Summary of content work at Staffs COSE 2.05 release [June 2002] CO3 Project report [Aug 2002] X4L project [from Sept 2002]

COSE release 1 More on COSE web site (philosophy / rationale, pedagogy, interoperability ) VLE and manual downloadable from support server c. 400 registrations since June (australia - zambia)

COSE release 2 New in COSE 2 –Revised - launch, search tools, admin routines, manual, supporting pagesets, learner tracking and group reports –Fast import routine –Chat facility –Content packaging and exchange facility ** –Test / MCQ facility –Learner profiles –CD publication and off line working / player –sharable margin notes – annotations to content ) ** specification conformant content packaging

COSE release 3 Allows COSE – COSE exchanges using CP and metadata specifications Runtime behaviour missing (!) i.e. tacit / default behaviour for other COSE system but: in upgrading to to latest version of metadata and CP specs (CO3 project) migration to SCORM 1.2 facilitated

CO3 Project and Report 1 Experiential assessment of IMS specifications (Metadata, CP, Enterprise) Conclusions in line with MLE SG / S3 reports (cf also IMS OTF) - specifications not standards, evolving, - difficult to work with - but justified Briefs / reports at partner web sites: Generic outputs inc. packageIt tool from Bangor

CO3 Project and Report 2 upgrade content packaging in COSE to use JDOM API (formerly Packman) to use metadata 1p2p2 spec [instance conformance] to use content packaging 1p1p3 spec [instance conformance] cose content ‘runs’ in packageIt tool [displays resource files inc. cose metadata files] [colloquia content packages in cose: use of wrappers / cose player] faciltates migration to SCORM 1.2

X4L Project – who and what 1 SURF Partners -Stoke College, Shrewsbury College of A&T Other partners - JISC RSC, RNCB, BBC, Granada plus you? Aim to generate ‘standards-conformant’ re-usable content across COSE and Learnwise, (and possibly Blackboard and TekniCAL) and for use in national development bay open agenda – cf Eddie Boyle’s report on use of tools

X4L Project - outputs 2 benefits to partners developing / sharing content and experience, and in developing content for national repository / development bay feedback to X4L programme feedback to content plugfest (Glasgow, 14 th nov) feedback to conformance year 0 project John Bell, UfI / learndirect / eLCA

X4L Project - tools and content 3 Using tools / systems / content : developed or in development which may include: conformance testing / packaging / editing / viewing (inc. off line i.e. ‘web-grabbers’ ) / authoring / LMS ( SCORM conformance self test suite / Ms LRN 3.0 / Blackboard building blocks / Learnwise Publisher / COSE socs / EC-Pac / PackageIt => reload black widow ) national development bay / testbed ( intrallect ?) content ex cose / learnwise / blackboard / recombo / nln etc..

X4L Project - initial work / findings 4 logistics. technical support at staffs. what content can different systems import / export ? strategy - migrating to SCORM TYS 1.2 at (cose packaging options) **

X4L Project - initial work / findings 5 content ===== tools RTE exampl e Recom bo NLN_1NLN_2NLN_3COSELW PubBb BBsTool Pad LRN 3.0 DW / Bo d / xt / HL SI ADL SCORM RTE V1.2.1 YY expln Why not LRN 3.0 YYYYYY VLE_1 VLE_2

X4L Project - migrating to SCORM 6 quote ADL SCORM brief “.. while the mandated runtime and data set are quite small it is clearly not a trivial exercise to work through the implications of the specification. Any particular LMS might have to make modifications relating to such things as generation of content, mapping content as SCOs and Assets, launching and navigating content, aggregating content, construction and management of a database to manage runtime metadata, and of an API in SCO – LMS communications.” expect issues (conformance, granularity / sub-manifests, unique identifiers, naming conventions, rights).. via scos

X4L Project – scos 7 (cose packaging options) **?conversion SCOs SNOs and scos sco = standalone content object [my name for] what we get from scos – platform independence, metadata, reusability what we don’t get from scos – communication with LMS implemented through jscript tree (morton wang) demo ? loss of functionality ‘using SNOs for navigating standalone content.. it would depend somewhat on the nature of your content whether this would be suitable, but though it doesn't allow communications with the LMS, it gives significant benefits of RAID - reusability, accessibility, interoperability, durability - with many less issues to address - so is a good halfway house in migrating to SCORM conformance’.

X4L Project – navigation issue 8 navigation and organisation confusion of ideas. organisation is not navigation. cf example of book with footnotes appendices referenced sections purpose of organisation elements in CP is to direct learner providing a sequence / path through content but see ADL SCORM brief and TYS guide refs: Adv RT - Review - Content Sequencing Adv CP – LMS Differences - Alternate Sequencing SNOs bypass problem. Relation to SS?

X4L Project – what to do 9 next / midterm [parallel developments] pull down web sites to package generate standalone packages (with navigation) make packages aggregatable (SCOs / Assets) longer term make SCORM conformant packages as option in COSE make COSE SCORM conformant system to run SCORM content use SCORM RTE?

X4L Project – the wider context 10 IE / EC-SIG / UFI / BECTA Code bash in Glasgow / ADL Plugfests Big questions ? strategy as a group / community ? conformance commercial interests / constraint on LOE navigation – use of SNOs, granularity - manifests and metadata and technical details