Social, Personalized Lifelong Learning - E-Infrastructures and Technologies for Lifelong Learning - page 115

Figure 7. MOT 2.0: Authoring versus delivering

Figure 8. MOT 2.0: Group based authoring

process, their knowledge might be increased, as
well as their 'good behaviour' in the system
(contributions, tagging, etc.). This can result in
increased privileges. The screenshot only shows
the functionality of joining/leaving the group, but
the system can allow creating groups as well, and
defining different types of privileges on different
groups.

(January - March 2009 and October - December
2008 respectively) and took place in two different
countries, Romania and the UK. The common
features of the two evaluations are as follows. The
course designers and the students were separately
introduced to the system after they had had a few
lectures on adaptive hypermedia, user modelling,
the semantic web and the social web. The aim
was to find out what added value the instantiation
of the Social Layer in LAOS could bring to an
authoring system. Thus they analysed MOT 1.0,
the prior authoring-only environment for adaptive
hypermedia engineering based on LAOS, versus
MOT 2.0 which is based on the Social LAOS and
includes the Social Layer . For evaluating authoring
environments, the ideal is to use course designers,
who are experts in e-content-based courses. This
group of users was represented by the Softwin
users. However, as MOT 2.0 blurs the borders
between authoring and learning, it was necessary
to get feedback from the other end of the spectrum

CASE STUDY EVALUATION OF
E-LEARNING 2.0

The new social layer and MOT 2.0 as presented
above have been evaluated with the help of (i) a
group of eight course designers from Softwin, an
e-learning company in Bucharest, Romania, in
addition to (ii) a group of seven students studying
'Dynamic Web-based systems', a 4th year under-
graduate module at the Department of Computer
Science at the University of Warwick, UK. The two
evaluations happened at different intervals in time