1
Introduction to the IMS-LD specification
From an Instructional Engineering Perspective1
AUTHOR :
GILBERT PAQUETTE, CICE, LICEF RESEARCH CENTER, TÉLÉ-UNIVERSITÉ,
This document is a simple introduction to IMS-LD. It describes the role of this specification in
the general process of building on-line learning system. The accelerating evolution of learning
technologies has multiplied the number of decisions one must take to create on-line learning
system (DLS). While it is true that a majority of the first Web-based applications have been
mostly ways to distribute information, more and more educators have become aware of the need
to go beyond these simple uses of information and communication technologies. This context has
created a much-needed interest in pedagogical methods and, more generally, the field of
instructional design (ID). We will show here some of the relations between the IMS-LD
specification and instructional design methodology.
1. From Instructional Design to Educational Modeling
In American literature, this discipline is known as "instructional design (ID)", "Instructional
System Design (ISD)" or "Instructional Science" (Reigeluth, 1983; Merrill, 1994). In Europe, one
of the pioneers in the field used the term "Scientific Pedagogy" [Montessori, 1958]. The origin of
ID goes back to John Dewey, who, a century ago, claimed the development of an "interlinked
science" between learning theories and educational practices (Dewey 1900). His demand was
heard at the beginning of the 1960s, when we can speak of the beginning of a new discipline. In
the 1970s and the 1980s, instructional theories have blossomed, but today, it seems necessary to
renew the ID methodology to support the creation of distributed learning systems in order to
operationalize the theoretical foundation.
Previously, our group has proposed a new approach to ID (Paquette, 2001). This approach,
instructional engineering (IE), is defined as a method that supports the planning, analysis, design
and the delivery of a learning system, integrating the concepts, the processes and the principles of
ID, software engineering, and cognitive engineering.
Software engineering, brings some interesting solutions to this goal. From a technical point of
view, an online learning environment is an information system, a complex array of software tools,
digitized documents and communication services. By adapting software engineering principles to
ID, IE proposes well-defined processes and principles that help produce "deliveries", precisely
describing the products of these processes. Multi-agent systems offer a good way to represent a
learning environment at delivery time as a set of agents, persons and computerized objects,
interacting together to facilitate learning.
Knowledge engineering is a methodology, developed in the field of expert systems and artificial
intelligence over the last thirty years. It helps identify and structure knowledge, to explain it, to
represent it in a symbolic or graphic language, facilitating its subsequent use by persons and
computer systems. Knowledge engineering has been applied in education to build intelligent
1
This text reuse large part of a chapter by the author from R. McGreal, editor, Online education using learning objects,
Routledge-Falmer, London an New York, 2003, pp.331-346
2
tutoring systems (Wenger, 1987) and also support systems for designers (Merrill, 1994; Spector
et al., 1993). In an IE method, the knowledge engineering processes can help designers define
content and objectives, instructional scenarios, instructional materials, as well as the delivery
processes of a learning system by means of knowledge models
Targeting the reuse of knowledge resources and the interoperability of e-learning systems a vast
movement towards international standards for learning objects (LOs) has been initiated. (Duval &
Robson 2001). The work on Educational Modeling Languages (Koper 2002), and the subsequent
integration of a subset in the IMS Learning Design Specification (IMS 2003), is the most
important initiative to date to integrate ID into the standards movement. In particular, it describes
a formal way to represent the structure of a Unit of Learning and the concept of a pedagogical
method, specifying roles and activities that learners and support persons can play using LOs.
Instructional Engineering, as defined above, provides a methodology to build learning designs in
a standard way so it can be delivered on many delivery systems.
2. EML and the IMS Learning Design Specification
The approach in IMS-LD has been to define a complete core that is as simple as possible, with
some extensions. The Level A specification contains all the core vocabulary needed to support
diversified pedagogical models2. Level B adds properties and conditions enabling personalization.
And Level C adds notification between actors involved in the learning unit to support
collaboration and tutoring. Figure 1 (IMS – LD, 2003, p.10) presents a conceptual model of these
three levels.
B
C
Figure 1 – The IMS Learning Design Conceptual Model
This static model of a learning design centers on three entities, roles, activities and environments.
Basically:

2
Roles, such a learner of staff (facilitator, professor, tutor) are played by persons described
by their properties;
See the appendix 6 – French/English translation of the IMSLD terms of level A
3

