ࡱ> WYVk 9bjbj .T}}5lLLLLLLL`D` jH$$$$$$$$! #L$$$$$dLL$$ddd$ZL$L$d$dddV@LL$< P{y:=u`~R 0 xN%N%d``LLLLIMS Open Technical Forum 26 September 2002, Sheffield, UK Notes By Sarah Currier CETIS EC SIG Coordinator Keynote Address: Prof. Diana Laurillard Full and very informative presentation available online at:  HYPERLINK "http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/dl02SeptSheffield.pdf" http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/dl02SeptSheffield.pdf Prof. Laurillard presented a knowledge management case for the field of open technical standards for elearning, because: Weve lost the learning from earlier learning technology developments. There are downsides to open technical standards: Suppliers and users have different requirements. Technical decisions affect functionality and favour certain pedagogies. Positive current developments: EGIF developing consistency throughout government/publicly funded learning delivery. IMS Learning Design working group is aiming for opening up pedagogies supported by standards. She then made the case for creating a research & development community to meet elearning needs: Exchangeable & improvable designs and ideas. Rigorous research methodology to ensure design is learner oriented. Open standards community must work with the actual learning community. Research methodology is undefined so far, but the open standards movement gives us the opportunity for an R&D community. Asking the question Could we devise standardised pedagogical designs? with: Proven designs, Abstracting structure and content And presenting back to the user. She gave as an example the Journal of Interactive Media in Education (JIME) document user interface, generated from D3E, which presents an article alongside threaded discussion, enabling readers to point to the bits they want to talk about. The article she showed also links to video evidence referred to in it, and an interactive demo of the CD-ROM used in the research the article was reporting on. She then looked at creating a customisable design tool from this example. Looking then at Why should we create a customisable design tool?, she showed briefly an analysis method looking at costs: Use of ICT to improve learning experience, compared with Using customisation to reduce costs. Summary: We need to appraise the feasibility of a conformance agency: she was very clear on this and did not come out fully in support of forming a conformance agency immediately. During the ensuing discussion she stated that the government needs to ensure conformance testing is taken forward in a benign way for ALL stakeholders; it must be consensual. The government IS in the process of setting up a stakeholders group under eGIF. Elearning is a very young tradition, unlike other areas where standards are developed, where the experts are easily recognisable. Some stakeholders are not aware that they are stakeholders; necessary to speak to them too. Elearning needs an R&D community to make progress in technical AND pedagogical terms. There hasnt been one because of speed of developments, lack of consistency of funding, etc. Technical standards enable the discipline to develop, but: Development of standards MUST engage the academic community, not just publishers, vendors, etc. We can use good designs to create and standardise customisable design tools. IMS Learning Design spec, which supports most pedagogies, is of great importance in moving towards these goals, and should be adopted and implemented widely. Panel Discussion 1: Conformance Issues John Bell, UfI / UK e-Learning Conformance Agency Presentation available online:  HYPERLINK "http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/1-eLCAOTF_JBell.pdf" http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/1-eLCAOTF_JBell.pdf The issue: Everyone claims to conform/comply with specs/standards. But this is generally to their own interpretations. Hence conforming systems & materials still fail to interoperate. So we have to spend a lot on re-engineering. The impact: The UK spend on content by 2004 will be ca. 1billion 10%-15% of content spend goes on re-engineering and subsequent testing. There will be increasing duplication of effort and competition for scarce resources, in terms of expertise in re-engineering resources. The growth of technical specs and standards and increased complexity drives up the cost. Whats needed: National and international agreement. A single set of tests for conformance. Independent quality assurance of conformance testing programme. Deliverables of e-Learning Conformance Agency Address national implementation issues Assist in the creation of UK reference models. Collaborate across the industry. Certification of systems, tools and content. Provide guidance. Represent UK interests internationally. Quality assure UK test providers. Where to from here: There is common agreement that a UK conformance programme is essential. But as Diana Laurillard