Course Management Systems: Past, Present and Future

1
Course Management Systems Past, Present and
Future

• Scott Leslie
• May 11, 2005

2
Goals for the Presentation

• Discuss the state of CMS from the perspective of
• maximizing flexibility
• while
• preserving/increasing quality and services
• (and at least maintaining costs)

3
Outline

• History/Context
• Enterprise and Standalone CMS
• Service Oriented Architectures the E-Learning
  Framework
• Sakai, Open Source
• Other Alternatives

4
BUT FIRST
What do I mean when I use the term Enterprise
5
(No Transcript)
6
Enterprise Systems.

• too often has meant large monolithic systems
• should mean systems that are core to your
  business
• in CMS world, is under pressure to transform
• Enterprise Services.
• system level services which provide a coherent
  level of functionality across all applications
  and tie in with core administrative systems
• Enterprise Service.
• The levels and kinds of real services you wish
  to provide to users

7
Pre- Early CMS Phase
8
Standalone CMS Mature
2000
1998
1997
1999
9
Enterprise CMS Phase
10
Pre-CMS Model
Course 1
Course 3
Course 2

• Creates new instance each time
• - People and Software dont scale
• - No control by instructor

11
Early Generation CMS
Interact with set of tools on course by course
instance
CMS Wrapper

• Scales better
• Promotes silod model
• Restricts tool choices

12
Enterprise CMS
Dept 1
Dept 2

• Provides
• portal level services
• content reuse across courses, depts, institution
• multi-unit branding, logic

Distributed Unit Administration
Enterprise-wide Administration
13
Current Adoption Rates
roughly 90 overall
from Hawkins, Rudy and Madsen, 2003 Educause
Core Data Survey, http//www.educause.edu/ir/libr
ary/pdf/pub8001e.pdf
14
Current Situation in B.C.

• 19 of 27 institutions currently using WebCT
• 5 homegrown systems
• 6-8 smaller institutions experimenting with
  Moodle
• SFU signed up as partner on Sakai

15
How are Enterprise CMS different?

• Typically re-developed, re-designed and
  re-architected
• Database-driven (and database-dependant)
• Improved out of the box integration with other
  major enterprise systems (SIS, Library)
• Portal Functionality extending into new parts
  of organization prospect of increased vertical
  integration
• Multi-unit role, authorization and administration
  capabilities
• Content sharing and reuse across course,
  department and institutional boundaries
• Mature APIs to allow integration of 3rd party
  products

16
BUT
17
Choices and Cost

• CMS, even enterprise CMS, are often criticized
  for lacking flexibility, requiring a one-sized
  fits all approach
• Even though they have APIs, these have not
  spawned an explosion of 3rd party or
  discipline-specific tools
• Whose API do you build to?
• APIs only allow so much integration
• and oh yeahtheyve gotten pretty expensive

18
Service-oriented architecture (SOA) definition

• A service-oriented architecture is essentially a
  collection of services. These services
  communicate with each other. The communication
  can involve either simple data passing or it
  could involve two or more services coordinating
  some activity. Some means of connecting services
  to each other is needed.
• Service-oriented architectures are not a new
  thing. The first service-oriented architecture
  for many people in the past was with the use DCOM
  or Object Request Brokers (ORBs) based on the
  CORBA Common Object Request Broker
  Architecture specification.
• from Web Services and Service-Oriented
  Architectures, http//www.service-architecture.co
  m/web-services/articles/service-oriented_architect
  ure_soa_definition.html

19
E-learning frameworks

• Emerging high level frameworks that outline
  services needed to provide comprehensive
  e-learning architecture (larger than just CMS)
• Early instances found in Carnegie Mellons
  E-learning Stack
• Evolved into
• IMS Abstract Framework which inspired
• JISC/Industry Canada E-learning Framework (ELF)

20
Carnegie Mellons Original Elearning Services
Stack Diagram
21
IMS Abstract Framework
22
JISCs E-Learning Framework (cf.
www.elframework.org/)
23
OKI Open Service Interface Definitions (OSIDs)

• The OSIDs are an abstraction layer between the
  programmer and the enterprise infrastructure
  systems of his or her campus.
• This approach offers a number of important
  benefits to applications designed to the OSIDs
• Simple integration with existing infrastructure
• Local innovations can be shared across campuses
  or universities
• Adaptation to new technology without
  destabilizing the overall environment
• from OKI About Specifications,
  http//www.okiproject.org/specs/index.html

24
OKI OSID diagram
25
So what are the typical Common Services?
26
Common Services across Frameworks and Systems
27
Put another way

• When I access any e-learning tool,
• I should be automatically logged in with the
  appropriate permissions
• If the tool is a part of a larger workflow it
  should be able to contact me in my desired
  locations
• I should be able to schedule activities with the
  tool and by the tool
• If its searchable I should be able to search it
  from wherever I want
• it should report my usage back to a useful
  location in an actionable way

