Beyond Content Packaging: LETSI’s Open Learning Architecture Avron Barr letsi.org 10Feb10 This is a presentation about a new architecture for elearning systems that is evolving at LETSI, the International Federation for Learning, Education, and Training Systems Interoperability. LETSI emerged from the SCORM community in 2007 with the purpose of taking SCORM into the future. Our position, summarized in the SCORM 2.0 Assumptions Document of February 2009, was that SCORM was based on fundamental assumptions about elearning pedagogy and about software architecture that needed to be re-examined. SCORM addressed the issue of elearning systems in terms of content interoperability. Learning materials developed in one systems could be discovered in a repository and imported into any other system. The assumptions that students had a resident management system and that learning materials would be delivered and presented to the student by that management system is being reconsidered in this proposed new architecture. Here’s a simple picture of what’s involved... 14 February 2010 LETSI is an international non-profit federation committed to open standards for elearning systems. 1

Beyond Content Packaging Today Student Authoring Environment Export Universal Content Package Import Universal Content Package LMS Universal Rendering Engine Tomorrow Student Management Applications Authoring Environment Content-Specific Rendering Engine Why? Universal engine reflects the lowest common denominator in elearning content. Even so, it is a still a problem to render content consistently in each LMS. Content publishers want to offer a variety of online learning activities and tools for teachers. Authentication, entitlements, scheduling, performance reporting, record keeping, etc. can be handled through web services calls to local systems or web apps. Some students don’t have an LMS. 12Feb10 Today’s LMS-centric elearning systems architecture assumes that the learning management system not only manages class lists and grade books, but the entire student experience. Consequently, when new learning activities are created in another environment, they must be packaged and imported into the student’s institutional learning environment. Each LMS vendor must assure that the package is imported and executed properly - rendering the student’s experience just as the author intended it. Participating in complex, interactive, multimedia online activities (like games, virutal worlds, wikis) through a web browser or mobile app is familiar, well-developed technology. Direct participation in hosted learning activities is the future direction of elearning, whether the activities are produce by a textbook publisher or by an individual teacher. The authoring environment can “post” new activities to a website that will render the experience for the student, in the same way that Flickr posts our photos. The management system will control access and entitlements, of course, and keep track of assignments and progress, but the student’s experience will be rendered elsewhere. This new arrangement impacts elearning quality and costs: Content interoperability standards specify the exact way to render the student’s experience, making assumptions about the nature of the experience. New ideas, like student collaboration activities, are not portable across delivery environments, since they are not reflected in packaging standard. What is portable is what is common to all the systems, the least common denominator. And even then, replication of the experience on different LMSs has remained problematic and a involves endless hours of extra work. The cutting edge in online learning involves mobile activities, immersive learning environments, problem-based learning, team activities and other complex experiences that are not likely to ever be interoperable across LMSs If we instead assume that it is rendered by an appropriate web app, then interoperability is reduced to data exchange about the people, resources, activities, and competencies involved. Finally, there are many scenarios where leaning involves students, parents, and tutors who are not affiliated with an institutional LMS. If you are already thinking security and firewall, we should be able to come up with solutions. Everyone else does secure transactions routinely. But perhaps this will help... 2

Location of Rendering Engine Hosted by Authoring System Authoring Environment Rendering Engine Student LMS Student Embedded in LMS Authoring Environment LMS Rendering Engine 13Feb10 Just to clear the air, the rendering engine doesn’t have to be a hosted service that is part of the Authoring Environment. The engine could, for instance, be replicated as a plugin for institutional learning management systems - a special purpose rendering engine for this particular type of content. One could also imagine that the rendering engine was a stand alone website. Of course, that website could be replicated behind an institutional firewall. <BUILD> Then again, schools and businesses are increasingly adopting a hosted model for their management systems. <BUILD> <BUILD> A fully hosted environment is the most general case for the LETSI Open Learning Architecture. This simple architectural change opens the door to a new wave of innovation... Stand Alone Website Authoring Environment Rendering Engine Student LMS 3

