Upload
georgina-daniels
View
215
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COLIS Demonstrator:Project and Industry Scenarios
Dr James DalzielExecutive DirectorWebMCQ Pty Ltd
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
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