learning technology standards significance educational issues current initiatives

Learning Technology Standards

Significance

Educational Issues

Current Initiatives

JISC MLE Programme for FE

Bill OlivierDirector, c e t i s

c e t i sInteroperability Standards

Educational TechnologyCentre for

Why Learning Technology Specifications are important

• Aren’t Internet & Web specs enough?Don’t they provide platform independence?

• Basic Web is ‘stateless’Need to keep track of and pass ‘state’– Enrolments, course outlines, materials

– Content description, use tracking and results

– Student Information and progress


• Currently most ‘state’ handling is proprietary – Battle to be the ‘Gorrilla’ & set ‘the’ standard– But bad for users and meantime stops uptake– Standards level the playing field– New players can enter with novel systems

• Users want– Able to choose systems from different vendors– Avoid ‘lock-in’– MLE flexibility & evolvability


Two broad areas for LT Specifications

• Content– Content Vendors - run on every system– System Vendors - run all forms of content– Users want BOTH!

• Systems Integration – Learning Environments composed of multiple systems


• Learning Environment has many systems• How should they be integrated?• 3 levels:

1. Information Mapping and Formats2. API (Application Programming Interface)

3. Transport Protocols

• Current Specs mainly focus on 1. • Starting to address 2.• All three needed for working LEs


• Content (broadly defined)– Lesson Plans– Learning Objects– Presentations– Tests

• System Independent therefore portable

• Composable from elements, so also reusable

• Adaptable to learner’s needs and context


Question & Test• Portable across systems

• Define multiple question types + operation

• Define Result format – Results back to different Runtime systems– Results sent to Learner Profiling Systems– Gradebooks


Metadata• Describe and classify learning resources

• Enable them to searched

• Across multiple repositories

• Retrieve appropriate resources


Learner Profiles (IMS LIP)

A Format for Exchanging:

• Official Transcripts

• Personal Development Planning

– Learners’ plans, state and achievements

• Lifelong Learning Records


Integrating VLE/LMS into MLEs(IMS Enterprise)

• Provide Enrolments to VLE/LMS

• Obtain Results/Outcomes back

• Enables integration of new & existing systems


Learning Design (new Work Group)

Beyond Content, need to express Process (at last!)

• Supports multiple pedagogical approaches

• Learning Activities

• Roles (learners, teachers, assessors, etc.)

• Co-ordinate Activities (workflow/learning flow)

• Associate with Content & other Resources – messaging, discussions, announcements,

content, search, tools, applications, etc


Accessibility (new IMS Working Group)

Guidelines and Contributing to other IMS Specs

• How to use Accessibility Features for Learning• Draw diverse material together (W3C, Java, MS)• Target:

– Learning Content Developers– Learning System Developers

• Inputting into Metadata, QTI, Profiles, LD WGs

Educational issues in standards developments

Focus has (up to now) been mainly on:

• Infrastructure, less on Learning

• Content, not Process

• Training, rather than Education

But this is Changing

• Training perspectives are broadening

• Education vendors ready to broaden

• new: Educational Modeling Language


‘Disconnect’ Problem

• Standards are often ‘invisible’ to users

• Systems that support can be good or bad

• Standards have been low level interchange

As they move to higher levels:

• What are the requirements?

• What kinds of learning?

• Changing Technology needs new Pedagogy?


How can different learning approaches be accommodated?

EML abstracts common and essential needs of different pedagogical approaches, and provides a supporting framework/language (Human Activities + Content orientation)

CLEO (Next generation SCORM) proposes:– different data models – a uniform means of sequencing

(still Content-Oriented)

Current Initiatives and their Achievements

Specifications & Reference Models

• AICC - CMI (Computer Managed Instruction)• ADL - SCORM 1.0, 1.1, new 1.2 (and soon 1.3)

• Europe - Prometeus, CEN/ISSS

• IMS - various specifications

Formal Standards • IEEE - Learning Technology Standards Committee

• ISO - SC 36

AICC

AICC (Aircraft Industries CBT Committee)– Problem: Airplanes need maintenance– need many reliably-trained technicians, worldwide– need CBT to help with training

• BUT– Airplanes last for 20 years– Computer platforms for 5 (at most)– How to avoid multiple, costly, re-implementations

• AICC Specifications - CMI– Content sequence, delivery & tracking– Simple multiple choice testing– Model: CDs, stand-alone PC & isolated learner

Europe: ARIADNE Project

• CE funded project

• Consortium of University & Industrial Partners

• Content & Metadata focused

• By ‘98 had produced a Metadata specification

• Initially hostile to IMS

• Signed MoU with IMS to collaborate on Metadata

• Both IMS & ARIADNE built on Dublin Core– about 2/3rds of their extensions cross-mapped– worked to harmonise their specifications

ADL (U.S. DoD)

• ADLnet (Advanced Distributed Learning Network)– US Dept of Defense initiative– Agreed early (‘97) to work with IMS– But narrower focus than IMS (web content delivery)– Impatient with slow rate of progress in IMS 98-99– Invited specific companies to define a closed spec– Built on AICC, IMS Metadata & IMS Content ideas– Produced SCORM v1.0 Jan 2000; v1.1 Jan 2001

(Shareable Content Object Reference Model)

– roughly: AICC for the Web (CMI + IMS Metadata & CP)

– Web Content, Browser and single learner model

ADL’s SCORM

Reactions to SCORM v1.1, a start but too limited, no:• Sequencing (main current focus)• Two way communication (messaging, simulations)• Support for different approaches to learning• Integration of content with other activities• Multiple users• Multiple SCOs (Shareable Content Objects)

Version 1.2: integrates IMS Packaging & IEEE LOMVersion 1.3: will add IMS Sequencing

ADL SCORM - where next?

