Eduworks

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS

Robby RobsonEduworks Corporation

rrobson@eduworks.comCELL: 541-760-6899

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 2

SIF

HOW WE GOT HERE

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

ARIADNE

AICC(1988)

ADLIMS

IEEELTSC

JTC1SC36

EdNA(1994)

ALIC

OKI

OASIS

CREATE NEW WORLD ORDER

GET CONTENT TO RUN ON AN LMS

GET SYSTEMS TO INETEROPERATE

CEN/ISSSWS-LT

W3C(1994)

ebXML

EICA

HR-XMLCONSOR-

TIUM

CanCore

DublinCore

(1995)

HLA(1994)

MERLOT

NSDL

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 3

A Functional Model of e-Learning Applications

Content Authoring

Tools

Catalog Manager

Content Assembly

Tools

Learner Registrar

Delivery Environment

Content Repository

andOffering Catalog

Learning Planner

CollaborativeEnvironment

Learner Profile

Manager

Activity Info

Offerings

Register Info

Register Info

Offerings

Goals

Plans

Plans

Register Info

Register Info

Activity Info

Assessment / TestingEngine Results Info

Register InfoAssessmentObjects

Learning Offerings

Learning Objects

RecordedEvents

Learning Objects

Learning Objects

http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/edu/elearning/eLearning_Application_Infrastructure_wp.pdf

See e-Learning Application Infrastructure by Geoff Collier

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 4

Standards Development Process

R&DConcept

s

Technical Trends

User Needs

ApprovedStandards

Spec Consortia

Programs,Testbeds,Markets

StandardsBodies

Specifications,Best Practice

Consensus,

Consolidation,

Conformance

New products,Pilot Programs,

Testbeds

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 5

Who Is Doing What

• Search, catalog, discover learning content– Metadata– Digital Repositories

• Content/LMS interoperability– CMI– SCORM

• Assessment– Question & Test

Interoperability– SCORM

• Simulation– High Level Architecture

(DMSO/SISO)

• Enable Adaptivity– Learner Information Package– Personal and Private Information– Competency Definitions

• System Interoperability– Open Knowledge Initiative– Schools Interoperability

Framework– IMS Abstract Framework

• Instructional Design– IMS Learning Design– ASTD E-learning

Courseware Certification

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 6

AICC

• AICC started in 1998 to solve concrete (hardware) interoperability problem

• Moved to LAN-based (Client/Sever) model in 1990’s

• Moved to Web in late 1990’s – via IEEE LTSC

• Contributed heavily to SCORM

• Working groups today– CMI (Computer Managed

Instruction)– SIM (simulation & smart

graphics)– DELS (Digital Electronic

Library System)– Test Lab

• Seriously considering Web services approach

• Updating CMI to match SCORM

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 7

THE IEEE LTSC

• Chartered by the IEEE Computer Society Standards Activity Board

• Develops accredited technical standards, recommended practices and guides for learning technology

• Coordinates formally and informally with other organizations that produce specifications and standards for similar purposes.

ACCREDITATIONCHAIN

ISO||

ANSI|

IEEE|

IEEE CS|

LTSC|

WG

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 8

LTSC Current Timeline*

2002 2003

LOM DATA MODEL

LOM BINDINGS

CMI WORK

DREL SG

REUSABLE COMPETENCY DEFINITIONS ???

Learning Technology System Architecture

* No warranty is expressed or implied!

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 9

IMS Global Learning Consortium

• IMS is an independent, non-profit consortium in which members with competing business interests and different decision-making roles collaborate to satisfy real-world requirements for interoperability and re-use of learning resources.

• Established 1997 as a consortium of educators, government agencies, and vendors

• Define and deliver specifications to further interoperability for on-line learning technology and content

• More than 50 Contributing Members.• Over 70 Developer Network subscribers.• A web community of users

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 10

IMS SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS

• Additional uptake by standards organizations• Abstract Learning Framework• Function/Content Model• New specs: DRM, Adaptive Testing, Competencies

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 11

IMS DIGITAL REPOSITORY INTEROPERABILITY

• SEARCH, GATHER, (ALERT)/EXPOSE

• REQUEST/DELIVER

• SUBMIT/STORE

• DELIVER /STORE between two repositories

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 12

The Advanced Distributed Learning initiative

• Launched in November of 1997 (DoD & Whitehouse)

