Course Management
Systems: Past, Present
and Future
Scott Leslie
May 11, 2005
Goals for the Presentation

Discuss the state of CMS from the
perspective of
maximizing flexibility
while
preserving/increasing quality and services
(and at least maintaining costs)
Outline

History/Context

Enterprise and ‘Standalone’ CMS

Service Oriented Architectures & the ELearning Framework

Sakai, Open Source

Other Alternatives
BUT FIRST…
What do I mean when I
use the term “Enterprise”
Enterprise Systems….
 too
often has meant “large monolithic systems”
 should mean “systems that are core to your
business”
 in CMS world, is under pressure to transform
Enterprise Services….
 system
level services which provide a coherent
level of functionality across all applications and tie
in with core administrative systems
Enterprise Service….
Pre- & Early CMS Phase
ToolBook
IU’s
OnCourse
early explosion of the WWW
1993
1994
1995
1st Wiki
developed
1996
(Common Object
Request Broker
Arch.) 2.0
‘Standalone’ CMS Mature
BB 3
Released
WebCT 3
released
Rapid growth of interest and
adoption of initial CMS
1997
1998
XML W3C
Recommendation
“Landonline”
1st Implementation
of XML-RPC
1999
2000
WSDL 1.0
Published
IMS Enterprise 1.0
‘Enterprise’ CMS Phase
1.0
2001
2002
2003
1st OKI
OSIDS
Wikipaedia
launched
Carnegie Mellon
‘elearning services
stack’ diagram
‘Blogs’
explode as a
phenomenon
2004
2.0
2005
The ‘E-Learning
Framework’
released
Pre-CMS Model
Instructor 1
Course 1
Discussion
Software
Instructor2
Course 2
File Exchange
Quiz Software
Course 3
Announcements
Email/Messaging
-Creates new instance
each time
Tech Admin
-- People and Software
don’t scale
-- No control by
instructor
Early Generation CMS
Instructor 1
Instructor2
Interact with set of tools on
course by course instance
CMS ‘Wrapper’
Discussion
Software
File Exchange
Quiz Software
Announcements
Email/Messaging
- Scales better
- Promotes silo’d model
- Restricts tool choices
Tech Admin
‘Enterprise’ CMS
Dept 1
Dept 2
Instructor 1
Instructor 1
Instructor2
Instructor2
Provides:
-portal level
services
Discussion
Software
File Exchange
Quiz Software
Announcements
Email/Messaging
-content reuse
across courses,
depts,
institution
-multi-unit
branding, logic
Distributed Unit
Administration
Tech Admin
Enterprise-wide
Administration
Tech Admin
Current Adoption Rates
roughly 90% overall
from Hawkins, Rudy and Madsen, “2003 Educause Core Data Survey,”
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub8001e.pdf
Current Situation in B.C.

19 of 27 institutions currently using
WebCT

5 homegrown systems

6-8 smaller institutions experimenting with
Moodle

SFU signed up as ‘partner’ on Sakai
How are Enterprise CMS different?
Typically re-developed, re-designed and
re-architected
 Database-driven (and databasedependant)
 Improved ‘out of the box’ integration with
other major enterprise systems (SIS,
Library)
 ‘Portal’ Functionality; extending into new
parts of organization; prospect of
increased vertical integration
 Multi-unit role, authorization and
administration capabilities
 Content sharing and reuse across course,

BUT…
Choices and Cost
CMS, even ‘enterprise CMS,’ are often
criticized for lacking flexibility, requiring a
‘one-sized fits all’ approach
 Even though they have APIs, these have
not spawned an explosion of 3rd party or
discipline-specific tools

 Whose API
do you build to?
 APIs only allow so much integration

and oh yeah…they’ve gotten pretty
expensive
Service-oriented architecture
(SOA) definition
“A service-oriented architecture is essentially a collection of
services. These services communicate with each other.
The communication can involve either simple data
passing or it could involve two or more services
coordinating some activity. Some means of connecting
services to each other is needed.
“Service-oriented architectures are not a new thing. The first
service-oriented architecture for many people in the past
was with the use DCOM or Object Request Brokers
(ORBs) based on the CORBA [Common Object Request
Broker: Architecture] specification.”
from “Web Services and Service-Oriented Architectures,” http://www.servicearchitecture.com/web-services/articles/serviceoriented_architecture_soa_definition.html
E-learning frameworks

Emerging high level frameworks that
outline ‘services’ needed to provide
comprehensive e-learning architecture
(larger than just CMS)
Early instances found in Carnegie Mellon’s
‘E-learning Stack”
 Evolved into

