May 11, 2001CSG OKI Directions © MIT 20001 CSG Open Knowledge Initiative May 11, 2001 James D.Bruce...

May 11, 2001 CSG OKI Directions © MIT 2000 1

CSG Open Knowledge CSG Open Knowledge InitiativeInitiative

May 11, 2001

James D.Bruce

Michael D. BarkerPhillip D. Long

May 11, 2001 2CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000

AgendaAgenda OKI Highlights

– Approach– Architecture– Value Added -- Feature Set

LMS Summit– Key Points Summary

Influence on Vendors CSG Priorities Getting Involved Summary & Q and A


Open Knowledge Initiative Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI)(OKI)

What is it?– Learning systems specification

» Standards based» Pedagogically driven – proactive support for

PGP

– Reference implementation» Open source

– Development Strategy– Support strategy

Mellon Foundation Funding– Vijay Kumar – PI


OCW vs OKIOCW vs OKI

Dueling TLAs Are these initiatives related? (besides the

letter “O”?) OKI is the infrastructure from which

content will be ‘published’ to OCW– http://web.mit.edu/ocw - Information


OKI Core CollaboratorsOKI Core Collaborators

Stanford NCSU

Dartmouth

U Penn Harvard

U Wisconsin

MIT


OKI Collaborator ObligationsOKI Collaborator Obligations

OKI Fellows join MIT-based team– OKI partner desired competencies

» Pedagogical Research (OKI-Teach)

» Architecture/Design

» Development Resources

– Two Phases of Residency» 1: Architecture, design and development

» 2: Implementation and Support

Stanford

UWiscDartmouth

UPenn Harvard

NCSU

MIT


OKIOKI

OKI CommunitiesOKI Communities

Stanford

UWiscDartmouth

UPenn Harvard

Projects:IMS,

uPortal,I2

etc.

Early Adopter

Inst.

Industry

Extended Community

NCSU

MIT Other

Inst.Partners

Tech Advisory

LMS Advisory

Open SourceSupport


Harvard

MIT

UPenn

OKIReferencePlatform

OKI

OKI Core TimelinesOKI Core TimelinesMIT

Stanford

CourseWork

MIT

StellarSummer 01

Other Implementations?

ParallelEfforts

OKI SpecSept. 2001

Dartmouth

Stanford

UWisc

NCSU


Three Major PhasesThree Major Phases Stellar-June:

– MIT Prototype, ready for alpha testing June 1– initial production use June 30– enhancement release Sept. 1

Stellar/Courseworks– use in September across selected courses, continue

development OKI Initial Outline of Draft specification set by

9/2001 OKI Reference implementation by summer 2002


Other LMSs

LMS-LMS Exchange

Specification

Enterprise Data Exchange

Specification

DigitalAsset

Exchange Specification

Modular Authentication

??

User InterfaceSpecification

OKI Learning SpecificationsOKI Learning Specifications

Users Content

Process

OKI “Core” Reference Architecture

ComponentSpecification

Quiz

White Board Virtual Lab

Portfolio Management

Content Outline

List Management

EnterpriseInformation

--Student

Information Systems

AssetManagement

--Digital

LibraryInitiatives

AuthenticationServices


We Interrupt This Powerpoint We Interrupt This Powerpoint Presentation for…Presentation for…

A Sneak Peek at Some Stellar Views What does a student see? What does a faculty member see? Can we change the look and feel?

Please stay seated as we click…


Data Objects and Tools

Tool Model(Bus. Logic)

Tool Renderer(Presentation)

CoreObjects

UtilLibrary

HomePage

AuthN AuthZ StoreDB

Site Nexus Measure User Role Arc Group

Announce Syllabus

XSLTR

DTLTR

JSPTR

“Integrated” tooleg CourseWork

DB Filespace

…

…

???


LMS SummitLMS SummitPedagogy Driving Development Pedagogy Driving Development Objectives – Generative Phase

– Identify principles of teaching and learning that an LMS should proactively encourage

– Assemble examples of implementing T&L principles – Designate most important attributes for an LMS for

initial release Process

– Pre-meeting email discussion– Small group refinement of preliminary themes– Selected issues from research, libraries, system

builders, and faculty users


LMS Pre-Meeting ThemesLMS Pre-Meeting Themes Assessment: formative

evaluation. Feedback. Multiple levels.

Collaborative Learning/Community Building

Concept Mapping: making visible structure

Constructivist: scaffolds, novice vs masters learners, build portfolios.

