Establishing Standards in E- Learning: the Role of Open Source Solutions Dr A.Capiluppi Dr A.Baravalle Dr N.Heap (OU) Dr A Capiluppi The Open University2/34 Outline Open Source Software (OSS) E-learning and Open Data Standards E-learning business and OSS The case of Moodle Qualitative study: Moodle and the OU Quantitative study: sustainability of OSS Dr A Capiluppi The Open University3/34 Open Source Software Is it just a matter of free software? Open access to source code Free redistribution Derived works Integrity of authors' work Distribution of license Dr A Capiluppi The Open University4/34 The many meanings of OSS ''Classic'' meaning: volunteer-based, personal efforts, non-monetary recognitions, communication and coordination issues ''Hybrid'' meaning: Commercial OSS, where (one or more) commercial company plays a major role (e.g. IBM with Eclipse) Community OSS, driven by the community, commercial stakeholders are also present Dr A Capiluppi The Open University5/34 E-learning and Open Standards Recent factors pushing the e-learning topic under the spotlight: 1. E-learning has become a recognized and sustainable industry 2. Open Data Standards (ODS) for e-learning content 1.IMS Global Learning Consortium 2.Aviation Industry CBT (Computer- Based Training) Committee (AICC) 3.Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) network 3. Movement advocating OSS and open data standards Dr A Capiluppi The Open University6/34 E-learning technologies Early adoption: e-delivery of teaching material More recently: packaging and distribution of e-learning resources complexity of e-learning software poor interoperability elevate cost of commercial e-learning solutions OSS and ODS can help to address both interoperability and price Dr A Capiluppi The Open University7/34 E-learning businesses Moodle Popular Open Source software for e-learning Development centred around various actors Moodle core developer Commercial stakeholders and Moodle developers Moodle partners Commercial exponents 'as developers' Commercial exponents 'as support' Moodle developers Moodle community Dr A Capiluppi The Open University8/34 Open University and Moodle: a Qualitative Study Dr A Capiluppi The Open University9/34 OU and Moodle Open University provision: blended and distance learning Generally no entry requirements, encouraging participation from a diverse student body Highest NSS rating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 11/2005, OU's LTO announced a 5 million programme to build a comprehensive online student learning environment for the 21st century, using Moodle First courses hosted in May 2006, claimed to be the largest use of Moodle in the world Dr A Capiluppi The Open University10/34 1 Initial selection and strategic decisions Dr A Capiluppi The Open University11/34 Initial selection: in-house and proprietary solutions Selection of core VLE platform started in 2003 for almost two years Complete review of all existing support and delivery systems In-house development quickly discounted as ''prohibitively expensive'' Range of proprietary solutions considered limited customization not scalable enough (some 150,000 students using its online systems) Dr A Capiluppi The Open University12/34 OSS and Blended Solutions ''Pure'' OSS solutions initially rejected high level of risk lack of viable partner Blended solution: combination of in-house development coupled with an OSS learning platform By 09/2005 business case completed Formal decision to adopt Moodle announced in 11/2005 Dr A Capiluppi The Open University13/34 2 OU requirements and negotiation Dr A Capiluppi The Open University14/34 OU initial requirements 23 areas found, with few 'show stoppers': 1.Existing user model: OU courses could have up to 30 user categories, Moodle supported just 3 2.Limited database support: no support for either Microsoft's or Oracle's RDBMS; no DB abstraction layer. 