COLIS Demonstrator:Project and Industry Scenarios

Dr James DalzielExecutive DirectorWebMCQ Pty Ltd

james@webmcq.com

COLIS Workshop Presentation, July 2002, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Copyright 11/7/02 James Dalziel

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

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

External Suppliers

Course Unit Creator

MultimediaObjects

E-resource Repositories eg :

WebResources

DocumentsE-Journals

Unified Portal inc.Single User Signon ,AccessManagement

People Directories / Authentication Services

Anyone

Content Package Creator

Learning Object/Content PackageRepository

LearningObject/ContentPackage Metadata

XML Query

Create ContentPackage

Author LearningObject/ContentPackage Metadata

ContentManagement

WebContentMetadata Repository

XML Query

Web Content Creator

DR Manager

Digital RightsMetadata

Digital RightsManagement

Learning Managementand DeliveryEnvironment

AuthorLearningUnits

Learner

WebContentMetadata Repository

Z39.50

WebCT

WebMCQ IPR Systems FDi?Out of Scope

Infoseeker

Learning Object MetadataRepository XML Query

E-Resource MetadataRepository XML Z39.50

E-Resource MetadataRepository XML Query

Audit Usage -Digital Rights

Search Gateway & Request/Deliver

FDICA

AuthorLearningObjects

COLIS Phase 1 Project Scenario

IMS Digital Repositories Working Group - Initial ModelP

rocu

remen

t

Directories

VocabularyCompetency

Metadata

Repositories

Organisations Traders

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

MA

NA

GE

RIG

HT

S O

BL

IGA

TIO

NS

CO

NT

RO

L A

CC

ES

S

AU

TH

EN

TIC

AT

E

AU

TH

OR

ISE

AU

DIT N

EG

OT

IAT

E T

RA

DE

MA

KE

PA

YM

EN

T

SEARCH

Learner Creator Infoseeker

Repositories

AssetsMetadata

Resource Utilizers

DISCOVER

REQUEST

USE Presentation

Mediation

Provision

People

Agent

RE

SO

LV

E

Registries

STORE

STORE EXPOSEMANAGE STORE EXPOSEMANAGE

DELIVER

(Query, Browse, Follow Path)ACCESS

GATHER

PUBLISH

MANAGE

ALERT

EXPOSE

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

Learning ContentManagement

System

Learning Management System

RightsManagement

AccessControl

MetaData

COLIS - The DRM/Directory Services Dilemma

Digital Asset

Management

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

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

TOP SECRET

LMS COMPONENT MODULES INSIDE

DO NOT OPEN!!!

Traditional LMS

IMS Abstract Framework

Application ServiceShared ObjectsShared Objects

CourseManagementAssessment

The services provided to applications to e-learning functions eg - contentdelivery enrollment

AuthoringEvaluationGrade ReportingSurveyingAuthor TemplatesSequencing

Common ServiceGeneric services made available too the application services tp provide servicessuch as Authentication, Authorization, etcFileLUIDLoggingUserMessagingAuthenticateAuthorizationSimulationQueryLoggingBusinessRulesAggregationIdentificationWorkflow

ResolutionNotificationSchedulingTrackingLoggingCalendaringDBCSecurityValidationAccessManagementCommerceStorageRegistryGUIDDirectory

ContentManagementSearchingCatalogingDRMRetrievalVersioningAggregrationPublish/StorageDeliveryPackagingAuditContent Lifecycling Commissioning DecommissioningSearchingCatalogningDRMAggregationVersioningContent LyfecycleAuditContentMetadataCollaborationMessagingCompetencyManagementDefinitionRecords RepositoryManagement

CommerceContentDeliverySequencingServicesSimulationEnrollmentManagementLearnerProgressionLIPManagement

How the user interacts with the applicationUser InterfaceApplicatonA system, system component, tool, or agent that uses the application services to supportan e-learning function

InfrastructureThe way that applicationsservices and common services interactSessionManagementMessaging**DRAFT** 4/29/02

Proposed“Version 2”IMSArchitecture(Draft)

BostonApril 2002

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 %

Integrated (end-to-end) IMS Use Case (based on COLIS) James Dalziel

Authority Creator Arranger Learner

Key Actors

Corporate HE Add? % Done?

Learning Types & Spec Lacking?

Prescribe

Author

Submit toLOX

Design LearningActivity

Search LOX

Download LOs

Structure LOs &Activities

StructureAssessment

Organise StudentRoles/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

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%

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

Authority Creator Arranger Learner

Prescribe

Author

Submit toLOX

Design LearningActivity

Search LOX

Download LOs

Structure LOs &Activities

StructureAssessment

Organise StudentRoles/Groups

Student Login

Do Learning

Do Assessment

Record

Infoseeker

Search via Gateway

Obtain Links

Student Searches

ReviewLicence

ReviewMeta-data

COLIS participant

Universities

Academics(Out of scope)

IPR S

WebCT / WebMCQ

IPR S / FDi

IPR S / FDi

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

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

COLIS Global Use Case: Areas for further work Identified = New =

Authority Creator Arranger Learner

Prescribe

Author

Submit toLOX

Design LearningActivity

Search LOX

Download LOs

Structure LOs &Activities

StructureAssessment

Organise StudentRoles/Groups

Student Login

Do Learning

Do Assessment

Record

Infoseeker

Search via Gateway

Obtain Links

Student Searches

ReviewLicence

ReviewMeta-data

COLIS participant

Universities

Academics(Out of scope)

IPR S

WebCT / WebMCQ

IPR S / FDi

IPR S / FDi

IPR S / FDi

WebCT/WebMCQ

Academics(Out of scope)

?

CA

WebCT / WebMCQ / FDi

Academics(Out of scope)

Universities

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?

Authority Creator Arranger Learner

Prescribe

Author

Submit toLOX

Design LearningActivity

Search LOX

Download LOs

Structure LOs &Activities

StructureAssessment

Organise StudentRoles/Groups

Student Login

Do Learning

Do Assessment

Record

Infoseeker

Search via Gateway

Obtain Links

Student Searches

ReviewLicence

ReviewMeta-data

COLIS participant

Universities

Academics(Out of scope)

IPR S

WebCT / WebMCQ

IPR S / FDi

IPR S / FDi

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 =

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

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

So what are Learning Objects anyway?

• A new conceptual approach– Three layers: Learning Activities (highest)

Learning ObjectsDigital 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

So what are Learning Objects anyway?LearningActivities O O(EML)

LearningObjects X X X(XML)

DigitalAssets * * * * *(DAM)

May include “Rendering” XML

Data interchange/Meta-data XML

Run-time tooldescription XMLO

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