Print
See related documents

Report | Doc. 11523 | 11 February 2008

Realising the full potential of e-learning for education and training

(Former) Committee on Culture, Science and Education

Rapporteur : Mr Axel E. FISCHER, Germany

Summary

The development of e-learning tools has had considerable impact on education and training. However, such tools are not yet used to their full potential for the benefit of education in Europe. Educational institutions should be equipped with the technical infrastructure and software and co-operate between themselves in order to create synergies. Teachers should be aware and know how to apply new electronic means of teaching and communicating with their students. Education ministries must be able to evaluate study periods of e-learning and degrees so obtained. E-learning also offers new opportunities for vocational training, continuing education and in-house company training, and has the potential to be a powerful means of creating open educational resources accessible to all and thereby counteracting a divided knowledge society.

A. Draft recommendation

(open)
1. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recalls that the development of e-learning tools has had considerable impact on education and training. However, such tools are not yet used to their full potential for the benefit of education in Europe. E-learning tools are electronic means of teaching and learning in classrooms and outside at a distance – either individually or in a collaborative way as well as in a blended format of classroom and distance studies.
2. The Assembly is aware that distance learning and the use of audiovisual means including television have a long history in Europe and therefore recognises the ground-breaking achievements, for instance of the television-based “Telekolleg” created in 1967 by regional ministries of education in Germany together with regional public service broadcasters, the Open University in Milton Keynes (Great Britain) which has offered courses as from 1971 as well as the Fern-Universität in Hagen (Germany) which has done so since 1975.
3. The Assembly recalls its Recommendation 650 (1971) on the creation of a European tele-university, Recommendation 1110 (1989) on distance teaching, Resolution 1193 (1999) on second-chance schools – or how to combat unemployment and exclusion by means of education and training, Recommendation 1437 (2000) on nonformal education, Recommendation 1559 (2002) on training of workers in the use of new technologies, and Recommendation 1586 (2002) on the digital divide and education.
4. Education is of ever growing importance for the development of social and human competencies, everyday life, employment as well as social and cultural cohesion in rapidly changing living and working environments. Traditional classroom-based school education should be supplemented in order to prepare for these challenges. Our societies are faced with greater student mobility, flexibility of working times, the replacement of linear professional careers by sequences of working and learning periods, the growing parallelism of work and family obligations, and the penetration of new media and communication services into all areas of life.
5. The Assembly is therefore convinced that new means of disseminating and acquiring knowledge and skills through e-learning has the potential to offer more adequate solutions to those demands and circumstances. They can also be more inclusive, in particular for people with disabilities and the socially marginalised.
6. The Assembly welcomes the development by the Council of Europe in 2007 of both an Internet-based learning tool for human rights education for lawyers, judges and prosecutors, which is part of its European Programme for Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals (HELP), as well as an Internet-based game for children on safer use of the Internet.
7. E-learning poses new demands on educational institutions, teachers and students. Educational institutions should be equipped with the technical infrastructure and software and co-operate between themselves in order to create synergies. Teachers should be aware and know how to apply new electronic means of teaching and communicating with their students. Teacher training courses on elearning should become obligatory. Students should have access to the technical devices and study contents and know how to use them for their own study and communication requirements. This requires early training of students in the use of new communication tools, especially online tools.
8. The Assembly therefore invites the European Ministers of Education participating in the Bologna Process and the universities of Europe, in particular through the European University Association and the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities, to develop common approaches to e-learning in the European higher education area.
9. E-learning also offers new opportunities for vocational training, continuing education and in-house company training. To be competitive on a global scale, European employers and employees have to invest continuously in knowledge and skills. Education should not exclude people and companies due to high financial costs. Therefore, the Assembly calls on member parliaments to consider supporting vocational training and in-house company training.
10. E-learning can be a powerful means of creating open educational resources accessible to everybody thus counteracting a divided knowledge society. In this regard, the Assembly calls on member parliaments to support the so-called “open source” movement in software development and initiatives for open educational resources – freely accessible on the Internet.
11. The Assembly recalls the financial support provided by the European Union under its programme for the effective integration of information and communication technologies in education and training systems in Europe from 2004 to 2006. It welcomes the support for lifelong learning and student mobility in accordance with the recommendations of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on key competences for lifelong learning and on transnational mobility within the European Community for education and training purposes of 18 December 2006.
12. The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
12.1. prepare recommendations for ensuring and facilitating the mutual recognition of study periods pursued, and qualifications obtained, by e-learning;
12.2. prepare common European quality indicators, regarding both technical and content aspects, for national information centres on recognition and mobility at university level (ENIC-NARIC networks) under the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region;
12.3. examine the standardisation of the technical infrastructure and software concerning e-learning including free open-source software on the Internet, in order to facilitate their use and ensure their interoperability;
12.4. prepare a handbook and provide teacher training for the use of e-learning tools and new information and communication facilities for educational purposes;
12.5. invite the Standing Conference of European Ministers for Education to set up national action plans for realising the full potential of e-learning and identifying examples of best practice in e-learning;
12.6. invite the signatory states of the European Cultural Convention to set up transnational e-learning programmes, in particular for the purposes of Article 2 of the Convention;
12.7. develop an e-learning tool about the work of the Council of Europe to be made available to primary and secondary schools as well as institutions for adult education and call on member and observer states to contribute financially to the translation and distribution of this e-learning tool;
12.8. provide the resources necessary for holding international meetings and conferences in Strasbourg by using Internet-based audiovisual teleconference facilities in order to facilitate participation from outside Strasbourg as well as by people with disabilities;
12.9. consider using e-learning tools such as the open-source “Moodle” and new information and communication facilities for future Council of Europe campaigns in order to increase their reach and accessibility and save financial resources.