Activities, performed by roles are organizes in a tree structure called a method,
decomposed into alternative plays, themselves decomposed into a sequence of acts; each
act is further decomposed into activity structures, which contain other activity structures
down to terminal learning or support activities;

Environments group all kinds of learning objects (or resources) or services used by roles
in activities, and also outcomes produced by roles in activities.
When activating a unit of learning, the method element is central. This unique element and its
sub-elements describe the learning process and control the behavior of the unit of learning as a
whole, coordinating the activities of the players in their various roles and their use of resources.
The Method, Plays, Acts and Role-parts (role-activity couples) are all nested within each other, as
displayed in Figure 2 (IMS – LD 2003, p.73).
There are three levels in a Method. At the first level, we find two elements, a list of plays and a
complete-method object. The latter holds both the condition for completion of the unit-oflearning and optional actions to be taken when it is. The plays represent logically independent
parts of the learning design as they are always run concurrently. They can be used to provide
alternative scenarios for the same unit of study for different target populations or for different
delivery models (e. g. classroom-based vs distance learning).
Role parts
Figure 2. Structured Method in a Learning Design
An act brings together one or more role-parts to allow more than one role to perform at the same
time or asynchronously in a certain time period. Therefore, role-parts within an act always run in
parallel. Each role-part associates exactly one role with exactly one activity or environment. The
same role can be associated with different activities in different role-parts and conversely.
However the same role may only be referenced once in the same act.
3- IMS-LD, as a bridge between Design and Delivery
Figure 3 shows the relationship between instructional engineering methods and tools, the
EML/IMS-LD specification and delivery systems. An IMS learning design is produced using an
instructional method and delivered through a delivery system (a platform, an LCMS or an LMS)
4
Figure 3. IMS-LD bridging design and delivery of learning environment
The learning design is an abstract model of a unit-of-learning that can be instantiated before a
delivery session or during delivery. Instantiation means that a concrete person, learning object or
service is put at the place of a role or an environment in the LD model. For example, the
participants in a forum are variables in the model. They can be specified by concrete persons
(giving their email) when a delivery starts or at runtime (during delivery). In the same way, a
concrete document can be embedded in the design or kept open as a variable in the LD model. In
this case its address then can be specified later at instantiation time or during the delivery.
Concretely, a unit of learning is described as an XML file
called a content package. Figure 4 shows its structure, the
central part of which is the manifest.

The manifest contains the metadata of the UoL, in
particular a fixed, pre-defined name to help find it,
and possibly other properties.

The organization part is the learning design
structure described above, with role-part associated
to environments grouping the resources.

