dita-learningspec message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita-learningspec] SCORM templates and DITA learning objects
- From: john_hunt@us.ibm.com
- To: allynr@learnilities.com.au
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:54:07 -0500
Hi Allyn,
Thanks for the good comments, and good
to hear from you.
I have some comments on the metadata
issues you raise.
When you say that "all DITA metadata
is embedded in the content," I'm not sure that's accurate.
DITA metadata can actually be specified
at three levels.
a) in the topic itself, using metadata
attributes on the topic element or the metadata elements in the topic prolog
b) in a DITA map, as attributes on the
topicref or metadata elements of the topicref
c) in a DITA map, on container elements
of a topicref, in which case, the metadata applies to the topics referenced
by each child topicref in the map.
And there's actually a fourth metadata
level available, and that is specifying metadata using the DITA taxonomy
specialization, which again uses maps as the mechanism to associate taxonomy
subjects with DITA topic references.
So, I would agree that when you specify
metadata in the topic itself that it indeed is embedded metadata.
However, when you specify metadata in
the map, or use the taxonomy specialization, then a) you have the ability
to keep the topics and the metadata separate, and b) you have the ability
to use different maps to assign different metadata to the same set of topics.
I would argue that DITA already provides
the basic mechanism for separated metadata that is embedded in a topic
from metadata that is associated with a topic externally.
And the DITA learning specialization
makes both of these mechanisms available for specifying the learning metadata.
lcLom is available in the topic prologs, and lcMapLom makes the same set
of LOM metadata elements available in a map.
In conclusion, I would suggest that
the basic mechanisms for specifying metadata are in place for keeping topic-embedded
metadata separate from "associated" metadata in a map.
What specific mechanisms do we need
to support with respect to learning metadata that we cannot support with
these DITA approaches?
John
___________________________________
John Hunt
DITA Architect / Lotus Information Development Center
Chair, OASIS DITA learning and training content sub-committee
IBM Software Group/Lotus Software
phone: 617.245.8053
john_hunt@us.ibm.com
From:
| Allyn Radford <allynr@learnilities.com.au>
|
To:
| john_hunt@us.ibm.com
|
Cc:
| Wayne Gafford <gaffordw@adlnet.org>,
dita-learningspec@lists.oasis-open.org, Bill Blackmon <bill.blackmon@adlnet.gov>
|
Date:
| 01/10/2008 01:06 AM
|
Subject:
| [dita-learningspec] Re: [SPAM] RE: [dita-learningspec]
SCORM templates and DITA learning objects |
Hi all
I would like to suggest that the learningPlan is not included as part of
the learningObject map as currently described. I this will have an
impact on reuse. A learning object may be created originally for
a
particular purpose but may later be consumed for a different purpose.
Maybe even modified prior to use at which time a new lesson plan may be
more relevant and there may also be issues relating to the metadata.
(more on the adaptation and metadata piece in a moment...) I recall
when we were talking about the structure of the lesson plan and at that
time I suggested that the content of the lesson plan will actually
become the metadata of the learning object. It is a matter of how
that
would be included as the development of the content moves through the
workflow. It may be particularly useful to store and manage lesson
plans separate to the content to which they relate.
As for the metadata issue, I tried, probably not very well, to raise an
issue with metadata and DITA in general when we started discussing
metadata. Because it was an issue that applied to DITA more generally
I
raised it with the DITA TC, but perhaps we need it to bubble up from the
TC along with some scenarios and use cases.
When you consider content being reused and the possibility of content
being adapted and the potential of derivative works it opens a can of
worms. This gets even more complex if it involves content being
developed in one DITA specialization being used in a different
specialization. Currently all the metadata for DITA content is embedded
within the content. I believe there is sufficient evidence that there
are many instances where there will be constraints or even prohibitions
to changing content. This often occurs in commercial domains where
the
IP is protected. If the metadata is embedded, this would also mean
that
it could not be changed in any way. This may be less problematic
if the
metadata is descriptive only and the content can't be modified, but it
might have more severe implications if the metadata has rendering or
functionality implications. I believe that at some point the approach
to metadata in DITA content will need to be revised and a
differentiation between metadata that should be embedded vs that which
should be associated will begin to emerge. The more specializations
that arise and the more content may need to be used across
specializations the more likely this outcome. Already there are
metadata elements included in the core set of DITA metadata that are not
relevant to educational requirements and this just creates noise. I
would be interested to know if others also think this may be true or if
there are issues I don't understand that would mean my concerns are
ill-founded.
In line with previous messages I would also like to strongly support the
notion that topics should be kept granular in their relationship to
SCOs. This may become an issue for discussion when the issue of
multi-page SCOs arises - which is almost inevitable - and we should
resist the notion of correlating these to multi-topic 'blobs' of
content. IMS CP 1.2 is relevant to that discussion and any move to
a
possible alternative for CP in SCORM must be able to accommodate levels
of aggregation with granular elements rather than the complexity of
multi-page SCOs.
Thanks
Allyn
Wayne Gafford wrote:
> hey there
>
> the learning/lesson plan, or some refer to it as an instructional
> plan, can be inserted in the content package and not referenced in
the
> sco itself. if there is a standard learning plan file in the cp, an
> instructor can review and learn about the content without having to
go
> through every page of every sco in the cp. this would be a timesaver
> when searching and reviewing lessons. the instructor would still
need
> to review the content if the lp suggested a good fit for the
> objectives at hand.
