Wilbert Kraan

IMS Content

Packaging, QTI,

LTI and EDUPUB

Introduction

This presentation aims to outline the history, design and use of IMS

Content Packaging, Learning Tools Interoperability and IMS

Question and Test Interoperability.

Overview

• About CETIS and myself

• IMS Content Packaging

• IMS Question and Test Interoperability assessment

• IMS Learning Tools Interoperability

• EDUPUB and IMS specifications

About CETIS and myself

• About CETIS:

– Started in 1999 as the “UK IMS centre” funded

by JISC (compare: AXIES?)

– Became the “Centre for Educational Technology

and Interoperability Standards” at the University

of Wales, Bangor

– 2006: JISC – CETIS innovation support centre

– Now: CETIS at the University of Bolton

• About me:

– Co-chaired IMS Content Packaging 1.1.4 and

1.2

– Co-chaired IMS QTI 2.1

About IMS Content Packaging

• The original aims and basic design

• History

• An example

• Difference with EPUB

• Variants and profiles:

– SCORM 1.2

– SCORM 2004

– IMS Common Cartridge

• Convergence with other specs: RAMLET

IMS CP: aims and basic design

• Aim: interoperability

between systems that

import, export, aggregate,

and disaggregate

packages of content

• Typical systems:

Learning Management

Systems (LMSs),

repositories and

authoring tools

IMS Content Packaging: history

1999: IMS CP 1.0 base document

2001: IMS CP 1.1.2 final released; widely adopted

2004: IMS CP 1.1.4 final released; used in SCORM

2007: IMS CP 1.2 public draft 2 released

2009: ISO 12785 international standard released: same as IMS CP 1.2 pd 2

IMS CP: Demonstration

• Reload packaging tool: http://www.reload.ac.uk/

• Moodle LMS: https://moodle.org/

IMS CP: difference with EPUB

• Supports more than one table of contents/organization

• Allows any type of content to be aggregated

– e.g. Flash, Word docs, PDF, IMS QTI, etc.

• Widely implemented in Learning Management Systems (often

as SCORM or Common Cartridge)

• Has been integrated with many learning technologies:

– Learner activity tracking (CMI)

– Eportfolios

– Learning Design

– QTI

• No current plans for further development

IMS CP: variants and profiles

• SCORM 1.2 (2001)

– Adds an IEEE Learning Object Metadata profile

– Adds IEEE Computer Mediated Instruction

(CMI) javascript LMS to content communication

API

– Adds Sharable Content Object (SCO) concept

– Removes a lot of optionality

• SCORM 2004

– Adds adaptation of content to learner via IMS

Simple Sequencing

IMS CP: variants and profiles

• IMS Common Cartridge (1.0 2009 – 1.3 2013)

– Adds Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI)

descriptors

– Adds forum discussions

– Adds web links

– Adds a QTI 1.2 profile

– Adds content types for Interoperable

WhiteBoard (IWB), EPUB, APIP/QTI

– Defines package structure

– Removes optionality

IMS CP: convergence with other

specifications- IEEE RAMLET

• Resource Aggregation Model for Learning, Education

and Training

• Abstracts over several formats:

– METS

– IETF Atom

– MPEG 21 DID

– IMS CP

– OAI ORE

• Maybe EPUB?

ResourceAggregationFormat 1

ResourceAggregationFormat 2

ResourceAggregationFormat 3

RAMLET

Conceptual

Model

About IMS Question and Test

Interoperability

• History and purpose

• QTI 2.1 parts and their functions

• Tools demonstration

• Accessible Portable Item Protocol

• Current implementations

• Future developments

• A possible future for QTI

• Integrating QTI 2.1 into HTML5

QTI's purpose

• Make assessment items, tests and results interoperate

between all relevant systems

QTI history and characteristics

• Developed since 2001

• QTI 1.x

– No relation to HTML at all

– Typically implemented in Flash, Java or HTML

• QTI 2.x

– Uses a modular W3C profile of XHTML in its own XML item document format

QTI 2.1: parts

• Items

– XML format for question semantics and

response processing- independent of styling

• Tests

– XML format for test definition, results processing

and test navigation

• Packaging and metadata

– Binding of QTI items and tests to IMS CP and

metadata

• Results

– XML format for assessment results, usage

statistics and psychometrics

QTI 2.1: Tools demonstration

• A Jisc sponsored editor: Uniqurate

– http://uniqurate.kingston.ac.uk/Uniqurate/menua

ction

– Open source

• The QTI 2.1 reference implementation: QTIWorks

– https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/qtiworks/

– Open source; the JQTI engine is used in many

other QTI implementations

QTI 2.1: Accessible Portable Item

Protocol

• IMS Accessible Portable Item Protocol (APIP) adds

optional accessibility content to QTI items that are

triggered by learner profiles

QTI 2.1: current implementations

• Netherlands:

