IMS ADL IEEE LTSC

Geoffrey Fox

Larry Dennis

CSIT

Basic Goal is Good

Many agree that electronic aids to education or training and perhaps even complete web-based learning environments are of increasing importance

We have a lot of choices from academic and commercial sources

WebCT, Blackboard, Lotus Learning Space, WebMC …

It is not clear as to “correct” approach and as to “best” implementation of this approach

So broad use of web-based classes is slowed as not clear if safe to “invest” in WebCT or WebMC and what is involved in converting from one format to another

So we need standards ……..

Who took up the Challenge?

Educational Environment:

Educause set up IMS – Instructional Management System with selection of companies and universities

IMS focus was changed to drop implementation work and is now “Global Learning Consortium” Inc.

Department of Defense (which has huge training needs):

ADL Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative

www.adlnet.org whose links section includes all other useful URL’s

A lot of their results come from AICC (Airline Industry CBT Committee) CMI (Computer Managed Instruction) standard

IEEE (Computing Community) set up

P1484 Learning Technology Standards Committee LTSC

Is there a basic difficulty in process?

We are trying to set standards for an area that is still in its infancy and we have essentially zero experience with sophisticated web-based learning environments and

Certainly no agreement as to either educational or computing architecture of web-based learning

Not clear if people involved in the activity understand issues and there is no very well defined academic community for many important contributions from different areas

Example: Standards assume a “Client-Server” architecture but this is not used in most modern web-based systems which are 3 or 4 tier – not 2 tier

What is being done?

IMS and IEEE have broad-based standard activities

ADL is more focused on promoting standards compliant course development and has DoD projects producing courses and has established centers and is sponsoring meetings as “plugfests” where people demonstrate their “standards” compliant capabilities and its interoperability

Main Co-Lab is part of IDA in Alexandria Va

Wisconsin is Academic Co-Lab with a further DoD Co-Lab in Orlando (Navair?)

Level of collaboration between 3 groups not entirely clear

In 1997 I was very disappointed when ADL signed up with IMS and basically abandoned their stated goal of working with broad community

Current ADL/IMS link seems weaker than at start

Basic System Model

We think of web-based education as based on a set of distributed educational objects manipulated by a learning management system (LMS)

This is already a little flaky as better to think of objects and services on those objects

Further support for authoring of objects is critical and this does not seem to be addressed very well

webMC illustrates this difficulty very well as its major contribution is to authoring

However we can usefully study/use standards understanding that they are not complete

3-Tier Architecture for Education Portal

There are several important Object Models: COM, CORBA, Java, Web, Oracle Database ……

But it doesn’t matter what you use
if you specify in XML

Structure of a Typical 3-tier System (Portal)

Two XML Interfaces (portalML and resourceML)

IMS and ADL SCORM take a client server view and define the objects with 1 interface

ADL takes about API ’s for services but does not specify in same fashion (should also be XML)

LMS Model used by ADL

SCORM and its Scope

SCORM is Sharable Courseware Object Reference Model

Broad definition of “Learning Management System” (LMS) as a suite of server-side functionalities that controls the delivery and tracking of learning content to a client-side student.

The SCORM does not specify functionality within the LMS.

Only Course Interchange, Metadata, and Runtime Environment are “in scope” for this version of SCORM.

Runtime Environment is not very useful in my opinion as very dependent on learning model – ADL is thinking of computer based instruction

Note current initiatives essentially go down to page

They do not address functionality of page (is it a Java Applet, Flash, HTML except for possibly misguided parts of quiz standards

Areas (Object Properties) Covered

Metadata from IEEE and IMS

Roughly Properties of educational objects thought of as “documents” (author, title …)

Course Packaging from SCORM and IMS

How to form bigger units of instruction from smaller units

Called Content Packaging by IMS and Course Structure Format (CSF) by SCORM which goes in greater depth than IMS

Tests and Quizzes from IMS

Specialized CSF descriptors from SCORM (via CMI)

Such as objectives, prerequisites, completion requirements

LMS API from SCORM – I am doubtful about value

Enterprise Properties from IMS

Link to people and organization databases (rather incomplete at present)

ADL SCO Model

SCORM Course Information

GlobalProperties XML DTD structure [no notation = one element required;“?” = zero or one (optional); “+” = one or more required; “*” = zero or more required]

Example Course Structure

Block XML DTD Structure

Assignable Unit (au)
XML DTD Structure

Objectives in Detail

Some Examples of Prerequisite Syntax

Example of NOT(~) in Prerequisites

Element Identifier: A34
Requirement: ~A35

The student may enter unit A34 as long as unit A35 has not been completed (that is, the status of A35 must be Incomplete, Failed, or Not attempted). If assignable unit A35 is complete, the student may not enter unit A34.

