1. Integrating Innovative E-Learning Systems: Challenges and Solutions from LAMS James Dalziel Professor of Learning Technology, and Director, Macquarie E-Learning Centre Of Excellence (MELCOE) Macquarie University james@melcoe.mq.edu.au www.melcoe.mq.edu.au Presentation for EDUCAUSE 2006, Dallas, USA, October 11 th, 2006

2. Overview Part 1 The “All you need is LMS” myth Incremental and disruptive e-learning innovation Categorising integration requirements Why SOA is premature Part 2 Examples from LAMS Future directions

3. The “All you need is LMS” myth A decade on from the rise of the Learning Management System (LMS), there is a widespread myth about its sufficiency –Some vendors encourage the belief that their platform does everything (or at least everything *important*) –Some university executives believe that by implementing a LMS, they have *done* e-learning, so no major changes are warranted –Some university CIOs are reluctant to consider having more than one piece of software for e-learning Especially when it doesn’t come from a large vendor –Some central e-learning support groups have become so aligned with their current LMS, they struggle to imagine other possibilities

4. The “All you need is LMS” myth Two reason for skepticism about the sufficiency of the LMS: –While the LMS has helped with many “e-administration” tasks (announcements, course notes, assignment dropbox), the amount of online *learning* remains modest in most cases –Most e-learning innovation now happens outside the LMS (eg, Blogs, Wikis, e-portfolios, advanced quizzing, Learning Design, Learning Object Repositories, Virtual Classrooms, mobile devices, portals, eResearch, Personal Learning Environments, podcasts, desktop applications, etc) But does this mean the end of the LMS? –Not for most universities, if only for legacy system reasons So the question becomes one of integration, especially integrating new innovations with the existing LMS

5. Incremental and disruptive e-learning innovation Viewed from the perspective of integration, some e-learning innovations are incremental, others are disruptive –Not just a technology issue – also depends on use – but for the purpose of this presentation, I will focus on technology Incremental innovations (in terms of integration) –Advanced quizzing –Virtual classroom –Learning Object Repository –E-Portfolio –Podcasts –Some uses of Blogs and Wikis –“Simple” integration of Learning Design

6. Incremental and disruptive e-learning innovation Disruptive innovations (in terms of integration) –Some uses of Blogs and Wikis Available outside the LMS –“Tools” integration of Learning Design Requires tools (forum, chat, etc) to be “workflow enabled” –Personal Learning Environments Student controlled; may include desktop tools –Portals Alternative base platform, different integration “fabric” –eResearch Different authentication model (PKI), non-http internet services –Mobile devices Alternative screen layouts; online/offline synchronisation –Desktop applications Different security model (non-browser)

7. Categorising integration requirements Two caveats: –Assumes you want integration (can always run separately!) –Focus on most typical integration (not all possibilities) Type 1: No integration or non-person-based authentication –Eg, Learning Object Repository, Podcasts Type 2: Single-sign-on (SSO) – person-based authentication –Virtual classroom –Some uses of Blogs and Wikis –“Simple” integration of Learning Design Type 3: SSO + assessment reporting –Advanced quizzing –E-Portfolio (NB: depends on purpose of e-portfolio) Type 4: Workflow-enabled LMS tools –Tools integration for Learning Design

8. Categorising integration requirements Type 5: Support for alternative presentation –Mobile devices; also relevant for advanced accessibility ideas Type 6: Intermittent network (Online/offline synchronisation) –Mobile devices, Personal Learning Environments Type 7: Authentication/security models unlike LMS –Some uses of Blogs and Wikis (expose content outside the LMS) –eResarch that requires PKI –Desktop applications and non-http internet services –Personal Learning Environments Type X: Conflicting basic platform assumptions –Portals, “full” SOA implementations, eResearch Virtual Organisations

9. Categorising integration requirements Some observations: 1.Authentication and security models are the most common challenge –Type 1: No integration or non-person-based authentication –Type 2: Single-sign-on (person-based authentication) - SSO –Type 3: SSO + assessment reporting –Type 7: Authentication/security models unlike LMS 2.Some other integration types each represent unique challenges with far-reaching consequences –Type 4: Workflow-enabled LMS tools (includes SSO) –Type 5: Support for alternative presentation –Type 6: Intermittent network (Online/offline synchronisation) 3.Some cases are so different as to challenge integration per se –Type X: Conflicting basic platform assumptions

