Month: June 2014

learning management systems

A learning management system (LMS) is a software application for the administration, documentation, tracking, reporting and delivery of e-learning education courses or training programs.[1]

LMSs range from systems for managing training and educational records to software for distributing online or blended/hybrid college courses over the Internet with features for online collaboration. Colleges and universities use LMSs to deliver online courses and augment on-campus courses. Corporate training departments use LMSs to deliver online training, as well as automate record-keeping and employee registration.

The key to understanding the difference between LMS and other computer education terms is to understand the systemic nature of LMS. LMS is the framework that handles all aspects of the learning process. An LMS is the infrastructure that delivers and manages instructional content, identifies and assesses individual and organizational learning or training goals, tracks the progress towards meeting those goals, and collects and presents data for supervising the learning process of organization as a whole.[4] A Learning Management System delivers content but also handles registering for courses, course administration, skills gap analysis, tracking, and reporting.[5]

Most LMSs are web-based to facilitate access to learning content and administration. They are also used by educational institutions to enhance and support classroom teaching and offering courses to a larger population of learners. LMSs are used by regulated industries (e.g. financial services and biopharma) for compliance training. Student self-service (e.g., self-registration on instructor-led training), training workflow (e.g., user notification, manager approval, wait-list management), the provision of on-line learning (e.g.,computer-based training, read & understand), on-line assessment, management of continuous professional education (CPE), collaborative learning (e.g., application sharing, discussion threads), and training resource management (e.g., instructors, facilities, equipment), are all-important dimensions of learning management systems.

Some LMS providers include “performance management systems”, which encompass employee appraisals, competency management, skills-gap analysis, succession planning, and multi-rater assessments (i.e., 360 degree reviews). Modern techniques now employ competency-based learning to discover learning gaps and guide training material selection.

For the commercial market, some Learning and Performance Management Systems include recruitment and reward functionality.

The focus of an LMS is to deliver online courses or training to learners, while managing students and keeping track of their progress and performance across all types of training activities. An LMS is not used to create course content.

By contrast, a learning content management system (LCMS) is a related software technology that provides a multi-user environment where developers, authors, instructional designers, and subject matter experts may create, store, reuse, manage, and deliver digital e-learning content from a central object repository. LCMS focuses on the development, management and publishing of the content that will typically be delivered via an LMS. Users can both create and re-use e-learning content and reduce duplicated development efforts.

Rather than developing entire courses and adapting them to multiple audiences, an LCMS provides the ability for single course instances to be modified and republished for various audiences maintaining versions and history. The objects stored in the centralized repository can be made available to course developers and content experts throughout an organization for potential reuse and repurpose. This eliminates duplicate development efforts and allows for the rapid assembly of customized content. Some systems have tools to deliver and manage instructor-led synchronous and asynchronous online training based on learning object methodology.

LCMSs provide tools for authoring and reusing or re-purposing content (mutated learning objects, or MLOs) as well as virtual spaces for student interaction (such as discussion forums, live chat rooms and live web-conferences). LCMS technology can either be used in tandem with an LMS, or as a standalone application for learning initiatives that require rapid development and distribution of learning content.

While LMS and LCMS products have different strengths and weaknesses, they generally address the following areas of functionality:[6]

LMS Functionality

  • Course Content Delivery
  • Student Registration and Administration
  • Training Event Management (i.e., scheduling, tracking)
  • Curriculum and Certification Management
  • Skills and Competencies Management
  • Skill Gap Analysis
  • Individual Development Plan (IDP)
  • Reporting
  • Training Record Management
  • Courseware Authoring
  • Resource Management
  • Virtual Organizations

LCMS Functionality

  • Template-driven, Collaborative Content Development
  • Facilitated Content Management (i.e., indexing and reuse)
  • Publishing
  • Workflow Integration
  • Automated Interface with an LM

In the higher education market as of fall 2013, Blackboard is the leading provider with 41% market share, with Moodle (23%) and Desire2Learn (11%) being the next two largest providers.[7] In the corporate market, the six largest LMS providers constitute approximately 50% of the market, with SuccessFactors Learning, Saba Software and Sumtotal Systems being the three largest providers.

