eContent Quality.

First, I would like to point out that eContent quality and e-learning quality are not the same kind of thing. A good eContent is an element of the e-learning model or activity and thus it is needed in e-learning quality. Perhaps eContent could still be good in a bad e-learning system. For example, think of a marvellous interactive web material used without the needed feed back in on-line distance calculus.

A good eContent needs to be used in some “suitable” learning model, unless it was created for a very simple self-learning activity (which in fact is a learning model too). Its efficacy depends, not only on their own quality, but also on the learning model chosen and the adaptation to the student characteristics. Thus, the efficiency of the eContent is not only content-dependent. At least we have two other factors: e-learning model and student profile. The teaching staff is part of the learning model in web based e-learning (much more than in face-to-face).

For instance, web-based distance students, in general, do not like debates or collaborative learning activities, they have very little time for their studies and they prefer a model and an eContent which facilitates them to work individually, and as personalised as possible).

As for the quality of mathematical eContent itself, it is necessary to follow common, standardised criteria, such as:

(1) International quality standards and specifications (like the ones in LORI) - Content Quality (veracity, accuracy and an appropriate level of detail) - Learning Goal Alignment (alignment among learning goals, assessments, and learner characteristics) - Feedback and Adaptation (adaptive content or personalized feedback ) - Motivation (stimulate the interest of learners) - Usability (easy navigation and easy interface) - Accessibility (support for learners with disabilities) - Reusability (ability to port between different courses or learning contexts without modification) - Standards compliance (adherence to international standards and specifications)

(2) Use of specific mathematical software but adapted to the goals of learning and not of contents adapted to the software.

(3) Learning activities according to the mathematical background of the student. Also, tedious manual calculations should be replaced by activities of application to real cases, in the case of the students of Technical studies.

(4) Continuous assessment should be part of the material itself, as a learning element too.

Finally, the degree of satisfaction of the different agents: students and teaching staff must be a fundamental part of the continuous process of evaluation of the used eContent and guides for its continuous improvement. For this to be feasible, teamwork of the different specialists needs to exist (professors of and-learning, editors, web-experts in education, usability, accessibility, etc).

The new role of the teacher-author as part of a network of authors of contents working collaboratively is not sufficiently accepted nor has it an effective model of organization. On the other hand, the author’s tools that make use of the educational technologies based on standards of e-learning are still not sufficiently usable. In my opinion, these two are necessary working directions for the program of eContent Quality: a new model for collaborative development of eContent and the usable tools to do it.