interoperable ICT systems to enable - teachers to develop new materials as well as to modify and "mix and match" available curricular materials; teachers, administrators, students, and parents to engage in on-line collaborations and communities; national libraries and broadcasting systems to exchange content; exchanges of learning objects with different learning management systems; the development of indexes and platforms that will be searchable by subject and grade; and online testing. The focus was more on using interoperable standards and providing platforms to provide information and access to curricular products produced by commercial publishers, non-profit organizations, and individuals, not for governments to be developing the products.

The standards we heard discussed are standards with which we are familiar in the U.S. "SCORM will be embraced" was the strongest statement we heard, from one NGO, but it was not an isolated reference to SCORM. IMS and its QTI also were cited in several meetings; IMS' moving into K-12 echoed what we have heard in the U.S. (SIF was not mentioned, not unexpectedly, but it is based on SCORM and IMS, so presumably the greater the acceptance of SCORM and IMS, the greater the influence they will have on SIF.) Governments were not setting interoperability standards, but were supporting projects to demonstrate interoperability and encouraging public/private partnerships to develop standards. Interfaces with existing standards, e.g., GEMS, across national boundaries also was being encouraged.

Discussion of accessibility was more limited. While all we spoke with were deeply concerned about bridging their digital divides and equity in access (including gender equity), and for using ICT for speakers of non-native languages, there was little if any heard about accessibility for students with disabilities.