• MISSION: – develop a DoD-wide strategy for using learning and

information technologies – modernize education and training – promote cooperation between government, industry

and academia – develop e-learning standardization

• Specification development delegated to IMS in 1997

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 13

SCORM CONTENT LIFECYCLE

Existing Content

Learning Content Authoring Tools

Learning Content Authoring Tools

Chunk

Create

Repurpose

Assemble

LearningCatalog

LearningCatalog

LMS

Import

Find

Track

Deliver

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 14

A SCORM IS BREWING

1999 2000 2001 2002

DIRECTIVETO CREATESCORM (13111)

SCORM 1.0 SCORM 1.1 SCORM 1.2 SCORM 1.3

PF1 PF2 PF3 PF5PF4 PF6 PF7

- Course Structure Format (XML Version of AICC Course Structure Files)

- Runtime API – developed jointly among AICC, IEEE, and ADL

- Metadata based on IMS Version 1.0

- “C” is for “Content”

- Metadata Harmonized

- Bugs Fixed- CMI Data Model

Pared back (removed pre-requisites and completion requirements)

- Added Content Packaging

- Deprecated Course Structure Format

- Created Test Suites

- Bugs Fixed

- Simple Sequencing

- Metadata Harmonized

- Bugs Fixed- Conformance

program getting started

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 15

OKI

• Architecture

• Interfaces (as API’s)

• Coalition creating OKI Tools

• Community

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 16

OKI Architecture

• Clearly defines points of interoperability between components of a learning technology environment

• Precisely defines interoperability behavior at those points

• Allows incremental adoption of the architecture

• Desktop Computing Analogy

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 17

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 18

ARIADNE

• Alliance of Remote Instructional and Distribution Networks for Europe

• Founded under EU 4th Framework in January, 1996.

• Became a Foundation in June 2000• Contributor to LOM

A European Association open to the World, for Knowledge Sharing and Reuse, E-Learning for all, International Cooperation in Teaching, Serving the Learning Citizen.

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 19

ARIADNE ARCHITECTURE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 20

CONFORMANCE TESTING

• PROS – CURES THE SYMPOTOMS– Without it

interoperability isn’t quite there

– Honesty becomes the policy

– Feedback into standards process

• CONS – CURES THE SYMPTOMS– Does not guarantee

interoperability– Gives vendors an out– Effort better spent on

making good specifications and standards

SEE JON BELL PDF PRESENTATIONSEE JON BELL PDF PRESENTATION

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 21

HOW CONFORMANCE TESTING WORKS

STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION

TEST SUITE

TEST SUITE DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION

CERTIFYING

AUTHORITY

TESTING

ORGANIZATION

Develops

Trains

Sanctions & Supports

Commissions

Uses

InterpretsStandards

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 22

Questions1. What forms of delivery system

commonality do content providers need in order to develop content for end user organizations?

 2. How can we classify content providers

(e.g. commercial vendors,  non-profit open source) and how do their needs and vested interests vary?

3. What forms of flexibility or local initiative do end-user organizations desire?

  4. How can we classify end-user

organizations (and different end-users within different end-user organizations) and how do vested interests and needs vary from one end-user to another?

5. What are the issues that end-user organizations address when considering the following options when developing and/or acquiring software systems and on-line content:

a. "roll their own" on their own,

b. "roll their own" in concert with other end-user organizations (e.g. in an open source initiative),

c. adopt a well integrated commercial product (i.e. a monolithic commercial product if you take a pejorative view),

d. adopt a well integrated collection of "best-of-breed" commercial components (i.e. a fragmented bunch of non-interoperable parts if you take a pejorative view),

e. or adopt a hybrid approach which varies over time to includes one or more of the above.

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 23

Questions - Continued6. What problems or difficulties do

proprietary, vendor specific, de facto standards present?

7. What useful roles can specification, validation,  and formal standardization organizations play in developing de jure standards?  

8. What new problems or difficulties do specification and standardization efforts present?

9. What pressures are commercial software application suppliers under from both content suppliers and end-user organizations?

10. What strategies do vendors adopt to serve their vested interests, while accommodating the interests of their suppliers and users?

EduworksOctober 17, 2002 UC Berkeley - ET Standards 24

RESOURCES

• http://www.eduworks.com/standards

• CETIS (Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards) (http://www.cetis.ac.uk)