As of August 1st, 2008, the Edutech web site will no longer be updated. Edutech was funded by the Swiss Virtual Campus programme, which ended on July 31st, 2008. Some activities will be taken over by the e-Learning Services group at the SWITCH foundation.
Learning Object Repository
Test Results of Feasibility Study
- Summary
- Background
- Repository Goals and requirements
- Current Status
- Prototypes of Feasibility Study
- Federated LOR System
- Existing Open Source Repository Systems
Meeting of January 12th 2007
1. Executive Summary
The aim of this project is to build a national learning object repository (LOR) to share e-learning contents for higher education institutions. The key concept in this project is to tightly integrate popular learning management systems (LMS) with the LOR, allowing to efficiently exchange learning objects in a direct way. The basic principle of the LMS-LOR integration was tested in a feasibility study with protoypes. We are presenting the test results in this document.
One of the prototypes integrates OLAT with a LOR based on the OLAT architecture. Learning objects of any type can be selected in a course and transferred to the repository in a few seconds with little interaction. All transferred objects are packaged in a standards compliant format.
Another prototype integrates Moodle with the repository system DOOR. Content objects can easily be transferred to DOOR, and also directly re-imported to a Moodle course. Exchanging tests and quizzes is not supported.
Integrating WebCT Vista with a LOR is not possible in the same way as with open source products, because the API only allows to export bare content files without any course structure or other important metadata. Manual exports are tedious and error prone.
Even if standards compliant content packages in IMS or SCORM format are exchanged, interoperability is not guaranteed. Additional work is necessary to implement translation programs to enhance content exchange between different LMS.
The national LOR can either be built from scratch, which has the advantage of getting a system that exactly fits the needs. It can alternatively be based on an established open-source repository system with customizations. With this approach, a complete system can be set up in less time, and many functionalities are available right away.
2. Background
In October 2006 the rectors' conferences of the Swiss Universities (CRUS), Universities of Applied Sciences (KFH) and Universities of Teacher Education (SKPH/SCTE) decided to evaluate a national open source learning platform. They asked the Swiss Virtual Campus (SVC) and SWITCH to evaluate open source learning platforms and make a project proposal. In Spring 2006 the SWITCH/SVC project management asked four working groups with 32 e-learning experts of Swiss higher education institutions to define what services they expect on a national level and to define evaluation criteria. See also the project wiki pages for details.
A very brief summary of the working groups:
- there is only little interest in having an additional Learning Management System (LMS) at the national level
- there is a considerable interest in having a Learning Object Repository (LOR) at the national level, which would allow to share, exchange and distribute any kind of digital learning material (courses, modules, bare files)
- there is an interest in having Integration and Development services offered by a competent team of engineers
- it is desired to have a team offering Community Building Services, thus fostering efficient information exchange in the Swiss e-learning community
3. Learning Object Repository: Goals and Requirements
The e-learning experts working groups identified the following goals of a LOR:- re-use existing content (i.e. entire foundation courses, parts of courses)
- enhance collaboration across institutions
- reach larger audience
- enhance reputation due to enhanced visibility of e-learning activities
The key requirements of the LOR are:
- very easy to use, in particular for content contributors
- simple metadata model
- share/publish: transfer content from LMS to LOR with one mouse click
- browse for Learning Objects (LOs)
- search for LOs (metadata and full-text search)
- tight integration with existing LMS
- re-use existing metadata from LMS
4. Current Status (December 2006)
Based on the requirements list, the project management team has developed a proposal for a LOR architecture. It includes the workflows that are commonly present in LMS/LOR systems:
- upload and download local content to/from the LMS
- upload and download local content to/from the LOR
Usually, content is locally developed and then uploaded to the LMS. Once the content has evolved to a stable version, the local copy of the content is packed into a single file using packaging editors like Reload. The content package is then uploaded to the LOR and metadata is added manually using online forms.
In addition to the common workflow, it is suggested to simplify the process of submitting content to the LOR by directly integrating the LMS and the LOR. From within the LMS, an entire course (or parts of it) can be directly published to the LOR. The advantages of this approach are:
- direct publishing of LOs is simpler than downloading-storing-packaging-uploading via the local desktop
- the LMS already has knowledge of useful information (title, author, creation date, context, etc.) that can be used as default values for metadata in the LOR
The approach of directly publishing content from LMS to LOR is somewhat original. It was necessary to test the basic principles in a feasibility study. Two prototypes were developed that added the publish feature to the LMS and an automatic import feature to a LOR: one for OLAT and one for Moodle. Both LMS are widely used in Switzerland.
