Rob Allan

SC’04

Portals for Integrated Servicesfor e-Research and e-Learning

Rob AllanCCLRC e-Science Centre

Daresbury, UK

Presenter Name

Facility Name

Portal as an Application Framework

• Portals are a framework to deploy tools (aka rectangles) and focus on how the user wants to arrange their own “rectangles”

• The portal allows component integration, the goal is for the tools to work together closely and seem to really be parts of a larger “tool”

• Portals have a lot of features, (services, presence, notification, etc..) which bridge the gap between portal and application framework

• Collaboration tools are important– Calendar, News, Discussion, Chat, E-mail, Wiki, etc.

• Portals could provide the interface to many of our tools/ services

Presenter Name

Facility Name

http://www.sakaiproject.org

Rob Allan

SC’04

Personal Learning and Research Environments

report on discussion at JISC-CETIS workshop

Oleg Lieber, Sharon Perry, Phil Beauvoir, John Swannie, Tom Franklin, Sarah Davies, Dan Corlett,

Hugh Davies, Patrick Carmichael, Sandy Leaton-Gray, Michael Sellway, Rob Crouchley, Rob Allan, Adrian

Fish, Christina Smart, Maia Dimitrova, Marcello Allegri, Charles Severance, Wilbert Kraan

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/jisc_cetis_event.html

Presenter Name

Facility Name

Joint Information Systems Committee

http://www.jisc.ac.uk

Presenter Name

Facility Name

Breakout session: VRE/ VLE/ IE projects

• Colloquia• Interactive Log• Teaching and Learning Portal• TLRP - Teaching and Learning Research Program• AERS• ReDRESS - Resource Discover for Researchers in e-Social

Science• VRE Sakai Demonstrator• GROWL - Grid Resources of Workstation Library• VRE: Integrated Biology Demonstration• CQeSS - Collaboratory for Quantitative e-Social Science

Presenter Name

Facility Name

Problem: Many “personal” environments

CollaborativeVLE/VRE/IE

Requirements

VLE “Experts”

VLE Customers

VRE “Exp

erts

”

VRE Cust

omer

s

IE “Experts”

IE Customers

When we treat Virtual Learning, Virtual Research, and Information Environments as different, we end up developing divergent environments which satisfy similar requirements in very different ways based on the experts who are funded to produce the VRE, VLE, or IE solutions.

Each expert group is often influenced by a different field of research: VLE’s are influenced by Educational Technology experts, VRE’s are often influenced by Computer Scientists, while IE’s are influenced by Library Sciences.

Presenter Name

Facility Name

End users are people too…

CollaborativeVLE/VRE

Requirements

VLE “Experts”

Customers

VRE “Exp

erts

”

Custom

ers

IE “Experts”

Customers

As painful as it may be, the VRE, VLE, and IE experts must begin to coordinate so that some point in the future, users don’t have environments with completely different approaches to the same problem.

Presenter Name

Facility Name

A Personal Learning/ Research Environment?

PLRE:

• Move from a provider or institution focused set of capabilities to an environment where users “assemble” their environment to suit their needs.

• System that maps to how I think and operate so that things are made easier for me. How do I bend this tool to suit the way that I work? Especially as my skills as a user improve.

• Move bits around arrange the way you like. This is both things like my own folder arrangements and things like accessibility (i.e. how I want to “see” these things)

Different to a Managed Learning Environment (MLE):

• Assumes a domain expert is self motivated• Does not need grading/ assessment• Learn by example, e.g. using Grid tools

Presenter Name

Facility Name

Service Framework for e-ResearchFrom S. Wilson, K. Blinco and D. Rehak Service Oriented FrameworksDEST (Australia), JISC-CETIS (UK) and Industry Canadahttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/AltilabServiceOrientedFrameworks.pdf

Common services are highlighted

Presenter Name

Facility Name

Traditionally, there are some differences

• Locus of control • Existing versus emerging information• Fixed versus fluid agenda• Different tools in use

Similarity and Differences

VRE Phys

ics

VRE ChemistryIE Social

ScienceTeaching Learning

VisualizationGrid Computing

Annotation

QTIScormAttendance

ChatDiscussionResources

Repository

Shared Data

Presenter Name

Facility Name

Why not apply it all to learning and integrate

it together?

VLE

Visualization

Annotation

QTIScorm

Chat

Shared Data

Computing

IE

VRE

VRE

The Personal Learning/Research Environment (PLRE) effectively adds a “productivity” layer to the VLE/VRE/IE space which unifies the look/feel/usability across the multiple sources of information

Presenter Name

Facility Name

Today’s PLRE is a Compromise

• Web browser with lots of bookmarks to many sites - each quite different

• Computer desktop with files, folders• E-Mail client• Calendar client

• … All quite different - user figures tools out as best they can and to the extent they can

• Cut and paste between tools, little real integration• No single sign on, even within a single institution

Presenter Name

Facility Name

Someday the PLRE will not be a browser

a. pure html web page

b. web page based, but with browser enhancements

c. browser extension

d. dedicated desktop network client

e. extensible desktop application platform

f. common desktop application

Better user experienceIncreased productivity

More complex to buildDifficult to keep up with changing technology

Presenter Name

Facility Name

Promising Trends

• Standards based portals - JSR-168, etc.– API standardisation

• Basic look and feel standardisation - CSS– Federating portals and tools - WSRP

• User control over assembly of many sources• Ability to write portable full-featured tools

– Java• e.g. Swing

– Eclipse– Flash MX

SOAP, WSDL, UDDI

PortletPortlet

Portlet

Portlet

Service ServiceService

Service

Service

JSR-168, WSRP

UI to “heritage” application via command line or GUI and programming library.

Presenter Name

Facility Name

Our Conclusions

• Continue to invest in VLE/ VRE/ IE efforts, accepting the fact that for the moment they will not converge immediately;

• Continue to invest in portals and WSRP activities to explore federation within current presentation technologies;

• Invest in research into new technologies to federate information sources beyond the browser;

• Act to maintain communication between the VLE/ VRE/ IE and PLRE efforts so that common solutions can be shared and evolved over time;

• Investigate techniques for the learner/ researcher to “own” their information over their lifetime and “share” it with institutions and groups at the appropriate time;

• Encourage projects which support flexible roles and structures (i.e. not just instructor can write and students can read or anyone can create groups);

• Investigate techniques where PLRE’s can operate in both connected and disconnected modes.