Integrating Innovative ELearning Systems: Challenges and Solutions from LAMS James Dalziel Professor

1
Integrating Innovative E-Learning Systems
Challenges and Solutions from LAMSJames
DalzielProfessor of Learning Technology, and
Director, Macquarie E-Learning Centre Of
Excellence (MELCOE)Macquarie University
james_at_melcoe.mq.edu.auwww.melcoe.mq.edu.auPre
sentation for EDUCAUSE 2006, Dallas, USA, October
11th, 2006
2
Overview

• Part 1
• The All you need is LMS myth
• Incremental and disruptive e-learning innovation
• Categorising integration requirements
• Why SOA is premature
• Part 2
• Examples from LAMS
• Future directions

3
The All you need is LMS myth

• A decade on from the rise of the Learning
  Management System (LMS), there is a widespread
  myth about its sufficiency
• Some vendors encourage the belief that their
  platform does everything (or at least everything
  important)
• Some university executives believe that by
  implementing a LMS, they have done e-learning,
  so no major changes are warranted
• Some university CIOs are reluctant to consider
  having more than one piece of software for
  e-learning
• Especially when it doesnt come from a large
  vendor
• Some central e-learning support groups have
  become so aligned with their current LMS, they
  struggle to imagine other possibilities

4
The All you need is LMS myth

• Two reason for skepticism about the sufficiency
  of the LMS
• While the LMS has helped with many
  e-administration tasks (announcements, course
  notes, assignment dropbox), the amount of online
  learning remains modest in most cases
• Most e-learning innovation now happens outside
  the LMS (eg, Blogs, Wikis, e-portfolios,
  advanced quizzing, Learning Design, Learning
  Object Repositories, Virtual Classrooms, mobile
  devices, portals, eResearch, Personal Learning
  Environments, podcasts, desktop applications,
  etc)
• But does this mean the end of the LMS?
• Not for most universities, if only for legacy
  system reasons
• So the question becomes one of integration,
  especially integrating new innovations with the
  existing LMS

5
Incremental and disruptive e-learning innovation

• Viewed from the perspective of integration, some
  e-learning innovations are incremental, others
  are disruptive
• Not just a technology issue also depends on use
  but for the purpose of this presentation, I
  will focus on technology
• Incremental innovations (in terms of integration)
• Advanced quizzing
• Virtual classroom
• Learning Object Repository
• E-Portfolio
• Podcasts
• Some uses of Blogs and Wikis
• Simple integration of Learning Design

6
Incremental and disruptive e-learning innovation

• Disruptive innovations (in terms of integration)
• Some uses of Blogs and Wikis
• Available outside the LMS
• Tools integration of Learning Design
• Requires tools (forum, chat, etc) to be workflow
  enabled
• Personal Learning Environments
• Student controlled may include desktop tools
• Portals
• Alternative base platform, different integration
  fabric
• eResearch
• Different authentication model (PKI), non-http
  internet services
• Mobile devices
• Alternative screen layouts online/offline
  synchronisation
• Desktop applications
• Different security model (non-browser)

7
Categorising integration requirements

• Two caveats
• Assumes you want integration (can always run
  separately!)
• Focus on most typical integration (not all
  possibilities)
• Type 1 No integration or non-person-based
  authentication
• Eg, Learning Object Repository, Podcasts
• Type 2 Single-sign-on (SSO) person-based
  authentication
• Virtual classroom
• Some uses of Blogs and Wikis
• Simple integration of Learning Design
• Type 3 SSO assessment reporting
• Advanced quizzing
• E-Portfolio (NB depends on purpose of
  e-portfolio)
• Type 4 Workflow-enabled LMS tools
• Tools integration for Learning Design

8
Categorising integration requirements

• Type 5 Support for alternative presentation
• Mobile devices also relevant for advanced
  accessibility ideas
• Type 6 Intermittent network (Online/offline
  synchronisation)
• Mobile devices, Personal Learning Environments
• Type 7 Authentication/security models unlike LMS
• Some uses of Blogs and Wikis (expose content
  outside the LMS)
• eResarch that requires PKI
• Desktop applications and non-http internet
  services
• Personal Learning Environments
• Type X Conflicting basic platform assumptions
• Portals, full SOA implementations, eResearch
  Virtual Organisations

9
Categorising integration requirements

• Some observations
• Authentication and security models are the most
  common challenge
• Type 1 No integration or non-person-based
  authentication
• Type 2 Single-sign-on (person-based
  authentication) - SSO
• Type 3 SSO assessment reporting
• Type 7 Authentication/security models unlike LMS
• Some other integration types each represent
  unique challenges with far-reaching consequences
• Type 4 Workflow-enabled LMS tools (includes SSO)
• Type 5 Support for alternative presentation
• Type 6 Intermittent network (Online/offline
  synchronisation)
• Some cases are so different as to challenge
  integration per se
• Type X Conflicting basic platform assumptions