10. Why SOA is premature For some, the concept of Service Oriented Architectures/Approaches represents a new solution to integration problems If SOA just means identifying some minimal integration points between two systems, then this is less difficult to implement But much of the SOA hype is around rebuilding the whole IT infrastructure around disparate sets of services to create composite applications –Assumes the applications of today will disappear, or at least be completely rebuilt

11. Why SOA is premature SOA as a solution to the current integration challenge is premature because: –Almost none of our current (innovative) systems are constructed using a SOA approach (they are still “traditional” applications – the Fedora repository is about the only real exception) –Even if applications were service oriented, we haven’t even begun to understand the wider SOA authentication and security fabric needed to build composite applications from disparate services –Even if we understood the security fabric, and all our applications did expose services, we still have the problem that each application could have its own, different assumptions about the security fabric, leading to interoperability failures despite availability of services NB: For the same reason, combining two or more SOA frameworks from big competing vendors will often be an interoperability nightmare

12. Part 2: Examples from LAMS LAMS is an integrated Learning Design system –Author (create Learning Designs) –Monitor (instructor can launch/monitor Learning Designs) –Learner (student environment for “run-time” activities) –Admin (usernames & passwords, roles, server admin) In addition to the above components, and the core “workflow” engine, LAMS provides a suite of “workflow enabled” activity tools (forum, chat, quiz, content, etc) Not a LMS, but can be used integrated or stand-alone Freely available as open source software –See www.lamsfoundation.org

13. Examples from LAMS Example A: Single-sign-on (SSO) with LMS –LAMS V1 provides SSO with Blackboard, WebCT, Sakai, Moodle and.LRN LMS platforms –For instructors, LAMS authoring and monitoring are accessed just like other LMS tools No extra login Sequences can be selected directly from LMS page –For students, a LAMS sequence is accessed via a URL on the course page Eg, “click here for activities for week 3” –Integration involves LAMS receiving basic identity and role information from the LMS (via integration module)

14. Examples from LAMS Demonstration of LAMS V1 integration with LMS (based on Sakai)

16. Login Page of LAMS/Sakai test server – includes further information links

17. Sample course in Sakai that uses LAMS

18. Adding a LAMS sequence to a Sakai course – Sakai page

19. Adding a LAMS sequence to a Sakai course – LAMS authoring page (pop-up)

20. Sample course in Sakai with links to LAMS sequences shown in central area

21. Student view of LAMS activities as pop-up window from Sakai course page

22. LAMS monitoring page for live student sequence – popup from teacher area

23. Examples from LAMS Example B: Tools integration for LAMS V2 –LAMS V2 (released October 2006) incorporates a new modular tools architecture - “LAMS Tools Contract” –The tools contract describes the requirements for an activity tool (forum, chat, quiz, content, etc) to run within the LAMS workflow environment –The tools contract is not simply a Java API, but rather a set of URL calls and conventions on tool behaviour for Authoring Monitoring Learner (ie, “run-time”) Admin

24. 2

25. Examples from LAMS Example B: Tools integration for LAMS V2 –The tools contract provides the basis for LMS tools to run within LAMS workflows (“sequences”/Learning Designs) Eg, creating a LAMS sequence inside Sakai (SSO integration) which uses the Sakai forum, rather than the LAMS forum –This provides a solution to the “tools duplication” problem That is, you can avoid having a course forum tool in your LMS, and a separate (workflow enabled) forum tool for Learning Designs run within your LMS –No LMS have implemented the LAMS tools contract yet, but a number of pilot projects are underway

26. Examples from LAMS Demonstration of LAMS V2 (including tools contract) For LAMS V2 demonstration accounts, see http://demo.lamscommunity.org/ To learn more about LAMS V2 architecture, see the LAMS V2 Development wiki at –http://wiki.lamsfoundation.org/display/lams/Home –Including link to Tools Contract description

27. Future Directions Authentication and security fabric remains a key challenge to various types of integration LAMS Tools Contract provides a basis for creating “workflow enabled” LMS tools Dealing with LMS as a legacy system environment for practical integration Some approaches have fundamentally different assumptions to LMS (eg, using a portal as basis for “Learning Management Operating System” – LMOS) –Do they provide a better platform for integration?