3.Grade-book feature: to review assignment grades 4.Data entry forms: inconsistency, poor accessibility, difficult maintenance. Dr A Capiluppi The Open University15/34 Negotiating requirements 2, 3 and 4 accepted by community OU agreed to fund the development costs by contracting out the work to Moodle Pty As a result, a new DB abstraction layer created (named XMLDB) and API improved The 'user model' regarded as unnecessary, or potentially impacting on performance As a result, effort undertaken by OU Dr A Capiluppi The Open University16/34 3 OU participation in a Community OSS project # Challenges # Mutual benefits Dr A Capiluppi The Open University17/34 Challenges in adopting Moodle Two ''significant challenges'' to becoming an active member of the Moodle community 1.Understand the philosophy of an OSS community 2.Coming to terms with the underlying technology of Moodle (PHP) Dr A Capiluppi The Open University18/34 OSS philosophy How does an OSS community operate? PHP coding standards Public reviews of code Support of the contribution How is consensus achieved? OU code was sometimes rejected At which pace does change occur? Typically 2-3 years for OU course development and production, when is the next Moodle due...? Dr A Capiluppi The Open University19/34 Underlying PHP technology OU had no specific PHP expertise OU had OO expertise but this was not transferable into the Moodle development OU ad-hoc solutions did not work properly OU solutions sometimes affected Moodle's performance Dr A Capiluppi The Open University20/34 Mutual advantages OU provided: Bug reports, code reviews, feed-back Funding for improvements Exclusive beta-testing: system with high availability, high load levels It proves that Moodle is a commercially viable product Improved image: the Moodle community can count- in a prestigious university. Dr A Capiluppi The Open University21/34 Mutual advantages OU gained: No license fees Code adopted for core is maintained by Moodle Pty (and will be retained in future releases) No vendor lock-in: thousands of modules running, OU already experienced this problem in the past Dr A Capiluppi The Open University22/34 Moodle A Quantitative Analysis Dr A Capiluppi The Open University23/34 Aims and Objectives Aim: observe the transition of an (average) OSS project to a large Community OSS Objectives: track the evolution of Effort provided (input) Modules and files produced (ouput) Involvement of commercial stakeholders Modularisation Dr A Capiluppi The Open University24/34 Metrics used Moodle has its own CMS server, highly parsable Input metrics: number of distinct, active developers in a month Output metrics: number of ''modifications to files or modules'' in a month PHP SLOCs: 99.98% Dr A Capiluppi The Open University25/34 Rationale for produced output ModuleFileDateDeveloper module1file1.php19/03/05dev_A module1file2.php19/03/05dev_B module2file3.php19/03/05dev_C module2file3.php19/03/05dev_C module2file3.php19/03/05dev_C Dr A Capiluppi The Open University26/34 Results CMS entries In CMS since Distinct developers KSLOCs (as of 09/09) Files (as of 09/09) moodle 77,10011/ ,587 contrib patches 10,02907/ ,330 plugins 31,76809/ ,330 tools 1,98102/ Dr A Capiluppi The Open University27/34 Evolution of active developers Dr A Capiluppi The Open University28/34 Evolution of output produced Dr A Capiluppi The Open University29/34 As a summary... The Moodle community has grown from a one- man band to a large OSS project Does the developer number grow? Is it sustainable? Produced output follows the same pattern More and more distributed participation Low barrier to entry What about the commercial stakeholders? Dr A Capiluppi The Open University30/34 Distributed participation Sporadic developers 60 developers active for just one month other 70 developers active between 2 and 6 (not necessarily consecutive) months. Seasonal developers: between X (e.g. 6, 12, 18) and Y (e.g. 24, 36) months of activity Stable developers: over 24 months of activity Dr A Capiluppi The Open University31/34 Low(er) barriers to entry Easier to write code for plugins than for core Sustained output on plugins Dr A Capiluppi The Open University32/34 Commercial stakeholders as seasonal developers Catalyst commercial partner Individual developers Dr A Capiluppi The Open University33/34 Interests of commercial partners early involvement on in development of SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model) collection of specifications. Dr A Capiluppi The Open University34/34 Conclusions OU invested effort and resources on a hybrid (tailored+OSS) VLS solution Benefits gained by OU outgrew costs involved Benefits gained by Moodle community Transition from a Plain OSS to a Community OSS project Reflected by the decision to remove Moodle from a generic OSS portal as SourceForge Dr A Capiluppi The Open University35/34 Thanks for inviting me!