 DITA Learning Content SC Meeting (Conference Call) |
|
| Name | DITA Learning Content SC Meeting (Conference Call) |
| Time | Thursday, 28 September 2006, 11:00am to 12:00pm EDT
(Thursday, 28 September 2006, 03:00pm to 04:00pm UTC) |
| Description | USA Toll Free Number: 866-880-0098 USA Toll Number: +1-210-795-1100 PASSCODE: 6396088 Go to http://www.mymeetings.com/audioconferencing/globalAccessFAQ.php for information on specific country access dialing. |
| Minutes | DITA Learning Content SC Meeting Minutes, 28 Sep 2006 1) Roll-call, welcome, and introduction of new members and observers JoAnn Hackos Comtech Services, Inc.* Group Member Jennifer Linton Comtech Services, Inc.* Group Member Tyde Richards EduWorks Guest Scott Hudson Flatirons Solutions Corporation* Group Member Paul Barley IBM* Group Member John Hunt IBM* Group Member Chris Kravogel* Individual Group Member Bruce Esrig Lucent Technologies* Group Member Amber Swope XMetaL* Group Member France Baril* IXIASOFT* Group Member 2) Review and approval of the minutes. Approved. 3) Welcome guest expert Tyde Richards Tyde Richards of EduWorks joins us today. Tyde has a long history and perspective on e-learning, ADL, and the SCORM e-learning standard. He's worked at Apple, Macromedia, and IBM on training and learning standards activities. Tyde is currently employed at EduWorks, a learning consulting firm with ties to the ADL, IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee, and SCORM. Tyde: As we get into SCORM, metadata is also going to be important. There may be a DITA taxonomy specialization that could be applied to this area as well. Learning technology interoperability first arose back in the '80s in the aviation industry (AICC). Originally called Computer Managed Instruction (CMI). Part of the regulatory requirements, mandated that student performance on courses be reported. SCORM originated in 1992, to support delivery of content over the network (not the web at the time). There was a spike in interest/support for this standard in 1996/1997. SCORM is being submitted in China now, as a technical report and will be made a standard there as well. It is already an ISO standard (through the efforts of ADL and IEEE). SCORM addresses technology that pre-dates the web, but is for a networked environment. It's like a LEGO model, where the instructions/paper is the Content Aggregation Model, and the lego bricks are SCO (Shareable content objects). SCORM doesn't mandate what goes on inside that content, but describes the metadata for those objects and how they can interoperate (according to the IEEE LMS standard). The CAM also specifies the sequencing of the blocks, as well as sequencing based on student performance. The metadata originated about the same time as Dublin Core. IEEE defined the LOM standard (Learning Object Metadata) comprised of about 80 fields that are associated with learning. The Dept. of Defense did not want to recreate ADA, but in 1997 wanted to invest in a standard that met the needs of the military, but also could be used by a broader audience. This effort established the ADSL group to work on the standard. SCORM has been working with limited resources for quite a while. The intersect between DITA and SCORM is important, because the standard can be extended to accommodate learning/SCORM requirements. All new content in the military moving forward must be SCORM compliant. Much of their existing content is not SCORM compliant, so they are very involved/interested in content conversion. What's missing in SCORM is that there isn't really a pedagogical model. It is an infrastructure layer. DITA is well suited to meet this need. DITA would only map to certain areas: inside the Shareable Content Object. That's not where sequencing exists. That's in CAM. It may be possible to map some of the CAM requirements into DITA Maps. In the past, the standards folks have been very resistant to allow any other kind of packaging of content outside of what they've already spec'd. It may be difficult to get adoption of Maps for use as the CAM instruction sheets, but it may be a battle worth trying to fight. Clearly, the best fit is for using DITA as the standard content inside the SCO. Cisco typologies that are most easily adopted include: Concept, Fact, Principle, Process, Procedure. Also see benefit for Intro and Conclusion types. It may be difficult to determine a most common denominator of types that the broadest audience would be willing to adopt. The simplest SCORM case for sequencing, include 2 communications to a Learning Management System: one that you are starting, and one that you have completed an activity. Use of Assessments and QTI: is a much more complicated proposition. SCORM is a behaviorist model, and specifies option information for several assessment types (for reporting how a student did), but doesn't specify the questions themselves. IMS QTI addresses those structures, but is really outside of the SCORM standard. This has been done for about a half dozen information types at ODF, but it is difficult when you are trying to design something that fits multiple standards. QTI was really designed for test banks and assessment systems. JoAnn: SCORM seems like a very loose grouping of content, as