B. Explanatory memorandum, by Mr Axel Fischer

(open)
1. The Committee on Culture, Science and Education appointed me rapporteur on vocational education and training on 8 December 2006. The focus of the report was changed on 22 January 2007, when the Assembly Bureau decided that the motion on e-learning and schools (Doc. 11068) should be taken into account. After discussions on this subject at the level of the committee, the committee held a teleconference on realising the full potential of e-learning in Strasbourg on1 October 2007.A summary of the teleconference is reproduced at the end of this report.
2. This report is based on the substantial contributions from experts in this field participating in this teleconference. I am grateful for their co-operation and thank the Council of Europe Secretariat for having made possible the technological experiment of a teleconference using various audiovisual means and the Internet.

1. Introduction

3. E-learning and the use of new information and communication tools in teaching and learning are not new subjects, although technological development causes rapid advances in this field. The Assembly dealt with distance learning using electronic means as early as 1971 in its Recommendation 650 (1971) on the creation of a European tele-university. Following the rapid growth of the Internet in the 1990s, the Lisbon Summit of the European Union in 2000 decided that Europe should become the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010.
4. Although this Lisbon Agenda is still not realised, the European Union has funded a lot of research into e-learning and supported related collaboration among educational institutions. E-learning must, however, not stop at the borders of the European Union. The Council of Europe should support e-learning due to its wider geographical remit, its respect for national competences and differences, as well as its pan-European standards set for the education sector.
5. The teleconference held by the committee on this subject on 1 October 2007 addressed many examples of how e-learning is used in higher education and lifelong learning. The teleconference also provided direct experience of modern means of audiovisual communication. The experts participating in this teleconference had submitted written responses to a set of basic questions which are available on the Assembly’s website.

2. Definition of “e-learning”

6. The term “e-learning” should be understood in a wide sense, including the use of electronic means of teaching and learning in classrooms face-to-face and outside at a distance – either individually or in a collaborative way as well as in a blended format of classroom and distance studies.
7. E-learning is thus not an end in itself, but rather a wide concept that can be used for various forms of teaching and learning, ranging from formal education to informal learning. It may start with audiovisual tools used in classrooms and go as far as interactive Internet-based collaboration of students and teachers. Distance learning may feel the strongest impact of such tools, which can easily help to overcome geographical distance. Electronic tools may also offer access to learning subjects for people with disabilities.

3. Application of e-learning tools

8. The wide and ever advancing uses of e-learning tools make it difficult to list them. Through e-learning tools, instructional materials can be made available and tutorials, exercises and examinations be held. Besides digital communication systems such as e-mail, news and chat, individualised systems can support group work, exercises and evaluations. Special information retrieval systems may also be provided and be combined with editing and content management systems.
9. E-learning also provides for new forms of learning, for instance through interactive games, three dimensional images or audiovisual platforms. Those may be more adequate than printed study materials for particular student groups or study subjects. Digitally stored or animated learning content may also be updated and changed rapidly and allow for students to contribute to such material.

