Learning Technology Standards Significance Educational Issues Current Initiatives
description
Transcript of 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
Why Learning Technology Specifications are important
• 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
Why Learning Technology Specifications are important
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
Why Learning Technology Specifications are important
• 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
Why Learning Technology Specifications are important
• 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
Why Learning Technology Specifications are important
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
Why Learning Technology Specifications are important
Metadata• Describe and classify learning resources
• Enable them to searched
• Across multiple repositories
• Retrieve appropriate resources
Why Learning Technology Specifications are important
Learner Profiles (IMS LIP)
A Format for Exchanging:
• Official Transcripts
• Personal Development Planning
– Learners’ plans, state and achievements
• Lifelong Learning Records
Why Learning Technology Specifications are important
Integrating VLE/LMS into MLEs(IMS Enterprise)
• Provide Enrolments to VLE/LMS
• Obtain Results/Outcomes back
• Enables integration of new & existing systems
Why Learning Technology Specifications are important
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
Why Learning Technology Specifications are important
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
Educational issues in standards developments
‘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?
Educational issues in standards developments
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
The FE Managed Learning Environments programme
IT for Learning Technology Programme
• Specification of Needs
• Negotiation with Vendors
• Funded a Programme
• Appointed a Steering Group
The FE Managed Learning Environments programme
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
The FE Managed Learning Environments programme
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)
The FE Managed Learning Environments programme
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
The FE Managed Learning Environments programme
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
The FE Managed Learning Environments programme
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
The FE Managed Learning Environments programme
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:
CETIS Learning Technology Standards Portal:
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/also:• Paul Lefrere, Networking (OU)
[email protected]• Andy Heath, Accessibility (SHU)
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