Linking research & learning technologies through standards

Background

There are a number of pesky things that can thwart improved educational outcomes. Some of them can seem a bit arcane. Not getting on top of stuff like copyright and intellectual property (IP) and standards and interoperability can not only blow the budget, they can also just stop good things happening. This reflection is just about the interoperability and standards angles, and is written by someone who has been involved in these things for a few years, but who is not down at the technical detail level of standards work.

 Australia has been at the forefront of global standards specifications for a number of years, actively participating in or leading various working groups in IMS, OASIS, IEEE,  NISO,  and the international e-framework. However the work has not been well understood or connected across the education technical community. This has led to a fracture in communications and endorsement. So why is this so?
Read the rest of this entry »

Late in 2009 Education Service Australia (ESA) handed Link Affiliates an interesting brief: to write an executive level briefing on the semantic web approach to machine readable curriculum that they had been piloting in collaboration with the Achievement Standards Network (ASN).

Although we’d been working with ESA and ASN on machine readable curriculum for quite a while as part of our Technical Standards for Digital Education project , this brief was still quite daunting: explaining technical approaches to executives is never easy; explaining a semantic web approach to education executives even more so. We persevered, however, and in May published a paper called “Benefits of Machine Readable Curriculum” on our website. The paper describes ASN’s approach to imposing a lightweight and flexible structure over curriculum documents, and how that structure can support a bunch of simple, but high impact, use cases such as discovering content based on curriculum outcomes, and charting student progress with respect to a curriculum. Read the rest of this entry »

The U.S. Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative (ADL) recently convened a Learning Content Registries and Repositories summit (#ADLRR2010) in Alexandria, Va., which Link Affiliates attended. (We have already posted here our position paper for the meeting.)

ADL have been pioneers in developing and disseminating e-learning content; the ADL-Registry and its underlying model CORDRA have been highly influential since their inception in 2003. However the way information is disseminated and consumed online has changed greatly in the six years since, and the expectations of users have changed along with them. The summit was convened to ask:

• What has happened in the last 6+ years?
• What are the current business drivers and requirements?
• What is the state of practice in registries and repositories for learning content?
• What are the outstanding business and policy issues?
• What are the outstanding technical issues?
• What should we (the broader learning, educational, training, repositories and registries communities) be doing?

The summit was arranged as a sequence of panels, with audience questions. The panels reflected perspectives from US Government agencies, repository initiatives, technical interoperability, Web 2.0 and Semantic Web, and content vendors. The summit also included two breakout sessions, on what the current status and problems are in the learning repository space, and on what future priorities for development should be.

I’ve taken blow by blow notes of the workshop at the Interoppo Research blog; ADL has also provided links to other blog posts and tweets discussing the summit, as well as position papers requested for the summit. The summit ended with a polyphony of opinions on what to do next. Looking back, however, there are some clear realisations running through the summit; these have been picked up by Dan Rehak and Damon Regan in their summaries (Rehak: PPT, Regan: PDF), and are consistent with the findings of the subsequent CETISROW event (see Phil Barker’s summary).

This is my own skewed summary of what the summit found:

• We don’t need more standards.
• We do need a lot to seek out much more feedback from our users: what problems are we trying to solve?
• The users don’t come to us, they go to Google (Facebook, Twitter, Flickr).
• We won’t beat Google (Facebook, Twitter, Flickr) at their own game, and should not try to.
  • They build on Open Web content, we should provide Open Web content.
  • They harness content through Open Web standards (as does the Semantic Web): we should expose content through Open Web standards.
  • They set user expectations on discovery; we should break those expectations only if what we do is visibly better.
• We have unique value as repositories, as authoritative & targeted providers of content. We should promote this—via Open Web channels.
• We have defined contexts for interacting with content, and means of gathering user contextual data. That contributes to our unique value: better targeted search, or content push anticipating search.
• Get metadata from wherever you can (automated, user-provided): users already deal with bad metadata every day, and bad metadata is still better than no metadata.
• Repository federations are growing, but depend on harmonisation and registry metadata (and still coexist with Google).

The following is a more detailed summary.
Read the rest of this entry »

Link Affiliates will be participating in the ADL Learning Content Registries and Repositories Summit, to be held in Washington DC on April 13-14 2010:

There have been numerous learning content registry and repository projects. This summit aims to bring together participants to determine “where are we” and “what’s next” for learning content registries and repositories, dealing with business, policy and technical issues. The summit is targeted to those who develop, deploy or use registries and repositories to manage and deliver learning content along with users who develop and publish learning content or want to find it.