said, how and when is not settled. Principal elearning implementers need to collaborate to develop detailed programme. They are ready to participate fully in an international conformance programme. They have six months to prepare programme. Launch of conformance programme in 2003. Rest of panel: Paul Jesukiewicz of ADL reported on ADL status on conformance testing. Presentation:  HYPERLINK "http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/2-IMSOTFconformance%209-26-02-paulj.pdf" http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/2-IMSOTFconformance%209-26-02-paulj.pdf They have a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the ADL Co-Lab and Candidate Testing Centres. Training is being provided to the Testing Centres to the end of October 2002. They are working to have the SCORM Certification process transition into the future International Conformance Programme. Several of the Candidate Testing Centres are named in the presentation. Lim Kin Chew of Singapore reported on developments in Singapore, which hopes to become THE e-learning standards hub for the Asia-Pacific Rim; their e-Learning Competence Centre aims to define, refine and apply standards to the Singapore context and to set up certification mechanisms for courseware quality and to have an International Conformance Centre by June 2003. Presentation:  HYPERLINK "http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/3-ECC-Sheffield_LKChew.pdf" http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/3-ECC-Sheffield_LKChew.pdf Jeff Merriman of the MIT Open Knowledge Initiative reported on their interoperability/conformance landscape. His presentation gives better visuals than any explanation I can give of the complexity of delivering interoperability and conformance, but I will note his summary: Interoperability is not easy Therefore Conformance will not be simple However We can make our lives better through intelligent choice and the company we keep. Presentation:  HYPERLINK "http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/4-OKIandConformance-jeffm.pdf" http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/4-OKIandConformance-jeffm.pdf Kiyoshi Nakabayashi reported on developments re conformance in Japan, via their Advanced Learning Infrastructure Consortium, which was established with government support to promote elearning technology and infrastructure. For similar reasons outlined by others, conformance testing is being worked towards in Japan. Presentation:  HYPERLINK "http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/5-IMS-Sheffield0209-kioshi.pdf" http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/5-IMS-Sheffield0209-kioshi.pdf Tim Magner reported on the US Schools Interoperability Framework, including their developments with compliance. Presentation:  HYPERLINK "http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/6-IMS_SIFCompliance2002.09.25.pdf" http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/6-IMS_SIFCompliance2002.09.25.pdf Vendors: Unsurprisingly, vendors had problems with conformance as proposed in the above sessions. In the words of Wilbert Kraan, CETIS e-journalist (who was obviously taking better notes than me at that point: Xavier Sanchez of Apple, for example, expressed a preference for many, relatively simple and ubiquitous specifications that aren't necessarily tested for conformance- much like the W3C's recommendations, for example. Microsoft's Mark East put more emphasis on self-certification, as exemplified by the freely available SCORM compliance tools available from ADLnet. Smaller vendors and customers tend to be a bit suspicious when big vendors propose such loose approaches, though. Self tested conformance does mean that there are no high certification fees that raise the barrier of entry, but it also means that large vendors can easily get away with implementing their own interpretations. Panel Discussion 2: e-Learning Implementation in the UK John Madsen, UfI / Learndirect John gave an overview of Learndirect and the challenges facing it in providing elearning across the UK. Standards mainly seemed to be focussed on SCORM 1.1 and IMS Content Packaging. He presented some interesting visuals including a graph illustrating standards development with the current state of market churn and confusion represented as a wiggly yellow line. He said: Wouldnt it be nice if you could specify standards and the courseware just worked? Standards have to be good yet achievable. He also thought they had to be cool This presentation has lots of good graphics, see:  HYPERLINK "http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/Ufi.pdf" http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/Ufi.pdf Kirk Ramsay of SufI Presentation:  HYPERLINK "http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/Sufi_20020925.pdf" http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/Sufi_20020925.pdf SufI have found a difference in the