IMS ADL IEEE LTSC Overview and Critique of Standards

1. IMS ADL IEEE LTSCOverview and Critique of Standards Geoffrey Fox Department of Computer Science and CSIT (School of Computational Science and Information Technology) 400 Dirac Science Library Tallahassee Florida 32306-4120 850-644-4587 315-254-6387 fox@csit.fsu.edu IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

2. 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 (FSU) … (mainly interesting as authoring strategy) • WebEx, Centra, Placeware (delivery) • 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 WebEx and what is involved in converting from one format to another • So we need standards …….. IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

3. Who took up the Challenge? • Educational Environment: • Educause set up IMS – http://www.imsproject.org 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 IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

4. 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 IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

5. 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 which is a Navair facility next to University of Central Florida (Interesting links to “Simulation/Gaming” community) • 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 IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

6. 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 and delivery of objects is critical and this does not seem to be addressed very well • E.g. I think they have not thought through issues coming from changing web – use of PDA’s, dynamic pages etc. • However we can usefully study/use standards understanding that they are not complete IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

7. 3-Tier Architecture for Education Portal ObjectRepository Database • There are several important Object Models: COM, CORBA, Java, Web, Oracle Database …… • But it doesn’t matter what you useif you specify in XML XMLFile System(Web Site) Request Or Export/Import Information Middle Tier“Business Logic”dissociatesUser and Back End IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

8. Structure of a Typical 3-tier System (Portal) XML Interfaces Resources and Services Client(s) Server(s) User View portalML System View ResourceML • 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) IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

9. LMS Model used by ADL LearningServer Content Server(s) External systems: “Learning HR, E-Commerce, ERP... Management Course Interchange: System” Course LMS Structure Format (CSF), Metadata Migration Adapter Critical InterchangeCapability Services or Adapter Learning Server Server Adapter Server Side Runtime Client Side Environment: Client Launch, API, Browser Data Model API Adapter Application HTML+ IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

10. 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 as “smallest unit” • They do not address functionality of page (is it a Java Applet, Flash, HTML) except for possibly misguided parts of quiz standards which go into painful detail of archaic quiz structure IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

11. 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 but must be important as probably can agree) IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

12. 4 Components of ADL SCO Model [3] “Raw Media” [3a] Raw Media Metadata (XML record) SCO Course Structure Format (XML) [1] [1b] Assignment Hierarchy Block Root (Course) Metadata [1e] External Course Meta-data [1a] (XML record) “Block” (Parent Node) Metadata [1e] Sharable CoursewareObject “Block” (Parent Node) Metadata [1e] Content Metadata [2a] (XML record) “AU” (Assignable Unit – Leaf Node) Content (AU) [2] Metadata [1e] (Internal organization of files, objects, etc.) (Points to) Objectives [1c] [4] Run Time Environment [4a] Content Launch Protocol [4b] Content API [4c] Content data model IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

13. SCORM Course Information • GlobalProperties XML DTD structure [no notation = one element required;“?” = zero or one (optional); “+” = one or more required; “*” = zero or more required] IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

14. Example Course Structure IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

15. Block XML DTD Structure IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

16. Assignable Unit (au) XML DTD Structure IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

17. Assignable Unit (au) XML DTD Structure in more detail IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

18. Objectives in Detail IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

19. Some Examples of Prerequisite Syntax • Example of NOT(~) in Prerequisites • Element Identifier: A34Requirement: ~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: A34Requirement: A33=Passed • The student may enter unit A34 if he or she has passed unit A33. • Example of NOT EQUAL (<>) in Prerequisites • Element Identifier: A34Requirement: 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 IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

20. Metadata Example from IMS/IEEE General Category Identifier Unique Label Title Title(Dublin Core) Catalogentry Description in some catalog system IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

21. 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 ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

22. IMS Enterprise Model IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

23. 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. IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

24. Extract from Person Object Specification RecStatus Record Update Status UserID LMS login name Name Real Name FN Formatted Name Sort Name for sorting IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

25. Omissions I • Grade and other Performance data – IEEE LTSC was considering this 3 years ago • Interoperable Services – Chat Room to Bulletin Board, File Manipulation • There are various commodity efforts to get Instant Messenger standards such as IMPP (Instant Messenger and Presence Protocol) http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/impp-charter.html and http://www.jabber.org • 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 IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

26. 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 • Standards assume learning objects are “top-level” – better to think of learning objects as a special type of information object. This changes XML design but not basic issues IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

27. Conclusions • I believe these standards are useful both in • Specifying XML based metadata • Highlighting some features that need to be in any LMS • I am not clear if they will really get serious attention as • Specifications have omissions and architectural flaws • Involved community seems to be a private club • Vendors involved so far are not the leading ones • Suggest use standards where useful but hold off any major activity until acceptance clear • Work on understanding omissions to help them IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL