c e t i s

WhyLearning Technology Standards?

Why IMS?

a Discussion

Bill Olivier Technical Director, c e t i s

Interoperability StandardsEducational Technology

Centre for

Following:

Some slides actually used in the Session

Where IMS fits in - the othersEarly on:• 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– Content sequencing & delivery oriented– Multiple choice testing– CDs, stand-alone PC & isolated learner model

Where IMS fits in - the others

• Europe: ARIADNE Project– CE funded project

– Large Consortium of University & Industrial Partners

– Content & Metadata focused

– By ‘98 had produced a Metadata specification

– Initially hostile to IMS

– Signed an 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

Where IMS fits in - the others

• 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 Content ideas– Produced SCORM v1.0 Jan 2000; v1.1 Jan 2001– (Shareable Courseware Object Reference Model)– roughly: AICC for the Web– Web Content, Browser and isolated learner model

- 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

– Look at IMS in more detail later

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 recently put forward a report– Recommendations made to the CE

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 • P1484.19 Quality System for Technology-Based Life-Long Learning (Study Group) • 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 • IEEE Standard Upper Ontology SG • P1484.12 Learning Objects Metadata WG • 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 StandardsISO 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

Following:

Slides prepared, but not used, in the Session

IMS Approach

• Time driven delivery of Specifications

• 4 Document Milestones:

1. Scope: what can be done in 6 months?

2. Base: how it is proposed to do it (2 months)

3. Public Draft: closest for trialling (2 months)

Trialling of draft takes place, with feedback

4. Final Specification (2 months)

IMS Approach

• Consistent format for Final Specifications

• 3 parts:

1. Data ModelFields, formats, constraints

2. (Usually) XML BindingDTD (soon XML Schemas)

3. Best Practice GuideNotes for developers and sometimes end users

IMS Specs

• Metadata, building on Dublin Core• Enterprise (LMS <---> MIS) • Profiles • Content

– Finding (link to metadata)– Packaging (for shipping between systems)– Launch and Runtime API (with live learners)

• Question & Test– Format for Exchanging Questions and Tests– Future: getting Results back from sessions

IMS Specs Complete & Current

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

• Content Packaging Final: May 2000• Question & Test 1 Final: May 2000• Profiles / Learner Information Scope: May 2000• Content Management Scope: May 2000

• Learner Information Base: July 2000 • Competencies (mini) Scope: Aug 2000

• Learner Information Draft: Nov 2000• Question & Test 2 (results) Scope: Nov 2000• Competencies Base: Nov 2000 • GUIDs (mini) Scope: Nov 2000• Content Packaging 1.1 Draft: Dec 2000

IMS SpecsCurrent & Expected

• Learner Information Final: Feb 2001• Content Packaging 1.1 Final: Feb 2001• Question & Test 1.1 Draft: Feb 2001 • Content Management Base: Feb 2001• Question & Test 2 Base: Feb 2001• Competencies Base: Feb 2001• GUIDs Base: Feb 2001• new Accessibility Start: Feb 2001• new Instructional Design Start: Feb 2001

• Question & Test 1.1 Final: May 2001 • Content Management Draft: May 2001• Question & Test 2 Draft: May 2001• Competencies Draft: May 2001• GUIDs Draft: May 2001• Accessibility Scope: May 2001• Instructional Design Scope: May 2001

IMS SpecsFuture

• Content Management Final: July/Aug 2001

• Question & Test 2 Final : July/Aug 2001

• Competencies Final : July/Aug 2001

• GUIDs Final : July/Aug 2001

• Accessibility Base: July/Aug 2001

• Instructional Design Base: July/Aug 2001

• Accessibility Draft: Sept/Oct 2001

• Instructional Design Draft: Sept/Oct 2001

Issues

• Internet Supported Learning

• Portable Courses, Portable Content

• Portable Tests and Questions

• Description & Search

• Portable Lifelong Learning Records

• Class Enrolment and Results

• Collaborative Learning

Internet Supported Learning

• Teaching involves a set of complex processes

• What systems are needed to support these?

• What Standards are needed to network them?

• Who Supplies Standards?

• What if you don’t have standards?

From Functions to System Level Components

LMS/VLE

Learning Profile

Cataloguing & Searching

Test Authoring

Course Preparation & Validation

Student RecordsClass Enrolment

Content Authoring

Course Catalogue

PDP

Using Content Peer Discussion & Support

Mentor Support

Formative Testing

Repository

Summative Testing

Standards needed to link & pass

information between systems

Portable Courses & Content

• Why not just use Web Standards?

• Is there more to using Content than delivery?

• Is there a cultural difference between the approach to learning in the UK the US?

• Are we converging?

• Will the use of LT bring about uniformity?

• Is/Should Learning be Content Driven?

Portable Courses & Content

• Transporting Learning Objects

• Aggregation & Disaggregation

• Using Descriptions

• Tracking Learners

• Getting Results back form Session Tests

Portable Tests and Questions

• Computer Assisted Assessment

• What is its role?

• Can it be improved?

• Must high quality assessment be expensive?

• Portable tests?

• Portable results?

Description & Search

• Describing Learning Content

• What needs to be described?– To Find it?– To Use it?

• How should it be described?

• Is Metadata the only way?– How have we found learning resources?

Class Enrolment and Results

• Will Class teaching continue online?

• What is needed?

• Linking Academic to Administrative systems

• Where is the boundary? All ‘Administration’?

• Negotiating Learning:– Learner– Mentor– Administrator

Lifelong Learning Records

• Multiple Learning Institutions

• What should pass between them?

• Information: Learner’s or Institutions?

• Control?

• Will Employers demand it, if it is there?

• What Levels of detail? Who For?

Collaborative Learning

• Is Internet Learning still based on CDs?

• Can we harness Internet communication?

• What kinds of Collaborative Learning?

• What information is needed?– Groups, Members, Identity, Role, Location,

Access,

• What functionality is needed? – Messaging (person2person & system2system),

Presence, Shared/Distributed Authoring

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

• Funded by JISC Integrated Environments for Learning (JCIEL) Committee

• Set up in May 1998, extended in 2000 for 3 further years

• Managed by University of Wales Bangor in collaboration with O.U. and Sheffield Hallam University

CETIS Special Interest Groups

Group Co-ordinators:

• Question & Test: Strathclyde U.• Metadata: Loughborough U.• Enterprise & Profiles:

Consortium of universities headed by Centre for Recording Achievement

• Content: soon• Accessibility: soon

Staff and Contacts

At Bangor:

• Bill Olivier, Oleg Liber, Lisa Rowlands

cetis@bangor.ac.uk

http://cetis.bangor.ac.uk/cetis/

• Paul Lefrere (OU)

• Andy Heath (SHU)