The resources part list all the resources (roles,
activities, learning objects, services, prerequisite
and learning objectives) included in the design with
their addresses if they are specified at design time.
It can also contain sub-manifests if other UoL are
embedded in the design
Figure 4 – Structure of an IMS-LD
XML package
The physical files corresponding to the resources can be
included or not in the content package.
These content packages contain all the necessary information on a unit of learning, in an XML
format that can be read by any compliant delivery system or platform. In principle, a learning
design built in the IMS-LD format can be reused on any machine properly equipped. This is the
goal of the specification, to bridge the gap between the process of designing a course and that of
delivering it.
5
4- Instructional Engineering of a Learning Design
Work on EML and instructional engineering
has started at the LICEF research center in
1992 with the design of an instructional
design system called AGD. From it, graphic
modeling tools have evolved, recently to the
MOT+LD specialized graphic language.
In parallel, an instructional design
methodology was developed and embedded
in new Web-based tools such as ADISA.
The method is now being adapted to a new
version called MISA-LD. During the last
year, we have started to build the IDLD
resource center that you are using now.
AGD
MOT 2.0
1992-1995
MISA 2.0
1995-1997
1995-1997
1997-1998
MOT plus
MISA Templates
1998-1999
MISA 3.0
1999-2002
ADISA
MISA 4.0
MOT+LD
2005-2006
2003-2004
IDLD Portal
MISA LD
Figure 5 – EML work at LICEF
The IMS-LD specification leaves open the choice of instructional methods and modeling tools
that can support designers in the process of building learning designs, especially for collaborative
scenarios. Extensive research and development in the last thirty years have has led host of ID
methods.
The quality of a course depends for the most part on the quality of the learning scenarios
produced by the design process. Basically, instructional engineering methods like MISA, and
tools like MOT+LD guide and support course designer(s) through the process of designing high
quality learning systems and scenarios, in particular, by ensuring coherence through systematic
documentation of all aspects of the design process and products, automatic propagation of many
pieces of information as well as a systemic view of the process.
Figure 6 – Basic IMS-LD graphic symbols
Using a graphical representation technique that was developed in MISA and a modeling tool like
MOT+LD, concepts, procedures and principles are used to describe all IMS-LD level-A
components (figure 6) as well as their relationships.
6
We have experimented such a graphical language and found it closer to instructional designers,
than software engineering graphical languages like UML or text-based editors like RELOAD,
while still enabling an automatic translation from graphical designs into machine-readable IMSLD XML files.
5- The IDLD Resource Center
The IDLD Resource Center where you are now offers a repository of learning designs, a suite of
tools to support the implementation of IMS-LD, methodological aids to help in its deployment to
institutions and organisations, and a number of background documents and related sites.
It has been built by the CICE team at Télé-université in Montreal. Other researchers at Concordia
University in Montreal, Simon Fraser University in Vancouver and the University of Waterloo in
Ontario have provided inputs for the repository, as well as using and validating the tools. All the
resources included are in the public domain using Creative Commons licenses and can be freely
reused. Télé-université is committed to sustaining the portal, hoping that new partners will make
contributions or link with it, at the same conditions as the initial partners.
The central resource of the portal is the LD repository. It contains actually a limited number of
entries, but it gives access to different kinds of products of the learning design implementation
process: initial narratives of learning scenarios, complete course plans, hierarchical trees or
graphic models of learning designs, IMS-LD compliant XML manifests, and finally learning
designs embedded in complete on-line courses. The graphical models and their corresponding
XML manifests are either LD examples, where the content resources are specified, or LD patterns
that are design flows without specific content.
Presently, the IDLD portal offers four open source tools:
 the MOT+LD graphic editor (Paquette, Léonard et al, 2006) that supports an interactive
design process more friendly to designers than text-based editors, but limited to level A of the
IMS-LD specification;
 the RELOAD editor (RELOAD 2006) supporting all levels, but in a hierarchical form-based
format;
 the RELOAD player, embedding the COPPERCORE (Martens & Vogten 2005) engine, that
reads IMS-LD manifests and offers a Web based interface to deliver and execute a LD run;
 PALOMA3, a learning object repository management system that supports the LOM and the
IMS-DRI standard for federated search.
These tools are sufficient to support a complete implementation process presented above. We aim
to extend this tool set with other open source tools that are being developed by other groups
(Griffith et al 2005) or by partners of the LORNET research network hosted at LICEF-CIRTA.
Besides basic IMS-LD documentation, the IDLD portal offers a set of new methodological aids to
instructional designers and educators involved in the implementation and deployment of IMS-LD
 A methodological guide to support IMS-LD authoring, validation and execution using the
above tools or other alternative tools (it includes some of the operation of the MISA
instructional engineering method);
 A graphic modeling technique to help build IMS-LD graphic models using MOT+LD editor;
 A PALOM@ guide to help reference, find and reuse learning designs in the IDLD repository
3
PALOMA has been extracted and rebuilt from the Explor@ LO manager (Paquette, Miara et al. 2005)
7


A definition of the terms in the classifications used to provide metadata descriptors for
learning designs; these classifications are embedded in the PALOMA tool.
A set of best practices experienced by users in implementing the IMS LD specification and
the use of the learning design repository.
6- Metadata for Learning Designs
Figure 7 shows one classification embedded in the PALOMA learning object repositories
manager. The left part presents a list of available repositories, including the IDLD repository; the
center part shows a list of designs grouped in the selected folder of that repository and the right
part is the metatagging tool that enables creating and editing a standard LOM record for the
selected object, here a learning design for a collaborative activity pattern entitled “FORUM
SYNTHÈSE”.
For this LD, the user has selected metadata from the learning design classification: the delivery
model is “A140-Asynchronous Online Training”, the pedagogical strategy is “A293Debate/Discussion”, and the evaluation model is summative (A315), based on learner productions
(A332) that are mostly individual (A342). These three top level categories of the learning design
classification are derived directly from the MISA method (De la Teja, Lundgren-Cayrol et al
2006; Paquette, De la Teja et al. 2005; Paquette, G. 2003)
Figure 7 – Learning design classification and metadata association to learning designs
Category A400 on the level of reusability of learning designs extends previous work supported by
JISC (Currier & Campbell, 2002). Since the selected LD on the figure is a pattern, it is
technology independent, content generic, context of use independent and adaptable to certain
disabilities. Finally, category A500 describes the type of LD product, in this case a standard IMSLD Graphical Model.
8
In the list of classification descriptors in Figure 7, we see that the last entry shows metadata from
another classification scheme on Skills and cognitive strategies (Paquette, Léonard et al, 2006;
Paquette 1999). This indicates that the LD proposes to have learners build a synthesis. Using
various types of metadata enables many diverse ways to search for LD patterns and examples.
Other LOM entries are useful to provide some semantic structure (an ontology) to the set of LD
products in the IDLD repository. The 1.8 section of the LOM defines four aggregation levels: 1raw media data or fragments; 2- lesson (collection of level 1 objects); 3- course (collection of
level 2 objects); and 4– program (collection of level 3 objects).
Section 7 of the LOM provides a limited set of choice for relations between objects and their
LOM entry. We used them as follows:

