1 / 24

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS. Robby Robson Eduworks Corporation rrobson@eduworks.com CELL: 541-760-6899. HOW WE GOT HERE. HLA (1994). CREATE NEW WORLD ORDER. AICC (1988). GET CONTENT TO RUN ON AN LMS. GET SYSTEMS TO INETEROPERATE. EdNA (1994). IEEE LTSC. SIF. OKI. EICA.

miracle
Download Presentation

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS

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. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS Robby Robson Eduworks Corporation rrobson@eduworks.com CELL: 541-760-6899

  2. HOW WE GOT HERE HLA (1994) CREATE NEW WORLD ORDER AICC (1988) GET CONTENT TO RUN ON AN LMS GET SYSTEMS TO INETEROPERATE EdNA (1994) IEEE LTSC SIF OKI EICA 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ARIADNE IMS ADL CEN/ISSS WS-LT JTC1 SC36 CanCore Dublin Core (1995) ALIC MERLOT ebXML W3C (1994) OASIS NSDL HR-XML CONSOR- TIUM UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  3. Offerings Offerings A Functional Model of e-Learning Applications Goals Content Repository and Offering Catalog Learning Planner Learner Profile Manager Content Authoring Tools Learning Objects Plans Plans Learner Registrar Register Info Register Info Learning Objects Register Info Content Assembly Tools Delivery Environment Learning Objects Activity Info Register Info Collaborative Environment Recorded Events Activity Info Catalog Manager Learning Offerings Register Info Assessment Objects Assessment / Testing Engine Results Info See e-Learning Application Infrastructure by Geoff Collier UC Berkeley - ET Standards http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/edu/elearning/eLearning_Application_Infrastructure_wp.pdf

