Transcript IMS ADL IEEE LTSC - Indiana University

IMS ADL IEEE LTSC
Overview 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
[email protected]
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
1
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 ……..
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
2
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
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
3
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
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
4
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
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
5
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
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
6
3-Tier Architecture for Education Portal
• There are several important Object Models: COM,
CORBA, Java, Web, Oracle Database ……
Object
• But it doesn’t matter what you use
Repository
if you specify in XML
XML
File System
(Web Site)
Request
Or
Information
7/18/2015
Middle Tier
“Business Logic”
dissociates
User and Back End
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
Export/Import
Database
7
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)
XML Interfaces
Client(s)
Server(s)
User View
portalML
7/18/2015
Resources
and Services
System View
ResourceML
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
8
LMS Model used by ADL
“Learning
Management
System”
LMS
Content
Server(s)
External systems:
HR, E-Commerce, ERP...
Learning
Server
Migration
Adapter
Course
Interchange:
Course
Structure
Format (CSF),
Metadata
Services or Adapter
Learning Server
Server
Adapter
Server Side
Client Side
Client
Browser
API
Adapter
7/18/2015
Application
Critical
Interchange
Capability
Runtime
Environment:
Launch, API,
Data Model
HTML+
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
9
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
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
10
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)
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
11
4 Components of ADL SCO Model
[3] “Raw
Media”
SCO Course Structure Format (XML) [1]
[1b] Assignment Hierarchy
Block Root (Course)
External
Course
Meta-data
[1a]
(XML
record)
“Block”
(Parent Node)
“Block”
(Parent Node)
“AU”
(Assignable
Unit –
Leaf Node)
Metadata [1e]
Metadata [1e]
Metadata [1e]
[3a] Raw
Media
Metadata
(XML
record)
Sharable
Courseware
Object
Metadata [1e]
Content (AU) [2]
(Points to)
(Internal organization
of files, objects, etc.)
Content
Metadata
[2a]
(XML
record)
Objectives [1c]
[4] Run Time Environment
[4a] Content Launch
Protocol
[4b] Content API
[4c] Content data
model
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
12
SCORM Course Information
• GlobalProperties XML DTD structure [no notation
= one element required;“?” = zero or one
(optional); “+” = one or more required; “*” =
zero or more required]
source ~
+ externalMetadata
model ~
location ~
source ~
? curricularTaxonomy ~
model ~
location ~
? globalProperties
source ~
* extensions
course
model ~
location ~
+ property
block ~
name ~
value ~
? objectives
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
13
Example Course Structure
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
14
Block XML DTD Structure
? globalProperties
source ~
+ externalMetadata
model ~
location ~
* objectiveRef ~
title ~
identification
? description ~
? curricular ~
? labels
? developer ~
? prerequisites ~
? completionReq ~
course
source ~
* extensions
block ~
model ~
location ~
+ property
+
* au ~
name ~
value ~
* block ~
blockAlias ~
7/18/2015
? objectives
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
15
?
? globalProperties
globalProperties
+
+ externalMetadata
externalMetadata
source
source ~
~
model
model ~
~
location
location ~
~
** objectiveRef
objectiveRef ~
~
identification
identification
title
title ~
~
?
description
? description ~
~
?
? curricular
curricular ~
~
?
? labels
labels
?
? developer
developer ~
~
?
? prerequisites
prerequisites ~
~
?
? completionReq
completionReq ~
~
course
course
** extensions
extensions
source
source ~
~
model
model ~
~
location
location ~
~
name
name ~
~
value
~
value ~
+
+ property
property
** externalMetadata
externalMetadata
** objectRef
objectRef ~
~
identification
identification
?
? prerequisites
prerequisites ~
~
?
? completionReq
completionReq ~
~
?
? maxTimeAllowed
maxTimeAllowed ~
~
?
? timeLimit
timeLimit
?
? timeLimitAction
timeLimitAction ~
~
block
block ~
~
** au
au ~
~
location
location ~
~
?
? parameterString
parameterString ~
~
?
? launch
launch
?
? dataFromLMS
dataFromLMS ~
~
?
? masteryScore
masteryScore
** extensions
extensions
+
+
auAlias
auAlias ~
~
** block
block ~
~
blockAlias
blockAlias ~
~
7/18/2015
?
? objectives
objectives
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
Assignable Unit (au)
XML DTD Structure 16
source
source ~
~
model
model ~
~
Assignable
Unit
(au)
location
~
location ~
name
~
name
~ detail
XML DTD
Structure
in
more
+
+ property
property
value ~
** extensions
extensions
value ~
** externalMetadata
externalMetadata
** objectRef
objectRef ~
~
identification
identification
?
? prerequisites
prerequisites ~
~
?
? completionReq
completionReq ~
~
?
? timeLimit
timeLimit
** au
au ~
~
?
? launch
launch
?
? maxTimeAllowed
maxTimeAllowed ~
~
?
? timeLimitAction
timeLimitAction ~
~
location
location ~
~
?
? parameterString
parameterString ~
~
?
? dataFromLMS
dataFromLMS ~
~
?
? masteryScore
masteryScore
** extensions
extensions
+
+
auAlias
auAlias ~
~
** block
block ~
~
blockAlias
blockAlias ~
~
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
17
Objectives in Detail
? globalProperties
source ~
block ~
+ externalMetadata
model ~
location ~
* assignmentRef ~
title ~
identification
course
? description ~
? curricular ~
? labels
? developer ~
? prerequisites ~
? completionReq ~
* extensions
? objectives
+ objective ~
? source ~
model ~
? location ~
+ property
name ~
value ~
* objective ~
objectiveAlias ~
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
18
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
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
19
Metadata Example from IMS/IEEE
General Category
Identifier Unique Label
Title Title(Dublin Core)
Catalogentry Description
in some catalog system
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
20
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
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
21
IMS Enterprise Model
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
22
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.
•7/18/2015
Group members mayIMSbe
instructors, learners, content
ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
23
developers, members, managers, mentors, or
Extract from Person Object Specification
RecStatus Record Update Status
UserID LMS login name
Name Real Name
FN Formatted Name
Sort Name for sorting
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
24
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, handheld 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
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
25
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
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
26
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
7/18/2015
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
27