“is based on/is basis for” indicates the relationship between a narrative or a textual
course outline and a graphical model;

“has format/is format of” indicates the relationship between a graphic model, an IMSLD manifest or an executable Web version of the same UoL;

“has part/is part of” will indicate the relationship between a LD product and its
components, for example, between a level 3 (course) and a level 2 (lesson) object;

“has version” is re-interpreted as the relationship between a pattern and its examples
obtained by associating precise items to the abstract objects (environment, activity,…) in
a LD pattern.
To our knowledge, this IDLD resource center is the first one to embed a LD repository where
learning designs are referenced using the LOM in this way. We do not pretend the process to be
completely user-friendly. There are still researches and development issues to solve but we feel
that if the user is patient enough, he will gain new knowledge and competencies.
We are interested in having your comments, by using the address on the Web site. We will also
welcome knowledgeable individuals or teams that would like to extend or improve this IDLD
resource center.
References
(Currier S., & Campbell, L. (2002 ) Evaluating Learning Resources for Reusability: The “Dner &
Learning Objects” Study. Last retrieved February 6, 2006, from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/059.pdf
(De la Teja, Lundgren-Cayrol et al 2006) De la Teja, I., Lundgren-Cayrol, K. & Paquette, G. (2005).
Transposing MISA Learning Scenarios into IMS Units of Learning. In Colin Tattersall and Rob
Koper (2005). Advances in Learning Design (Special Issue). Journal of Educational Technology
and Society (in press)
(Dewey 1900) Dewey J. Psychology and social practice. The psychological Review. 1900, 7, pp 105-124
(Duval and Robson 2001) Duval, E. and Robson. R. Guest Editorial on Metadata. Interactive Learning
Environments, Special issue: Metadata, Volume 9-3, December 2001, pp. 201-206
(Griffiths et al. 2005) Griffiths, D., Blat, J., Garcia, R., Votgen, H., & Kwong, KL. (2005). Learning Design
Tools, in R. Koper & C. Tattersall (Eds.). Learning Design - A Handbook on Modelling and
Delivering Networked Education and Training, Springer Verlag, pp. 109-136
(IMS-LD 2006) IMS Learning Design. Information Model, Best Practice and Implementation Guide,
Binding document, Schemas. Retrieved February 4, 2006, from
http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/index.html
(Koper 2002) Koper R. Modeling units of study from a pedagogical perspective – The pedagogical
metamodel behind EML http://www.eml.ou.nl/introduction/articles.htm Last consulted, March
2002.
(Merrill 1994) Merrill M.D. Principles of ID. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs,
9
New Jersey, 465 pages, 1994
(OWL 2003) W3C – Ontology Web Language Overview. Retreived February 4, 2006 form
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
(Montessori 1964) Montessori, M. Pédagogie scientifique (5ème edition). Desclee De Brouwer, 1958 et
The Montessori Method, New Yors : Schocken Books, 1964.
(Paquette 1999) Paquette, G. Meta-knowledge Representation for Learning Scenarios Engineering, in S.
Lajoie et M. Vivet (Eds), Proceedings of AI-Ed’99 in AI and Education - Open learning
environments, IOS Press, 1999.
(Paquette 2001) Paquette G. TeleLearning Systems Engineering – Towards a new ISD model, Journal of
Structural Learning 14, pp. 1-35, 2001
(Paquette 2002) Paquette, G. L’ingénierie pédagogique, pour construire l’apprentissage en réseau. Presses
de l’Université du Québec, 2002, 457 pages
(Paquette 2003) G. Paquette Instructional Engineering for Network-Based Learning. Pfeiffer/Wiley
Publishing Co, 262 pages.
