Organizational Update: The Next IMS/GLC Ed Walker NLII 2005

Organizational Update:The Next IMS/GLC

Ed WalkerNLII 2005

© Copyright 2004IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.All Rights Reserved.

2

Success Means - Learning is …• Convenient: “easy to use” - low end-user effort to access,

use, etc. - think Amazon front-end

• Effective: “does what I want” - meets learner/teacher

objectives for learning outcomes; meets learning provider

objectives for learning outcomes and volume of usage

• Affordable: “reasonable cost/benefit” - meets learning

supplier objectives for acquisition, installation, and

maintenance cost/benefit; meets learner/teacher objectives

for time and effort viz outcome

• Profitable: “successful business” - meets supplier business

objectives for market size, production cost, margins, etc.


3

Released specifications1. Meta-data v 1.2.12. Content Packaging v 1.1.43. Question and Test v 1.2.14. Learner Information v 1.0.15. Enterprise v 1.16. Simple Sequencing v 1.07. Learning Design v 1.08. Digital Repositories v 1.09. Competencies v 1.010. Accessibility for LIP v 1.011. Vocabulary Definitions v1.012. Shareable State Persistence v1.013. Enterprise Services v1.0 14. Resource List Interoperability v1.015. AccessforAll Meta-data v1.0


4

DownloadsSpecification Downloads 1 Jan – 31 Dec 2004

Question and Test 44,041 Content Packaging 32,510 Meta-data 30,801 Accessibility 18,766 Learner Information Package 16,881 Enterprise 16,231 Learning Design 13,303 Simple Sequencing 10,291 Handbooks 9,850 VDEX 8,172 Enterprise Services 6,061 Digital Repositories 5,484 RDCEO 5,331 Abstract Framework 3,832 Shareable State Persistence 2,470 Resource List Interoperability 1,731 EPortfolio 310


5

Activities

• Communications

— Newsletters

— Member Website - Forums/Collaboration

— Public Website

• Member Activities

— Member Surveys

— Quarterly Meetings

— Technical Exchanges

— Open Technical Forums

• Project Management

• Document Production


6

Results

IEEE

SCORM

SIF

IMS/GLC

Metadata, CP

LIP

Competencies

QTI

Simple Sequencing Content

Packaging

BSI

SIFA

NCAM

HR/XML

DCMI,W3CACC

ADL

Metadata

eGIF

CP, QTI, LIP,Ent, LD, SS, RDCEO

SakaiACC, QTI

Sharable State

EDSLIP

ISOACC

ELFFramework


7

Non-financial Equity

• Body of work products

• P roven processes

• Contributing Members (49)

• Board of Directors

• Staff

• Affiliates

• Relationships


8

Renewed Vision and Objectives• Consolidated by IMS/GLC Board

— Board meetings Sept 2003, March 2004, July 2004

— Planning meetings Sept 2004, Jan 2005 (with facilitator)

• Input by IMS/GLC members, affiliates, and others— Meetings: alt-I-lab 2003; Anaheim (Oct 2003); Zurich,

Amsterdam, London (Feb 2004); alt-I-lab 2004

— Survey of members: Fall 2003

— Facilitated interviews/surveys: June-July 2004


9

Elements of 2005 Plan

• Destination

—Vision, Mission, Goals

• Map and compass

—Objectives, tasks and schedules

• Dials and gauges

—Milestone deliverables, metrics of progress


10

Vision

Convenient,

effective, affordable, and profitable

learning

is available to every learner and teacher in

the world.


11

Mission

To promote the development of global

distributed learning by facilitating and

leading cooperative and collaborative efforts

to develop, evolve and use advanced

distributed learning environments


12

Goals

Serve vendors, buyers, and the community

of practice to a high professional standard

of effectiveness and efficiency.


13

Objectives

• Remove technical problems slowing adoption

• Content and tool interoperability, tools, techniques

• Facilitate implementation by users

• Compliance, communication forums

• Increase marketplace acceptance and demand

• Open Technical Forums, alt-i-lab

• Maintain on-going processes and activities


14

General Metrics

• Economic impact—Profit margins/acquisition cost

—Product lifetime/life cycle cost

—Overall production cost and cost of use

• Policy/Program Impact—Learner/Teacher goals (number, type)

—Quality goals (test scores, employment)

—“Market share”


15

Measures of Progress

• Scenarios (from critical use cases)—Implementation: functional requirements, acceptance

test, cost/benefit outcomes

—Development: UML Models, system design, performance

metrics, interoperability reqs, product testing

• Implementation milestones—TBD examples - eGIF, SCORM, Sakai, SIF, 1M teachers,

20M learners, sales/use targets, etc.