CLEO Project - R&D for SCORM 2.0• Based at Carnegie Melon Research Institute• Invited commercial partners + O.U. UK

Short Term• A new Sequencing Specification (rapidly)• As basis for SCORM 1.3 (announce in November)

Longer Term• Better Runtime: Structure, Sequencing, Adaptive• Support Web-based Intelligent Tutoring• Different Learning Styles & Pedagogies

Then the European MoU

• PROMETEUS & CEN/ISSS WS-LT– Partially a European response to IMS– Set up at ministerial level in Council of Europe

• PROMETEUS– Gather cross-sectoral views– Formulate requirements for specifications– Feed these to CEN/ISSS WS-LT– Trial Projects, Evaluate, Best Practice, Disseminate

• CEN/ISSS WS-LT– European Centre for Standards/Information Society…– Working Group has made Recommendations to CE– Now working mainly on internationalising Metadata– New Activities: IPR, Quality, EML

- and IMS

• IMS - (Not Instructional Management Systems!)

– Set up in late ‘97 by US universities’ EDUCAUSE

– But involved Vendors, US Gov. and non-US bodies

– JISC joined in May ‘98 on behalf of all UK HE - and now FE - institutions

– Early on inherited work of other Groups on Metadata

IMS Specs Complete & Current

• Metadata 1.0 Final: Aug 1999• Enterprise 1.0 Final: Oct 1999

• Content Packaging 1.0 Final: May 2000• Question & Test 1.0 Final: May 2000

• Learner Information Package 1.0 Final: Feb 2001• Content Packaging 1.1 Final: Feb 2001

• new Accessibility Start: Feb 2001• new Learning Design Start: Feb 2001• new Digitial Repositories Start: March 2001

IMS SpecsCurrent & Expected

• Competencies Implementation Guide: May 2001

• GUIDs Implementation Guide: May 2001

• Accessibility Scope: May 2001

• Packaging LIP + others Implementation Guide: Aug 2001• Learning Design Scope: Aug 2001• Digital Repositories Scope: Aug 2001

• Question & Test 1.1 Final: Aug 2001 • Metadata 1.2 (bindings IEEE LOM) Final: Aug 2001

• new Content Sequencing Start: Sept 2001

IMS Specs: current state

• Learning Design Base: Nov 2001

• Content Sequencing Final: Nov 2001

• Accessibility Draft: Nov 2001

Formal Standards• IEEE 1484 LTSC (Learning Technology Standards Committee)• GENERAL • P1484.1 Architecture and Reference Model WG • P1484.3 Glossary WG

• LEARNER-RELATED • P1484.2 Learner Model WG • P1484.13 Student Identifiers WG • P1484.20 Competency Definitions WG

• CONTENT-RELATED • P1484.10 CBT Interchange Language WG • P1484.6 Course Sequencing WG • P1484.17 Content Packaging WG

• DATA & METADATA • P1484.12 Learning Objects Metadata WG LOM 6.0 approaching

Standardisation• P1484.9 Localization WG • P1484.14 Semantics and Exchange Bindings WG • P1484.15 Data Interchange Protocols WG

• MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS & APPLICATIONS • P1484.11 Computer Managed Instruction WG • P1484.18 Platform and Media Profiles WG • P1484.7 Tool/Agent Communication WG

Formal Standards

ISO SC 36• In Novemeber ’99, ISO/IEC, launched new sub-committee

– Title: ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 36 -- Learning Technology

– Scope: Standardization in the area of information technologies that support automation for learners, learning institutions, and learning resources

– Excluded: The SC shall not create standards or technical reports that define educational standards, cultural conventions, learning objectives, or specific learning content

• IEEE LTSC has a ‘formal liaison‘ with SC36 – recognised as a contributing, but non-voting, body.