it only describes metadata on objects. Are there alternative systems that are being explored? The Ruth Clark/Cisco model is one model that has been described, but are there others that should be considered? Tyde: Not just metadata, but also the runtime behavior of content. SCORM assumes content is under control of an LMS. It provides a way for the content to convey information to the LMS. It also provides a way to communicate scoring information back to the LMS. SCORM is silent about what goes on inside the actual content. It's somewhat up for grabs, mostly as a research topic right now. JoAnn: The Cisco model has the 5 content types, but there is nothing specifically defined in those types the way DITA provides structures. Bruce: We need to discuss more about what should go into content. We should discuss the interactivity aspect of the content. What do we need to specify that DITA topics need to have in metadata that map to elements in the SCORM model. Tyde: SCORM is silent on that too. There are SCOs and metadata that is associated with that. SCORM does recognize a smaller form of content called an Asset (usually an image or video, etc.) there is metadata on that as well. John: what parts of the LOM model should we account for? Bruce: at what level should that metadata occur? Tyde: DITA is introducing a new level of structure inside the SCO. It's a great opportunity! John: Is a SCO a collection of topics or a single topic? Tyde: you could do either, but my preference would be to use it as a collection of topics. If you do it individual (1-1 mapping between SCO and topic), it means the flow between topics is controlled by the LMS, and not defined in DITA. There was a collaborative effort (CLEO - Customized Learning Experience Online) between Microsoft, Thompson, and others to try to extend LOM to help with the interactivity. Tyde to send document describing this effort. Paul: Sounds like a lot of this is more processing level and resulting files once you transform your material. We need to make sure we have the metadata on maps and topics that can provide the appropriate transforms to output SCORM compliant structures. It's a processing level effort, not writing directly in SCORM... We do need to get a better handle on what to do for assessments. Tyde: ODF effort involved creating an interchange format, and then transforming to a delivery format. Assume DITA would need to do something similar. SCOs would be an output of the process. Maps could define boundaries for SCOs and help create the CAM information. JoAnn: Cisco originally looked to associate assessments with each topic type, but then ended up just at the lesson level. Tyde: types could be defined separately for assessments, and from the topic types. Bruce: going back to interactivity, what do we need to control dynamics? Going from one page to another? Tyde: There is the IMS Simple Sequencing Specification which defines interactivity between SCOs. SCORM originally opted for linear flow. If you need to focus on interactivity between flows, you may want to look at adapting the IMS SSS to the map structure in DITA, however, it may not be very intuitive. If you want something useful for Instructional Designers, you should probably look at a higher level. JoAnn: You mean design patterns. Tyde: right! JoAnn: Possible patterns in maps that define the sequencing at a high level. 4) Meeting planning status. Suggested item for next week: Bruce and John on making sense of SCORM. John, JoAnn at a conference next week. Scott also sends regrets. If anyone would like to chair next week that's great, otherwise plan to meet in two weeks. Please suggest other agenda items and potential guests. 5) Adjourn.  learningSCmeeting060928.txt (8K) |
| Agenda | 1) Roll-call, welcome, and introduction of new members and observers 2) Review and approval of the minutes. 3) Welcome guest expert Tyde Richards Tyde Richards of EduWorks joins us today. Tyde has a long history and perspective on e-learning, ADL, and the SCORM e-learning standard. He's worked at Apple, Macromedia, and IBM on training and learning standards activities. Tyde is currently employed at EduWorks, a learning consulting firm with ties to the ADL, IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee, and SCORM. Tyde offers to help us make some sense of the SCORM standard for e-learning and the potential role DITA might play. He can also help us understand the role of sequencing and navigation in SCORM, the role of other content standards such as ODF and S1000D, and some of the potential pitfalls in attempting to describe a single top-level content model for learning. In advance of the meeting, you might want to read the excellent 19-page SCORM overview available with the SCORM 2004 documentation download. See - http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-learningspec/200609/msg00017.html. 4) Meeting planning status. Suggested item for next week: Bruce and John on making sense of SCORM. Please suggest other agenda items and potential guests. 5) Adjourn |
| Submitter | John Hunt |
| Group | DITA Learning and Training Content Specialization SC |
| Access | This event is visible to DITA Learning and Training Content Specialization SC and shared with
|