Rather than just submitting a position paper to the summit, we thought we would share our thoughts here on some of the trends we see happening in repositories and repository federation: the Googlification of repositories, open interfaces, repository mandate and user needs, and registry-of-registry approaches to repository federation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Whilst we still need to wait for the Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) advice and the Australian Government Information Management Office’s (AGIMO) Transition Strategy on adopting Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0 (WCAG 2.0), the vocational education and training sector (VET) has been considering the specific implications for e-learning content development and use.

In VET we’ve been looking at WCAG 2.0 within the context of current content creation processes and practices so that we can estimate the likely effect of transitioning to 2.0.  In 2009, the group responsible for ratification of technical standards for use in the VET sector, the E-standards Expert Group (EEG), commissioned Roger Hudson to undertake an evaluation of WCAG 2.0 and the requirements for transitioning from current processes and practice to meet WCAG 2.0.

The resulting report identified that migration from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 is likely to be relatively straightforward for content creators who understand WCAG 1.0 (although there may be more complexity where there is accessibility-supported use of some technologies) and allowed the EEG to make a submission to AGIMO on behalf of the sector (an initial recommendation of WCAG 2.0 Level AA with accessibility supported use of Flash, JavaScript and PDF for development of new content).

Significantly, the research also highlighted gaps in content creator basic understanding of accessibility and correspondingly WCAG 1.0. Whilst this was a not  unexpected result, given that a significant amount of the content is produced by teachers who are not web professionals, it may mean that the migration to WCAG 2.0 would be less straight-forward than we’d hope.  It also means that in VET, like the other education sectors, we need to recognise that there is a large back-catalogue of uncompliant content.

Identifying and recognising that the challenge for the VET sector is not just content creators understanding WCAG 2.0 has meant that we have not been hamstrung while the government  and AHRC discuss where they’ll go with WCAG 2.0.  We are now certain that content creators need not only the technical knowledge that will allow them to successfully build accessible content, but also an understanding of why they need to make content accessible from the perspective of legality and equity.

While AGIMO transition plan is being formulated and AHRC are considering their stance we’ll be working to increase the knowledge, skill-level and understanding of VET content creators  so that they have the capacity to build accessible content regardless of of the technology.   We hope that between now and 2012 we can equip VET content creators with the skills to make use of the extensive supporting documentation for WCAG 2.0 and that they can benefit from the  more readily testable techniques and examples of what will satisfy the success criteria.

We’ll also be following up with AGIMO and AHRC and feeding information about the volume of educational content that already exists into the transition discussions, in the hope that the scope of the strategy will take into account  the scale of maintenance and the work effort that would be required if the requirements were to be applied retrospectively.

After considerable deliberation the Australian Government has endorsed adherence to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0 (WCAG  2.0) for all government websites. This decision supersedes the previous mandate for compliance with WCAG 1.0 Level A checkpoints. The initial announcement came via ministerial press release on February 23, 2010 and the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO), who’ve been managing the WCAG 2.0 evaluation and transition planning, amended the accessibility section of the Web Publishing Guide the following day:

Government agencies will transition to WCAG 2.0 over a four year period, reaching level Single A within two years, and Double A within four years. A Transition Strategy will outline the process for implementation, and will address scope and inclusion issues. The Transition Strategy will be made available on the Web Publishing Guide in July 2010.

Agencies are reminded that it is still a requirement to publish an alternative to all PDF documents (preference for HTML or RTF). Advice on the accessibility support of PDF documents will be made available at the conclusion of the PDF Accessibility Review Project, due early 2010.”

AGIMO’s announcement brings some clarity to the application of WCAG 2.0 for government materials and mandates a higher level of adherence than the government was previously mooted to be considering (and in doing so is likely to benefit a greater number of users) but a number of questions remain in terms of the breadth of the AGIMO transition strategy, who they’ll consult and the position of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

We’re still in a situation where we need to predict the actions of AHRC, but as the AGIMO WCAG 2.0 position is closer in spirit to the interim WCAG 1.0 position of AHRC, it’s reasonable to assume that the level of conformance advocated by AHRC is not likely to be any less than that endorsed by AGIMO. The forthcoming completion of the PDF review and the Web Publishing Guide update provide a basis upon which to anticipate that AHRC will make a statement about WCAG 2.0 in the near future, so the next few months will be a key time for interested parties to participate in transition discussions and look out for announcements.

With Australian interest in the release of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0 (WCAG 2.0), web accessibility has emerged as a hot topic for 2009/2010. The Link Affiliates team are planning a series of blog posts from a range of interested parties on the topic of web accessibility to find out what’s happening in Australian education.

This series kicks off with a brief overview of the WCAG 2.0 specification and Australian government web accessibility requirements from Kristena Gladman. Kristena works at e-Works where she has coordinated an investigation into the impact of WCAG 2.0 on the Vocational Education and Training Sector. She has also previously worked on the Curriculum Corporation’s “The Learning Federation” project.

