Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

LOR Characteristics and Considerations

1,988 views

Published on

Invited talk for Simon Fraser University, June 2006

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

LOR Characteristics and Considerations

  1. 1. LOR Overview and BCcampus Initiative Scott Leslie July 28, 2005
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>State of Play in Repositories </li></ul><ul><li>Possible approaches and common features </li></ul><ul><li>BCcampus Repository Initiative </li></ul>
  3. 3. LO/LORs on the Gartner Hype Cycle 2004 We were here
  4. 4. Maturity of Problem LORs address <ul><li>LORs still struggling to define precisely the problem that is trying to be solved with them? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it discovery and sharing of resources? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the management of content development? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the facilitation of content re-use? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the creation of communities of practitioners? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the archiving of learning materials? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the ingestion and re-composition of complex multimedia objects? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All of the above? </li></ul></ul>2004
  5. 5. Maturity of Problem LORs address <ul><li>LORs getting better at defining the problem they are trying to solve </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it discovery and sharing of resources? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the management of content development? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the facilitation of content re-use? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the creation of communities of practitioners? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the archiving of learning materials? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the ingestion and re-composition of complex multimedia objects? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All of the above? </li></ul></ul>2005
  6. 6. Maturity of LOR Market <ul><li>The market for learning object repository technology is very immature and has some fundamental risks involved </li></ul><ul><ul><li>unclear how large a market there will ever be for repository technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>vendors are trying to amortize their R&D efforts across too few customers and too short a period leading to hefty licensing prices considering the actual technology involved </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>if the problem is expanded to include the LCMS field, it becomes a broader and deeper market, but pricing for corporate-style LCMS out of line with higher ed expectations and abilities to pay </li></ul></ul>2004
  7. 7. LOR Market Maturing…Slowly <ul><li>While the market for learning object repository technology is still quite immature </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Had a number large RFPs and purchases occur over the last 12 months </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>UNAM system in Mexico – 1million+ seats for Harvest Road </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Flordia Virtual School System – also Harvest Road </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>JISC JORUM Repository – UK-wide - Intrallect </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>BC/Alberta RFP – The Learning Edge </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Starting to see some leaders emerge and certain different approaches to sharing/re-use problem (DAM, LCMS, LOR, IR) </li></ul></ul>2005
  8. 8. Open Source LORs <ul><li>Very few examples (outside of library world) of open source repository software that has been widely taken up by community of implementers </li></ul><ul><li>Many initial projects were developed institutionally on soft money and haven’t been transitioned that well to being inclusive ‘open source’ projects </li></ul>2004
  9. 9. Open Source LORs <ul><li>Still too few examples of open source repository software that has been widely taken up by community of implementers </li></ul><ul><li>Lots of the money is drying up/moving on to other areas </li></ul><ul><li>As problem space gets better understood, people looking to related technologies (Content Mgmt Systems, P2P, referatories, IR) as alternative approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Large consortial approachs to LORs, where instead of sharing risk through open sourcing, sharing risk through size of project team and initiative </li></ul>2005
  10. 10. LO/LORs on the Gartner Hype Cycle 2005!
  11. 11. Some phenomena shaping directions of LORs <ul><li>Service Oriented Architecture/Approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Modularization </li></ul><ul><li>E-Learning Frameworks </li></ul><ul><li>Course Management Systems </li></ul><ul><li>Peer-to-Peer Computing </li></ul><ul><li>‘Social Software’ </li></ul>
  12. 12. Seeing some evolution from ‘Repository as Application’…
  13. 13. To ‘Repository as Service and Application’
  14. 14. Types of Repository Approaches we’ve seen in Edutools project <ul><li>‘ Referatories’ </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Classic’ Repository </li></ul><ul><li>Learning Content Management System </li></ul><ul><li>Generic Content Management System </li></ul><ul><li>Digital Asset Management </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional Repository </li></ul><ul><li>Repository as part of Course Management vendor solution </li></ul><ul><li>Repository as “Service” </li></ul>
