1. c e t i s Why Learning Technology Standards? Why IMS? a Discussion Bill Olivier Technical Director, c e t i s Interoperability Standards Educational Technology Centre for

2. Following: Some slides actually used in the Session

3. Where IMS fits in - the others Early on: 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 –Content sequencing & delivery oriented –Multiple choice testing –CDs, stand-alone PC & isolated learner model

4. Where IMS fits in - the others Europe: ARIADNE Project –CE funded project –Large Consortium of University & Industrial Partners –Content & Metadata focused –By ‘98 had produced a Metadata specification –Initially hostile to IMS –Signed an 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

5. Where IMS fits in - the others 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 Content ideas –Produced SCORM v1.0 Jan 2000; v1.1 Jan 2001 –(Shareable Courseware Object Reference Model) –roughly: AICC for the Web –Web Content, Browser and isolated learner model

6. - 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 –Look at IMS in more detail later

7. 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 recently put forward a report –Recommendations made to the CE

8. 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 P1484.19 Quality System for Technology-Based Life-Long Learning (Study Group) 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 IEEE Standard Upper Ontology SG P1484.12 Learning Objects Metadata WG 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

9. 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

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

11. 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

12. 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

13. Following: Slides prepared, but not used, in the Session

14. IMS Approach Time driven delivery of Specifications 4 Document Milestones: 1. Scope: what can be done in 6 months? 2. Base: how it is proposed to do it (2 months) 3. Public Draft: closest for trialling (2 months) Trialling of draft takes place, with feedback 4. Final Specification (2 months)

15. IMS Approach Consistent format for Final Specifications 3 parts: 1. Data Model Fields, formats, constraints 2. (Usually) XML Binding DTD (soon XML Schemas) 3. Best Practice Guide Notes for developers and sometimes end users

16. IMS Specs Metadata, building on Dublin Core Enterprise (LMS MIS) Profiles Content –Finding (link to metadata) –Packaging (for shipping between systems) –Launch and Runtime API (with live learners) Question & Test –Format for Exchanging Questions and Tests –Future: getting Results back from sessions

17. IMS Specs Complete & Current MetadataFinal:Aug 1999 EnterpriseFinal:Oct 1999 Content PackagingFinal:May 2000 Question & Test 1Final:May 2000 Profiles / Learner InformationScope:May 2000 Content ManagementScope:May 2000 Learner InformationBase:July 2000 Competencies (mini)Scope:Aug 2000 Learner InformationDraft: Nov 2000 Question & Test 2 (results)Scope: Nov 2000 CompetenciesBase:Nov 2000 GUIDs (mini)Scope:Nov 2000 Content Packaging 1.1Draft:Dec 2000

18. IMS Specs Current & Expected Learner InformationFinal: Feb 2001 Content Packaging 1.1Final:Feb 2001 Question & Test 1.1Draft:Feb 2001 Content ManagementBase: Feb 2001 Question & Test 2 Base:Feb 2001 CompetenciesBase:Feb 2001 GUIDsBase:Feb 2001 new AccessibilityStart: Feb 2001 new Instructional DesignStart: Feb 2001 Question & Test 1.1Final:May 2001 Content ManagementDraft: May 2001 Question & Test 2 Draft:May 2001 CompetenciesDraft:May 2001 GUIDsDraft:May 2001 AccessibilityScope: May 2001 Instructional DesignScope: May 2001

19. IMS Specs Future Content ManagementFinal: July/Aug 2001 Question & Test 2 Final : July/Aug 2001 CompetenciesFinal : July/Aug 2001 GUIDsFinal : July/Aug 2001 AccessibilityBase: July/Aug 2001 Instructional DesignBase: July/Aug 2001 AccessibilityDraft: Sept/Oct 2001 Instructional DesignDraft: Sept/Oct 2001

20. Issues Internet Supported Learning Portable Courses, Portable Content Portable Tests and Questions Description & Search Portable Lifelong Learning Records Class Enrolment and Results Collaborative Learning

21. Internet Supported Learning Teaching involves a set of complex processes What systems are needed to support these? What Standards are needed to network them? Who Supplies Standards? What if you don’t have standards?

22. From Functions to System Level Components LMS/VLE Learning Profile Cataloguing & Searching Test Authoring Course Preparation & Validation Student RecordsClass Enrolment Content Authoring Course Catalogue PDP Using ContentPeer Discussion & Support Mentor Support Formative Testing Repository Summative Testing Standards needed to link & pass information between systems

23. Portable Courses & Content Why not just use Web Standards? Is there more to using Content than delivery? Is there a cultural difference between the approach to learning in the UK the US? Are we converging? Will the use of LT bring about uniformity? Is/Should Learning be Content Driven?

24. Portable Courses & Content Transporting Learning Objects Aggregation & Disaggregation Using Descriptions Tracking Learners Getting Results back form Session Tests

25. Portable Tests and Questions Computer Assisted Assessment What is its role? Can it be improved? Must high quality assessment be expensive? Portable tests? Portable results?

26. Description & Search Describing Learning Content What needs to be described? –To Find it? –To Use it? How should it be described? Is Metadata the only way? –How have we found learning resources?

27. Class Enrolment and Results Will Class teaching continue online? What is needed? Linking Academic to Administrative systems Where is the boundary? All ‘Administration’? Negotiating Learning: –Learner –Mentor –Administrator

28. Lifelong Learning Records Multiple Learning Institutions What should pass between them? Information: Learner’s or Institutions? Control? Will Employers demand it, if it is there? What Levels of detail? Who For?

29. Collaborative Learning Is Internet Learning still based on CDs? Can we harness Internet communication? What kinds of Collaborative Learning? What information is needed? –Groups, Members, Identity, Role, Location, Access, What functionality is needed? –Messaging (person2person & system2system), Presence, Shared/Distributed Authoring

30. 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

31. CETIS Funded by JISC Integrated Environments for Learning (JCIEL) Committee Set up in May 1998, extended in 2000 for 3 further years Managed by University of Wales Bangor in collaboration with O.U. and Sheffield Hallam University

32. CETIS Special Interest Groups Group Co-ordinators: Question & Test: Strathclyde U. Metadata: Loughborough U. Enterprise & Profiles: Consortium of universities headed by Centre for Recording Achievement Content:soon Accessibility:soon

33. Staff and Contacts At Bangor: Bill Olivier, Oleg Liber, Lisa Rowlands cetis@bangor.ac.uk http://cetis.bangor.ac.uk/cetis/ Paul Lefrere (OU) Andy Heath (SHU)