Eduworks EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS Robby Robson Eduworks Corporation [email protected] CELL: 541-760-6899
Dec 24, 2015
Eduworks
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS
Robby RobsonEduworks Corporation
[email protected]: 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 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 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?