16

External Metrics

Interoperable assessment

and data managementDistributed

Repositoryinteroperability

Integrated instruction & assessment

Flexible author-ing, review, & distribution in the hands of

professionals

Life long learning for

anyone anywhere anytime

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Growth in Overall Function

Annual Demonstrator and Implementation Milestones

ProductsAdoptionsAwareness

etc


etc


etc


etc


etc


17

Fulfilling the IMS/GLC Role

Hig

her

Ed

Tec

h T

rain

ing

K-1

2/S

choo

ls

Lif

e L

ong

Lea

rnin

g

Pro

f. T

rain

ing

Per

f. S

uppo

rt


18

Task breakdown

Website and Support Staff

Applications Content

Infrastructure

Development

Tools and Techniques Community Devel.

Testing

Implementation

IMS Members andAffiliates

World-wide eLearningCommunity


19

Spec Development

•In Process— QTI (item) v2

— General Web Services

— ePortfolio

— Meta-data v1.3

— CP v1.1.4 update

•Other Activities— Packaged versions of IMS specifications

— Review completed: SS & LIP/ACCLIP

— Evaluated binding automation


20

Timeline

• February - (Melbourne)

• May - US

• alt-i-lab 2005 - UK

• November - North America


21

IMS TB Work Programme


22

Tool Interoperability

• Goal – achieve “on the wire” runtime

interoperability

• Metric – value to educators at the chalk-

face


23

Tool Interoperability Approach• Select a “value-add” tool

• Target two or more Learning Environments

• Define functional scope of interaction

• Agree technical tasks

• Do it

• Document and communicate how it was

done


24

Tools Interoperability Outputs

• Recommendations for working practice

• Example code extracts

• An interoperable tool

• Two or more “tool ready” Learning

Environments

• Demonstration of tool interoperability at

Alt-I-Lab 2005


25

Packaging Consolidation - I

• Types of packages—Learning materials

—Composite object e.g. ePortfolio, QTI Assessment, LIP records, etc.

—Collections of composite objects e.g. QTI Items, LIP records, etc.

• Service model for packaging—Service interface definition cf. OSIDs

—Binding to web-services using IMS GWS


26

Packaging Consolidation- 2

• Data model clean-up

—Sub-manifests

—Alternative resources

—External meta-data & metadata aggregation

—Table of contents only

—…


27

Packaging Consolidation - 3

• Specification integration phase 1

—Content Packaging

—LIP/ACCLIP

—QTI Assessment

—ePortfolio

• Specification integration phase 2

—Simple Sequencing

—Learning Design


28

Techniques & Tools

• Use the UML for specification development

• Use the auto-generation tools to support

WSDL and XSD binding creations

• Release version 1 of the ‘IMS Specification

Development Methods & Best Practices’

document


29

Implementation

Goal – support tool and content developers

and end user organizations (i.e. adopters)

as they implement specifications in their

products and organizations.

2005 Activities

Compliance Program

Outreach and Training


30

Compliance Program

• Compliance is based on Self-testing— Phase 1

— Each Vendor responsible for its self-testing methodology

— Phase 2

— Vendors self-test against reference data and a reference

implementation

• IMS manages reference data, compliance list and

mark


31

Communication Forums

• Developer Support – specification training,

technical overviews, reference information,

online developer communities

• End User Support – procurement advice,

case studies, white papers, online adopter

communities

• Specific activities are motivated by

Member priorities and resource availability


32

Adopter and Developer Support• Past

• HR-XML adoption of RDCEO and

ePortfolio

• Workshops at eLearning Results

Summit

• ePortfolio funding via EC Project

• Established European IMS

• Supported ePortfolio Secretariat

• Presentations

• Future

• Compliance

• Educational materials, guidance

documents, workshops, links to

Centres, Listservs

• Glossary proposal

• European IMS Board and planning


33

Questions & comments ?


34

The Paradox

• Everyone wants the benefits of broad

interoperability, but …

• Everyone must meet narrow legal, cultural,

business needs

Resolution: Framework, standards, profiles and

flexibility

System Framework

Standards

Local ProfilesLocal ProfilesLocal ProfilesLocal Profiles


35

Suggestions for Interoperability Metrics• Performance

—Time/cost of installation, operation, migration

• Effectiveness

—Demonstrations, marketplace results

• Satisfaction

—Surveys, outcomes data


36

Suggestions for Impact Metrics• Performance

—Baseline - U of Wisc conversion data

• Effectiveness

—alt-i-lab Demonstrator Scenarios, case studies

• Satisfaction

—Surveys, outcomes data

Documents

Organizational Update: The Next IMS/GLC Ed Walker NLII 2005