• CEN/ISSS LT will also form a formal liaison

Formal Standards

ISO SC 36

Proposed 4 Preliminary Work Items (PWI) :

– Architecture

– Metadata

– Glossary

– Collaborative Learning Technologies

How Initiatives Relate - in theory

Need for standards becoming accepted

Formal Certified

Standards

Early Inter-company collaboration

Consortia formed

‘De Novo’

Specifications produced

Specifications Implemented

Standards bodies refine existing best practice

+ve & -ve experience gained

AICC

ADLnet

IEEE ISO

IMS

ARIADNE

CEN/ISSS WS-LT

How Initiatives Relate - in reality

AICC

ADLnet

IEEE LTSC

ISO

IMS

ARIADNE

CEN/ISSS WS-LT

L O Metadata

SCORM

Dublin Core & early LO Metadata

DINBSI

Japan

PROMETEUS

MoU

Recent Collaboration Agreement

ADL net SCORM 2.0

IMS

MIT++ OKI

CLEO

Specifications

ReferenceImplementations

R & D

The FE Managed Learning Environments programme

Government funding for IT in FE

FEFC (English) joined JISC to:

1. Extend provision of JANET to FE

Now largely complete, but only 2Mb links

2. Gain input into the FE IT Programme


IT for Learning Technology Programme

• Specification of Needs

• Negotiation with Vendors

• Funded a Programme

• Appointed a Steering Group


Initial Approach:

Create Requirements & Specifications & Go out to Tender - for the whole sector

But some serious drawbacks:– Big Consortium bids – Whoever got it would corner the market– Other sector suppliers would go – Sector very varied - one size would notnot fit all– Colleges differentiating on approaches to learning


Defined 2 basic Terms:

MLE - Managed Learning EnvironmentThe whole institution-wide system with mulitple sub-systems, such as

VLE - Virtual Learning EnvironmentThe Learning Management System

that sits within the MLE

(Blackboard, WebCT, COSE, Colloquia, etc)


Alternative Approach:

Allow Vendors to bid separately to Colleges - Colleges create their own systems

Key Issue: How to ensure interoperability?Use LT Specifications and standards

But which?Meeting with Vendors - agreed: use IMS plus FE Extensions

where necessary


Decided to run a Pilot Programme to:

• establish feasibility of approach

• discover and address problems arising

• determine the extensions needed

• provide testbed for vendors implementing IMS

• establish interoperability

• enable colleges to gauge technical and cultural change issues


Colleges funded to manage Pilots with at least two vendors. Vendors mainly self funded

College agree basic requirements with vendors

Implement IMS specs and trial in College

Specs mainly:

• IMS Enterprise and Profiles

• Also Content and Question & Test

• Content Pilots now using ADL’s SCORM


Initial FE Extensions:

For Funding, Colleges have to return ISRs(Individualised Student Record) to FEFC (LSC)

These were created and returned from MIS

Within an MLE some fo this data may becreated in other systems, notably the VLE

Therefore need agreed formats for passing thisinformation between systems in an MLE

Other extensions may be needed (Metadata)

What needs to be exchanged?

FEFC/LSC

MIS

VLE

Content TestingFinding

IMS Learner Information

+ FE Extensions

existing ISR/ILR

IMS Enterprise

IMS Metadata

College MLE

Learners

IMS QTIIMS Content

Some Benefits of Standards

• Enable Insitutions to create MLEs to meet their needs through integrating different systems

• Avoid lock in• Portability of Information between Systems• Content works on any System• Systems work with any Content• Increase the Learning Technology Market

– More products, of higher quality, at lower prices

• Support a diverse Supplier Side• Enable Cross-institutional Collaboration

Purpose of CETIS

Set up by JISC as a 2 way link between:

• UK HE & FE

• Bodies developing LT standards

UK HE/FE CETIS

IMS

CEN/ISSS

IEEE

CETIS & HE/FE Community

Community Operates at Different Levels Top: End Users Requirements in || Use out Mid: Info Creators Requirements in || Use out Low: Technical Tech & Domain || Systems out

Expertise in || Specs out

• Specs Usage, and hence SIGs, have been at Low level

• But this now changing as systems emerge

• FE now has greater needs at the Mid & Top levels

• Steve & Clive, in all SIGs, will lead at these levels

CETIS Special Interest Groups

Groups & Co-ordinators (more this afternoon)• Question & Test: Strathclyde U.• Metadata: Loughborough U.

• Profiles: H/FE Consortium led by CRA Centre for Recording Achievement

& Enterprise: de Montfort U.

• Content: Edinburgh U.• All-SIGs FE Focus: Newark & Sherwood C.• Accessibility: soon• Pedagogy & Integration: soon

CETIS Staff and Contacts

CETIS at Bangor:• Bill Olivier, Oleg Liber, Lisa Rowlands:

[email protected]

CETIS Learning Technology Standards Portal:

http://www.cetis.ac.uk/also:• Paul Lefrere, Networking (OU)

[email protected]• Andy Heath, Accessibility (SHU)

[email protected]

SIG contacts and information this afternoon

Useful Links

IMS Global http://www.imsproject.orgADL (SCORM) http://www.adlnet.orgCLEO (SCORM v2 R&D) http://www.cleolab.orgReport - http:// www.lsal.cmri.cmu.edu/lsal/expertise/projects/cleo/report/20010701/

OKI http://web.mit.edu/oki/index.htmlIEEE LTSC http://ltsc.ieee.org ISO JTC1 SC36 http://jtc1sc36.orgCEN/ISSS http://www.cenorm.be/isss/workshop/ltPROMETEUS http://prometeus.orgALIC http://www.alic.gr.jp/eng/index.htm

learning technology standards significance educational issues current initiatives

Documents

important learning environment

learning resources

important content

important metadatadescribe

important integrating

ims specshow

accessibility features

state handling