Demystifying Learning Technology Standards Part I: Development and Evolution
Part I:
Development and Evolution
Standards play an important role in the
development of innovative processes and technologies. Historically, the
development of standards indicates that a particular process or technology is
maturing and has achieved a degree of commercial success, such that there is a
need for standards compliance. Standards provide a measure of quality assurance
and build consensus among stakeholders regarding accepted norms for compliance
and criteria for certification. However, the primary benefits of standards, for
both software and hardware technologies, are interoperability and
integration.
Simple examples to illustrate
interoperability are the standards for compact discs (CDs) and what were
originally called Digital VideoDiscs (now simply DVDs), which allow data to be
stored and transferred between systems without any problem. A simple example of
integration can be seen in building IBM-compatible PC systems; in this case, the
assembly of PCs is only possible because of the hardware compatibility
specifications. In the area of hardware, the standards are often measurable
parameters of physical systems and their operational behavior; in the case of
information technology, they emerge more often as normative and informative
specifications for interoperability and integration.
Standards Development
In the context of learning technology,
standards are still evolving. Standards organizations such as the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. (IEEE), the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO), and the International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC) keep records of normative standards that provide references necessary for
conformance and interoperability. As such, the development process of formal
standards is laborious, tedious, time consuming, and requires numerous
components (shown in Figure 1) as described in the IEEE P1484.1/D9 draft
standard for Learning Technology Systems Architecture (LTSA).
In Figure 1, the requirements and
functionality steps describe the need for the intended goals of the
specification, the conceptual model proposes the framework for the development
of standards, and semantics are the exact definitions related to the
interoperable components and systems. The details of the formal standards are
then developed in the form of (a) an application program interface (API) that
provides the calling conventions, (b) the binding coding, provided for the data
formats, and (c) binding protocols that define the communication layers. The
specifications/standards have two kinds of wording: normative, the sections that
describe technical requirements imposed for conformance; and informative, the
sections describing specifications and best practices that are not requirements
for conformance.
There is a common perception that
commercial vendors try to make their technological implementations "inoperable"
with other similar products in order to keep—and in some cases force— customers
to stick to their proprietary products.
And consumer organizations have a
reputation for striving to work with "interoperable" standards in order to
provide freedom of choice and encourage competition. There is, however, an
inherent commercial opportunity for innovative companies that put their
inventions in the public domain to become the industry standard (e.g., Red Hat
Inc.’s Linux). Of course, at the end of the day, consumers ultimately decide,
through the widespread adoption of one standard over the other. At the onset of
technological development, there are always competing methods and technologies
vying to become the industry standard; the challenge is to make a standard that
is easy to implement and thus win widespread adoption in the public domain.
The Organizations
In the past decade, and particularly since 1997,
several organizations have begun work to evolve standards related to learning technologies
for the development of metadata, curriculum taxonomy, course structure hierarchy, data
models, learning objects, assets, sharable objects, content aggregation and
system architecture, and personal and private information.
These organizations present documentation
to the IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee, P1484, the designated body
with a recognized charter to create standards. The IEEE LTSC P1484 membership
has several working groups to develop specifications and standards related to
aspects of learning (see http://ltsc.ieee.org). The key organizations that are
currently proposing standards for learning technologies are described below.
IMS Global Learning Consortium
Inc.—originally known as Instructional Management Systems (IMS)
and now retaining the name IMS but not the original meaning of the acronym—began
its existence as a project of EDUCAUSE. The group was chartered to provide open
market-based standards relevant to learning technology and, in particular,
specifications for content metadata. IMS proposed and collaborated with the IEEE
LTSC to propose metadata specifications to the IEEE P1484 committee. That work
later became a draft for the Learning Objects Metadata specification. Similar
efforts started in the Alliance of Remote Instructional Authoring and
Distribution Networks for Europe (ARIADNE) on metadata definitions, and those
groups are now closely collaborating with IMS. It is important to note that the
IMS work being done now is not limited to content metadata, but includes areas
such as content packaging, the Learner Information Package (LIP), the enterprise
information model, and others (see www.imsglobal.org).
TheAviation Industry CBT Committee (AICC) is a group formed in 1988 to provide
interoperability standards for computer-managed instruction (CMI) systems, now
more widely known as learning management systems or course management systems.