4. Benefits of e-learning

10. E-learning enables the individual needs of students to be better met because of greater flexibility. E-studies can reach, for instance, employed part-time students as well as students living in remote areas, the countryside or abroad. People in hospitals or in detention centres may also benefit from targeted e-learning programmes.
11. Students with disabilities or special needs, who would otherwise be excluded, can have access to assisted education through e-learning.
12. E-learning can enhance efficiency in the areas of support and communication, information retrieval, interactive learning, virtual seminars, study exercises as well as administration. Communication with students online may not only increase the quality and efficiency of the services provided, but also lower their costs. A further effect is increased transparency.
13. Supported e-communities of students will profit from team collaboration, the opportunity of participating from a geographical distance, storage possibilities of work outputs and the sharing of information. This may lead to better study conditions and greater success in studying. In general, e-learning resources improve the learning experience of students.
14. E-learning contributes to the standardisation of programmes of study, which is particularly relevant with regard to the introduction of modularised study programmes under the framework of the Bologna Process.
15. E-learning also facilitates international co-operation of educational institutions, including double degree programmes and virtual studies abroad.
16. E-learning content may become part of a digital library and resource centre.
17. E-learning will finally support the creation of open educational resources accessible to everybody on the Internet.

5. Challenges related to the introduction of e-learning

18. The introduction of an e-learning system needs an expensive and complex process to adapt the existing system. E-learning systems also require further continuous development in line with rapid technological developments and in order to improve. It is also necessary to analyse continuously the potential educational relevance of the rapidly changing software and tools. In this context, quality assurance and evaluation as well as the availability of the necessary resources are indispensable.
19. The acceptance of a standardised e-learning environment may vary among teachers. Traditional teaching methods are mostly “teacher centric” instead of “student centric”. Since new information and communication tools are more widely used among the younger generations, there is typically a gap between teachers and students. This may be an obstacle when developing e-learning courses and providing tutor support online.
20. E-learning may easily increase students’ demands which may be beyond the tutors’ capacities. Consequently, more advanced standards of student support will lead to additional work for the tutors or require a greater number of tutors and administrators.
21. Improvements in efficiency through e-learning require an increase in manpower and technical resources, in order to ensure adequate student support as well as the development of study materials and infrastructures. However, technology alone should not be the focus but rather an intensive assessment of the teaching/learning processes and contents.
22. The degree of Internet penetration and the quality of infrastructure, as well as computer literacy, are limiting factors for e-learning.

6. Conclusions

23. Traditional classroom-based school education cannot sufficiently prepare for these challenges. Our societies are faced with greater student mobility, flexibility of working times, the replacement of linear professional careers by sequences of working and learning periods, the growing parallelism of work and family obligations, and the penetration of new media and communication services into all areas of life.
24. New means of disseminating and acquiring knowledge and skills through e-learning can therefore offer more adequate solutions to those demands and circumstances. They may also be more inclusive, in particular for people with disabilities and the socially marginalised.
25. E-learning poses new challenges to educational institutions, teachers, students and education ministries:
26. Educational institutions should be equipped with the technical infrastructure and software and co-operate among themselves in order to create synergies.
27. Teachers should be aware and know how to apply new electronic means of teaching and communicating with their students. Teacher training courses on e-learning should be organised with a view to making them obligatory in the future.
28. Students should have access to the technical devices and study contents and know how to use them for their own studies and communication requirements. This requires early training of students in the use of new communication tools, especially online tools.
29. Education ministries must be able to evaluate study periods of e-learning and degrees obtained hereby. Common quality standards and mutual recognition should be ensured at European level, for instance in the framework of the Lisbon Recognition Convention of 1997 of the Council of Europe and UNESCO.
30. In addition, e-learning opens up new opportunities for employers and learning industries. Employees have to be trained continuously. Therefore, there is demand for e-learning services at commercial and in-house levels. On the other hand, continuing education should not exclude people and companies due to high financial costs.
31. Standardisation of the technical infrastructure and software can facilitate their use and ensure their interoperability. This is necessary for greater acceptance of e-learning. Free open-source software on the Internet, such as “Moodle”, can help reduce the costs for e-learning and spread its use.
32. E-learning should enable students and teachers to cooperate internationally. This requires and thus fosters foreign language skills. In addition, technological translation devices should be developed further and made available, if possible openly to the public at large.
33. E-learning allows learning content and methods to be adapted to the individual demands of students. Means of individualising e-learning should be built into e-learning systems.
34. Continuing education of the public at large should be an objective for every state in Europe. Member governments should therefore support the production of quality content openly accessible through e-learning.
35. Parents should be made aware of e-learning potentials for their children and themselves.
36. The Council of Europe has developed an Internet-based e-learning platform on human rights training for lawyers, as well as an Internet-based game for children on safer use of the Internet. This should be developed further for other areas of the Council of Europe, which could become an example of good practice for national governments and educational institutions.

