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.

Update on the 2005 Edutools LOR Review Project

2,080 views

Published on

Presentation given at WCET 2005 (San Francisco) on the partner project to investigate 6 new LORs (cf. http://www.edutools.info/static.jsp?pj=8&page=LOR). Includes an update on the 'state of LOR adoption'

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

  • Be the first to like this

Update on the 2005 Edutools LOR Review Project

  1. 1. LORs – Picking a Winner in the Software Derby Bruce Landon, Scott Leslie, Andrea Eastman-Mullins, Phil Moss November 4, 2005
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>Overview of Project - Bruce </li></ul><ul><li>State of Play in LORs - Scott </li></ul><ul><li>Possible approaches and common features - Scott </li></ul><ul><li>Update from UNC System – Andrea </li></ul><ul><li>Update from Oklahoma State Regents - Phil </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 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 2004
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. LO/LORs on the Gartner Hype Cycle 2005!
  8. 8. 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>
  9. 9. Seeing some evolution from ‘Repository as Application’…
  10. 10. To ‘Repository as Service and Application’
  11. 11. 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>
  12. 12. <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
  13. 13. <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>
  14. 14. <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
  15. 15. <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>
  16. 16. 6 Products <ul><li>CWIS - Collection Workflow Integration System </li></ul><ul><li>Fedora - Flexible Extensible Digital Object and Repository Architecture </li></ul><ul><li>COL-LOR </li></ul><ul><li>Blackboard Content System </li></ul><ul><li>Desire2Learn Repository </li></ul><ul><li>The Learning Edge </li></ul>
  17. 17. Edutools Research Results <ul><li>More details available at </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.edutools.info/lor/ </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. The University of North Carolina TLT Collaborative “ How can we do more together in teaching and learning with technology?”
  19. 19. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education

×