In a product evaluation, “it integrates with your LMS” is one of the more consequential claims made and one of the least examined, because it sounds like a yes-or-no answer when it is really a “how.” The good version means the product connects through published standards your LMS already speaks. The version that causes trouble later means a custom connection that someone now has to build, and then maintain, indefinitely.
Here is what the standards are, and how to tell which kind you are being offered.
The standards that matter
LTI, Learning Tools Interoperability, is the standard for launching an external tool from inside the LMS. When a tool supports LTI 1.3, a student clicks a link in the course and lands in the tool already signed in, with the LMS having passed along who they are and which course they are in. Grades the tool produces can pass right back to the LMS gradebook. This is what lets a publisher’s homework platform, a video tool, or a simulation live inside a course without a separate login screen.
OneRoster is the standard for moving roster and enrollment data, who is in which section, in which role, between the student information system, the LMS, and other tools. When a tool supports OneRoster, its class lists stay current automatically as students add and drop, rather than depending on someone exporting a file every week.
Caliper Analytics is a standard for learning-activity data, letting engagement and usage signals from different tools be read in a consistent format. It is less universal than LTI and OneRoster, but relevant if analytics is part of what you are buying.
All three come from 1EdTech, formerly IMS Global, the membership consortium that maintains them, and products can be certified against them directly.
Why the “how” matters
A tool connected through LTI and OneRoster can usually be added, moved, or replaced as a configuration change. A tool connected through a custom integration, a bespoke API script, a nightly file transfer, a manual export, is a small standing commitment somebody now owns. It breaks whenever either system updates. Swapping the tool later means rebuilding the whole connection from scratch.
Across a stack of a dozen or more tools, that difference compounds fast. It is a big part of why keeping a stack coherent is so much easier when interoperability is a stated expectation rather than a hope.
Questions worth asking in the evaluation
Which version of LTI do you support? LTI 1.3, with LTI Advantage, is current and adds named-role provisioning, deep linking, and assignment-and-grade services. LTI 1.1 is older and considerably more limited. “We support LTI” without a version attached is worth following up on directly.
Do you support OneRoster for roster sync, and from which source. The SIS or the LMS? This tells you whether class lists stay current on their own.
Are you certified by 1EdTech, and for which standards specifically? Certification is public and checkable directly on the 1EdTech website.
If a capability we need is not covered by a standard, how does it connect instead? There is usually something. The answer tells you exactly what custom work you are taking on, and who is going to maintain it.
When our LMS releases a major version, what is your process for confirming the integration still works? A supplier that actively tracks LMS releases and tests against them is describing a maintained integration, not a one-time build.
What to write into the requirements
A short, clear expectation does most of the work. New tools that touch the LMS are expected to support current LTI and, where they consume roster data, OneRoster. Or to arrive with a funded, owned plan for how they will connect instead. “It integrates” then becomes a claim the committee can check, rather than a reassurance it just has to trust.
Shuji Toyama is a learning management system administration specialist at Wrightmann Education Technologists. Part of the Technology Procurement series.
References
- 1EdTech Consortium. Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI), OneRoster, and Caliper Analytics. https://www.1edtech.org/standards
- Brown, M., Dehoney, J., & Millichap, N. (2015). The Next Generation Digital Learning Environment: A Report on Research. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2015/4/the-next-generation-digital-learning-environment-a-report-on-research