Immersive Environments Intelligent Tutoring Systems Games, Sims, Virtual Worlds Explore, rehearse, assess Team scheduling Collaboration, social learning Problem-based learning Intelligent Tutoring Systems Incorporate domain expertise Model human tutor/coach Individualized instruction Conventional Elearning Student-driven Multimedia Quizzes, branching Mobile Learning iPhone Apps Team activities Augmented reality training and performance support Online Learning Activities Instrumented for interaction, observation, and performance reporting Tools for Teachers, Tutors & Parents Repositories, aggregators Search, preview, tag, recommend Lesson planning, student assignments Authoring, sharing Progress tracking, grade books Realtime monitor/coach Tools for Students Identity management, enrollments Session management Team scheduling Search, preview Assignments Collaboration, call back Tools for Designers, Publishers, Reviewers, Planners, Researchers, and Policy Makers 13Feb10 Standards separate technology domains and allow them to evolve separately. For example, you can plug any electrical appliance into a standard outlet, without knowing how the power is created and delivered to the outlet. Content interoperability standards separate authoring from delivery of learning. By moving from content interoperability standards to data exchange standards, we enable a much cleaner modularization of the elearning architecture. Modularization will allow new classes of tools for teachers, students and others. Each box in the diagram reflects a class of applications, some of which may be subsumed under an enterprise Learning Management System or by several enterprise systems (student information systems, HR systems, talent management systems), for students who are institutional learners. The architecture makes no assumptions about institutional vs. independent learners and teachers and it allows any web activity to be a managed learning activity so long as it is properly instrumented and adheres to the appropriate protocols. What protocols? I don’t see no stinking protocols... Competency Frameworks Learning objectives Content relevance, prerequisites Curriculum norms Job requirements Institutional Learning Management Systems Content Management Content import Search, preview Entitlements, subscriptions, billing Student Records Enrollments Access control Administration Course usage, evaluation Institutional & jurisdictional competency frameworks Regulatory compliance Purchasing, contract management Session Management Authentication Access control, entitlement Activity launch Performance records Observe/coach/participate Student profile Preferences Active data 1 Local Content Players 4

Services - Student Learning Session Session Management Scheduling Access Control, Authentication Activity selection Reporting to student & teacher records Reporting to institutional records (usage, billing info, student ratings, ... Student ID, Profile Data Personal entitlements URIs for institution(s), records History, status Learning objectives, Assignments Learning style, preferences Student Learning Activity Delivery Activity selection, payment negotiation Initialization Interaction with student during session Teacher observation Terminate, resume Instrumented to record educationally relevant data and report if required. Account Authentication Personal, institutional, or government accounts Entitlements 12Feb10 Each type of application for all the different participants requires certain data to provide its functionality. The trick to modularization in web software is to exchange information across applications by defining specific “services” each application offers to other applications. For example, a course repository might offer a “free preview” service for a particular lesson, or a billing system might offer a “current status” service for a particular account, with appropriate identification. To assure interoperability, a community of practice establishers certain standard web services that are required for each type of application, and tests products to assure that procured systems meet their requirements. The defined services reduce the cost of integrating innovative new systems. For a given project or institution, additional services can be added beyond the required standards, again, facilitating innovation. THis slide illustrates a student Learning Session, as a first example. We assume the student initiates the session by logging into some application, it could be an institutional LMS or a publishers self-service website or an site that aggregates learning materials for middle schoolers. Once logged in, that application provides authentication of this student to other applications. If the student has a teacher or a tutor (or an involved parent), there may be some assignments waiting for him. After choosing an activity, the login app takes care of any entitlement and access issues and passes control to the Learning Activity itself, along with data about the student, parameters for the activity, and reporting requirements established by the teacher and by the student’s institution(s). One could imagine activities that involve multiple students or that allow teachers to observe and coach. I’ve listed on this slide some of the web services that might be required to enable this scenario. Again, each activity supported for each participant has its own set of defined services. Let’s look at one more example... 5

Services - Teacher Lesson Planning Session Initiation & Management Access Control, Authentication Activity selection Payment negotiation Teacher’s Profile Personal preferences File cabinet URIs for institution(s), associations, aggregation sites Class rosters, grade books Teacher Activity Delivery Initialization Intra-activity interaction with teacher Collaboration Terminate, resume Open, save, import, export of class lists, grade books, lesson plans, moodle sections, etc. Account Authentication Commercial, institutional, or government accounts Entitlements URIs for available resources, catalogs URIs for competency frameworks, like state curriculum standards or job requirements 12Feb10 In this case, we consider an application that teachers can use to plan lessons, organize resources, and even make specific online assignments for the class or for specific students. You could imagine variations that allow private tutors or parents to do similar work. Here again the teacher logs into a system with a password and thereafter gets authentication services for the other systems. The teacher may keep one or more personal file cabinets of materials, and may have accounts at institutional, commercial or open content repositories. Class list and grade book data may be located in an institutional LMS. This slide indicates some of the services that might be needed to enable this scenario. One system, like an LMS, could initially supply all these services. Over time, other systems could be added or integrated. 6

Next Steps Identify an initial set of web services that constitute a working core. Prioritize based on use case priority. Define an initial, focused project that exercises this initial core. The project must have implementer support. Find existing open specs that can be adapted. Develop new, learning-specific specs as needed. 14 February 2010 7