1. Learning Technology Standards Significance Educational Issues Current Initiatives JISC MLE Programme for FE Bill Olivier Director, c e t i s c e t i s Interoperability Standards Educational Technology Centre for

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Why Learning Technology Specifications are important Learning Environment has many systems How should they be integrated? 3 levels: 1. Information Mapping and Formats 2. API (Application Programming Interface) 3. Transport Protocols Current Specs mainly focus on 1. Starting to address 2. All three needed for working LEs

6. 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

7. 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

8. Why Learning Technology Specifications are important Metadata Describe and classify learning resources Enable them to searched Across multiple repositories Retrieve appropriate resources

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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 WG s

13. 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

14. 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?

15. 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)

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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 LOM Version 1.3: will add IMS Sequencing

21. 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

22. 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

23. - 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

24. IMS Specs Complete & Current Metadata 1.0Final:Aug 1999 Enterprise 1.0Final:Oct 1999 Content Packaging 1.0Final:May 2000 Question & Test 1.0Final:May 2000 Learner Information Package 1.0Final: Feb 2001 Content Packaging 1.1Final:Feb 2001 new AccessibilityStart: Feb 2001 new Learning DesignStart: Feb 2001 new Digitial Repositories Start: March 2001

25. IMS Specs Current & Expected Competencies Implementation Guide :May 2001 GUIDs Implementation Guide :May 2001 AccessibilityScope: May 2001 Packaging LIP + others Implementation Guide :Aug 2001 Learning DesignScope: Aug 2001 Digital RepositoriesScope: Aug 2001 Question & Test 1.1 Final:Aug 2001 Metadata 1.2 (bindings IEEE LOM) Final:Aug 2001 new Content Sequencing Start: Sept 2001

26. IMS Specs: current state Learning DesignBase: Nov 2001 Content SequencingFinal: Nov 2001 AccessibilityDraft: Nov 2001

27. 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 WGLOM 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

28. 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

29. Formal Standards ISO SC 36 Proposed 4 Preliminary Work Items (PWI) : – Architecture – Metadata – Glossary – Collaborative Learning Technologies

30. 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

31. 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 DIN BSI Japan PROMETEUS MoU

32. Recent Collaboration Agreement ADL net SCORM 2.0 IMS MIT ++ OKI CLEO Specifications Reference Implementations R & D

33. 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

34. The FE Managed Learning Environments programme IT for Learning Technology Programme Specification of Needs Negotiation with Vendors Funded a Programme Appointed a Steering Group

35. 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 not –Sector very varied - one size would not fit all –Colleges differentiating on approaches to learning

36. The FE Managed Learning Environments programme Defined 2 basic Terms: MLE - Managed Learning Environment The whole institution-wide system with mulitple sub-systems, such as VLE - Virtual Learning Environment The Learning Management System that sits within the MLE (Blackboard, WebCT, COSE, Colloquia, etc)

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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 be created in other systems, notably the VLE Therefore need agreed formats for passing this information between systems in an MLE Other extensions may be needed (Metadata)

41. What needs to be exchanged? FEFC/LSC MIS VLE ContentTestingFinding IMS Learner Information + FE Extensions existing ISR/ILR IMS Enterprise IMS Metadata College MLE Learners IMS QTI IMS Content

42. 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

43. 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

44. CETIS & HE/FE Community Community Operates at Different Levels Top: End UsersRequirements in || Use out Mid: Info CreatorsRequirements in || Use out Low: TechnicalTech & 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

45. 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

46. CETIS Staff and Contacts CETIS at Bangor: Bill Olivier, Oleg Liber, Lisa Rowlands: cetis@bangor.ac.uk CETIS Learning Technology Standards Portal: http://www.cetis.ac.uk/ also: Paul Lefrere, Networking (OU) p.lefrere@open.ac.uk Andy Heath, Accessibility (SHU) a.k.heath@shu.ac.uk SIG contacts and information this afternoon

47. Useful Links IMS Global http://www.imsproject.org ADL (SCORM) http://www.adlnet.org CLEO (SCORM v2 R&D) http://www.cleolab.org Report - http:// www.lsal.cmri.cmu.edu/lsal/expertise/projects/cleo/report/20010701/ OKI http://web.mit.edu/oki/index.html IEEE LTSC http://ltsc.ieee.org ISO JTC1 SC36 http://jtc1sc36.org CEN/ISSS http://www.cenorm.be/isss/workshop/lt PROMETEUS http://prometeus.org ALIC http://www.alic.gr.jp/eng/index.htm