JISC

The main objective is to extend participation in higher education through partnership and sharing of good practice between all the FE Colleges and the University.

Executive Summary

Whilst it is clear from the work done that the IMS specifications offer the best road towards achieving interoperability, they only provide a framework for progression to interoperability. Their interpretation presents significant problems. IMS documentation, for example that relating to Enterprise, contains significant inconsistencies even though the specification in question may be fairly mature. Conformance remains a problem issue, and Specifications are organic in nature. In reality, rather than providing clear interoperability, any exchange between systems requires that exchange’s profile to be clearly negotiated on a system-by-system basis.

Interoperability between MIS and VLE systems must meet the business needs of a college. These needs transcend the construction of an ISR return, and vendor solutions need to be tailorable to accommodate this fact at a college level. 

There is a real problem within colleges over expectations of interoperability. “Seamless” interoperability of the “plug and play” variety is not yet even on the horizon. The FE (and indeed HE) sector is not yet experienced enough with the use of VLEs in its core business (learning and teaching) to be able to ascertain what information beyond basic administration (e.g. information relating to the management of learning, tracking etc) might be usefully supplied by a VLE. Most importantly the potential of a MLE to change existing processes or produce new ones is not yet understood – even by those experienced in the use of VLEs.  Data from a VLE may be useful in business / educational processes other than generating ISR returns. This view was a clear conclusion of the October Programme meeting at Chancellor’s and at SURF Pilot vendor meetings. Some vendors are using extension to aid such processes, and much more work is needed to understand the full range of processes to which VLEs can contribute.

The underlying implication of the Pilots studying how data might be collected by and maintained in a VLE and returned for the purpose of contributing to ISR returns is something of false premise. Data from an MIS system should not be needlessly replicated in a VLE.  The MIS is properly the “owner” of such data and data returned to it should be held in a DMZ / holding area. The range of activities contributing to the ISR go beyond the VLE and, when, for example, results are returned by the VLE, they need to be aggregated and authenticated / audited - processes which would be expected to occur outside of the VLE.  

The SURF Pilot does not claim more than proof of concept at this point, though exchanges achieved (including those made with JCIEL CO3 project partners) in MIS to VLE and VLE to VLE show that the use of IMS specifications do provide a solution to the danger of product lock-in.

The final, and significant, conclusion is that whilst interoperability is quite rightly an important consideration for colleges wishing to construct an MLE and (probably) purchase a VLE as part of it, this must NOT become the prime criterion. Colleges must be clear about their business processes and what they are hoping to achieve in terms of learning and teaching – their core activity - so that selection is driven by strategy and not technology.

Report available electronically only. Read the final report below.