Individualized/Adaptive Learning

Reusability: make earning objects accessible across courses and across institutions

System design: scalability, integration, reduce costs, drive innovation

Usability/Faculty Development


ObservationsObservations

LMS Developers – “Look for the sweet spot” –

» Carl Berger, Umich

Researchers– “Generalize form, customize content” –

Diana Laurillard, Open University UK


ObservationsObservations

Librarians – Leverage existing digital asset management

projects – John Ockerbloom, U Penn Faculty

– “Greatest faculty constraint is time” – Steve Lerman, MIT Faculty Chair


Selected Critical Features V.1Selected Critical Features V.11. Marketing plans and support2. “Pedapoint”: wizards to support pedagogically sound

course structure and content creation3. Modularity/Glue4. Searching Multimedia and good representation of

what is contained5. Collaboration across institutions6. Learner, faculty, & institutional portfolios7. Tools that allow easy migration of existing materials8. Library of best practices


Summary of LMS SummitSummary of LMS Summit

We have established and must retain a pedagogical basis

We will build aiming to deliver something pragmatically useful

This is an organic community effort And it’s now underway!


Views from the SummitViews from the Summit


Influence on VendorsInfluence on Vendors

Where do vendor products need influence?

For those invested in Blackboard, WebCT, etc., besides magic pixie dust to facilitate seamless transition into a new LMS, to what should OKI pay particular attention?


Summary List of Responses to Summary List of Responses to CSG SurveyCSG Survey

1. robust, flexible file management2. support of webDAV and other content-authoring

standards3. flexibility in roles and rights4. content accessible to other courses and systems5. flexible structure to group and partition course sites6. internationalization7. integration with other systems8. common calendar (my calendar for all my courses)9. good tools: quizzing, whiteboard


Prioritize Please – What’s Prioritize Please – What’s Missing?Missing?

1. robust, flexible file management2. support of webDAV and other content-authoring

standards3. flexibility in roles and rights4. content accessible to other courses and systems5. flexible structure to group and partition course sites6. internationalization7. integration with other systems (e.g., common calendar

my calendar for all my courses)8. good tools: quizzing, whiteboard9. Archiving and version control


Goals for OKIGoals for OKI Hooks into Enterprise Data and Infrastructure extensibility (don’t cater to least common denominator) Accessibility Security – your tools not MITs or Stanfords Avoid marginalizing one or more of

– User experience– Content management– Pedagogical process support– Support for institutional structure

Build a robust business model around Open Source Licensed software


Open SourceOpen Source

Open source <> public domain License strategy?

– Reference Core– Tools

Vendor strategy? These are issues for Core Collaborators

to tackle


Join the CommunityJoin the Community Stay informed – join oki-announce

– Subscribe at http://web.mit.edu/oki Make the OKI architectural specifications what you need

– Subscribe at http://web.mit.edu/oki Engage with the OKI teaching and learning group

– Contact: [email protected] or [email protected] Help build the commercial-OKI bridge.

– Work with your vendor to inform them of OKI specifications development

Give us your input – send suggestions to – [email protected]


In SummaryIn Summary

OKI: an architecture with implementations OKI: Pedagogy first! Then a grow the

community, technology, and support OKI: it’s just the beginning of a conversation,

and we welcome your participation– We need you to help us understand how OKI can

best serve you, and to work with your vendors to make sure that they are a part of the OKI community.


You Can Reach Us...You Can Reach Us...

Michael Barker– [email protected]

– 617/253-0119

Vijay Kumar– [email protected]

– 617/253-8004

Phillip D. Long– [email protected]

– 617/452-4038

Jeff Merriman– [email protected]

– 617/452-4039

OKI website: http://web.mit.edu/oki

“Where the rubber meets the sky”

Q & A


Questions and AnswersQuestions and Answers


Stellar RequirementsStellar Requirements Functional - does what MIT needs Supportable (at relatively low expense, by relatively

few people) Extensible (open software, but also based on

standards) Simple to use by TAs but also administrative

assistants and even (!) faculty Integrates with external institutional systems (bi-

directionally) Provides for security, privacy, and addresses

intellectual property issues


Stellar System Requirements (cont)Stellar System Requirements (cont)

Easy to use "standard" look and feel and course organization, plus customizable appearance & organization.

Support reuse and shared use of content Provide support for good pedagogical practices Must be accessible (ADA) Support a number of portal environments

(OKI will align with uPortal in particular but not necessarily exclusively

Establish a process for additions, enhancements, and improvements


Suggestions/QuestionsSuggestions/Questions How does one contribute to the specifications?

– A. Block diagram of the architecture with a definition of the APIs for each interface

Where the voting took place – what degree of difficulty for the developers is associated with each of the items?– Should this be a vote independent of degree of difficulty?

Might want to give voting process at the end of the talk Explain “Pedagogically neutral” - Differentiate OKI – is it just another LMS?

– Most have nothing to do with learning; how to structure your learning methodology and teaching around your online course environment – Where is the pedagogy in the LMS?

May 11, 2001CSG OKI Directions © MIT 20001 CSG Open Knowledge Initiative May 11, 2001 James D.Bruce...

Documents

Transcript of May 11, 2001CSG OKI Directions © MIT 20001 CSG Open Knowledge Initiative May 11, 2001 James D.Bruce...