1. COLIS Demonstrator: Project and Industry Scenarios Dr James Dalziel Executive Director WebMCQ Pty Ltd james@webmcq.com COLIS Workshop Presentation, July 2002, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Copyright  11/7/02 James Dalziel

2. Overview of Presentation Initial project scenarios (COLIS & IMS DR) Industry partner scoping, and Phase 1/2 discussion Broader IMS context for Phase 1 Finalised Phase 1 scenarios Some areas for further consideration from Phase 1 So what are Learning Objects anyway? –Personal reflections on a new conceptual approach

3. Initial Project Scenarios Key points: –Standards-based interoperability using IMS –Multi-vendor “Demonstrator” environment –No single dominant player –Integrate both online learning AND information systems –Implement Learning Objects with digital rights management –Modest budget

4. COLIS Phase 1 Project Scenario

5. IMS Digital Repositories Working Group - Initial Model Procurement Directories Vocabulary Competency Metadata Repositories OrganisationsTraders Access Management MANAGE RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS CONTROL ACCESS AUTHENTICATE AUTHORISE AUDIT NEGOTIATE TRADE MAKE PAYMENT SEARCH Learner CreatorInfoseeker Repositories AssetsMetadata ResourceUtilizers DISCOVER REQUEST USE Presentation Mediation Provision People Agent RESOLVE Registries STORE EXPOSEMANAGE STOREEXPOSE MANAGE DELIVER (Query, Browse, Follow Path) ACCESS GATHER PUBLISH MANAGE ALERT EXPOSE

6. Industry Partner Scoping Initial partner scoping done individually, then iterative development based on shared scenarios Main challenges: –Finding a common language/shared definitions –Finding a common global “use case” –Integrating online learning and library “worldviews” –Understanding the full implications of DRM –Implementing a “Single Sign On” (SSO) approach Refining “Phase 1” versus “Phase 2” targets

7. Learning Content Management System Learning Management System Rights Management Access Control Meta Data COLIS - The DRM/Directory Services Dilemma Digital Asset Management

8. Broader IMS context During COLIS Phase 1 scoping, IMS held a major review of their current standards (April) Experienced similar challenges to COLIS –Finding a common language and use cases –Dealing with standards which “cut across” system functionality (and each other), eg, SS, LD, Acc + DRM –Recognising different needs for standards based on “data interchange” versus “run-time behaviour” Other challenges included current standards harmonisation, and the lack of a “glue” standard

9. Broader IMS context Some proposed solutions? –Disaggregation of Learning System components –Layered system architecture –Proposal for development of a new content model to assist in harmonising current content standards –Greater focus on use cases (especially “global” use cases) The OKI approach

10. TOP SECRET LMS COMPONENT MODULES INSIDE DO NOT OPEN!!! Traditional LMS

12. Proposed “Version 2” IMS Architecture (Draft) Boston April 2002

13. Broader IMS context As part of the Boston IMS meeting, I attempted a “Global” use case loosely based on COLIS Incorporation of different actors & stages in the process Tried to match current IMS specs against the different requirements of higher education & corporate learning Considered missing elements of IMS specs (eg, DRM) Offered a very vague “percentage complete” figure to try to gauge how far IMS had got with each area Broadly helpful, but some didn’t agree with the %

14. Integrated (end-to-end) IMS Use Case (based on COLIS) James Dalziel AuthorityCreatorArrangerLearner Key Actors CorporateHEAdd?% Done? Learning Types & Spec Lacking? Prescribe Author Submit to LOX Design Learning Activity Search LOX Download LOs Structure LOs & Activities Structure Assessment Organise Student Roles/Groups Student Login Do Learning Do Assessment Record Comp*, Acc, MD CP*, MD, SS, QTI, Acc CP*, DRI Comp*, LD? DRI*, MD, Acc CP* + relevant others SS/Comp*, LD QTI + ? ? LIP*, Acc CP*, Comp*, SS*, LD, Acc QTI + ? LIP/Ent LD*, Acc, MD CP*, MD, QTI, Acc CP*, DRI LD* DRI*, MD, Acc CP* + relevant others LD* QTI + ?? ? LIP*, Acc CP*, LD*, Acc QTI + ?? LIP/Ent DRM Learning outcomes Broader Assess Roles/Groups SSO DRM DRM, Assess Roles/Groups 50% 80% 70% 40% 70% 90% 30% 10% 0% 60% 70% 10% 50%