(Paquette et al 2001) Paquette,G., Rosca, I. , De la Teja, I., Léonard, M., and Lundgren-Cayrol, K. Webbased Support for the IE of E-learning Systems, WebNet’01 Conference, Orlando 2001.
(Paquette, De la Teja et al. 2005) Paquette, G., I. De la Teja, M., Lundgren-Cayrol, K., & Marino, O. An
Instructional Engineering Method and Tool for the Design of Units of learning, chap 6, in Learning
Design: A Handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training, eds. Kopper
R., Tattersall C., Springer-Verlag. 2005.p.161-184
(Paquette, Léonard et al, 2006) G. Paquette, M.Léonard, K. Lundgren-Cayrol, S. Mihaila and D. Gareau.
(2006) Learning Design based on Graphical Knowledge-Modeling , Journal of Educational
technology and Society ET&S , Special issue on Learning Design.
(Paquette, Marino et al 2005a) Paquette G., O. Marino, I. De la Teja, K. Lundgren-Cayrol, M. Léonard, and
J. Contamines (2005) Implementation and Deployment of the IMS Learning Design Specification,
Canadian Journal of Learning Technologies (CJLT), http://www.cjlt.ca/
(Paquette, Marino et al 2005b) Paquette, G., O. Marino, De la Teja, I., Lundgren-Cayrol, K., Léonard, M.
& Julien Contamines (2005). "Implementation and Deployment of the IMS Learning Design
Specification." Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. Vol 31, No 2, p: 85-104
(Paquette, Miara et al. 2005) Paquette G, Miara A, Lundgren-Cayrol K, Guérette L (2004) The Explor@2
Learning Object Manager, in R. McGreal (ed), Online education using learning objects, pp 254-268.
London: Routledge/Falmer.
(Reigeluth 1983) Reigeluth C. (Ed) Instructional Theories in Action: Lessons Illustrating Selected
Theories and Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum, 487pp. 1983
(RELOAD 2006) RELOAD Project. Retrieved February 4, 2006 from http://www.reload.ac.uk
(Spector et al 1993) Spector J.M., Polson M.C., Muraida D.J. (Eds) Automating ID, Concepts and Issues,
Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 364 pages, 1993
(Wenger 1987) Wenger, E. Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems- Computational and Cognitive
Approaches to the Communication of Knowledge. Morgan-Kaufmann Pub. Co, 1987, 486 pages
10
Appendix 6 – Translation of the IMSLD terms of level A
Terme français
English term
Manifeste
Manifest
Unité d’apprentissage
Unit of Learning
Devis pédagogique
Learning Design (LD)
Méthode
Method
Cheminement
Play
Acte
Act
Préalable
Prerequisites
Objectifs d’apprentissage
Learning objectives
Rôle
Role
Apprenant
Learner
Facilitateur
Staff
Partition
Role-parts
Activité
Activity
Structure d’activités
Activity Structures
Activité d’apprentissage
Learning Activity
Activité de support
Support Activity
Unité d’apprentissage externe
External Unit of Learning
Séquence
Sequence
Sélection
Selection
Nombre d’options
Number to Select
Durée
Time Limit
Environnement
Environment
Objet d’apprentissage
Learning Object
Produit
Outcome
Service
Service
Conférence
Conference
Type de droits dans la conférence
Gestionnaire
Conference rights
Observateur
Observer
Participant
Participant
Modérateur
Moderator
Type de conférence
Conference Type
Synchrone
Synchronous
Manager
11
Asynchrone
Asynchronous
Avis
Announcement
Courriel
Send-Mail
Recherche indexée
Index-Search
Classe de l’index
Index class
Type d’index de l’élément
Index type of element
Recherche texte libre
free text search
Index avec référence
index with reference
Index sans référence
index without reference
Item
Item
Description de l’activité
Activity description
Visible
Isvisible true (visible)
Invisible
Isvisible false (hidden)
Toute personne jouant le rôle
All persons in a role
Personne prenant le rôle
Person in a role
Énoncés de complétion
Complete statements
Si terminé
On completion