 IMS Abstract
Framework which inspired
 JISC/Industry Canada E-learning Framework
(ELF)
Carnegie
Mellon’s
Original
Elearning
Services
Stack
Diagram
IMS “Abstract Framework”
JISC’s “ELearning
Framework”
(cf. www.
elframework
.org/)
OKI Open Service Interface
Definitions (OSIDs)
“The OSIDs are an abstraction layer between the
programmer and the enterprise infrastructure systems of
his or her campus.
“This approach offers a number of important benefits to
applications designed to the OSIDs:
 Simple integration with existing infrastructure
 Local innovations can be shared across
campuses or universities
 Adaptation to new technology without
destabilizing the overall environment”
from “OKI: About Specifications,” http://www.okiproject.org/specs/index.html
OKI OSID diagram
So what are the typical “Common
Services?”
Common Services across Frameworks and Systems
JISC Common
Services
OKI Common
Services
CHEF (Sakai 1.0)
Services
Authentication
Authentication
Authentication
Authorization
Authorization
Authorization
Logging
Logging
Logging
Messaging
Messaging
Messaging
Filing
Filing
Filing and Resources
Scheduling
Scheduling and
Calendar
Workflow
Workflow
Search
Search
Types
Identifier
Identifier
Roles
Put another way…
When I access any e-learning tool,
I
should be automatically logged in with the
appropriate permissions
 If the tool is a part of a larger ‘workflow’ it
should be able to contact me in my desired
locations
 I should be able to schedule activities with the
tool and by the tool
 If it’s searchable I should be able to search it
from wherever I want
 it should report my usage back to a useful
Sakai

Sakai 2.0 release upcoming (June 2005)
Promise of Sakai: To deliver both an “application
framework and associated CMS tools”

Current ‘Reality’




Starting with a number of homegrown products (Coursework,
OnCourse, Stellar …) and are trying to bring these into a new
framework
Early releases (1 & 1.5) look mostly like just another CMS
Upcoming 2.0 release, along with proof-of-concept demos with
Navigo assessment tool, Sakai and Vista, will be a major
milestone
Tool Portability Profile

“The ultimate goals of the Sakai Tool Portability Profile
and the Sakai Java Framework is to provide an
environment where tools and the services to support
those tools can be dropped in as "units of expansion" or
"building blocks" as to allow an organization to assemble
the componentized units of functionality together to solve
their particular application problem.”

In theory, a profile of the OKI OSIDS would an OPEN
standard for tool integration, not just with Sakai, but with
other OSID implementers

In practice, early releases have relied on internal Sakai
API for much of the integration
Comparing Vista and Sakai
extensibility/integration
?
Other Open Source

http://www.edtechpost.ca/pmwiki/pmwiki.p
hp/EdTechPost/OpenSourceCourseManag
ementSystems currently lists at least 46
known OS options

ATutor
 developed out of U of T
 over 2000 registered installations
 SCORM and IMS CP support; integration
with
TILE repository
 PHP-based
 currently “watching” OKI but hesitant about
adopting before benefits are clear
Other Open Source II

Moodle






originated as PhD project by Australian aimed at a CMS to
support more constructivist style education
currently “many thousands” of adoptions
SCORM and IMS CP support; repository in development;
supports Shibboleth and CAS authentication
PHP-based
currently “watching” OKI but hesitant about adopting before
benefits are clear
.LRN




developed at MIT on top of existing OpenACS Portal technology
recently acknowledged by ADL as SCORM capable
supports Unix PAM and LDAP authentication
written in TCL
loosely coupled or alternative
approaches
IMS Abstract
Framework
JISC ELearning
Framework
OKI OSIDs
WebCT
PowerLinks
BlackBoard
BuildingBlocks
Important Recent Announcements

WebCT chairing IMS Tools Interop group
(http://www.webct.com/service/viewcontentframe?conten
tID=25561480)

IMS to partner with OKI on next OSIDS
(http://www.imsglobal.org/pressreleases/pr050413.cfm)

IBM partners on Sakai project
(http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2005/Apr05/r042
605a)

WebCT Campus Edition 6 Public Beta Commences
(http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.js
p?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050425005245&n
ewsLang=en)
Important Upcoming Milestones

Sakai 2.0 release
 Mid-June

Alt-i Lab 2005 Tools Interop Demo
between WebCt and Sakai
 June

2005
20-22 in Sheffield, UK
Sakai 3.0 release
 end
of 2005
Recent ‘Relevant Read’
Rebecca Sausner, “Course Management:
Ready for Prime Time,” in University
Buisness, May, 2005.
http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cf
m?p=791
Compares 4 large institutions with 4 different
CMS implementations
 Marshall U. – WebCT Vista
 U of Cincinnati – Blackboard
 U Michigan – Sakai
 Berry College - Jenzabar
Enterprise
Food for Thought

Is it possible to achieve “enterprise quality service” without
imposing or assuming a well-defined, hierarchical structure?

What are the other pieces of the envisioned learning
environment, in addition to a CMS, and how should these
interact with the CMS?

What level is the appropriate level to standardize at?
 Course?
 Instructor?
 Program?
 Department or Faculty?
 Institution?
And WHAT, specifically, is it important to standardize on?