Accessibility can be loosely defined as the degree to which a product, device, service, or environment is readily available to all users. Accessible web design should ensure that all users can access the content regardless of their location, experience or type of computer technology – particularly users with disabilities.  Web content designed without consideration of accessibility will often have access issues for people with disabilities or technological limitations.  Whilst accessibility of web content is often aligned with catering to disabled users there are significant benefits for the majority of users if content is accessible.

The need for web accessibility is recognised internationally in United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In Australia the provision of accessible web content, like equitable access to buildings, education, employment, public transport and goods and services, is covered by the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) which is administered by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

In practice, these provisions mean that the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are a requirement, particularly for publicly funded web content.
Read the rest of this entry »

The Learning Object Repository Network (LORN)  has been a long time in gestation, sensibly so. The Australian Flexible Learning Framework spawned LORN using a measured and standards based approach.

In 2003, the Framework began developing structures and standards for managing access to quality electronic learning resources across Australia’s VET sector. In 2004 the Framework established LORN to facilitate exchange of learning objects between states and territories, based on a model of trust, cooperation and interoperability. LORN currently enables the sharing and sale of learning resources that support flexible delivery across the VET sector.” (from LORN website)

 Much of what LORN has developed has leveraged another VET infrastructure service, AEShareNet , not least the standards based licensing approach.

So what is LORN?

The Learning Object Repository Network (LORN) is an easy to use portal that allows teachers and trainers to access quality resources for the VET sector.

LORN consists of:

• repository owner organisations that hold learning resources they are willing to share across the VET sector, and
• consumer access providers (CAPs) that use the LORN search to display results within their organisation’s website.

So basically anyone can access and download learning objects; but in order to “advertise” that you have objects available to share, you must conform to some standards and specification both technical and non technical.

Repository owners who participate in LORN have agreed to the following principles:

• Commitment to working with other members—in a spirit of cooperation—to advance the interests of the whole sector especially in relation to gaining efficiencies from sharing teaching and learning resources.
• Commitment to exposing a reasonable amount of content so that using OAI harvesting in the federation of repositories is a rewarding experience for the consumer.
• Agreement to adhere to a minimum set of business and technical specifications.
• Agreement to licence learning objects to users to be reusable within the terms of the associated digital rights. Learning objects in the repositories should correspond with the AEShareNet‑U (unrestricted), AEShareNet-S (share and return), AEShareNet –P (Preserve Content) and AEShareNet‑FfE (Free for Education purposes) licences.

Technical specifications include:

• Maintaining a repository of learning objects relevant to the VET sector
• Providing a harvest file that includes descriptions of all learning objects and other resources using Vetadata (agreed VET specific metadata)
• Using the AEShareNet instant licences (FfE, U, S & P) and the immediate C licences
• Providing a pricing file in the approved format as required for the purpose of transacting immediate C licences.

I have been a member of various LORN references groups since its inception in 2003 as part of different roles and contracts I have held. It has been fascinating to be involved in its slow (sometimes frustratingly slow) and steady progress.  

So what are the upsides and where are the issues and where is it going?

The approach is basically driven by a bottom up agreement to cooperate and share. There is a small amount of national infrastructure funding that has enabled the development so far. But really the commitment put in by the repository owners has been the key to its growth and sustainability. And it is amazing that there has been so much agreement albeit hard won. The end result is a whole heap of learning objects accessible by teachers and trainers across the VET sector, which might otherwise have remained hidden within one institution or one jurisdiction. At the same time there has been a strenuous effort to keep it simple for the teachers or learning object seekers. The repositories do the hard yards behind the scenes to keep it simple and consistent for those looking to access learning resources. 

But with any such service there are issues.

One fundamental challenge has been the need to allow repositories to charge for learning objects. Basically only a relatively small number of objects would be released across the VET sector if only “free to access and use” resources were allowed. Models do not really exist across the VET sector for freely sharing resources across public and private training organisations, especially when there is both stiff competition between training providers, and fully commercial exploitation of resources in terms of both course provision and publishing. So a simple thing like charging for a resource sets up a huge challenge for LORN, in terms of providing simple and immediate access via micro payments.

Other emerging issues include:

• The desire from repository owners to make non-downloadable learning resources accessible via LORN
• The need to develop a sustainable business model in terms of who pays for the ongoing maintenance and further development of the LORN infrastructure (at present it is project funded)
• The need to provide access to a larger variety of repositories including commercial publishers
• The need to cater for (smaller) repository owners who might struggle to meet the technical specifications entry requirements

So does the LORN model have any relevance to other sectors? 