5. Prototypes of Feasibility Study
The pricipal aim of the feasibility study was to test the mostly automatic publish that transfers a learning object from a LMS to a LOR. The prototypes should illustrate that is is possible to easily publish a course or another LO with just a few mouse clicks.
The main goals were:
- Prove technical feasibility: show that it is possible to extract courses of an LMS along with their metadata and transfer them to a repository – all that with minimal user interaction.
- Illustrate interface and workflow: it is the aim to explore, prove and illustrate what developments are possible. In particular, it should be illustrated how easy it can be to work with the system from the perspective of a course author.
It was not an aim to
- get a fully functional repository system
- implement all desirable features now
- program code that will be used in a production system; code re-usage is not required; if promising, it is desired to explore unorthodox approaches
It was decided to include in this study the LMS systems that are most popular at swiss higher education institutions. The following aspects and setups were tested:
- Export courses and learning objects from the LMS Olat, and transfer them to a rapidly prototyped repository Olat-LOR that is based on the technical Olat framework.
- Export courses and learning objects from the LMS Moodle, and transfer them to DOOR, a repository system developed at the ELab.
- Export courses and learning objects from the LMS WebCT Vista, and transfer them to either DOOR or Olat-LOR.
Note: Please understand that these are prototypes and not productive environments. Do not develop real content on these servers. Do not publish sensitive material on these servers. You are invited to test these prototypes if you are a member of a Swiss higher education institution.
To get author rights within these prototypes use the login information that was sent to you by e-mail, or contact rolf.brugger@unifr.ch.
5.1 OLAT / OLAT-LOR
For OLAT a publish feature was developed by frentix/goodsolutions. The LOR used in the tests is a quickly built repository system based on the OLAT framework.
Results
The publish feature allows to export an entire course or isolated learning resources like content packages or quizzes to the repository. Very little interaction is needed. The author just specifies the access rights of the exported LO (public, private, ...) and optionally modifies some metadata.
The exported LO can be retrieved in the LOR either by browsing in a hierarchical structure, or by full-text search. If the LO is an entire OLAT course, its metadata and the course sturcture are displayed. By navigating through the course structure, individual assets in a course can be examined. All course assets, HTML files, Web links, images, PDF files, IMS-CP/IMS-QTI packages can be directly previewed in the LOR, or downloaded for later reuse.
Animated Demos:
- Publish a OLAT course to the LOR: Flash-demo
- Browse the course list in the LOR and open a course: Flash-demo
Have a look at the prototypes yourself and perform your own tests:
- OLAT - the patched OLAT version that includes the publish link.
Use this to publish resources from the LMS to the LOR. - LOR - the LOR prototype that takes published resources via webservice.
Use this to browse the LOR resources etc.
5.2 Moodle / DOOR
For Moodle a publish feature was developed by the eLab of USI/SUPSI. The LOR used in the tests is an extended version of the DOOR repository system.
The publish feature allows to export an entire course or isolated learning resources like web pages, web links or documents to the repository. Very little interaction is needed. The author just specifies the target repository for the exported LO.
The exported LO can be retrieved in the LOR either by browsing in a hierarchical structure, or by full-text search. If the LO is an entire Moodle course, its metadata and the course sturcture are displayed. By navigating through the course structure, individual assets in a course can be examined. All course assets, HTML files, Web-Links, images, PDF files packages can be directly previewed in the LOR, or downloaded for later reuse. IMS-QTI import or export ist not supported.
The Moodle extension also allows to re-import assets directly into a Moodle course, without having to download them first to the local desktop.
Animated Demos:
- Publish a Moodle course to the LOR: Flash-demo
- Browse the course list in the LOR and open a course: Flash-demo
Have a look at the prototypes and perform your own tests:
- DOOR - the LOR prototype that takes published resources via an api.
Use this to browse the DOOR resources etc.
In the current setup you need a login/pwd on both servers. For simplicity, it is suggested that you choose the same login name on both servers. In a real environment authentication would be done using AAI/Shibboleth.
5.3 WebCT Vista / OLAT-LOR and DOOR
Due to the fact that WebCT Vista is not an open source product, the integration with a LOR is more difficult than with OLAT or Moodle. Although an entire course can be exported programmatically in an IMS-CP format, the exported package cannot be used because it is encrypted. Currently, it is only possible to automatically export all files and folders of a course, package them and publish them to any LOR with an appropriate API.
