SCORM 2.0 Workshop Meeting Notes
Working Group Track 1 (LET 2.0) - Wednesday 10/15 PM Session
Peter Berking, scribe
Eric Roberts, Jason Haag, and Nina Deibler, Facilitators
Group attendees and their interests/concerns
Mark Oehlert, DAU
- Web 2.0
- Leverage the best of commercial sector
Lisa Groton, Raytheon
- Get away from linear design
- Assessments
Ellen Meiselman, Univ of Michigan Health System
- Support ISDs
- Concerned with security
- Concerned with cross domain issues
Ethlyn Garlichs
Denise Green, Naval Aviation
- Support for ILT
- Simulations
Paul Graf, NAWCTSD Orlando
- Support for ILT
- Assessments
- Simulations
Carlos Carey, NETPDTC
- Assessments
- Security
Shane Gallagher, ADL
- Constructivism
Peter Berking, ADL
- Team-based learning
- Communication between learning objects and simulations
Robert Sapp, NETPDTC
- Assessments
Jackie Haynes, IAI
- Enhance ability of ISDs to program without technical overhead
Tony Thornton, NAVAIR
- Competencies
- Assessments (esp. link between ILT and online assessments)
Nina Deibler, SI International (co-facilitator)
- Look at things that were out of scope 10 years ago (short term and long term needs)
Jason Haag, Navy
- Accessibility and usability
- Assessments (esp. link between ILT and online assessments)
Eric Roberts, ADL
Lang Holloman, LETSI SCWG/ CSC/ Navy
- Shared data
Naima Haviland, Booz Allen Hamilton
- Need to know how SCORM plays with our needs
Dan Young, SCCI
- Making SCORM work for ISDs
- Blended learning
- Knowledge management
- Linking documentation
- Getting out of the small box of SCO while retaining ilities
Josh Schwartz, Major Insurance Company
- Training that drives business results
- Experts being able to add on to SCOs
- Simulations, games
Aaron Silvers, WW Granger Inc.
- Ensure people can implement SCORM
- What they can implement is extensible
Eric intro:
- SCORM was successful as:
- A community gathering point/consensus catalyst
- Focusing on use cases
- Define use cases for SCORM 2.0
Nina intro:
- Described Use Case exercise (slide)
- What additional instructional affordances should SCORM provide?
Discussion
- What do we want without referral to what SCORM already provides?
- In an unconstrained web 2.0 environment how do you introduce/enforce the concept of authority? Need basic assumptions of authority and how systems can support it
- Construction of knowledge is socially negotiated. What really is learning content? Can't it be managed learning experiences vs content as digital asset?
- Pay attention to context for use cases - unconstrained learning is appropriate in some contexts
- Two ways to think about problem: learning experiences (presuming that they lead to a specific assessable result) vs assessment (don't care how you learned it, just need to demonstrate competence)
- My company's model is top down content. Looking to change to bottom up (i.e., just in time performance support). SCORM cant do this easily.
- Employers don't want uncontrolled learning experiences. Takes too much time, they wont pay for it.
- There is a lot of self-directed/informal learning that is well suited to web and learning via the web. What clients are really willing to pay for this?
- Don't ignore that there are people learning this way in corporate settings (via specialized commercial tools)
- We are talking about the whats (content learned), not the hows (pedagogy behind learning). Tests in K-12 are the whats. Research shows that constructivist/learner-directed learning is effective to enable performance on these tests.
- Do we need to track and store every single event of a learner (ie, if they use unconstrained methods to learn)
- People using SCORM know nothing about it. Definitions of ilities need to be more granular.
- We haven't gotten to the full expression of the ilities yet
- Some communities have gotten to the ilities more than others. Reusability has been achieved very successfully in some communities. There are business drivers for reusability in environments like aircraft and Chrysler.
- Tracking of SCO completion and passing is crucial.
- General agreement: each community should be able to define size of SCOs and how they are reused. SCORM should not define this.
- Reuse is not that important for SCORM. Reuse is achieved more effectively and more often through business processes. It is achieved most effectively on the content authoring side.
- General agreement: Focus on interoperability for SCORM 2.0, not reusability
- Leverage existing standards for intersystem communication.
- Assessment of team vs assessment of individuals on the teams
Use case definition exercise
Use case 4: KM scenario
(Dan Young)
- Essentially a KM solution in a very small domain (6-7 job roles - employees usually wear several hats
- User performs context-sensitive, role-based searching in online help system
- System tells user "By the way, there is a learning module on this"
- User takes module
- User goes back to Help system
- Requirement is interoperability between the KM system and LMS, amounting to launching content located within an LMS from an external system (like a KM system) when that system deems the student wants/needs it
Discussion
- SCOs should be launchable from outside the LMS, but still trackable by the LMS
- Need to be able to define data schema for each organization/project and have that implemented by each system interoperably
- Scope of SCORM 2.0 re design of authoring tools vs characteristics of learning
