Re: [SPAM] RE: [dita-learningspec] SCORM templates and DITA learningobjects

[Allyn Radford <allynr@learnilities.com.au>]

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

--