1 / 14

Encourage Vendors to embrace interoperability Establish the validity of interoperability

The Project: JISC call 11/00 – ‘Pilots To Prove the Concepts of Interoperability within Managed Learning Environments in the Further Education Sector’ (England).

julian-mcintyre
Download Presentation

Encourage Vendors to embrace interoperability Establish the validity of interoperability

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Project:JISC call 11/00 – ‘Pilots To Prove the Concepts of Interoperability within Managed Learning Environments in the Further Education Sector’(England)

  2. The Project:JISC call 11/00 – ‘Pilots To Prove the Concepts of Interoperability within Managed Learning Environments in the Further Education Sector’(England) • Encourage Vendors to embrace interoperability • Establish the validity of interoperability • Provide Vendors with a supported but realistic test bed for their implementation of IMS specifications • Enable Vendor to Vendor cooperation • Enable colleges to gain supported experience of the issues involved in setting up an MLE • Disseminate the experience

  3. The Bids: • 23 bids • 12 funded • Relatively small amounts of funding • At least 2 Vendors a bid • The Projects: • City College Manchester • Cornwall College • Colchester Institute • Myerscough College • North Lincolnshire College (including Thanet College) • Reading College of Art and Design (including Newark and Sherwood College, Sheffield College) • New College Durham (including Derwentside College, Stockton and Billingham College) • South Birmingham College • Ridge Danyers College • Stoke College • Staffordshire University Regional Federation (including Burton College, Cannock Chase Technical College, Leek College, Newcastle-under-Lyme College, Rodbaston College, Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology, Stafford College, Stoke-on-Trent College, Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College, Tamworth & Lichfield College, Walford & North Shropshire College) • Tameside College

  4. The Science bit • Specifications IMS LIP , Enterprise & SCORM • MIS - VLE • MIS - IPS - VLE • VLE - Content

  5. The MLE(?) • Becta diagram (deceptive?) • VLE LMS MIS Components • Specifications or standards(?) • Vendor commitment • Versions

  6. J F M A M J J A S O N The Plan Content – VLE exchange 2nd Pilot students testing MIS-VLE-Content MIS – VLE exchange 1st Pilot students testing VLE only D • Fits in with FE timetable • Building blocks • Real delivery Bid Initial meeting Final report VLE install

  7. J F M A M J J A S O N The Reality • Mission critical staff • Reorganisation • Calendar • Mission critical item • 2 0ut of 3 not bought a VLE • Rewriting of brief Content – VLE exchange MIS – VLE exchange MIS – Mediating server exchange 1st Pilot students testing VLE only D VLE installation Final report Bid Standards meeting VLE install

  8. The Successes • First time competing Vendors have worked together using IMS specifications (in the world). • Cultural sea change - sharing of knowledge • Raising profile of MLE’s • Value for money • Emergence of MLE development process • Bringing together of college departments, MIS, IT, ILT, curriculum, SMT

  9. The Issues (1) • Unique user ID • Matrix hierarchy of roles within VLE - link VLE ID to College to LDAP for authentication • Who owns the DATA • SCORM limitations • Definition of Granularity • Size of Vendor- ability to implement change within life time of the project • Proof of concept but how will all Colleges cope with complexities of MLE’s

  10. The Issues (2) • Tool bash needed to demonstrate complete interoperability • Timeframe needs to be long enough for the development process of Colleges and Vendors • Project participants locked into their solution • Limitation of standards • Impact of pedagogy / FE needs(?) • FE sector being used to do what should be commercial developmental work(?) • Content object packaging tools do not yet commonly exist as commercial products

  11. The Problems • Many bespoke solutions- is that truly interoperable • Non implementation of LIP by all projects within project lifetime • Outcome of pilots did not produce a working FE standard • Agenda still Vendor led(?) • Lack of support for group working, personalisation, variable content sequencing and mixed mode learning

  12. The Spin Off Standards Compliant Content Generation Tool

  13. The 4 Areas • MLE success creates resource hungry circle • Proof of concept - Demonstration of practicality next • Widening participation, life long learning and the ISR • Interoperability means interchange through time and space • Divergence or convergence?

  14. The Project:JISC call 11/00 – ‘Pilots To Prove the Concepts of Interoperability within Managed Learning Environments in the Further Education Sector’(England) Contacts Mark Williams e-learning manager Reading College of Arts and Design williamsm@reading-college.ac.uk Acknowledgements FE MLE Interoperability Final Project Report - Richard Everett FE MLE Interoperability pilot Final Technical Report - Richard Everett

More Related