Appendix 1 – Summary of the teleconference Strasbourg, 1 October 2007

(open)

Programme

Opening

Opening by Jacques Legendre, Senator (France), Chairperson of the committee

Introduction by Axel Fischer, Member of Parliament (Germany), rapporteur of the committee

Discussion

Brendan Barrett, Head of Media Studio, United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan (live by videoconference)

Per Bergamin, Director, Institute for Research in Open and Distance Learning and e-Learning, Fernfachhochschule, Brig, Switzerland

Alberto Colorni, Professor and Director, Politecnico di Milano, Italy (live by video-conference)

Serge Ravet, Chief Executive, European Institute for e-Learning, Champlost, France

Wojciech Zielinski, Professor and Pro Vice Chancellor, Academy of Humanities and Economics, Łódź, Poland (live by videoconference)

Bernard Dumont, e-learning consultant, Paris, France

Helmut Hoyer, Rector and Professor, Fern-Universität, Hagen, Germany (live via the Internet)

Video messages

Brenda Gourley, Vice-Chancellor and Professor, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

Gilly Salmon, Professor of e-learning and learning technologies, University of Leicester, UK

Keith Bain, International Manager, Liberated Learning Consortium, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada

Conclusion

Axel Fischer, Member of Parliament (Germany), rapporteur of the committee

Oral contributions

Mr Legendre, Chairperson of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, welcomed the theme of this teleconference, which combined education with science, two of the committee’s main areas of activity.

Mr Fischer, rapporteur, underlined the potential of e-learning for school and university education as well as for lifelong learning. Technological progress in this field offered new opportunities for both teaching and learning in classrooms and also at distance, as well as for people with disabilities or special needs. It was important to support such e-learning opportunities. In his report, he wished to address the need to encourage the production of e-learning material and evaluation of the quality of e-learning content.

Mr Barrett, speaking by videoconference from Tokyo, explained that the United Nations University (UNU) in Tokyo had been working on e-learning since 1996 with the launch of the Virtual University Initiative. Following the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, the Global Virtual University of UNU had been created with the help of the Norwegian Government. Also in 2002, the UNU Water Virtual Learning Centre in Hamilton, Canada, had started working on water, environment and health issues. These initiatives required creating the Media Studio at UNU in Tokyo in 2003, which co-ordinated work and developed online educational resources. At the 2005 World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis, UNU committed itself to fostering an open information society. E-learning helped UNU in its collaborative network to develop e-learning capacities and content and to reach students across the globe.

Mr Fischer said that e-learning was used around the world and many universities co-operated virtually. He asked whether the recognition of study periods presented a problem.

Mr Barrett answered that the European Credit Transfer System was working well in Europe and should be used a reference for other parts of the world.

Mr Solonin asked whether e-learning at international level would be limited by language skills.

Mr Barrett answered that the UNU used predominantly English as the language of communication in e-learning programmes. The technical means existed, however, for rapid translation into other languages.

Mr Bergamin said that at the Fernfachhochschule in Brig, Switzerland, e-learning technologies were used for a blended learning scenario, that is, distribution of information, interaction between teachers and students and collaboration between students, both for distance study and face-to-face classes. There were multiple advantages for students and teachers, such as easier information management and sharing of information, continuous contacts and tutoring, and common content production for both teachers and students. At the same time, there were several challenges to overcome, such as lack of IT skills and the differences between everyday use of IT services and e-learning technologies. Lack of standardisation and quality management hindered the further development of e-learning.

Mr Colorni, speaking by videoconference from Milan, mentioned that the Milan Polytechnic University had had an e-learning centre since 1996 that had been recognised as one of eight examples of good practice by virtual universities in a study by the European Union in 2004, and at present employed 40 persons with an annual budget of €2 million. E-learning at his university focused on all levels of education, that is, high school, university and lifelong learning. The didactic work comprised tutoring, technical work, editing and design. The latter depended to a large degree on the users, their skills and learning demands. E-learning platforms used by the university were both in-house platforms as well as open-source platforms. Some 400 students were currently enrolled in a three-year online degree course in computer engineering with virtual classes, online evaluations and face-to-face examinations. In addition, 40% of the university’s face-to-face courses had learning material on a specific web platform. The university also offered a mathematics online course for high school students and teachers, which used specific didactic tools and language for a high school environment. This course had been followed by some 4 000 students and 300 teachers over the last four years. The Italian Ministry of Labour commissioned a course for young apprentices entering the job market, which was offered on an open platform and had been designed in co-operation with trade unions and employers. The university also offered a course for young persons in prisons, which had been commissioned by the ministries of justice and public education. Finally, the university was offering, in co-operation with NGOs and foundations, online courses for rural areas in Africa which had been followed so far by some 3 500 persons. These projects all had ad hoc design, specific didactic tools and language, collaborative learning processes, tutoring, monitoring and customer evaluation. The challenges experienced with these projects were, among others, standardisation, continuous quality management and teacher training.