Example of EQUAL(=) in Prerequisites

Element Identifier: A34
Requirement: A33=Passed

The student may enter unit A34 if he or she has passed unit A33.

Example of NOT EQUAL (<>) in Prerequisites

Element Identifier: A34
Requirement: A35<>Passed

The student may enter unit A34 as long as he or she has not passed A35. Notice the difference between this expression and the example for the not operator. The equivalent of ~A35 is (A35<>Passed & A35<>Completed)

Comes directly from CMI from AICC

Launch, API, and Data Model as they apply to the SCORM architectural view.

Metadata Example from IMS/IEEE

10 Categories of Metadata

General – describes resource as a whole

Lifecycle – Describes history and current state

MetaMetaData – Information about Metadata

Technical – Technical requirements and characteristics

Educational – pedagogical information

Rights – Cost, IP

Relation – between this and other resources

Annotations

Classification such as keywords

IMS Enterprise Model

Three Data Objects in IMS Enterprise Model

Person – This data object contains elements describing an individual of interest to the Learning Management environment.

Group – This object contains elements describing a group of interest to the Learning Management environment.

There are many types of groups that may be shared between systems.

The most common is a Course Instance, but they may also include Training Programs, Academic Programs, Course sub-groups, clubs, etc. A group can also have any number of relationships with other groups.

Group Membership – This data object contains elements describing the membership of a person or group in a group.

Group members may be instructors, learners, content developers, members, managers, mentors, or administrators.

Extract from Person Object Specification

Omissions I

Grade and other Performance data – IEEE LTSC was considering this 3 years ago

Interoperable Services – Chat Room to Bulletin Board, File Manipulation

Requirements of IMS gotten from small user survey and not from analysis of packages such as Web CT WebMC etc.

Historically IMS was most interested in building a system

No analysis (I could see) of modern Internet technology, hand-held devices etc. to see range of architectures

CMI from AICC comes from the past

W3C has hierarchial DOM which could describe Content – ignored by SCORM and IMS

No agent (for tutoring) Interface

Omissions II

Questions/Testing IMS specification seems to have too much detail on simple syntax and no way of specifying nifty new ideas such as CAP (random person specific tests)

No attention to Mathematics and other specialized authoring interoperability issues

More generally too much specific detail and not enough attention to range of architectures and specific requirements for interoperability

However standards are very useful for doing new systems with good metadata and attention to myriad of detail

Current standards “only” go down to Web Page – currently do not address structure of this page

Authoring Architectures

We most importantly need to support interoperability of “content” – so faculty investment protected

Typical delivered page consists of

Actual Content

Links to other content (Next, Previous, More Detail)

“Decoration” – bunch of buttons accessing services such as “chat room”, “class resources”, “send mail to instructor”, WebTop Services (search etc.)

For interoperability, we need to

Preserve Content and links thereto but they will be stored and accessed in different ways in different LMS

Map Services if possible

Service mapping may not be necessary if each LMS has templates and model is that you extract interoperable content and insert into templates constructed separately

Need to extract metadata as this is linked to specific content pages and typically not generated Authoring System

Authoring Issues II

This architecture is already a little problematical in many systems

E.g. if I import PowerPoint into XYZ LMS and it integrates as a lecture; adds decorations/metadata – can I edit PowerPoint and preserve “decorations/metadata”?

Can I change number of pages in Presentation?

Several Content Models

1) Faculty writes a set of Web Pages

2) Faculty uses an initial template to start Web Pages

3,4) Some sort of Template specifies page layout of metadata, decorations and content. Content is authored elsewhere. LMS stores all this in database or flat (XML) files

3) Actual Content generated by batch process

4) Actual Content generated by dynamic process

Message Center Interface

Yahoo Messenger is an interesting model for a education portal interface

Application that invokes browser

Runs on PC or Palmtop and “only” contains summary information suitable for Palms

Has services like file manipulation, send a message and set of custom buttons

Can access News, Weather, Stocks etc.