  4. Standards Development Process R&D Concepts Spec Consortia Programs, Testbeds, Markets Standards Bodies ApprovedStandards User Needs Technical Trends New products, Pilot Programs, Testbeds Consensus,Consolidation,Conformance Specifications, Best Practice UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  5. Search, catalog, discover learning content Metadata Digital Repositories Content/LMS interoperability CMI SCORM Assessment Question & Test Interoperability SCORM Simulation High Level Architecture (DMSO/SISO) Enable Adaptivity Learner Information Package Personal and Private Information Competency Definitions System Interoperability Open Knowledge Initiative Schools Interoperability Framework IMS Abstract Framework Instructional Design IMS Learning Design ASTD E-learning Courseware Certification Who Is Doing What UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  6. AICC started in 1998 to solve concrete (hardware) interoperability problem Moved to LAN-based (Client/Sever) model in 1990’s Moved to Web in late 1990’s – via IEEE LTSC Contributed heavily to SCORM Working groups today CMI (Computer Managed Instruction) SIM (simulation & smart graphics) DELS (Digital Electronic Library System) Test Lab Seriously considering Web services approach Updating CMI to match SCORM AICC UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  7. THE IEEE LTSC ACCREDITATION CHAIN ISO | | ANSI | IEEE | IEEE CS | LTSC | WG • Chartered by the IEEE Computer Society Standards Activity Board • Develops accredited technical standards, recommended practices and guides for learning technology • Coordinates formally and informally with other organizations that produce specifications and standards for similar purposes. UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  8. LTSC Current Timeline* LOM DATA MODEL 2002 2003 LOM BINDINGS CMI WORK REUSABLE COMPETENCY DEFINITIONS ??? DREL SG Learning Technology System Architecture * No warranty is expressed or implied! UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  9. IMS Global Learning Consortium • IMS is an independent, non-profit consortium in which members with competing business interests and different decision-making roles collaborate to satisfy real-world requirements for interoperability and re-use of learning resources. • Established 1997 as a consortium of educators, government agencies, and vendors • Define and deliver specifications to further interoperability for on-line learning technology and content • More than 50 Contributing Members. • Over 70 Developer Network subscribers. • A web community of users UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  10. IMS SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS • Additional uptake by standards organizations • Abstract Learning Framework • Function/Content Model • New specs: DRM, Adaptive Testing, Competencies UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  11. IMS DIGITAL REPOSITORY INTEROPERABILITY • SEARCH, GATHER, (ALERT)/EXPOSE • REQUEST/DELIVER • SUBMIT/STORE • DELIVER /STORE between two repositories UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  12. The Advanced Distributed Learning initiative • Launched in November of 1997 (DoD & Whitehouse) • MISSION: • develop a DoD-wide strategy for using learning and information technologies • modernize education and training • promote cooperation between government, industry and academia • develop e-learning standardization • Specification development delegated to IMS in 1997 UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  13. Existing Content LMS SCORM CONTENT LIFECYCLE Create Learning Content Authoring Tools Chunk Repurpose Assemble Learning Catalog Find Import Track Deliver UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  14. A SCORM IS BREWING DIRECTIVE TO CREATE SCORM (13111) SCORM 1.0 SCORM 1.1 SCORM 1.2 SCORM 1.3 PF1 PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6 PF7 1999 2000 2001 2002 • Added Content Packaging • Deprecated Course Structure Format • Created Test Suites • Bugs Fixed • Simple Sequencing • Metadata Harmonized • Bugs Fixed • Conformance program getting started • Course Structure Format (XML Version of AICC Course Structure Files) • Runtime API – developed jointly among AICC, IEEE, and ADL • Metadata based on IMS Version 1.0 • “C” is for “Content” • Metadata Harmonized • Bugs Fixed • CMI Data Model Pared back (removed pre-requisites and completion requirements) UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  15. OKI • Architecture • Interfaces (as API’s) • Coalition creating OKI Tools • Community UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  16. OKI Architecture • Clearly defines points of interoperability between components of a learning technology environment • Precisely defines interoperability behavior at those points • Allows incremental adoption of the architecture • Desktop Computing Analogy UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  17. UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  18. ARIADNE • Alliance of Remote Instructional and Distribution Networks for Europe • Founded under EU 4th Framework in January, 1996. • Became a Foundation in June 2000 • Contributor to LOM A European Association open to the World, for Knowledge Sharing and Reuse, E-Learning for all, International Cooperation in Teaching, Serving the Learning Citizen. UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  19. ARIADNE ARCHITECTURE UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  20. PROS – CURES THE SYMPOTOMS Without it interoperability isn’t quite there Honesty becomes the policy Feedback into standards process CONS – CURES THE SYMPTOMS Does not guarantee interoperability Gives vendors an out Effort better spent on making good specifications and standards CONFORMANCE TESTING SEE JON BELL PDF PRESENTATION UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  21. HOW CONFORMANCE TESTING WORKS CERTIFYING AUTHORITY STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION Sanctions & Supports Interprets Standards TEST SUITE Commissions TEST SUITE DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION Develops Uses TESTING ORGANIZATION Trains UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  22. What forms of delivery system commonality do content providers need in order to develop content for end user organizations? How can we classify content providers (e.g. commercial vendors,  non-profit open source) and how do their needs and vested interests vary? What forms of flexibility or local initiative do end-user organizations desire? How can we classify end-user organizations (and different end-users within different end-user organizations) and how do vested interests and needs vary from one end-user to another? What are the issues that end-user organizations address when considering the following options when developing and/or acquiring software systems and on-line content: "roll their own" on their own, "roll their own" in concert with other end-user organizations (e.g. in an open source initiative), adopt a well integrated commercial product (i.e. a monolithic commercial product if you take a pejorative view), adopt a well integrated collection of "best-of-breed" commercial components (i.e. a fragmented bunch of non-interoperable parts if you take a pejorative view), or adopt a hybrid approach which varies over time to includes one or more of the above. Questions UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  23. What problems or difficulties do proprietary, vendor specific, de facto standards present? What useful roles can specification, validation,  and formal standardization organizations play in developing de jure standards? What new problems or difficulties do specification and standardization efforts present? What pressures are commercial software application suppliers under from both content suppliers and end-user organizations? What strategies do vendors adopt to serve their vested interests, while accommodating the interests of their suppliers and users? Questions - Continued UC Berkeley - ET Standards

  24. RESOURCES • http://www.eduworks.com/standards • CETIS (Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards) (http://www.cetis.ac.uk) UC Berkeley - ET Standards

More Related