15. Finalised COLIS Phase 1 Scenarios All actions to take place within SSO environment Teacher actions: –Search for LO in LOX, accept licence terms, download –Upload LO to LCMS, manage LOs, prepare for LMS –Use federated search gateway for search of meta-data –Create link to LOs in LMS course area Student actions: –Login to LMS, go to relevant course, access link to LOs –LCMS processes licence requirements & student details (1) Present LO, (2) Present usage agreement, or (3) Deny access Track/Audit student access to LOs against licence limitations

16. AuthorityCreatorArrangerLearner Prescribe Author Submit to LOX Design Learning Activity Search LOX Download LOs Structure LOs & Activities Structure Assessment Organise Student Roles/Groups Student Login Do Learning Do Assessment Record Infoseeker Search via Gateway Obtain Links Student Searches Review Licence Review Meta-data COLIS participant Universities Academics (Out of scope) IPR S WebCT / WebMCQ IPR S / FDi WebCT/WebMCQ Academics (Out of scope) ? CA WebCT / WebMCQ / FDi Academics (Out of scope) Universities COLIS Global Use Case: Phase 1 Overview

17. Some Areas for Further Consideration Authoring Learning Objects already identified as out of scope for Phase 1 IMS COLIS Use Case identified additional areas –Prescribing of learning requirements by authority –Designing and implementing assessments –Recording of assessment outcomes for authority Various technical challenges moved to Phase 2

18. COLIS Global Use Case: Areas for further work Identified = New = AuthorityCreatorArrangerLearner Prescribe Author Submit to LOX Design Learning Activity Search LOX Download LOs Structure LOs & Activities Structure Assessment Organise Student Roles/Groups Student Login Do Learning Do Assessment Record Infoseeker Search via Gateway Obtain Links Student Searches Review Licence Review Meta-data COLIS participant Universities Academics (Out of scope) IPR S WebCT / WebMCQ IPR S / FDi WebCT/WebMCQ Academics (Out of scope) ? CA WebCT / WebMCQ / FDi Academics (Out of scope) Universities

19. Some Areas for Further Consideration Concept of Learning Objects remains very “content-centric”, not “learning activity-centric” Where does the use of learning tools and collaboration fit within a Learning Objects approach? How do we describe learning in a multi-student environment in a standards-oriented way?

20. AuthorityCreatorArrangerLearner Prescribe Author Submit to LOX Design Learning Activity Search LOX Download LOs Structure LOs & Activities Structure Assessment Organise Student Roles/Groups Student Login Do Learning Do Assessment Record Infoseeker Search via Gateway Obtain Links Student Searches Review Licence Review Meta-data COLIS participant Universities Academics (Out of scope) IPR S WebCT / WebMCQ IPR S / FDi WebCT/WebMCQ Academics (Out of scope) ? CA WebCT / WebMCQ / FDi Academics (Out of scope) Universities COLIS Global Use Case: Reconsidering a “content centric” view of LOs =

21. So what are Learning Objects anyway? NB: Personal reflections - not a “COLIS” view Considerable confusion over the meaning of the term “Learning Object” Meaning tends to be used very broadly, eg: –(1) Individual files (text, image, movie, etc) –(2) Individual files with meta-data –(3) Sets of files (with or without meta-data) –(4) Combinations of files and activities (eg, content + formative assessments) –(5) Whole courses containing content and use of LMS tools

22. So what are Learning Objects anyway? Use of XML is considered central to Learning Objects, but it can be used for very different purposes –XML for data interchange (search & retrieval, transport) –XML to separate content from presentation (alternative “rendering” into Web, Print, PDA, etc) “Learning Content Management System” is the term used to describe LO-driven systems –But, very different system requirements depending on which concept of XML is used IMS predominantly data interchange XML to date

23. So what are Learning Objects anyway? A new conceptual approach –Three layers: Learning Activities (highest) Learning Objects Digital Assets –Definition: A Learning Object is an aggregation of one or more digital assets, incorporating meta-data, which represent an educationally meaningful stand-alone unit –In practice, a Learning Object will often be identifiable with a specific Learning Outcome/Objective –Different technology tools and standards apply to each of the three layers

24. So what are Learning Objects anyway? May include “Rendering” XML Data interchange/ Meta-data XML Run-time tool description XML O

25. So what are Learning Objects anyway? Definition: A Learning Object is an aggregation of one or more digital assets, incorporating meta-data, which represent an educationally meaningful stand-alone unit A collection of two or more Learning Objects can be called a “Learning Object Sequence” A collection of two or more Learning Activities can be called a “Learning Activity Sequence” Re-usability should exist at all levels: Digital asset; Learning Object; Learning Object Sequence; Learning Activity; Learning Activity Sequence