AICC primarily caters to the CMI systems developed for the aviation industry and
related vendors, and it provides AICC guidelines and recommendations. The
contribution of AICC is particularly important in the CMI database schema and
the interoperability of the database objects extending to several computer-based
training course management and assessment systems. AICC is working closely with
the IEEE LTSC in several areas of mutual interest. It also provides test suites
for AICC certification (see www.aicc.org).
TheAdvanced Distributed Learning (ADL) effort, started by the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy in 1997, received initial support from the
Department of Defense (DOD), though it now falls within the Department of Labor.
The activities of ADL Co-Labs focus around the development of the Sharable
Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) specifications, which include metadata
standards from IEEE LTSC P1484 (as submitted by IMS) and CMI database schema
(submitted to IEEE by AICC).
The ADL Co-Laboratory Network supports
the ADL initiative with a network of collaborative laboratories (Co-Labs). This
network currently has three independently supported entities with distinct
operational responsibilities. They are: the DOD ADL Co-Lab in Virginia, the
Joint ADL Co-Lab at Orlando, Florida, and the Academic ADL Co-Lab at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
The ADL Co-Labs are collaborating closely
with ARIADNE, IMS, AICC, and IEEE. At present, SCORM 1.2 is distributed and
includes the content packaging and sequencing recommendations proposed by IMS.
The specific goal for SCORM is to create learning technology standards for
creation of durable, reusable, interoperable, and accessible courses for defense
and industry training. ADL also provides a test suite for checking conformance
to SCORM 1.2 specification. The ADL Co-Labs regularly organize "plugfests" for
commercial and university systems to demonstrate SCORM conformance (see
www.adlnet.org).
Process and Evolution
In 1999, the
ISO Joint Technical Committee 1 created Subcommittee 36 to address and create ISO standards in
the area of learning technology to support automation for learners, learning
resources, and learning institutions. It is expected that the specifications and
standards developed by IEEE will be submitted to ISO for
formal internationalization—a process that may take several years until final
acceptance.
The organizations highlighted above are
working closely together to promote standards for learning technologies. All are
trying to achieve essentially the same overall objective, but each one has a
specific expertise it brings to the host of issues that need to be addressed for
the future of learning technology standards.
Figure 2 shows a schematic of the
integrative collaboration model adapted by most learning technology standards
organizations. The procedure illustrated is as follows: (1) write specifications
within AICC, IMS, or ARIADNE; (2) integrate, extend, and test in SCORM/ADL; and
(3) formalize nationally and internationally in ISO/IEEE. It is expected that
this process will lead to a formal ISO standard in a few years. As illustrated,
the technical specifications originate in the consortia. The Co-Labs then create
and operate test beds for conducting conformance testing. The test results
generate reference models for selected technologies. The reference models, or
applications profiles, are then submitted to the standards bodies for
accreditation.
Associated
Efforts
Besides the
work of the organizations already described, there are other efforts focused on developing
standards related to learning technology. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C),
headed by Tim Berners-Lee at MIT’s Laboratory for Computer Science, is devoted
to pushing the technological forefront ahead and has provided numerous
useful specifications and standards. These include standards relating to Extensible Markup Language, Web
accessibility standards, and standards and a framework for Synchronized Multimedia
Integration Language implementations (see www.w3c.org).
Another emerging organization of note is
the Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI), started at MIT with major funding through
an Andrew W.Mellon Foundation grant (see http://web.mit.edu/oki). OKI now
includes several prominent universities as partners, and it is focusing on an
approach to creating an open API environment as a glue for a host of support
activities related to online education.
These efforts are intended to encourage
interoperability of both the educational content and the underlying technology
that will support the deployment of online courses. Standards will point toward
the best practices that allow educational content to be used, reused, and
deployed online. The educational content objects that enhance the learning
process can be incorporated into the curriculum to enhance the educational
experience. If existing content objects can be converted to adhere to
interoperable standards (e.g., SCORM), then they may be used by a large number
of community colleges and universities, as well as by the online training
initiatives of the DOD.
Success will depend on demystifying
standards in terms of implementation for instructional design and on the
development of content sequencing models that allow multiple learning strategies
that address individual learning needs. Part II of this article will focus on
the acceptance and implementation of standards for instructional design,
management of learning objects, metadata, and content aggregation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to:
Dan Rehak (Carnegie Mellon University), Jeff Merriman, Vijay
Kumar (MIT), Bill McDonald (AICC), Judy Brown (Academic ADL
Co-Lab), and Philip Dodds (DOD ADL Co-Labs) for their
contributions
to this article and for permission to use SCORM 1.2 figures
and references.