reality of the elearning market in Scotland to what theyd assumed would be the case: IT infrastructure essential. IT skills development essential. With SMEs, relevance and focus is essential. There is a need to work with intermediaries to ensure meeting needs of industry. Issues: Standards are not yet standard. Objects are not yet objects. Compliance is not yet definitive. Quality of experience is not yet good enough. Through the firewall services are still embryonic. Bob Powell of BECTa NLN Materials Development Programme Challenges: Specifications are NOT standards: people can use specs but still not come close to each other. Standards wrapping on NLN content prevented people from using it in their intranets; which is how most colleges deliver elearning at present. Paul Rickets from JISC / CETIS Steering Committee Presentation explaining JISCs endeavors in the field of elearning standards & specs:  HYPERLINK "http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/JISC.pdf" http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/JISC.pdf Spoke in support of Diana Laurillards call for an R&D community for elearning. Jonathan Darby, Chief Architect of UK eUniversities Worldwide Didnt use PowerPoint: most impressive after a day of big, far away PowerPoint slides in a cavernous hall. However, there IS a presentation available:  HYPERLINK "http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/IMS-Darby.pdf" http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/IMS-Darby.pdf They are adopting IMS Metadata, Content Packaging & QTI, and SCORM 1.2, OKI. However: Spoke in general against standards such as Simple Sequencing and EML/Learning Design, saying they were too restrictive, and that there was too much emphasis overall in elearning on assessment. Not enough choice is given to students in how they approach materials. Peter Sloep of OUNL EML and IMS Learning Design working group spoke in defence of EML/IMS Learning Design in particular, stating that he had agreed with everything Darby had said up until including EML in his point; he stated that EML/IMS Learning Design was actually addressing the problem. Summary Overall, the days main focus was on conformance issues, and the current gap between where we would like to be with regard to elearning standards and where we actually are. Opinions ranged from Jonathan Darbys problems in principle with standardising the learning process itself for elearning; through Diana Laurillards support of technical standards (particularly, perhaps IMS Learning Design) becoming a basis for an elearning R&D community and further opening up pedagogical frontiers online while expressing the need to appraise the need for a conformance testing centre; to the strong case for conformance testing now from John Bell of the e-Learning Conformance Authority for the UK. Overall, given the practical difficulties of implementing specs & standards expressed by such agencies as JISC, SUfI and BECTa, there seemed to be support overall for working towards independent, quality assured conformance testing, involving all stakeholders, including industry large and small, HE & FE, and teachers as well as developers and suppliers. For a couple of readable reports on this event, see the CETIS website news section for Wilbert Kraans pieces: IMS member exchange: Conformance Now! Two topics were billed for the IMS Open Technical Forum: conformance issues and e-Learning Implementation in the UK. As it turned out, specification conformance was the main topic of practically all presentations. The why and how as well as the why not was illuminated by representatives from a wide variety of organisations. and DfES' e-learning guru: Learning Design is the way ahead. In her keynote speech to the IMS Open Technical Forum, Professor Diana Laurillard, the head of the e-Learning Strategy Unit of the UK Department for Education and Skills (DfES), called for the widespread adoption of Learning Design. The specification still needs to be formally adopted by IMS, but was hailed for its ability to allow easy re-use of successful learning models, without straightjacketing adopters into one single pedagogical approach. All of the presentations are available at:  HYPERLINK "http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/otfpresentations2002sheffield.cfm" http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/otfpresentations2002sheffield.cfm @EFt } jk-.CDLMWXY+ , - h i 6!7!8!v!w!z!!;%<%'''''(()(*(j UjUjUjTUjUjzUjAU>*0JjU jU5\F:@QjklGH <m)Z$ & Fa$$ & Fa$$a$$a$$a$9Z  i y  N s t } (VABCjk$ & Fa$$a$$ & Fa$k/0;s"X(Mt+$ & Fa$$a$+MNb94C>MNNOa~ & F$ & Fa$$a$$ & Fa$~j k x!y!z!!L"M"%%%;%<%[%&$a$$ & Fa$$h^ha$&%'x'y''((((()0)Q))))))*>*l*****G+++$a$$ & Fa$*(f(g(h(((`,a,,,,,,--...I.J.b5556677799T9U9V99999¸5\j U0J5OJQJ\0J0JCJOJQJ0J5CJ\aJ 0JCJaJj Uj U0J jUj U$+ ,`,,,--M-K../000044a5b555666677$ & Fa$ & F$a$7889999999$a$ ,1h. A!"