Could be access grades, curriculum etc.

Here decorations are in Messenger and “content pages” are clean

Can do with frames but these don’t usually work very well


	Many agree that electronic aids to education or training and perhaps even complete web-based learning environments are of increasing importance
	We have a lot of choices from academic and commercial sources
		WebCT, Blackboard, Lotus Learning Space, WebMC …
	It is not clear as to “correct” approach and as to “best” implementation of this approach
	So broad use of web-based classes is slowed as not clear if safe to “invest” in WebCT or WebMC and what is involved in converting from one format to another
	So we need standards ……..


	Educational Environment:
		Educause set up IMS – Instructional Management System with selection of companies and universities
		IMS focus was changed to drop implementation work and is now “Global Learning Consortium” Inc.
	Department of Defense (which has huge training needs):
		ADL Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative
		www.adlnet.org whose links section includes all other useful URL’s
		A lot of their results come from AICC (Airline Industry CBT Committee) CMI (Computer Managed Instruction) standard
	IEEE (Computing Community) set up
		P1484 Learning Technology Standards Committee LTSC


	We are trying to set standards for an area that is still in its infancy and we have essentially zero experience with sophisticated web-based learning environments and
	Certainly no agreement as to either educational or computing architecture of web-based learning
	Not clear if people involved in the activity understand issues and there is no very well defined academic community for many important contributions from different areas
	Example: Standards assume a “Client-Server” architecture but this is not used in most modern web-based systems which are 3 or 4 tier – not 2 tier


	IMS and IEEE have broad-based standard activities
	ADL is more focused on promoting standards compliant course development and has DoD projects producing courses and has established centers and is sponsoring meetings as “plugfests” where people demonstrate their “standards” compliant capabilities and its interoperability
		Main Co-Lab is part of IDA in Alexandria Va
		Wisconsin is Academic Co-Lab with a further DoD Co-Lab in Orlando (Navair?)
	Level of collaboration between 3 groups not entirely clear
		In 1997 I was very disappointed when ADL signed up with IMS and basically abandoned their stated goal of working with broad community
		Current ADL/IMS link seems weaker than at start


	We think of web-based education as based on a set of distributed educational objects manipulated by a learning management system (LMS)
	This is already a little flaky as better to think of objects and services on those objects
	Further support for authoring of objects is critical and this does not seem to be addressed very well
		webMC illustrates this difficulty very well as its major contribution is to authoring
	However we can usefully study/use standards understanding that they are not complete


	There are several important Object Models: COM, CORBA, Java, Web, Oracle Database ……
	But it doesn’t matter what you use if you specify in XML


	Two XML Interfaces (portalML and resourceML)
	IMS and ADL SCORM take a client server view and define the objects with 1 interface
		ADL takes about API ’s for services but does not specify in same fashion (should also be XML)


	SCORM is Sharable Courseware Object Reference Model
	Broad definition of “Learning Management System” (LMS) as a suite of server-side functionalities that controls the delivery and tracking of learning content to a client-side student.
	The SCORM does not specify functionality within the LMS.
	Only Course Interchange, Metadata, and Runtime Environment are “in scope” for this version of SCORM.
	Runtime Environment is not very useful in my opinion as very dependent on learning model – ADL is thinking of computer based instruction
	Note current initiatives essentially go down to page
	They do not address functionality of page (is it a Java Applet, Flash, HTML except for possibly misguided parts of quiz standards


	Metadata from IEEE and IMS
		Roughly Properties of educational objects thought of as “documents” (author, title …)
	Course Packaging from SCORM and IMS
		How to form bigger units of instruction from smaller units
		Called Content Packaging by IMS and Course Structure Format (CSF) by SCORM which goes in greater depth than IMS
	Tests and Quizzes from IMS
	Specialized CSF descriptors from SCORM (via CMI)
		Such as objectives, prerequisites, completion requirements
	LMS API from SCORM – I am doubtful about value
	Enterprise Properties from IMS
		Link to people and organization databases (rather incomplete at present)


	GlobalProperties XML DTD structure [no notation = one element required;“?” = zero or one (optional); “+” = one or more required; “*” = zero or more required]