Most buyers of LMSs utilize an authoring tool to create their e-learning content, which is then hosted on an LMS. In many cases LMSs include a primitive authoring tool for basic content manipulation. For advanced content creation buyers must choose an authoring software that integrates with their LMS in order for their content to be hosted. There are authoring tools on the market, which meet AICC and SCORM standards and therefore content created in tools such as these can be hosted on an AICC or SCORM certified LMS. By May 2010, ADL had validated 301 SCORM-certified products[8] while 329 products were compliant.[9]

Because there is no licensing cost involved with open source solutions, its easy for organisations to just jump in and set up the first solution that comes along. There is however a cost to installation and support, either financial or time related. Anyone setting up an LMS has a responsibility to research and choose the solution that is right for the learners and the organisation.

As a starting point here are 10 open source alternatives to Moodle. These are deliberately brief descriptions, and I would encourage you to visit these sites and explore each solution in some detail.

Docebo In use in corporate and higher education settings. Offers support for a number of different learning models and is compatible with SCORM 1.2 and 2004. It offers interfaces to external systems such as video conferencing and HR systems.

eFront The base install is quite minimalist, but this is easily extended with modules available from the site. Commercial versions with additional features are also available.

Dokeos A very well featured LMS that also offers content authoring and video conferencing tools. Supports converting Office documents into Learning Paths. Offers user synchronisation with HR management systems such as Oracle and SAP.

Claroline Aimed more at the educational than corporate arena, this system is based around specific pedagogical principles (as is Moodle). Supports SCORM content as well as a built in Wiki and other online content tools.

ATutor Actually an LCMS, ATutor also offers tools for the management of learning. The “A” stands for Accessible and it has excellent support for key accessibility standards as well as support for SCORM, IMS etc.

ILIAS Provides testing and assessment tools as well as collaboration tools such as chat and forums, and distribution technologies like RSS and podcasts.

OLAT A well featured system in its tenth year of development. Recently the winner of the “IMS Learning Impact ‘Leadership Award’ 2009 for best open source learning platform”.

Sakai Aimed at Universities, this project has a clear roadmap and has seem considerable development in the last few years. Backed by the Sakai Foundation which manages relationships with educational and commercial supporters.

.LRN Originally developed at MIT, .LRN claims to be the most widely adopted enterprise class open source LMS solution.

openelms Marketed specifically as a business solution, and claims a diverse customer base that ranges from Merrill Lynch to Queens Park Rangers football club.

Ganesha This LMS developed by Anema, has been around since 2001 and is in use in several large organisations. The site, and the LMS itself, are in French but it can be translated.

The following is a list of learning management systems. See also Category:Learning management systems

Moodle (acronym for Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment) (stylised in lower-case as moodle) is a free softwaree-learning platform, also known as a Learning Management System, or Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). As of June 2013 it had a user base of 83,008 registered and verified sites, serving 70,696,570 users in 7.5+ million courses with 1.2+ million teachers.[3]

Moodle was originally developed by Martin Dougiamas to help educators create online courses with a focus on interaction and collaborative construction of content, and is in continual evolution. The first version of Moodle was released on 20 August 2002.

The Moodle project comprises several distinct but related elements, namely

  • the software.
  • Moodle Pty Ltd (also known as Moodle.com and Moodle Headquarters, based in Perth, Western Australia), an Australian company which performs the majority of the development of the core Moodle platform.
  • the Moodle Community, an open network of over one million registered users who interact through the Moodle community website to share ideas, code, information and free support. This community also includes a large number of non-core developers, with Moodle’s free source license and modular design allowing any developer to create additional modules and features that has allowed Moodle to become a truly global, collaborative project in scope.
  • the Moodle Partner network, which forms the commercial arm of the Moodle environment and provides the bulk of the funding to Moodle Pty Ltd through the payment of royalties.

ATutor is a FREE Open Source LMS, used to develop online courses and create eleaning content.

Synectics

Synectics is a problem solving methodology that stimulates thought processes of which the subject may be unaware. This method was developed by George M. Prince (April 5, 1918 – June 9, 2009)[1] and William J.J. Gordon, originating in the Arthur D. Little Invention Design Unit in the 1950s.

The process was derived from tape-recording (initially audio, later video) meetings, analysis of the results and experiments with alternative ways of dealing with the obstacles to success in the meeting. “Success” was defined as getting a creative solution that the group was committed to implement.