#$% ADyK 3http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/dl02SeptSheffield.pdfyK fhttp://www.imsglobal.org/otf/dl02SeptSheffield.pdf9DyK 1http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/1-eLCAOTF_JBell.pdfyK bhttp://www.imsglobal.org/otf/1-eLCAOTF_JBell.pdfDyK Ehttp://www.imsglobal.org/otf/2-IMSOTFconformance%209-26-02-paulj.pdfyK http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/2-IMSOTFconformance 9-26-02-paulj.pdfUDyK 8http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/3-ECC-Sheffield_LKChew.pdfyK phttp://www.imsglobal.org/otf/3-ECC-Sheffield_LKChew.pdfaDyK ;http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/4-OKIandConformance-jeffm.pdfyK vhttp://www.imsglobal.org/otf/4-OKIandConformance-jeffm.pdfeDyK <http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/5-IMS-Sheffield0209-kioshi.pdfyK xhttp://www.imsglobal.org/otf/5-IMS-Sheffield0209-kioshi.pdfqDyK ?http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/6-IMS_SIFCompliance2002.09.25.pdfyK ~http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/6-IMS_SIFCompliance2002.09.25.pdf DyK %http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/Ufi.pdfyK Jhttp://www.imsglobal.org/otf/Ufi.pdf1DyK /http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/Sufi_20020925.pdfyK ^http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/Sufi_20020925.pdf DyK &http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/JISC.pdfyK Lhttp://www.imsglobal.org/otf/JISC.pdf!DyK +http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/IMS-Darby.pdfyK Vhttp://www.imsglobal.org/otf/IMS-Darby.pdfqDyK ?http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/otfpresentations2002sheffield.cfmyK ~http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/otfpresentations2002sheffield.cfm i8@8 NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH 2@2 Heading 1$@&5\8@8 Heading 2$$@&a$5\6@6 Heading 3$$@&a$>*<A@< Default Paragraph Font*>@* Title$a$5\,B@, Body Text$a$.U@. Hyperlink >*B*ph36O!6 title-small15CJ\aJ@O1@ section15CJOJQJ\aJo(ph5 T:@QjklGH <m)ZiyNst} (  V A B C j k /0;s"X(Mt+MNb94C>MNNOa~jkxyzLM!!!;!&l&&&&&G''' (`((())M)K**+,,,,00a1b111222233445555555000000000l0l0l0l0l 0l 0l 0 l 0 l 0l 0l 0l0l0l0l 0l 0l 0l0l0l 0l 0l 0l0l0l0l0l 0 l 0 l0l0l 0 l 0}l 0}l 0}l 0 l 0 l 0l 0l 0l0l0l0l0C (0C 0k 0k 0k  0k  0k  0k  0k 0k 0k  0k  0k  0k  0k 0k 0k  0k  0k  0k 0k 0k  0k  0k  0k  0k  0 k  0!k  0"k 0k 0k  0#k  0bk  0$k  0%k  0&k  0'k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k  0(k  0)k  0*k  0+k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k  0,k 0k  0-k 0k  0.k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0l0!(0!0) 0?) 0@)0)0)0l00,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,*(9'Zk+~&+79 "#$%&()9!E -CLX,h7v##$)$g$$`((()*I*5U555XXXXXXXXXXXXNX" & v y ouI!L!O!Z!t!!$$$$V%[%&&)(2(((5)B)++ ../00 0Q1X122]3g333445J P Q j ''5333333""F%O%)*-////0`0`04555-Department of Computer & Information SciencesNC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\My Documents\CETISECSIG\IMS\IMSOpenTechsjc.doc X~UKK$iSh pp^p`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(^`OJPJQJ^Jo( ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(KKiS                            @//(t//5@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial7&  Verdana;Wingdings?5 z Courier New"qh+jfjf.y3,^!20G6,2QOC:\Documents and Settings\sarah\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates\Normal.dotIMS Open Technical Forum-Department of Computer & Information Sciences-Department of Computer & Information SciencesOh+'0 , dp   IMS Open Technical Forum0MS .Department of Computer & Information Sciences.0epaepa Normal.doto.Department of Computer & Information Sciences.046aMicrosoft Word 9.0t@L@Z*u@r[%=u3,՜.+,D՜.+,\ hp  University of Strathclydeb^G62 IMS Open Technical Forum Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAxH%/!?http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/otfpresentations2002sheffield.cfmu1+http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/IMS-Darby.pdf&http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/JISC.pdf*/http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/Sufi_20020925.pdfPX%http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/Ufi.pdf)?http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/6-IMS_SIFCompliance2002.09.25.pdf4!<http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/5-IMS-Sheffield0209-kioshi.pdf"} ;http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/4-OKIandConformance-jeffm.pdfO6 8http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/3-ECC-Sheffield_LKChew.pdf-gChttp://www.imsglobal.org/otf/2-IMSOTFconformance 9-26-02-paulj.pdf31http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/1-eLCAOTF_JBell.pdfrb3http://www.imsglobal.org/otf/dl02SeptSheffield.pdf  !"#$%&'()*,-./012456789:;<=>?@ABCDEGHIJKLMOPQRSTUXRoot Entry F:=uZData +1Table3N%WordDocument.TSummaryInformation(FDocumentSummaryInformation8NCompObjjObjectPool:=u:=u  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q