>
> other thoughts:
>
>
> *
> undergrad and graduate work in education/teaching
certification
> will always emphasize the lesson plan process.
the lesson plan
> justifies the material and sets timetables for
course progress.
> as an example, sunday nights could be the most
important
> planning night of the week for a teacher. it
is important to
> know exactly where you need to be on friday when
stepping into
> class monday morning. therefore,
> *
> its a rule of thumb and standard practice to
develop
> instructional plans. dod programs require instructional
plans as
> part of a delivered instructional media package.
> *
> the learning plan will help plan for reuse and
repurpose of
> content across scos and other curriculum.
> *
> the learning plan will help plan for relationships
in the
> scos. one could identify unique ids in learning
plan objects and
> then assign it to the learning objective inside
the content
> using the cmi.interactions for an assessment
item. one would
> know that (for example) assessmnet item 17 assesses
learners'
> knowledge of learning objectve 03.
> *
> the actual learning content does not indicate
who the target
> audience is, what they know, etc. instructors
need to know
> those things to effectively repurpose content
for another
> audience. the lp could be the first document
to review when
> searching for content in the adl registry (or
any other
> registration and discovery application).
> *
> finally, the learning content models are not
a guarantee that
> the curriculum will be any better or any worse
than if the
> models are not used. we should be up front with
that. xml does
> not guarantee quality. the only guarantee of
quality
> instructional content is good planning analysis,
good
> instructional design, and good assessment techniques,
all of
> which is established in the learning plan.
>
> wayne
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* john_hunt@us.ibm.com [mailto:john_hunt@us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Tue 1/8/2008 1:25 PM
> *To:* Wayne Gafford
> *Subject:* RE: [dita-learningspec] SCORM templates and DITA learning
> objects
>
>
> Hi wayne,
>
> good point. The problem i have here, though, is that the learningPlan
> content itself doesn't get delivered in the SCORM, since it's not
> content that is intended for the learner.
>
> can you identify the specific links between content in the
> learningPlan and specific items in these SCORM templates? perhaps
> there's a best practices guide for how to use a learningPlan topic
to
> plan a learning object. However, keep in mind, nothing requires anyone
> to create a learningPlan topic for every learning object or for
> anything at all, for that matter.
>
> feel free to add a new page with your version of things.
>
> if you don't mind re-posting your reply back to the dita-learningspec
> list, then we can get this exchange into that for others to comment
> on, as well.
>
> John
>
>
> From:
"Wayne Gafford" <gaffordw@adlnet.org>
> To:
<john_hunt@us.ibm.com>
> Date:
01/08/2008 12:47 PM
> Subject:
RE: [dita-learningspec] SCORM templates and DITA learning
> objects
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> john
>
> i am reviewing the links and the learning plan topic is not
> incorporated or mentioned in any example or illustration. not sure
why
> that is, but, it is in the learning plan that the learning objectives
> are first stated according to needs analysis and is the first place
> where the assessments are designed.
>
> i think we need to promote all topic types as a related collection
> that forms a complete learning object made available for an
> instructor's use.
>
> wayne
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* john_hunt@us.ibm.com [mailto:john_hunt@us.ibm.com]*
> Sent:* Tue 1/8/2008 12:25 PM*
> To:* dita-learningspec@lists.oasis-open.org*
> Subject:* [dita-learningspec] SCORM templates and DITA learning objects
>
>
> Dear DITA learning sub-committee,
>
> Based on our discussions, and particularly the input from Bill
> Blackmon about the IMS SCORM templates, I've started a wiki page that
> starts to map out the connection between these templates and the DITA
> learning objects map domain.
>
> See -
> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/LearningContent/map2manifest_templates
> and http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/LearningContent/map2manifest.
>
> This is still in draft, but I wanted to bring it to your attention
in
> advance of our Thursday meeting.
>
> In particular, *I highly recommend *taking a look at the templates
> available here -
> http://www.jointadlcolab.org/downloads/research/2005/assessments/learner_assessment_bpguide_final.pdf.
>
>
> There's more narrative about them here -
> http://141.225.40.64/lsal/expertise/projects/developersguide.
>
> (both these links are at the top of the wiki page, as well)
>
> My conclusion so far is that we have a very good and direct "starter
> kit" mapping from a DITA learning object to Template 4: Multiple
SCO's
> with Assets. Then we need to discuss how far we can go in the way
of
> supporting one or more of the Templates 5-10.
>
> Again, thanks to Bill Blackmon for his valuable input to this
> discussion. (Bill is one of the leads who developed the SCORM
> templates, and has been attending the last several sub-committee
> meetings to provide inputs to our discussions on DITA - SCORM
> processing approaches.)
>
> John
> ___________________________________
> John Hunt
> DITA Architect / Lotus Information Development Center
> Chair, OASIS DITA learning and training content sub-committee
> IBM Software Group/Lotus Software
> phone: 617.245.8053
> john_hunt@us.ibm.com
--
Allyn J Radford
Principal
Learn'ilities' Pty Ltd
www.learnilities.com.au
Solution Architecture Consulting
Standards-based eLearning Systems and Content
Digital Content Exchange Planning and Development
Phone: +61 (0)3 9751 0730
Mob: +61 (0)419 009 320
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]