The name Synectics comes from the Greek and means “the joining together of different and apparently irrelevant elements.”[2]

Gordon and Prince named both their practice and their new company Synectics, which can cause confusion as people not part of the company are trained and use the practice. While the name was trademarked, it has become a standard word for describing creative problem solving in groups.[3]

Theory

Synectics is a way to approach creativity and problem-solving in a rational way. “Traditionally, the creative process has been considered after the fact… The Synectics study has attempted to research creative process in vivo, while it is going on.” [4]

According to Gordon, Synectics research has three main assumptions:

  • The creative process can be described and taught;
  • Invention processes in arts and sciences are analogous and are driven by the same “psychic” processes;
  • Individual and group creativity are analogous.[5]

With these assumptions in mind, Synectics believes that people can be better at being creative if they understand how creativity works.

One important element in creativity is embracing the seemingly irrelevant. Emotion is emphasized over intellect and the irrational over the rational. Through understanding the emotional and irrational elements of a problem or idea, a group can be more successful at solving a problem.[6]

Prince emphasized the importance of creative behaviour in reducing inhibitions and releasing the inherent creativity of everyone. He and his colleagues developed specific practices and meeting structures which help people to ensure that their constructive intentions are experienced positively by one another. The use of the creative behaviour tools extends the application of Synectics to many situations beyond invention sessions (particularly constructive resolution of conflict).

Gordon emphasized the importance of “‘metaphorical process’ to make the familiar strange and the strange familiar”. He expressed his central principle as: “Trust things that are alien, and alienate things that are trusted.” This encourages, on the one hand, fundamental problem-analysis and, on the other hand, the alienation of the original problem through the creation of analogies. It is thus possible for new and surprising solutions to emerge.

As an invention tool, Synectics invented a technique called “springboarding” for getting creative beginning ideas. For the development of beginning ideas, the method incorporates brainstorming and deepens and widens it with metaphor; it also adds an important evaluation process for Idea Development, which takes embryonic new ideas that are attractive but not yet feasible and builds them into new courses of action which have the commitment of the people who will implement them.

Synectics is more demanding of the subject than brainstorming, as the steps involved imply that the process is more complicated and requires more time and effort. The success of the Synectics methodology depends highly on the skill of a trained facilitator.[7]

The International Standard Book Number (ISBN)

The International Standard Book Number (ISBN) is a unique[1][2] numeric commercial book identifier based upon the 9-digitStandard Book Numbering (SBN) code created by Gordon Foster, Emeritus Professor of Statistics at Trinity College, Dublin,[3] for the booksellers and stationers WHSmith and others in 1965.[4]

The 10-digit ISBN format was developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and was published in 1970 as international standard ISO 2108.[4] However, the 9-digit SBN code was used in the United Kingdom until 1974. An SBN may be converted to an ISBN by prefixing the digit “0”. ISO has appointed the International ISBN Agency as the registration authority for ISBN worldwide and the ISBN Standard is developed under the control of ISO Technical Committee 46/Subcommittee 9 TC 46/SC 9. TheISO on-line facility only refers back to 1978.[5]

Since 1 January 2007, ISBNs have contained 13 digits, a format that is compatible with “Bookland” European Article Number EAN-13s.[6]

Occasionally, a book may appear without a printed ISBN if it is printed privately or the author does not follow the usual ISBN procedure; however, this can be rectified later.[7]

Another identifier, the International Standard Serial Number (ISSN), identifies periodical publications such as magazines.

Spiral and Agile

Agile is an implementation of Iterative Model. The spiral model is a software development process combining elements of both design and prototyping-in-stages, in an effort to combine advantages of top-down and bottom-up concepts.

Waterfall-Vs-Agile

The spiral model is a risk-driven process model generator for software projects. Based on the unique risk patterns of a given project, the spiral model guides a team to adopt elements of one or more process models, such as incremental, waterfall, orevolutionary prototyping.

This model was first described by Barry Boehm in his 1986 paper “A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement”.[1] In 1988 Boehm published a similar paper[2] to a wider audience. These papers introduce a diagram that has been reproduced in many subsequent publications discussing the spiral model.

Spiral model (Boehm, 1988). A number of misconceptions stem from oversimplifications in this widely circulated diagram.[3]

These early papers use the term “process model” to refer to the spiral model as well as to incremental, waterfall, prototyping, and other approaches. However, the spiral model’s characteristic risk-driven blending of other process models’ features is already present:

[R]isk-driven subsetting of the spiral model steps allows the model to accommodate any appropriate mixture of a specification-oriented, prototype-oriented, simulation-oriented, automatic transformation-oriented, or other approach to software development.[2]

In later publications,[3] Boehm describes the spiral model as a “process model generator”, where choices based on a project’s risks generate an appropriate process model for the project. Thus, the incremental, waterfall, prototyping, and other process models are special cases of the spiral model that fit the risk patterns of certain projects.

