Re: [dita-learningspec] Strawman proposals for a top-level DITA designfor learning content

[Karen Ziech <7256909zie@comcast.net>]

Wayne,

I don't know whether you saw this paper on instructional design and 
learning theory, but it's one that you might want to look at. 
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm#Is%20There%20One%20Best%20Learning%20Theo

In terms of a design model that can be used for training materials and 
products, it seems to me to be a question of what kind of training 
products we're talking about. The model that we've been looking at seems 
to assume specific, identified outcomes and that the material presented 
can help students accomplish that outcome. In traditional technical 
training, which most of us are involved in, we seek to ensure that 
students can perform certain tasks when they're done with the course. In 
Dick and Carey, the tasks (derived from user and task analysis) form the 
basis of the instructional objectives and the test items. The model 
we're discussing supports this kind of instruction--the presentation of 
instructional material to ensure a certain level of performance.

But other types of instruction, for the development of soft and problem 
solving skills may require a completely different model. My grad school 
"daze" are far behind me, too, and I don't have a model for other types 
of instruction, though I recently attended a very interesting session at 
the Chicago ASTD conference on blended learning. How one would capture 
that approach in DITA is, frankly, way beyond me at this point. Perhaps 
what we need to do is define different models for different intended 
outcomes.

It's definitely something to continue discussing. Unfortunately, I will 
miss the meeting this week. I'll catch-up and rejoin next week.

Regards,

Karen

Gafford, Wayne NAVSEA wrote:
> Greetings,
>  
> I've been trying to discover constructs other than Gagne that could 
> help entice the adoption of a top-level design model. One discovery I 
> am reminded of going back to my graduate school daze is 
> the distinction between "instruction" and "learning". Gagne is clearly 
> oriented toward instruction. As is the Dick and Carey Model. See:
>  
> http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/Dick_Carey/dc.html 
> <http://www.umich.edu/%7Eed626/Dick_Carey/dc.html>
>  
> After much reading, ...reviewing the strawman, past minutes and past 
> emails, I am beginning to question if certain references to the word 
> "learning" best represents our design goals. This is why: Learning, I 
> would suggest, really applies to propositions that account /for how 
> changes in human performance come about. /Instruction describes 
> conditions and objects that can be /intentionally arranged for the 
> learning to take place. /Sprinkling guidance throughout content is an 
> act of instruction, not learning. If DITA is seeking to offer a model 
> on how to weave topics together, we are seeking a solution /on the 
> instructional spectrum, not the learning spectrum. /
> / / 
> Maybe its too fine a point, but I wonder if our top-level design 
> should be for /instructional content, rather than learning content. /I 
> feel more comfortable and at ease with designing for instructional 
> objects than for learning objects. Instructional objects speaks more 
> to its origins in systems theory. Educators design instruction, not 
> learning (they hope for learning). The instructional design caters to 
> learning styles.
>  
> The RLO model seems to be based on instruction, not necessarily on 
> learning theory.
>  
> Just musing.
>  
> Wayne
>  
>  
>
> *From:* john_hunt@us.ibm.com [mailto:john_hunt@us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2006 14:14
> *To:* dita-learningspec@lists.oasis-open.org
> *Subject:* [dita-learningspec] Strawman proposals for a top-level DITA 
> design for learning content
>
>
> Hello DITA learning content SC,
>
> Our review of structured designs for learning and how to apply them to 
> DITA principles and best practices has generated good discussion and 
> input from all of you.
>
> My sense is that after two months of good discussion and review, we've 
> come to a point where we can confirm some general directions and 
> identify the action steps needed to get to our Task 2 goal - 
> "developing a plan for a DITA specialization for learning content, 
> including the learning types, map domains, content domains, and 
> processing support needed to support the design."
>
> To that end,  below are a series of proposals and related action items 
> for our consideration, discussion, and action at the Thursday, 26 Oct 
> 2007 meeting.
>
> Thanks.
>
> John Hunt
> WPLC Education Development
> Chair, OASIS DITA learning and training content sub-committee
> IBM Software Group/Lotus Software
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> Strawman proposals for a top-level DITA design for learning content
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> Proposal 1. Adopt a top-level design for DITA topic-based learning 
> content that is based on the Cisco/Clark learning objects approach, 
> augmented by the IEEE Learning Objects Metadata (specifically the 
> Learning Resource Types) and SCORM Sharable Content Objects.
>
> Working assumptions:
>
>     * A learning object comprises a set of self-contained content that
>       supports a single learning objective.
>     * A learning object consists of a) instructional objects, which
>       provide the structured framework for learning, and b)
>       information objects, which provide the learning content.
>     * DITA topics provide the basic building blocks for learning objects.
>     * Specialized DITA topic types can define the specific types of
>       content needed for the instructional and information objects
>       that comprise a learning object.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> Proposal 2. The specialized DITA topic types described below comprise 
> the minimum set needed to support a learning object.
> a) These topic types provide the content needed for Instructional 
> objects:
>
>     * Learning Overview
>     * Learning Summary
>     * Learning Practice
>     * Learning Exercise
>     * Learning Assessment
>
>
> b) A single topic type hosts Information objects:
>
>     * Learning Content
>
>
> c) Learning Content topics allow for direct nesting of core DITA task, 
> concept, and reference topics, in addition to other supporting topic 
> content.
>
> d) Action item: Identify and define any additional topic types needed 
> to support instructional or information content for learning, using as 
> a starting point the Learning Resource Types identified in the IEEE 
> LOM spec (Section 5.4.5.2).
>
> e) Action item: Identify specific requirements for the Assessment 
> type. (See related Proposal 6.)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> Proposal 3: Develop a DITA map domain to define a set of specialized 
> DITA topicref elements, structured and sequenced to represent the 
> specific topic types used for a learning object.
>
> Using a map domain for defining the structure of a learning object 
> makes it possible to use this map domain in other DITA maps. For 
> example, you could include a learning map inside a default DITA map, a 
> specialized DITA bookmap, or some other specialized DITA map.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> Proposal 4. Use a specialized DITA map type to define the organization 
> of learning objects into higher-level structures, such as lessons, 
> modules, and courses.
>
> Action Item: Identify the specific structures and metadata we need to 
> support in a learning map type.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> Proposal 5. Prioritize SCORM as our primary processing and delivery 
> target.
>
> a) Action Item: Identify and prioritize secondary targets, such as 
> general e-learning or classroom-based training.
> b) Action Item: Identify the specific sub-sets of SCORM to support for 
> a phase 1 pilot.
> c) Action Item: Identify the specific sub-sets of SCORM sequencing and 
> navigation to support for a phase 1 pilot.
> d) Action Item: Identify the specific sub-sets of IEEE LOM (learning 
> metadata) to support for a phase 1 pilot.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> Proposal 6: Adopt a sub-set of QTI to drive assessments and 
> interactions, and implement them as a DITA domain specialization.
>
> a) Action Item: Identify the specific sub-set of QTI to support for a 
> phase 1 pilot.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> Action Item: Identify pilot content, starting with training content on 
> how to use DITA (or some aspect of it), and identify one or two other 
> sets of training content to pilot.
> *
> *---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> *References*
>
>     * Learning Objects Information Types
>       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-learningspec/200610/msg00001.html
>
>     * Recyling Knowledge with Learning Objects
>       http://www.clarktraining.com/content/articles/LearningObjects.pdf
>     * Paul Barley's Term Comparison Spreadsheet
>       http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-learningspec/200609/msg00009.html
>
>     * A DITA specialization design for learning
>       http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-dita9a/
>     * Design patterns for information architecture with DITA map domains
>       http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-dita7/
>