Mr Ravet said that the European Institute for e-Learning in Champlost, France, was trying to incorporate e-learning into everyday life and e-training into everyday work. Work, training and life in general should not be separated. Students were not only consumers but also producers of tools and knowledge. The learning continuum was the greatest benefit of e-learning through immediate access to information (search engines), connecting people (social networks), keeping track of learning content (e-portfolios) and building collective knowledge (wikis). It was important to distinguish learning and teaching. The latter was unfortunately often the focus of e-learning, that is, using new technologies for traditional teaching.

Mr Zielinski, speaking by videoconference from Łódź, said that the Academy of Humanities and Economics in Łódź, Poland, had offered online degree studies since 2002. More than 300 students had already graduated. In addition, open courses were offered as well as blended courses using both face-to-face classes and online learning. Through such online programmes, the university had been able to increase access, achieve greater flexibility of programmes, improve the quality, lower the costs and build up e-learning competencies. The main challenges were the didactic skills of the faculty, the public’s low opinion of e-learning, the sometimes poor quality of Internet infrastructure and, most recently, governmental obstacles. The current Polish Minister for Science and Higher Education wanted to restrict e-learning programmes. The latter approach, together with the low public perception of e-learning, should be addressed at European level, where countries could learn from each other.

Mr Dumont said that he had used learning and teaching technologies for some thirty years and had therefore followed the technological development in this field. He was a private consultant at present. The University of Montpellier 3, France, where he had taught, offered online courses and thus prepared students for an e-learning environment. E-learning was, however, also important for large companies in order to ensure company-wide employee training irrespective of the location. Technological decisions were often taken without due respect for didactic requirements and the technological opportunities were not fully taken into account. At the European level, recognition of e-studies and degrees should be advanced and e-learning should also be supported beyond universities.

Mr Hoyer, speaking by videoconference from Hagen, mentioned that the Fern-Universität in Hagen, Germany, used e-learning technologies in an integrated approach to support teaching, communication, tutoring, evaluation and administration. All e-learning components were part of fully accredited university study programmes. There were many benefits of e-learning, such as meeting the individual needs of students, enhancing communication and information management, and building wider networks including virtual study “abroad”. E-learning programmes required teacher training and standardisation of courses. Student support, the development of study materials and the technical infrastructure were also essential. Continuous quality evaluation was necessary to master these challenges. European recognition of virtual studies should be supported together with the development of national competence centres for e-learning.

Mr Fischer asked about e-learning standards and the university teachers’ experience of it.

Mr Hoyer answered that all courses were accredited and therefore met the high quality standards. He suggested that his university could share its experience with traditional universities that did not offer e-learning.

Mr Bergamin answered that the Fernfachhochschule used technological standards such as ADL (Advanced Distributed Learning). He felt that media literacy was a major challenge for students, teachers and people who had no experience of e-learning.

Mr Ravet answered that common standards were a problem. General commercial standards such as IMS and ZIP should be preferred over internal university standards, which often lagged behind the standards used by students.

Mrs Gourley, in her video message, said that e-learning involved collaborative learning with others online, independent online work as well as learning with information and communication technologies. Over the past ten years, the Open University had developed a virtual learning environment based on the open-source platform “Moodle”. E-learning enabled better interaction of students among themselves and with tutors, either individually or as a collaborative group. Learning would be enhanced through animation, simulation, adaptive assessment and virtual realities, and provide better preparation for collaborative working environments. Students could receive more individualised support and avoid isolation. Teachers could better track student progress. The challenges faced by the university were the larger than expected amount of funds invested in ICT applications and staff development as well as keeping up with the rapid technological development. E-learning could be supported at European level by supporting the sharing of e-learning resources, possibly through open-source initiatives.

Mrs Salmon, in her video message, presented the e-learning research activities of the University of Leicester in co-operation with other universities under the Media Zoo project. Several research activities were accessible through a picture of a zoo on their university website, which included student groups using different ICT tools for different research objectives such as developing online pedagogical tools.