10
Why SOA is premature

• For some, the concept of Service Oriented
  Architectures/Approaches represents a new
  solution to integration problems
• If SOA just means identifying some minimal
  integration points between two systems, then this
  is less difficult to implement
• But much of the SOA hype is around rebuilding the
  whole IT infrastructure around disparate sets of
  services to create composite applications
• Assumes the applications of today will disappear,
  or at least be completely rebuilt

11
Why SOA is premature

• SOA as a solution to the current integration
  challenge is premature because
• Almost none of our current (innovative) systems
  are constructed using a SOA approach (they are
  still traditional applications the Fedora
  repository is about the only real exception)
• Even if applications were service oriented, we
  havent even begun to understand the wider SOA
  authentication and security fabric needed to
  build composite applications from disparate
  services
• Even if we understood the security fabric, and
  all our applications did expose services, we
  still have the problem that each application
  could have its own, different assumptions about
  the security fabric, leading to interoperability
  failures despite availability of services
• NB For the same reason, combining two or more
  SOA frameworks from big competing vendors will
  often be an interoperability nightmare

12
Part 2 Examples from LAMS

• LAMS is an integrated Learning Design system
• Author (create Learning Designs)
• Monitor (instructor can launch/monitor Learning
  Designs)
• Learner (student environment for run-time
  activities)
• Admin (usernames passwords, roles, server
  admin)
• In addition to the above components, and the core
  workflow engine, LAMS provides a suite of
  workflow enabled activity tools (forum, chat,
  quiz, content, etc)
• Not a LMS, but can be used integrated or
  stand-alone
• Freely available as open source software
• See www.lamsfoundation.org

13
Examples from LAMS

• Example A Single-sign-on (SSO) with LMS
• LAMS V1 provides SSO with Blackboard, WebCT,
  Sakai, Moodle and .LRN LMS platforms
• For instructors, LAMS authoring and monitoring
  are accessed just like other LMS tools
• No extra login
• Sequences can be selected directly from LMS page
• For students, a LAMS sequence is accessed via a
  URL on the course page
• Eg, click here for activities for week 3
• Integration involves LAMS receiving basic
  identity and role information from the LMS (via
  integration module)

14
Examples from LAMS

• Demonstration of LAMS V1 integration with LMS
  (based on Sakai)

15
(No Transcript)
16
Login Page of LAMS/Sakai test server includes
further information links
17
Sample course in Sakai that uses LAMS
18
Adding a LAMS sequence to a Sakai course Sakai
page
19
Adding a LAMS sequence to a Sakai course LAMS
authoring page (pop-up)
20
Sample course in Sakai with links to LAMS
sequences shown in central area
21
Student view of LAMS activities as pop-up window
from Sakai course page
22
LAMS monitoring page for live student sequence
popup from teacher area
23
Examples from LAMS

• Example B Tools integration for LAMS V2
• LAMS V2 (released October 2006) incorporates a
  new modular tools architecture - LAMS Tools
  Contract
• The tools contract describes the requirements for
  an activity tool (forum, chat, quiz, content,
  etc) to run within the LAMS workflow environment
• The tools contract is not simply a Java API, but
  rather a set of URL calls and conventions on tool
  behaviour for
• Authoring
• Monitoring
• Learner (ie, run-time)
• Admin

24
(No Transcript)
25
Examples from LAMS

• Example B Tools integration for LAMS V2
• The tools contract provides the basis for LMS
  tools to run within LAMS workflows
  (sequences/Learning Designs)
• Eg, creating a LAMS sequence inside Sakai (SSO
  integration) which uses the Sakai forum, rather
  than the LAMS forum
• This provides a solution to the tools
  duplication problem
• That is, you can avoid having a course forum tool
  in your LMS, and a separate (workflow enabled)
  forum tool for Learning Designs run within your
  LMS
• No LMS have implemented the LAMS tools contract
  yet, but a number of pilot projects are underway

26
Examples from LAMS

• Demonstration of LAMS V2 (including tools
  contract)
• For LAMS V2 demonstration accounts, see
  http//demo.lamscommunity.org/
• To learn more about LAMS V2 architecture, see the
  LAMS V2 Development wiki at
• http//wiki.lamsfoundation.org/display/lams/Home
• Including link to Tools Contract description

27
Future Directions

• Authentication and security fabric remains a key
  challenge to various types of integration
• LAMS Tools Contract provides a basis for creating
  workflow enabled LMS tools
• Dealing with LMS as a legacy system environment
  for practical integration
• Some approaches have fundamentally different
  assumptions to LMS (eg, using a portal as basis
  for Learning Management Operating System
  LMOS)
• Do they provide a better platform for integration?