IMS ADL IEEE LTSC Overview and Critique of Standards

04/19/23 IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL 1

IMS ADL IEEE LTSCOverview and Critique of Standards

Geoffrey FoxDepartment of Computer Science and

CSIT (School of Computational Science and Information Technology)

400 Dirac Science LibraryTallahassee

Florida 32306-4120850-644-4587315-254-6387

[email protected]


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 ……..


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

http://www.imsproject.org/

http://www.adlnet.org/


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


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


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


3-Tier Architecture for Education Portal• There are several important Object Models: COM,

CORBA, Java, Web, Oracle Database ……• But it doesn’t matter what you use

if you specify in XML

Database

XMLFile System(Web Site)

Or

Middle Tier“Business Logic”

dissociatesUser and Back End

Export/Import

Request

Information

ObjectRepository


Client(s) Server(s)Resources

and Services

User ViewportalML

System ViewResourceML

XML Interfaces

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)


LearningServer

Content Server(s)

External systems:HR, E-Commerce, ERP...

MigrationAdapter

Learning Server

APIAdapter Application

Browser

AdapterServer Side

Client Side

HTML+

Services or Adapter

Course Interchange:Course Structure Format (CSF), Metadata

RuntimeEnvironment:Launch, API, Data Model

“LearningManagement

System”LMS

Critical InterchangeCapability

Client

Server

LMS Model used by ADL


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


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)


4 Components of ADL SCO Model

Sharable CoursewareObject

SCO Course Structure Format (XML) [1]

Content (AU) [2]Content Metadata [2a](XML record)

(Internal organization of files, objects, etc.)

[4] Run Time Environment

[4b] Content API

[4c] Content data model

ExternalCourse

Meta-data[1a]

(XMLrecord)

[3] “Raw Media”

[4a] Content Launch Protocol

[3a] Raw Media Metadata(XMLrecord)

Objectives [1c]

[1b] Assignment HierarchyBlock Root (Course)

“Block”(Parent Node)

“Block”(Parent Node)

“AU”(AssignableUnit – Leaf Node)

Metadata [1e]

Metadata [1e]

Metadata [1e]

Metadata [1e]

(Points to)


SCORM Course Information• GlobalProperties XML DTD structure [no notation = one element required;“?” = zero or one (optional); “+” = one or more required; “*” = zero or more required]

location ~ location ~

model ~model ~

source ~source ~

+ externalMetadata+ externalMetadata

location ~location ~

model ~model ~

source ~source ~

? curricularTaxonomy ~? curricularTaxonomy ~

? globalProperties? globalProperties

* extensions* extensions


model ~model ~

source ~source ~

value ~value ~

name ~name ~+ property+ property

? objectives? objectives

block ~block ~

coursecourse


Example Course Structure


? description ~? description ~

title ~title ~

coursecourse


* objectiveRef ~* objectiveRef ~location ~ location ~

model ~model ~

source ~source ~


identificationidentification


model ~model ~

source ~source ~

value ~value ~


? curricular ~? curricular ~

? developer ~? developer ~? labels? labels


? prerequisites ~? prerequisites ~

? completionReq ~? completionReq ~


++* block ~* block ~

* au ~* au ~

block ~block ~

blockAlias ~blockAlias ~

Block XML DTD Structure


? masteryScore? masteryScore


auAlias ~auAlias ~


title ~title ~

coursecourse



model ~model ~

source ~source ~




model ~model ~

source ~source ~

value ~value ~








++

* block ~* block ~

block ~block ~


identification identification

* objectRef ~* objectRef ~

* externalMetadata* externalMetadata



? timeLimitAction ~? timeLimitAction ~

? maxTimeAllowed ~? maxTimeAllowed ~? timeLimit? timeLimit

? parameterString ~? parameterString ~


? launch? launch

? dataFromLMS ~? dataFromLMS ~* au ~* au ~

Assignable Unit (au) XML DTD Structure


? masteryScore? masteryScore


auAlias ~auAlias ~


title ~title ~

coursecourse



model ~model ~

source ~source ~




model ~model ~

source ~source ~

value ~value ~








++

* block ~* block ~

block ~block ~


identification identification

* objectRef ~* objectRef ~

* externalMetadata* externalMetadata



? timeLimitAction ~? timeLimitAction ~

? maxTimeAllowed ~? maxTimeAllowed ~? timeLimit? timeLimit

? parameterString ~? parameterString ~


? launch? launch

? dataFromLMS ~? dataFromLMS ~* au ~* au ~

Assignable Unit (au) XML DTD Structure in more detail


Objectives in Detail


title ~title ~

coursecourse


* assignmentRef ~* assignmentRef ~location ~ location ~

model ~model ~

source ~source ~



? location ~? location ~

model ~model ~

? source ~? source ~

value ~value ~








* objective ~* objective ~

objectiveAlias ~objectiveAlias ~

block ~ block ~

+ objective ~+ objective ~


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


Metadata Example from IMS/IEEE

General CategoryIdentifier Unique LabelTitle Title(Dublin Core)Catalogentry Description in some catalog system


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


IMS Enterprise Model


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.

• Group members may be instructors, learners, content developers, members, managers, mentors, or administrators.


Extract from Person Object Specification

RecStatus Record Update StatusUserID LMS login nameName Real NameFN Formatted NameSort Name for sorting


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, hand-held 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

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/impp-charter.html

http://www.jabber.org/


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


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

Documents

IMS ADL IEEE LTSC Overview and Critique of Standards