– Whole school system moves to QTI for assessment

• Germany:

– Several university consortia use Onyx QTI system

• France:

– MOCAH QTI system used in schools

• South Korea

– Large scale school experiments with QTI tools,

including integration in EPUB schoolbooks

• USA

– $300 million Race To The Top initiative to overhaul

online assessment infrastructure around APIP/QTI

QTI 2.1: development plans

• Portable Custom Interaction

– Javascript API to integrate any interaction into a

QTI item

– Agreed

• QTI 2.2

– Adds more HTML5 features, including BIDI and

Ruby

– Agreed

• aQTI

– Integrates W3C specs: WCAG, ARIA and

HTML5

– Takes QTI to the presentation phase

– A proposal, many details to be determined

A possible future for QTI?

Integrating QTI 2.1 into HTML5

• Mike Aumock's proposal

• Steve Laye's proposal

About IMS Learning Tools

Interoperability (LTI)

• Basic function

• Access control and anonymity

• Security

• Current developments

– LTI 1.3

– LTI 2.0

– Content Item Message service

IMS LTI: basic function

• Hands over user session from a Tool Consumer (TP,

typically an LMS) to a Tool Provider (TC, typically a

specialised web tool or premium content from a

publisher)

IMS LTI: access control and

anonymity

• Required attributes in a

Basic LTI launch POST

from tool consumer to

provider:

– Message type

– LTI version

– Unique resource

link

• Recommended but optional

attributes:

– Link title

– Link description

– User image

– User role

– User name/email

– Context ID

– Context type

– Target (iFrame)

– Launch styling

– Return URL

– Tool consumer info

– Institutional info

IMS LTI: security

IMS LTI: current developments

• LTI 1.2

– Adds tool profile: lists services supported

– Optional outcomes service: send marks back

from tool provider to consumer

• Content Item message service

– Allows user to pick content from a publisher's

tool provider and integrate it into the tool

consumer

• LTI 2.0

– Allows deeper integration

– Allows services to be defined and advertised by

users

EDUPUB and IMS Specifications

• Two ways of integrating IMS specifications in EDUPUB:

– My 2013 EPUB experiment

– Works in standard e-readers

– Adapts to e-reader: “progressive enhancement”

– Uses QTI HTML for internal rendering

– No IMS Caliper capability

– IMS' official 2014 EDUPUB implementation

– Works in a special version of Readium only

– Uses QTI JSON & Angular.js for internal

rendering

– Includes IMS Caliper Sensors

My experiment: Balancing

effectiveness with robustness

Most interactive Most devices

Static QTI HTML inside

EPUB3

• OK experience

• Long lived

• Works anywhere

But:

• No feedback

• No analytics

• No results

(unless the user clicks a

link)

QTI HTML + javascript

inside EPUB3

• Good experience

• Reasonably long lived

• No server infrastructure

But:

• No results or analytics

• May need some work

with e-reader vendors

EPUB3 to online quiz

tool via IMS LTI

• Best experience

• Secure

• Quiz results return to

college, analytics

possible

But:

• Potential longevity

issues

• May need work with e-

reader vendors

• Needs an analytics ID

transfer solution

My experiment

• Demonstration

• Code available at:

https://github.com/wilmTap/qtiEpub

IMS EDUPUB: LTI enabled QTI

approach

© 2014 IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. All Rights Reserved

IMS EDUPUB: EPUB3-Embedded

QTI Approach

© 2014 IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Conclusions

• IMS Content Packaging

– Legacy format, but widely used

• IMS Question and Test Interoperability

– Interoperability format now, may have/become a

HTML5 presentation format later

– Only open standard for assessment material

• IMS Learning Tool Interoperability

– Probably the most widely used learning

technology interoperability specification

• EDUPUB with IMS specifications

– Lots of potential, some work to be done

Questions?

Licence

This presentation “IMS Content Packaging, QTI, LTI and EDUPUB”

by Wilbert Kraan, w.g.kraan@ovod.net

of Cetis http://www.cetis.ac.uk is licensed under the

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/