Re: [dita-learningspec] Strawman proposals for a top-level DITA design forlearning content

[john_hunt@us.ibm.com]

Hi -

First, thanks Wayne and Karen for your
inputs and pushing us to more clearly clarify our goals and directions.

Maybe it would help if we go back to
the first stated goal in our subcommittee charter:

"1. To develop a general top-level
design for structured intent-based authoring of learning content with good
learning architecture, following DITA principles and best practices."

I vouch that DITA is first and foremost
about content. In the realm of learning and training, it's about learning
and training *content*. 

As I read the link about the Dick and
Carey model, it's mostly about how to apply good principles and strategies
for identifying appropriate objectives, tests, and assessments. I'd suggest
there could be many such strategies for addressing the question of "what
are the objectives?" 

Whatever the approach used to arrive
at objectives, if good instructional design generally involves providing
the learner with a set of stated objectives, then the question for a DITA
design for learning becomes, how do we provide for authoring and delivering
that content? 

And with DITA, that comes to how to
apply a topic-based approach to learning content, and what, if any, specialized
topic types are needed to support authoring and delivery of learning objectives.


In the example of blended learning that
Karen raises, for example, the question for me would be, does a blended
learning approach usually include an overview, introduction, and stated
learning objectives? Would a general-purpose DITA topic for learning content
provide what's needed to deliver learning content? Does a blended approach
generally include a summary, an assessment, practices, and exercises? In
other words, if there anything in the content needed to support blended
approach that we could not deliver with the approach in my proposals 1-4?
(I'm not saying there isn't, I'm just saying, this is the question we need
to ask.)


To summarize, DITA provides these basic
ingredients, which we can apply to the question of good intent-based authoring
of learning content:

* Topics - Discrete units of information
covering a specific subject with a specific intent
* Topic types - Specific content structures
that define the role of a topic within an information set.
* Maps - Structured organizations of
topics for different outputs and deliverables, and to support navigation
and linking among topics in the map.
* Domains - Vocabularies that can be
made available for common use across topics and maps of different types.
* Specialization - The mechanism for
deriving new topic types, new domains, and new map types as extensions
of existing types.
* Common base class - The top-level
"generic" base topic, domain, and map types, which provide a
“fallback” for all other DITA types.

Looking forward to discussing with you
all shortly.

John
___________________________________
John Hunt
WPLC Education Development
Chair, OASIS DITA learning and training content sub-committee
IBM Software Group/Lotus Software

Karen Ziech <7256909zie@comcast.net>

11/01/2006 09:36 PM

To	"Gafford, Wayne NAVSEA" <wayne.gafford@navy.mil>
cc	john_hunt@us.ibm.com, dita-learningspec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [dita-learningspec] Strawman proposals for a top-level DITA design for learning content

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/
>