OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita-learningspec message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [dita-learningspec] learning maps questions


Thanks for the prompt response, Eliot.

 

One of my clients needed to support multiple learning objectives per module and to specify to which objective each content unit applied. They used subjectScheme to classify their learning objectives and define the key reference (using <subjectdef>) and then associated the objectives using <topicsubject> for each <topicref> as appropriate. For them the classification in the subjectScheme map was useful and worth the overhead. I agree that this might be a lot of overhead if you don’t need the classified objective list.

 

The goal is to clearly establish an association between a learning objective and its associated content, which could include any content type, but is required for assessment. Important considerations are:

·         How will they find content associated with a specific learning objective in their repository

·         How do they support using the same objective in multiple contexts

·         How to avoid having to open a topic to update the relationship

·         How can they reuse their non-L&T DITA content for learning

 

Dawn and I advocate for creating each learning objective as a separate topic and the associating that topic with its related content. As for where the association occurs, I think we need to review the options. Here are the ones I’ve identified:

1.       Key definition in the module map with reference to the objective topic (using <keydef>)

o   Benefits:

§  can associate the same content to different learning objectives in different contexts

§  if module supports only one objective, then can define once for entire module

o   Considerations:

§  Associate is context-specific and there is no easy way to find associated content in CCMS

§  Must define key value for each objective in each module

§  Cannot use learning maps (currently)

§  Cannot easily see objective in context of the content (need to see the module map)

2.       Key definition in an objective map with key reference in module map

o   Benefits:

§  Can define key values for objectives in one place

§  an associate the same content to different learning objectives in different contexts

§  If relationship changes, no impact on related topics

o   Considerations:

§  Associate is context-specific and there is no easy way to find associated content in CCMS

§  Must define key reference for each objective in each module

§  Cannot use learning maps (currently)

§  Cannot easily see objective in context of the content (need to see the module map)

§  Must maintain objective map

3.       Key definition in a subjectScheme map with key reference in module map (using <topicsubject>

o   Benefits:

§  Can classify objectives

§  an associate the same content to different learning objectives in different contexts

§  If relationship changes, no impact on related topics

o   Considerations:

§  Associate is context-specific and there is no easy way to find associated content in CCMS

§  Must define key reference for each objective in each module

§  Cannot use learning maps (currently)

§  Cannot easily see objective in context of the content (need to see the module map)

§  Must maintain subjectScheme map

4.       Relationship tables in module map (using <reltable>

o   Benefits:

§  an associate the same content to different learning objectives in different contexts

§  Can store relationship table in separate map and reuse in multiple modules

§  Can use learning maps

§  If relationship changes, no impact on related topics

o   Considerations:

§  Association is context-specific and there is no easy way to find associated content in CCMS

§  Cannot easily see objective in context of the content (need to see the module map)

§  Must maintain relationship table

5.       Content reference objective into related topics (using <lcObjectives> and <lcObjective>)

o   Benefits:

§  Can easily see objective in context of the content

§  Can search in CCMS and find associated content

§  Can use learning maps

o   Considerations:

§  Not easy to support associating the same objective in multiple contexts (all objectives associated in all contexts)

§  Cannot include in non-L&T topics without specialization

§  Must set value to instruct transform to not generate the objective content when topics are rendered

§  If relationship changes, must check topic out and update

6.       Cross reference to the objective topic from related topics (using <xref>)

o   Benefits:

§  Can easily see objective association in context of the content

§  Can use learning maps

o   Considerations:

§  Not easy to support associating the same objective in multiple contexts (all objectives associated in all contexts)

§  no easy way to find associated content in CCMS

§  Must set value to instruct transform to not generate the objective content when topics are rendered

§  If relationship changes, must check topic out and update

 

None of these options seems ideal; the big challenge is when you have the abstract association (options 1-4), there is no easy way to find all the related items.

 

Have a great day, A

 

From: dita-learningspec@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita-learningspec@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Eliot Kimber
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 2:13 PM
To: DITA Learning Spec list
Subject: Re: [dita-learningspec] learning maps questions

 

Looking at the content models of <learningPreAssessmentRef> and < learningPostAssessmentRef> it looks like the original design assumed there would not be a need for substructure, which seems rather short sighted looking at it now. I can assure you that I never gave it a moment’s thought during the original L&T development I was involved in.

 

I assume the purpose of the keydef here is to bind a key to the objective topic so it can then be referenced in order to associate it with the assessment referenced. If so, putting it inside the learningPreAssessmentRef would be rather odd practice—I’d expect that you would have a separate branch in the map that organizes all the objectives independent of any use of them. But it wouldn’t actually matter where the keydef went.

 

Using topicsubject is an interesting idea but I think it’s too tightly bound to subject schemes, which incurs a lot of overhead. But I think it would make sense to have a similar object-specific reference that means “this objective is an objective of the parent topicref’s referenced resource”.

 

Note that simply allowing <topicref> within these two topicref types would then allow both keydef and topicsubject to be used (once the classification domain was integrated into your map types).

 

If the requirement is to be able to associate objective *topics* with other topics in order to establish an “objective of” relationship between the objective topic and the other topic (presumably a learning object or assessment of some kind), then in addition to something analogous to topicsubject, there are only three mechanisms available within the DITA (that I can think of):

 

  1. Relationship table rows where the relationship table represents an “objective of” relationship, e.g., the column that points to objectives is labeled “objective” and the column that points to learning objects is labeled “learning object”. It might also make sense to have a three-column row: learning object, objectives, and assessments.
  2. A subject scheme map that uses the generic relates-to relationship to relate the objective topic to the learning object or assessment topic
  3. From the learning object or assessment, a cross reference to the objective topic. A generic xref would be sufficient as long as the objective topic identifies itself as an objective, otherwise you’d want a specialized xref like “objectiveref” that makes it clear that this a relationship between a learning thing and its objectives.

 

I’m not a big fan of subject scheme maps—I think using relationship tables would be more natural and obvious.

 

I think the xref approach is required regardless (basically giving you a replacement for the current in-topic objective lists or maybe simply a way to augment those lists with L&T-defined links to the objectives defined elsewhere).

 

Cheers,

 

E.

--

Eliot Kimber

 

 

From: <dita-learningspec@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Amber Swope <amber@ditastrategies.com>
Date: Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 3:39 PM
To: DITA Learning Spec list <dita-learningspec@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [dita-learningspec] learning maps questions

 

Hi there,

 

I’m working with Dawn on documenting ways to associate learning objectives and was trying to associate learning objectives to references in learning maps.

 

I tried to associate an objective with an assessment topic. However, the <learningPreAssessmentRef> and <learningPostAssessmentRef> elements do not allow <keydef> or <topicsubject>. They only support <learningGroup> and <learningObject>. It turns out that none of the learning reference elements allow <keydef> or <topicsubject>. Does this mean that there is no way to associate objectives at the referenced topic level in  a learning map other than using relationship tables?

 

Was this intentional? If not, can we address this? Are there any other elements that we should consider allowing within the specialized learning referencing elements?

 

Thanks and have a great day, A

 

AS email signature

 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]