Boehm also identifies a number of misconceptions arising from oversimplifications in the original spiral model diagram. The most dangerous of these misconceptions are:

  • that the spiral is simply a sequence of waterfall increments;
  • that all project activities follow a single spiral sequence; and
  • that every activity in the diagram must be performed, and in the order shown.

While these misconceptions may fit the risk patterns of a few projects, they are not true for most projects.

To better distinguish them from “hazardous spiral look-alikes”, Boehm lists six characteristics common to all authentic applications of the spiral model.

The Six Invariants

Authentic applications of the spiral model are driven by cycles that always display six characteristics. Boehm illustrates each with an example of a “hazardous spiral look-alike” that violates the invariant.[3]

Define artifacts concurrently

Sequentially defining the key artifacts for a project often lowers the possibility of developing a system that meets stakeholder “win conditions” (objectives and constraints).

This invariant excludes “hazardous spiral look-alike” processes that use a sequence of incremental waterfall passes in settings where the underlying assumptions of the waterfall model do not apply. Boehm lists these assumptions as follows:

  1. The requirements are known in advance of implementation.
  2. The requirements have no unresolved, high-risk implications, such as risks due to cost, schedule, performance, safety, security, user interfaces, organizational impacts, etc.
  3. The nature of the requirements will not change very much during development or evolution.
  4. The requirements are compatible with all the key system stakeholders’ expectations, including users, customer, developers, maintainers, and investors.
  5. The right architecture for implementing the requirements is well understood.
  6. There is enough calendar time to proceed sequentially.

In situations where these assumptions do apply, it is a project risk not to specify the requirements and proceed sequentially. The waterfall model thus becomes a risk-driven special case of the spiral model.

Perform four basic activities in every cycle

This invariant identifies the four basic activities that must occur in each cycle of the spiral model:

  1. Consider the win conditions of all success-critical stakeholders.
  2. Identify and evaluate alternative approaches for satisfying the win conditions.
  3. Identify and resolve risks that stem from the selected approach(es).
  4. Obtain approval from all success-critical stakeholders, plus commitment to pursue the next cycle.

Project cycles that omit or shortchange any of these activities risk wasting effort by pursuing options that are unacceptable to key stakeholders, or are too risky.

Some “hazardous spiral look-alike” processes violate this invariant by excluding key stakeholders from certain sequential phases or cycles. For example, system maintainers and administrators might not be invited to participate in definition and development of the system. As a result, the system is at risk of failing to satisfy their win conditions.

Risk determines level of effort

For any project activity (e.g., requirements analysis, design, prototyping, testing), the project team must decide how much effort is enough. In authentic spiral process cycles, these decisions are made by minimizing overall risk.

For example, investing additional time testing a software product often reduces the risk due to the marketplace rejecting a shoddy product. However, additional testing time might increase the risk due to a competitor’s early market entry. From a spiral model perspective, testing should be performed until the total risk is minimized, and no further.

“Hazardous spiral look-alikes” that violate this invariant include evolutionary processes that ignore risk due to scalability issues, and incremental processes that invest heavily in a technical architecture that must be redesigned or replaced to accommodate future increments of the product.

Risk determines degree of detail

For any project artifact (e.g., requirements specification, design document, test plan), the project team must decide how much detail is enough. In authentic spiral process cycles, these decisions are made by minimizing overall risk.

Considering requirements specification as an example, the project should precisely specify those features where risk is reduced through precise specification (e.g., interfaces between hardware and software, interfaces between prime and sub contractors). Conversely, the project should not precisely specify those features where precise specification increases risk (e.g., graphical screen layouts, behavior of off-the-shelf components).

Use anchor point milestones

Boehm’s original description of the spiral model did not include any process milestones. In later refinements, he introduces three anchor point milestones that serve as progress indicators and points of commitment. These anchor point milestones can be characterized by key questions.