Well first of all in order to develop and deliver the service, LORN has had to tackle key challenges that any resource sharing approach would need to tackle, including:

• Agreed metadata standards
• Agreed and consistent licensing
• Agreed federated harvesting/search protocols
• Persistent identifiers for materials
• Authentication for users
• Also it provides a model for collaborative governance, especially across the public VET jurisdictions.

In designing a pay-per-access option LORN has provided a methodology for ensuring that learning resources can be “shared”, albeit with money changing hands sometime. This sharing can occur across public and private and between private institutions. Mind you this is not non-contestable. There is a school of thought that says the teachers accessing learning resources should not be faced with barriers of “pay before access” . This should be sorted at the macro rather than the micro level. In other words, jurisdiction or institutions or repository publishers provide access to any individual teacher based on a bulk arrangement, either pre or post facto for particular institutions or jurisdictions. (A simple Trust Federation may help in this regard.)

For 2010 LORN has a few key  tasks to drive things forward including: finalising the implementation of persistent identifiers, moving towards a smoother authentication approach, and incorporating non-downloadable learning resources into the network.

At the same time AEEYSOC (Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee) is apparently grappling  with the importance of a national eLearning architecture plan for digital resource discovery, development, storage and sharing  in the school sector. LORN might just have paved the way for such an approach with its hard won successes over the last six years. If nothing else it demonstrates that sharing learning resources was not meant to be easy.

As referred to in an earlier post, Link Affiliates is working this year on supporting the Digital Education Revolution, through the Technical Standards for Digital Education project. A large part of the activities includes the establishment of Focus Groups, which have been established for 6 of the 7 activities. Each Focus Group consists of representatives from various jurisdictions within the education sector – primarily schools-based representatives, but also including some representatives from the VET sector. Different groups may also include people from other relevant organisations including government organisations.

So far we have identified three main purposes for the Focus Groups:

1. Members bringing their own expertise and experience into the group to share
2. Members acting as conduits back into their own organisations for the information that comes out of the Focus Group meetings
3. Members utilising their own linkages (eg professional networks) to disseminate the information that comes out of group meetings, as well as utilising these linkages to bring further information into the group.

Each Focus Group operates a little differently from the others, based on the requirements of that activity. Initial meetings of most Focus Groups were held in August 2009, and regular meetings will continue to be held throughout the duration of the project until June 2010. The first meetings of the various Focus Groups have been very positive, and much discussion emerged on various topics. It also became apparent in a few of the groups that many of the members were delighted to have such a forum on which to discuss these pertinent matters with other members of their profession who, being in a variety of jurisdictions and organisations, were able to provide new perspectives. The Focus Groups are also making use of Edna groups in the form of wikis and forums to support group communication.

The Focus Groups are expected to help in providing a couple of important outputs for the Technical Standards for Digital Education project. Firstly, each Focus Group will provide input into a Briefing Paper which has initially been created in draft by Link Affiliates, but will eventually be an output of the whole group. This Briefing Paper will provide a snap shot of the state-of-play for each of the activities, and will benefit greatly from such a wide range of input from group members. In turn, it is hoped that the Briefing Papers will be of benefit to the education sector, providing resources for the sector as well The papers are a work-in-progress, and are expected to be completed by June 2010.

Secondly, the Focus Groups provide a medium for cross-jurisdictional and cross-organisational discussion regarding the various activities, ranging from the new WCAG2.0 guidelines and their impact upon content creation for the sector, to supporting schools in the use of ‘safe’ Web2.0 content, to looking at the interoperability challenges for e-portfolios in the Australian schools sector, to name just a few. It is expected that this melding of experiences from each group member will also result in members being able to take away something positive from their participation – something that can be taken back to each jurisdiction and organisation involved and assist in supporting the development of these key areas within the sector.

This is my first ever attempt at writing a blog so please forgive me for going in all directions while expressing myself. This is quite daunting to think that I have something to say that this mesmerizing virtual world would be interested in reading.  However, I have no choice but to write this. There is no way I can say “NO” to my dear colleague Nick Nicholas who has so kindly asked me share my IMS-LIA Award experience with those who wish to participate in this year.  So I will attempt to write a few things about this experience in my own way. So here it goes….

IMS packaging and metadata standards have been part of  The Le@rning Federation (TLF) since the inception of this initiative in 2001. I have been involved with IMS work in some form or the other since I joined TLF in 2006.  One of the biggest challenges TLF faced at that time was how the wonderful digital materials it produced can be accessed by preschool teachers who had no access to a state-wide system.  My manager Nick Weideman and other managers at TLF had conceptualized a portal to resolve this delivery challenge when I was brought in to manage the development of this portal. This is where this journey began……
Read the rest of this entry »