We did not get the opportunity to take the concept beyond the whitepaper level and start developing the common ‘language’ models. However, the K-12 education industry has somewhat tackled this problem with a standard called the Student Interoperability Framework (SIF), available here: http://www.sifinfo.org. I think the SIF specification can be extended to fit needs of platform for e-leaning model.

“Context” – Some form of orientation as to how this information fits into a broader picture.

“Path” – A structured and intentional way of presenting content so that knowledge is built upon and opportunities for new discovery are presented.

“Assessment” – Ensuring that knowledge is being properly conveyed to enable the path to be adapted.

We’re certainly not experts in education by any means. Those are just our thoughts as technologists working in this area.

Damon’s post is at http://damonregan.blogspot.com/2008/12/thoughts-on-letsi.html

I agree that the learning world is less and less about the experiences delivered from an LMS, but I do still see a need for those experiences to be tracked and managed by an LMS. Also, note that I use the term “LMS” almost figuratively. While we are focused on the learning world, the “systems that track and manage learning” are rapidly evolving. They are even morphing/merging into other types of systems. LETSI’s work shouldn’t be tied to today’s concept of an LMS. BUT, I think it is very important to start from someplace we know and to start from someplace where there is a current market need.

If OKI has laid a suitable foundation, then by all means, let’s take a look.

I agree with the messages you point out this thread as being consistent with. Before starting the post, I was thinking to myself, “am I really saying anything new here?”. I don’t think there’s new ground-breaking material, it’s just a different slant that crystallizes the abstract notions and frames the problem in a way that is easier to pitch on an elevator and makes good business sense.

Yes, platforms and programming languages are certainly diverse across systems, but I think this is where a loosely coupled, services-oriented architecture comes in. In a standardized world, “plug-ins” wouldn’t be as tightly integrated (from a technical perspective) as they are now.

I think one of the pieces we need a new model to provide is the ability for the learning event to initialize/launch the “LMS” rather than vice-versa. Currently, the LMS has to launch SCOs, whereas a real out-of-browser learning/assessment event might not be launched or initiated by the LMS at all. SOA would allow the event to initiate the transation with the LMS (or whatever we’ll call the record-keeping software function). Just having that basic capability would open up a lot of possibilities.

One suggestion, though. Rather than think of apps as plug-ins or extensibility for the LMS (which strikes me as a pre-SOA model implying a kind of parent-child relationship), I think we should be thinking instead of loosely-coupled peer applications, where either one could be considered the server or the client, depending on the nature of the transaction. Just a shift in terminology and/or perspective.

I would like to make several comments in relation to the specific issues raised because they are meaty issues. First, in LETSI’s meetings in October in Pensacola there was a significant focus on what was loosely termed, the “out-of-browser” experience. As Mike indicates, there are a lot of applications that are currently deployed for different aspects of technology mediated learning, and only some of those are browser-based and a sub-set of those are LMSs. The learning world is less and less about what can be achieved by integrating with an LMS and the learning experiences available therein, to a much broader set of experiences in serious games, simulations, clients other than browsers etc etc etc.

Second, one could also argue that initiatives such as the Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI – http://www.okiproject.org) based at MIT is one potential solution to contribute to the sort of single plugin or API approach to integration spoken about here. It is not perfect but it provides significant utility and flexibility and it already exists. If that is the solution being sought, then I would argue it is better to identify those initiatives that already exist and divert attention to making them easier rather than starting again. We already have wheels… Let’s aim for something else, even if OKI is not the exact answer.

There are several elements that I think are consistent in all the messages I have seen and heard.

a) service-oriented architectures are as necessary for learning infrastructure as any other infrastructure (or piece thereof).

b) content is an important part of learning but we want to use it differently. soa (service-oriented approaches – to use the e-framework differentiation at http://www.e-framework.org) change the game for content. It now needs to be consumed by different applications and communities want adaptability at the authoring and aggregation stages not just interoperability at the publishing stage. These are quite different to support.

c) Learning life is more complex, richer, more diverse, more distributed, more community-based (as the differentiations), and are provided through an increasing set of applications (wikis, blogs, LMSs, simulations, games, off-line materials, online spaces etc etc).

There are a range of other issues but this comment is rapidly getting too long – it is a big issue.

Mike is 100% correct. The key question that LETSI has to answer before it can proceed is that given the range of initiatives that are currently contributing to this space, “What is the piece that LETSI should do with ‘SCORM’ 2.0 and what does it mean for the learning, education and training communities LETSI already serves and/or is seeking to serve?”

Apologies for the length of the comment but I hope it contributes to the framing of the debate and the solution.

I think standardizing LMS extensibility — essentially standardizing a kind of LMS plug-in architecture — would solve many problems in our industry and would go a long way towards enabling developers to implement new technologies as they become available.

This also isn’t far removed from Aaron Silvers’ suggestion that the portability of *data* is what’s important here.

One concern would be how do you standardize extensibility when the LMSs use a variety of programming languages (ASP, PHP, Java, etc.)?