1. May 11, 2001CSG OKI Directions © MIT 20001 CSG Open Knowledge Initiative May 11, 2001 James D.Bruce Michael D. Barker Phillip D. Long

2. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 20012 Agenda n OKI Highlights –Approach –Architecture –Value Added -- Feature Set n LMS Summit –Key Points Summary n Influence on Vendors n CSG Priorities n Getting Involved n Summary & Q and A

3. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 20013 Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI) n What is it? –Learning systems specification »Standards based »Pedagogically driven – proactive support for PGP –Reference implementation »Open source –Development Strategy –Support strategy n Mellon Foundation Funding –Vijay Kumar – PI

4. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 20014 OCW vs OKI n Dueling TLAs n Are these initiatives related? (besides the letter “O”?) n OKI is the infrastructure from which content will be ‘published’ to OCW –http://web.mit.edu/ocw - Informationhttp://web.mit.edu/ocw

5. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 20015 OKI Core Collaborators StanfordNCSU Dartmouth U PennHarvard U Wisconsin MIT

6. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 20016 OKI Collaborator Obligations n OKI Fellows join MIT-based team –OKI partner desired competencies »Pedagogical Research (OKI-Teach) »Architecture/Design »Development Resources –Two Phases of Residency »1: Architecture, design and development »2: Implementation and Support Stanford UWisc Dartmouth UPennHarvard NCSU MIT

7. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 20017 OKI OKI Communities Stanford UWisc Dartmouth UPennHarvard Projects: IMS, uPortal, I2 etc. Early Adopter Inst. Industry Extended Community NCSU MIT Other Inst. Partners Tech Advisory LMS Advisory Open Source Support

8. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 20018 Harvard MIT UPenn OKI Reference Platform OKI OKI Core Timelines MIT Stanford Course Work MIT Stellar Summer 01 Other Implementations? Parallel Efforts OKI Spec Sept. 2001 Dartmouth Stanford UWisc NCSU

9. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 20019 Three Major Phases n Stellar-June: –MIT Prototype, ready for alpha testing June 1 –initial production use June 30 –enhancement release Sept. 1 n Stellar/Courseworks –use in September across selected courses, continue development n OKI Initial Outline of Draft specification set by 9/2001 n OKI Reference implementation by summer 2002

10. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200110 Other LMSs LMS-LMS Exchange Specification Enterprise Data Exchange Specification Digital Asset Exchange Specification Modular Authentication ?? User Interface Specification OKI Learning Specifications Users Content Process OKI “Core” Reference Architecture Component Specification Quiz White BoardVirtual Lab Portfolio Management Content Outline List Management Enterprise Information -- Student Information Systems Asset Management -- Digital Library Initiatives Authentication Services

11. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200111 We Interrupt This Powerpoint Presentation for… n A Sneak Peek at Some Stellar Views n What does a student see? What does a student see? n What does a faculty member see? What does a faculty member see? n Can we change the look and feel? Can we change the look and feel? Please stay seated as we click…

12. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200112 Data Objects and Tools Tool Model (Bus. Logic) Tool Renderer (Presentation) Core Objects Util Library Home Page AuthNAuthZStoreDB SiteNexusMeasureUserRoleArcGroup Announce Syllabus XSL TR DTL TR JSP TR “Integrated” tool eg CourseWork DB Filespace … … ???

13. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200113 LMS Summit Pedagogy Driving Development n Objectives – Generative Phase –Identify principles of teaching and learning that an LMS should proactively encourage –Assemble examples of implementing T&L principles –Designate most important attributes for an LMS for initial release n Process –Pre-meeting email discussion –Small group refinement of preliminary themes –Selected issues from research, libraries, system builders, and faculty users

14. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200114 LMS Pre-Meeting Themes n Assessment: formative evaluation. Feedback. Multiple levels. n Collaborative Learning/Community Building n Concept Mapping: making visible structure n Constructivist: scaffolds, novice vs masters learners, build portfolios. n Individualized/Adaptive Learning n Reusability: make earning objects accessible across courses and across institutions n System design: scalability, integration, reduce costs, drive innovation n Usability/Faculty Development

15. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200115 Observations n LMS Developers –“Look for the sweet spot” – »Carl Berger, Umich n Researchers –“Generalize form, customize content” – Diana Laurillard, Open University UK

16. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200116 Observations n Librarians –Leverage existing digital asset management projects – John Ockerbloom, U Penn n Faculty –“Greatest faculty constraint is time” – Steve Lerman, MIT Faculty Chair

17. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200117 Selected Critical Features V.1 1. Marketing plans and support 2. “Pedapoint”: wizards to support pedagogically sound course structure and content creation 3. Modularity/Glue 4. Searching Multimedia and good representation of what is contained 5. Collaboration across institutions 6. Learner, faculty, & institutional portfolios 7. Tools that allow easy migration of existing materials 8. Library of best practices

18. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200118 Summary of LMS Summit n We have established and must retain a pedagogical basis n We will build aiming to deliver something pragmatically useful n This is an organic community effort n And it’s now underway!

19. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200119 Views from the Summit

20. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200120 Influence on Vendors n Where do vendor products need influence? n For those invested in Blackboard, WebCT, etc., besides magic pixie dust to facilitate seamless transition into a new LMS, to what should OKI pay particular attention?

21. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200121 Summary List of Responses to CSG Survey 1. robust, flexible file management 2. support of webDAV and other content-authoring standards 3. flexibility in roles and rights 4. content accessible to other courses and systems 5. flexible structure to group and partition course sites 6. internationalization 7. integration with other systems 8. common calendar (my calendar for all my courses) 9. good tools: quizzing, whiteboard

22. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200122 Prioritize Please – What’s Missing? 1. robust, flexible file management 2. support of webDAV and other content-authoring standards 3. flexibility in roles and rights 4. content accessible to other courses and systems 5. flexible structure to group and partition course sites 6. internationalization 7. integration with other systems (e.g., common calendar my calendar for all my courses) 8. good tools: quizzing, whiteboard 9. Archiving and version control

23. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200123 Goals for OKI n Hooks into Enterprise Data and Infrastructure n extensibility (don’t cater to least common denominator) n Accessibility n Security – your tools not MITs or Stanfords n Avoid marginalizing one or more of –User experience –Content management –Pedagogical process support –Support for institutional structure n Build a robust business model around Open Source Licensed software

24. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200124 Open Source n Open source <> public domain n License strategy? –Reference Core –Tools n Vendor strategy? n These are issues for Core Collaborators to tackle

25. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200125 Join the Community n Stay informed – join oki-announce –Subscribe at http://web.mit.edu/okihttp://web.mit.edu/oki n Make the OKI architectural specifications what you need –Subscribe at http://web.mit.edu/okihttp://web.mit.edu/oki n Engage with the OKI teaching and learning group –Contact: longpd@mit.edu or kernsc@stanford.edulongpd@mit.edukernsc@stanford.edu n Help build the commercial-OKI bridge. –Work with your vendor to inform them of OKI specifications development n Give us your input – send suggestions to –oki-suggest@mit.eduoki-suggest@mit.edu

26. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200126 In Summary n OKI: an architecture with implementations n OKI: Pedagogy first! Then a grow the community, technology, and support n OKI: it’s just the beginning of a conversation, and we welcome your participation –We need you to help us understand how OKI can best serve you, and to work with your vendors to make sure that they are a part of the OKI community.

27. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200127 You Can Reach Us... n Michael Barker –mbarker@mit.edumbarker@mit.edu –617/253-0119 n Vijay Kumar –vkumar@mit.eduvkumar@mit.edu –617/253-8004 n Phillip D. Long –longpd@mit.edulongpd@mit.edu –617/452-4038 n Jeff Merriman –merriman@mit.edumerriman@mit.edu –617/452-4039 n OKI website: http://web.mit.edu/oki “Where the rubber meets the sky” Q & A

28. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200128 Questions and Answers

29. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200129 Stellar Requirements n Functional - does what MIT needs n Supportable (at relatively low expense, by relatively few people) n Extensible (open software, but also based on standards) n Simple to use by TAs but also administrative assistants and even (!) faculty n Integrates with external institutional systems (bi-directionally) n Provides for security, privacy, and addresses intellectual property issues

30. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200130 Stellar System Requirements (cont) n Easy to use "standard" look and feel and course organization, plus customizable appearance & organization. n Support reuse and shared use of content n Provide support for good pedagogical practices n Must be accessible (ADA) n Support a number of portal environments (OKI will align with uPortal in particular but not necessarily exclusively n Establish a process for additions, enhancements, and improvements

31. CSG OKI Directions© MIT 2000May 11, 200131 Suggestions/Questions n How does one contribute to the specifications? –A. Block diagram of the architecture with a definition of the APIs for each interface n Where the voting took place – what degree of difficulty for the developers is associated with each of the items? –Should this be a vote independent of degree of difficulty? n Might want to give voting process at the end of the talk n Explain “Pedagogically neutral” - n Differentiate OKI – is it just another LMS? –Most have nothing to do with learning; how to structure your learning methodology and teaching around your online course environment – Where is the pedagogy in the LMS?