	Example of NOT(~) in Prerequisites
	Element Identifier: A34 Requirement: ~A35
	The student may enter unit A34 as long as unit A35 has not been completed (that is, the status of A35 must be Incomplete, Failed, or Not attempted). If assignable unit A35 is complete, the student may not enter unit A34.
	Example of EQUAL(=) in Prerequisites
	Element Identifier: A34 Requirement: A33=Passed
	The student may enter unit A34 if he or she has passed unit A33.
	Example of NOT EQUAL (<>) in Prerequisites
	Element Identifier: A34 Requirement: A35<>Passed
	The student may enter unit A34 as long as he or she has not passed A35. Notice the difference between this expression and the example for the not operator. The equivalent of ~A35 is (A35<>Passed & A35<>Completed)
	Comes directly from CMI from AICC


	General – describes resource as a whole
	Lifecycle – Describes history and current state
	MetaMetaData – Information about Metadata
	Technical – Technical requirements and characteristics
	Educational – pedagogical information
	Rights – Cost, IP
	Relation – between this and other resources
	Annotations
	Classification such as keywords


	Person – This data object contains elements describing an individual of interest to the Learning Management environment.
	Group – This object contains elements describing a group of interest to the Learning Management environment.
	There are many types of groups that may be shared between systems.
	The most common is a Course Instance, but they may also include Training Programs, Academic Programs, Course sub-groups, clubs, etc. A group can also have any number of relationships with other groups.
	Group Membership – This data object contains elements describing the membership of a person or group in a group.
	Group members may be instructors, learners, content developers, members, managers, mentors, or administrators.


	Grade and other Performance data – IEEE LTSC was considering this 3 years ago
	Interoperable Services – Chat Room to Bulletin Board, File Manipulation
	Requirements of IMS gotten from small user survey and not from analysis of packages such as Web CT WebMC etc.
		Historically IMS was most interested in building a system
	No analysis (I could see) of modern Internet technology, hand-held devices etc. to see range of architectures
		CMI from AICC comes from the past
		W3C has hierarchial DOM which could describe Content – ignored by SCORM and IMS
	No agent (for tutoring) Interface


	Questions/Testing IMS specification seems to have too much detail on simple syntax and no way of specifying nifty new ideas such as CAP (random person specific tests)
	No attention to Mathematics and other specialized authoring interoperability issues
	More generally too much specific detail and not enough attention to range of architectures and specific requirements for interoperability
		However standards are very useful for doing new systems with good metadata and attention to myriad of detail
	Current standards “only” go down to Web Page – currently do not address structure of this page


	We most importantly need to support interoperability of “content” – so faculty investment protected
	Typical delivered page consists of
		Actual Content
		Links to other content (Next, Previous, More Detail)
		“Decoration” – bunch of buttons accessing services such as “chat room”, “class resources”, “send mail to instructor”, WebTop Services (search etc.)
	For interoperability, we need to
		Preserve Content and links thereto but they will be stored and accessed in different ways in different LMS
		Map Services if possible
	Service mapping may not be necessary if each LMS has templates and model is that you extract interoperable content and insert into templates constructed separately
	Need to extract metadata as this is linked to specific content pages and typically not generated Authoring System


This architecture is already a little problematical in many systems
	E.g. if I import PowerPoint into XYZ LMS and it integrates as a lecture; adds decorations/metadata – can I edit PowerPoint and preserve “decorations/metadata”?
	Can I change number of pages in Presentation?
Several Content Models
	1) Faculty writes a set of Web Pages
	2) Faculty uses an initial template to start Web Pages
	3,4) Some sort of Template specifies page layout of metadata, decorations and content. Content is authored elsewhere. LMS stores all this in database or flat (XML) files
		3) Actual Content generated by batch process
		4) Actual Content generated by dynamic process


	Yahoo Messenger is an interesting model for a education portal interface
	Application that invokes browser
	Runs on PC or Palmtop and “only” contains summary information suitable for Palms
	Has services like file manipulation, send a message and set of custom buttons
		Can access News, Weather, Stocks etc.
		Could be access grades, curriculum etc.
	Here decorations are in Messenger and “content pages” are clean
	Can do with frames but these don’t usually work very well