28
Sakai

• Sakai 2.0 release upcoming (June 2005)
• Promise of Sakai To deliver both an application
  framework and associated CMS tools
• Current Reality
• Starting with a number of homegrown products
  (Coursework, OnCourse, Stellar ) and are trying
  to bring these into a new framework
• Early releases (1 1.5) look mostly like just
  another CMS
• Upcoming 2.0 release, along with proof-of-concept
  demos with Navigo assessment tool, Sakai and
  Vista, will be a major milestone

29
Tool Portability Profile

• The ultimate goals of the Sakai Tool Portability
  Profile and the Sakai Java Framework is to
  provide an environment where tools and the
  services to support those tools can be dropped in
  as "units of expansion" or "building blocks" as
  to allow an organization to assemble the
  componentized units of functionality together to
  solve their particular application problem.
• In theory, a profile of the OKI OSIDS would an
  OPEN standard for tool integration, not just with
  Sakai, but with other OSID implementers
• In practice, early releases have relied on
  internal Sakai API for much of the integration

30
Comparing Vista and Sakai extensibility/integratio
n

• ?

31
Other Open Source

• http//www.edtechpost.ca/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/EdTechP
  ost/OpenSourceCourseManagementSystems currently
  lists at least 46 known OS options
• ATutor
• developed out of U of T
• over 2000 registered installations
• SCORM and IMS CP support integration with TILE
  repository
• PHP-based
• currently watching OKI but hesitant about
  adopting before benefits are clear

32
Other Open Source II

• Moodle
• originated as PhD project by Australian aimed at
  a CMS to support more constructivist style
  education
• currently many thousands of adoptions
• SCORM and IMS CP support repository in
  development supports Shibboleth and CAS
  authentication
• PHP-based
• currently watching OKI but hesitant about
  adopting before benefits are clear
• .LRN
• developed at MIT on top of existing OpenACS
  Portal technology
• recently acknowledged by ADL as SCORM capable
• supports Unix PAM and LDAP authentication
• written in TCL

33
loosely coupled or alternative approaches
34
Discipline specific tools

• cf. Mark Notess, Discipline-Specific Online
  Learning Tools for Humanities Students
  Exploring the Tool Gap, http//www.iub.edu/gist/
  conf05/Documents/research_example.doc
• cf. Oliver, K. (2001). Recommendations for
  student tools in online course management
  systems. Journal of Computing in Higher
  Education, 13 (1), 47-70 (http//web.archive.org/w
  eb/20040415113117/www.fdi.vt.edu/Archive/PDFs/2002
  /Webinstruction/oliver1.pdf)

35
IMS Abstract Framework
JISC E-Learning Framework
OKI OSIDs
BlackBoard BuildingBlocks
WebCT PowerLinks
36
Important Recent Announcements

• WebCT chairing IMS Tools Interop group
  (http//www.webct.com/service/viewcontentframe?con
  tentID25561480)
• IMS to partner with OKI on next OSIDS
  (http//www.imsglobal.org/pressreleases/pr050413.c
  fm)
• IBM partners on Sakai project (http//www.umich.ed
  u/news/?Releases/2005/Apr05/r042605a)
• WebCT Campus Edition 6 Public Beta Commences
  (http//home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/i
  ndex.jsp?ndmViewIdnews_viewnewsId20050425005245
  newsLangen)

37
Important Upcoming Milestones

• Sakai 2.0 release
• Mid-June 2005
• Alt-i Lab 2005 Tools Interop Demo between WebCt
  and Sakai
• June 20-22 in Sheffield, UK
• Sakai 3.0 release
• end of 2005

38
Recent Relevant Read

• Rebecca Sausner, Course Management Ready for
  Prime Time, in University Buisness, May, 2005.
  http//www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?p791
  
• Compares 4 large institutions with 4 different
  CMS implementations
• Marshall U. WebCT Vista
• U of Cincinnati Blackboard Enterprise
• U Michigan Sakai
• Berry College - Jenzabar

39
Food for Thought

• Is it possible to achieve enterprise quality
  service without imposing or assuming a
  well-defined, hierarchical structure?
• What are the other pieces of the envisioned
  learning environment, in addition to a CMS, and
  how should these interact with the CMS?
• What level is the appropriate level to
  standardize at?
• Course?
• Instructor?
• Program?
• Department or Faculty?
• Institution?
• And WHAT, specifically, is it important to
  standardize on?

40

• Where do you want your portal to reside, and what
  role do you want it to have in relation to your
  online learning environment(s)? To what extent
  does it make a difference if there are multiple
  portals on campus?