  1. Life Cycle Objectives. Is there a sufficient definition of a technical and management approach to satisfying everyone’s win conditions? If the stakeholders agree that the answer is “Yes”, then the project has cleared this LCO milestone. Otherwise, the project can be abandoned, or the stakeholders can commit to another cycle to try to get to “Yes.”
  2. Life Cycle Architecture. Is there a sufficient definition of the preferred approach to satisfying everyone’s win conditions, and are all significant risks eliminated or mitigated? If the stakeholders agree that the answer is “Yes”, then the project has cleared this LCA milestone. Otherwise, the project can be abandoned, or the stakeholders can commit to another cycle to try to get to “Yes.”
  3. Initial Operational Capability. Is there sufficient preparation of the software, site, users, operators, and maintainers to satisfy everyone’s win conditions by launching the system? If the stakeholders agree that the answer is “Yes”, then the project has cleared the IOC milestone and is launched. Otherwise, the project can be abandoned, or the stakeholders can commit to another cycle to try to get to “Yes.”

“Hazardous spiral look-alikes” that violate this invariant include evolutionary and incremental processes that commit significant resources to implementing a solution with a poorly defined architecture.

The three anchor point milestones fit easily into the Rational Unified Process (RUP), with LCO marking the boundary between RUP’s Inception and Elaboration phases, LCA marking the boundary between Elaboration and Construction phases, and IOC marking the boundary between Construction and Transition phases.

Focus on the system and its life cycle

This invariant highlights the importance of the overall system and the long-term concerns spanning its entire life cycle. It excludes “hazardous spiral look-alikes” that focus too much on initial development of software code. These processes can result from following published approaches to object-oriented or structured software analysis and design, while neglecting other aspects of the project’s process needs.

 

Agile and Spiral techniques; Differences/similarities.

The Spiral Model is  iterative development. A typical iteration will be somewhere between 6 months and 2 years and will include all aspects of the lifecycle – requirements analysis, risk analysis, planning, design and architecture, and then a release of either a prototype (which is either evolved or thrown away, depending on the specific methods chosen by the project team) or working software. These steps are repeated until the project is either ended or finished.

Agile development, on the other hand, includes a number of different methodologies with specific guidance as to the steps to take to produce a software project, such as Extreme Programming, Scrum, and Crystal Clear. The commonality between all of the agile methods is that they are iterative and incremental. The iterations in the agile methods are typically shorter – 2 to 4 weeks in most cases, and each iteration ends with a working software product. However, unlike the spiral model, the software produced isn’t a prototype – it is always high quality code that is expanded into the final product.

Agile has more restrictions on it than spiral does. It’s a square/rectangle relationship – yes, agile is a spiral, but spiral isn’t agile and it’s separated by more than just “incremental execution in order of risk”. Agile accounts for shorter schedules and more frequent releases. Spiral tends to imply “big design up front” — where you plan out many spirals, each in order of risk. Spiral, however, isn’t Agile — it’s just incremental execution in order of risk.

Agile is spiral, but you create detailed plans for just one increment at a time. Agile adds a lot of other things, also. Spiral is a very technical approach. Agile, however, recognizes that technology is built by people. The Agile Manifesto has four principles that are above and beyond the Boehm’s simple risk management approach.

Agile is type of Iterative SDLC while spiral is type of Incremental SDLC. Scrum is one the type of Agile other are DSDM/FDD/XP etc. All SDLC after waterfall followed same set of acts(Requirement Analysis, Design, Coding and Testing) in some different combinations. So basic set of action in sequential OR Iterative OR Incremental are same.

  1. As far as Agile and Spiral are concern both have common advantage Changing Requirement handling.
  2. Short term releases.
  3. Risk management is easy due to shorter duration of SDLC.
  4. Cross team helps product and project going smooth.

 

android vpn

Published on Sep 15, 2012

Aplicaciones usadas en este tuto
OpenVPN Installer
OpenVPN Settings
Android Terminal Emulator
(estas 3 son gratuitas en la playstore)

EN EL TERMINAL EMULATOR PONDREMOS
“su” (sin comillas) y presionamos enter
despues ponemos “insmod sdcard/tun.ko” y presionamos enter

“SI NO LES RECONOCE EL GENERADOR DE TUN.KO.. DESCARGUEN LA APLICACION TUN.KO INSTALLER Y DSD AHI BAJAN EL MODULO”

Link dl Kebrum + tun.ko
4shared: www.4shared.com/zip/egh8cmxK/Internet_gr­atis.html?
mediafire: www.mediafire.com/?8i3gsc6rd5wky33

Hotspot Shield VPN for Android