Why

1
c e t i s
Centre for
Educational Technology
Interoperability Standards

• Why
• Learning Technology Standards?
• Why IMS?
• a Discussion
• Bill Olivier
• Technical Director, c e t i s

2

• Following
• Some slides actually used in the Session

3
Where IMS fits in - the others

• Early 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

4
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

5
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

6
- 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

7
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

8
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

9
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

10
Formal Standards

• ISO SC 36
• Proposed 4 Preliminary Work Items (PWI)
• Architecture
• Metadata
• Glossary
• Collaborative Learning Technologies

11
How Initiatives Relate - in theory
ISO
IEEE
Formal Certified Standards
Standards bodies refine existing best practice
CEN/ISSS WS-LT
De Novo Specifications produced
ve -ve experience gained
IMS
Consortia formed
Specifications Implemented
ADLnet
AICC
ARIADNE
Early Inter-company collaboration
Need for standards becoming accepted
12
How Initiatives Relate - in reality
Japan
ISO
IEEE LTSC
ADLnet
DIN
BSI
CEN/ISSS WS-LT
IMS
AICC
Dublin Core early LO Metadata
MoU
PROMETEUS
ARIADNE
13

• Following
• Slides prepared, but not used, in the Session

14
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)

15
IMS Approach

• Consistent format for Final Specifications
• 3 parts
• 1. Data Model
• Fields, formats, constraints
• 2. (Usually) XML Binding
• DTD (soon XML Schemas)
• 3. Best Practice Guide
• Notes for developers and sometimes end users

16
IMS Specs

• Metadata, building on Dublin Core
• Enterprise (LMS lt---gt 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

17
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

18
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

19
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

20
Issues

• Internet Supported Learning
• Portable Courses, Portable Content
• Portable Tests and Questions
• Description Search
• Portable Lifelong Learning Records
• Class Enrolment and Results
• Collaborative Learning

21
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 dont have standards?

22
From Functions to System Level Components
Cataloguing Searching
Using Content
Peer Discussion Support
Standards needed to link pass information
between systems
Formative Testing
Content Authoring
Summative Testing
Test Authoring
LMS/VLE
Repository
PDP
Course Preparation Validation
Mentor Support
Learning Profile
Course Catalogue
Student Records
Class Enrolment
23
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?

24
Portable Courses Content

• Transporting Learning Objects
• Aggregation Disaggregation
• Using Descriptions
• Tracking Learners
• Getting Results back form Session Tests

25
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?

26
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?

27
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

28
Lifelong Learning Records

• Multiple Learning Institutions
• What should pass between them?
• Information Learners or Institutions?
• Control?
• Will Employers demand it, if it is there?
• What Levels of detail? Who For?

29
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

30
Purpose of CETIS

• Set up by JISC as a 2 way link between
• UK HE FE
• Bodies developing LT standards

IMS
CEN/ISSS
UK HE/FE
CETIS
IEEE
31
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

32
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

33
Staff and Contacts

• At Bangor
• Bill Olivier, Oleg Liber, Lisa Rowlands
• cetis_at_bangor.ac.uk http//cetis.bangor.ac.uk/cetis
  /
• Paul Lefrere (OU)
• Andy Heath (SHU)