Mr Bain, in his video message, referred to the speech recognition technology of the Liberated Learning Consortium of IBM and several universities worldwide. The consortium had pioneered a speech recognition application that automatically transcribed speech, displayed it as readable text in real time, and created web accessible multimedia notes. In traditional classroom environments, this technology could assist students with disabilities as well as students lacking language skills.

Mr Fischer thanked all participants for their valuable contributions, which would be taken into account in his report to be prepared by January 2008.

The full texts are available on the Assembly’s conference website at http://assembly.coe.int/conferences.

Reporting committee: Committee on Culture, Science and Education.

References to committee: Doc. 10552, Reference No. 3094, 6 June 2005 and Doc. 11068, Reference No. 3289, 22 January 2007.

Draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 22 January 2008.

Members of the committee: Mrs Anne Brasseur (Chairperson), Baroness Hooper, Mr Detlef Dzembritzki, Mr Mehmet Tekelioğlu (Vice-Chairpersons), Mr Remigijus Ačas, Mr Kornél Almássy, Mrs Aneliya Atanasova, Mr Lokman Ayva, Mrs Donka Banović, Mr Rony Bargetze, Mr Walter Bartoš, Mr Radu Mircea Berceanu, Mr Levan Berdzenishvili, Mrs Oksana Bilozir (alternate: Mrs Olha Herasym’yuk), Mrs Guðfinna Bjarnadóttir, Mrs Ana Blatnik, Mrs Maria Luisia Boccia, Mrs Margherita Boniver, Mr Ivan Brajović, Mr Vlad Cubreacov, Mrs Lena Dabkowska-Cichocka, Mr Ivica Dačić, Mr Joseph Debono Grech, Mr Ferdinand Devinsky, Mr Daniel Ducarme (alternate: Mr Hendrik Daems), Mrs Åse Gunhild Woie Duesund, Mrs Anke Eymer, Mr Relu Fenechiu, Mrs Blanca FernándezCapel, Mrs María Emelina Fernández Soriano (alternate: Mr Iñaki Txueka), Mr Axel Fischer, Mr José Freire Antunes (alternate: Mr José Luis Arnaut), Mrs Ruth Genner (alternate: Mrs Doris Fiala), Mr Ioannis Giannellis-Theodosiadis, Mr Ştefan Glǎvan, Mr Vladimir Grachev (alternate: Mr Igor Chernyshenko), Mr Raffi Hovannisian, Mr Rafael Huseynov, Mr Fazail ibrahimli, Mr Mogens Jensen, Mr Morgan Johansson, Mrs Liana Kanelli (alternate: Mrs Rodoula Zissi), Mr Jan Kaźmierczak (alternate: Mr Dariusz Lipiński), Mrs Cecilia Keaveney, Mr Ali Rashid Khalil (alternate: Mr Donato Mosella), Mr Serhii Kivalov, Mr József Kozma, Mr Jean-Pierre Kucheida, Mr Ertuğrul Kumcuoğlu, Mr Markku Laukkanen, Mr Jacques Legendre (alternate: Mr Philippe Nachbar), Mr Yves Leterme, Mr van der Linden, Mrs Jagoda Majska-Martinčević, Mrs Milica Marković, Mrs Muriel Marland-Militello (alternate: Mr Alain Cousin), Mr Andrew McIntosh (alternate: Baroness Knight of Collingtree), Mr Ivan Melnikov, Mrs Maria Manuela Melo, Mrs Assunta Meloni, Mr Paskal Milo, Mrs Christine Muttonen (alternate: Mr Albrecht Konečný), Mrs Miroslava Němcová, Mr Edward O’Hara, Mr Kent Olsson, Mr Andrey Pantev, Mrs Antigoni Papadopoulos, Mr Azis Pollozhani, Mrs Majda Potrata, Mrs Anta Rugāte, Lord Russell-Johnston (alternate: Mr Robert Walter), Mr Indrek Saar, Mr André Schneider (alternate: Mr Frédéric Reiss) Mrs Albertina Soliani, Mr Yury Solonin (alternate: Mr Anatoliy Korobeynikov), Mr Christophe Spiliotis-Saquet, Mrs Doris Stump, Mr Valeriy Sudarenkov, Mr Petro Symonenko, Mr Klaas de Vries, Mr Piotr Wach, Mr Wolfgang Wodarg, N… (alternate: Mrs Rosario Velasco García).

NB: The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in bold.