  15. 15. <ul><li>We found that the defining characteristics of these systems, in terms of widespread feature support, were: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Support for searching and browsing of records </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Metatagging tools, and standards-based schema support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support for federation and harvesting </li></ul></ul>2004
  16. 16. <ul><li>2005, we found that the defining characteristics of these systems, in terms of widespread feature support, were: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Support for searching and browsing of records </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Metatagging tools, and standards-based schema support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support for federation and harvesting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More support for content packaging and aggregation, content management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased support for syndication, and notification </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. <ul><li>Overall, we found support lacking for the following features across all of the products: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Syndication and Notification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community & Evaluation features (e.g. evaluation system, wish lists and context of usage illustrators) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time-based Media support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Content Aggregation and Packaging tool </li></ul></ul>2004
  18. 18. <ul><li>In 2005, generally we found support lacking for the following features across all of the products: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time-based Media support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>XML Content Supports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DRM, specifically Payment and Fulfillment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User Profiles </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Edutools Research Results <ul><li>More details available at </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.edutools.info/lor/ </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. BCcampus LOR Project <ul><li>Began as joint project between BCcampus, Open School BC, later joined by Alberta Online Consortium </li></ul><ul><li>Project began in February 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Joint project to select and implement (open source) learning object repository software </li></ul><ul><li>Project will result in 2 repositories for BC, one for the K-12 system, one within the post-secondary </li></ul>
  21. 21. About the Organizations <ul><li>BCcampus </li></ul><ul><li>established in 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>mandate to provide British Columbia learners with a web-based access point to online learning programs and services delivered by the 26 post-secondary institutions themselves </li></ul><ul><li>OpenSchoolBC (OSBC) </li></ul><ul><li>provider of K-12 distance educational materials </li></ul><ul><li>Operating as a managed partnership between the New Westminster SD No. 40 and the Queen's Printer of B.C. </li></ul>
  22. 22. Motivations for Starting the Project <ul><li>BCcampus </li></ul><ul><li>administer system-wide Online Program Development Fund </li></ul><ul><li>fund mandates content be shareable with rest of system </li></ul><ul><li>‘ BCcommons’ or CreativeCommons license </li></ul><ul><li>OSBC </li></ul><ul><li>transition from older print and full course-based models to more atomic ‘learning objects’ </li></ul><ul><li>both a way to distribute their own content and a service to other K-12 publishers and school boards to share content </li></ul><ul><li>run as a cost recovery service </li></ul>
  23. 23. <ul><li>Initial search led us to partner with University of Calgary around software named ‘Apollo’. </li></ul><ul><li>7 months later, we cancelled our involvement due to the lack of progress in deploying a solution </li></ul><ul><li>But not all was lost… </li></ul>Project History…
  24. 24. First Phase Outcomes <ul><li>Metadata profiles for both K-12 and Post-secondary sectors were developed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on Cancore application profiles, with some variations on vocabulary to reflect local needs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Workflow pattern established for both K-12 and Post-secondary sectors </li></ul><ul><li>Interfaces for both the K-12 and Post-secondary repositories have been prototyped and can easily be implemented on new software </li></ul>
  25. 25. Phase II <ul><li>Recently issued a RFP for a repository system </li></ul><ul><li>May 17 - Decision on successful bid </li></ul><ul><li>Selected The Learning Edge ( http://www.thelearningedge.com.au/ ) an LCMS originally developed in Australia </li></ul><ul><li>Initial deployment up by October 2005 </li></ul>
  26. 26. Key Attributes of System <ul><ul><li>Handle all types of content, from simple links, to individual images and binary files, and on up to exports of WebCT courses and IMS Content Packages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide searching and browsing using recognizable B.C. K-12 categories and terminology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Host both restricted content (that would require a subscription or some other condition to be met) and content open to all </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Additional Goals of the Project <ul><li>Provide *easy* means for instructors and institutions to contribute new items </li></ul><ul><li>Provide support for cataloguing items so that they are easily findable </li></ul><ul><li>Include mechanisms for user evaluation and feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Integrates with delivery environments (e.g. CMS) </li></ul><ul><li>Tracking of usage, at very least of downloads, ideally of use within courses </li></ul>

×