In addition, it is also possible to manually export learning modules and quizzes as IMS-CP and IMS-QTI (to be verified) packages, and upload them to a LOR. IMS-CP packages are not fully standard compliant and have to be post-processed by a filter program.
Finally, there is no straightforward way to add a publish button to the designer's interface. It is possible to add such a button to a course and make it visible only for the course designer. Hitting the button triggers a deployable component that has full access to the documented API functions of Vista.
5.4 Interoperability Tests
|
Moodle | OLAT | WebCT | DotLRN (generic IMS-CP editor) |
||||
| Moodle/DOOR | no | no | no | yes | ||||
| OLAT | yes | yes | no | yes | ||||
| WebCT | no | no | yes | yes |
|
OLAT | WebCT | Respondus (generic IMS editor) | ||||
| OLAT | yes | no | (yes) | ||||
| WebCT | no | yes | no |
Note: Although IMS standards are supposed to enable the exchange of contents between different systems, there are incompatibility issues in practice. The reasons are occasional ambiguities in the IMS specifications and the fact that LMS producers tend to extend IMS standards with proprietary extensions. In many cases it is possible to apply the minor adaptations to IMS packages that are necessary to make them interoperable. If the target system is known, there are good chances that these adaptations can be applied automatically with filtering scripts. Yet, for each combination of source-target system such a filter is required. Minor incompatibilities may still occur, even with filtered IMS packages.
6. Federated LOR System
In a federated system there is no centralized LOR. Instead, each institution may run its own installation of a LOR and customize its functionalities and look-and-feel. The local LOR systems are mutually connected, building a federation.
For a course designer it makes no difference if they publish learning objects to a local or to a national repository. Course contents are stored in the repository system that is attached to the LMS of an institution.
For a user it is not more difficult to search for learning objects in a federated system than it is in a monolythic repository. Either the search requests can be made fully transparent, giving the feeling to the user that only a single repository exists, or the federated structure can be revealed to the user with the option to search in all or selected repositories.
7. Existing Open Source Repository Systems
Information on available open-source repository systems was collected. A shortlist was established with the three systems that seemed the most suited to the requirements of the SWITCHelp LOR project: Fedora, DSpace and GNU EPrints, which are all well-established and widely used in similar contexts at other higher education institutions. These systems were then analyzed in more detail.
| Scope | General purpose digital repository software: |
General repository for digital assets: "The DSpace digital repository system captures, stores, indexes, preserves, and distributes digital research material." |
Archive for research papers (institutional repositories) "GNU EPrints is generic archive software. Its primary goal is to be set up as an open archive for research papers." |
| Developer | Cornell University, University of Virginia Library | MIT libraries, HP | University of Southampton UK |
| APIs | All functions also exposed as web services (SOAP, REST) | Java API available, but no remote access | EPrints provides access through objects and Perl Modules. EPrints 3.0 (not yet released) should have a web service API |
| Aggregation | Has-member/member-of relations, nested collections | Communities and nested sub-communities, flat collections for an entry | No sub-repositories (multiple independent archives can be implemented on a single server). |
| Architecture | Clean and flexible but complex |
Clean | Code, APIs and architecture look good |
| Technology | Java, Tomcat, optional relational database (Oracle 9i, MySQL) OAI-PMH harvesting | Java, Apache, Tomcat, Oracle/Postgres, OAI-PMH harvesting as provider | Linux operating system, Apache with mod_perl installed, Perl 5.6 and additional Perl modules, MySQL 3.x or higher |
| Customizable | Allows to design complex and good looking applications, see
e.g. Encyclopedia
of Chicago |
Most users moderately customize the interface | Interface well adaptable |
| Others | An integration with Moodle has already been done (OSLOR project in New Zealand) |
Summary of OS Repository Systems
Pros:
- Fedora, DSpace and EPrints are widely used and stable
- good acceptance and large communities
- user interface customizable
- technical documentation
- documented APIs
-
Federation of LORs
- federated search
- harvesting
Cons:
- no specific learning object repositories
- metadata model: Dublin Core
- implementing hierarchical organization at item level is difficult
- standard submission workflow (adding an object to repository) is too complex for "normal" users
- long-term funding not guaranteed