Topic Descriptions
To clarify and unify the terminology used in all the white papers, the Program Committee offers the following descriptions of the most common topics discussed. With thanks to Frank Polster, each topic description includes a list of the white papers that most directly address the topic. See the list of papers here.
LET 2.0 Use Cases & Requirements
SCORM 2004 supports self-paced, browser-based, single-learning instruction. What additional learning, education and training use cases should SCORM 2.0 support (e.g. team learning, instructor-led learning)? What is the future learning pedagogy and practice? What do Learning 2.0 and Learning 3.0 look like? In coming years, what systems and products will be used by teachers, authors, and administrators? What data will they share? How are Web 2.0 tools influencing instruction in different Communities of Practice (CoP)? Mobile learning? 3, 22, 30, 39, 46, 78, 88, 94, 97
Sequencing
There is a clear consensus that sequencing is broken in SCORM 2004. What should we do about it? Can the current implementation be fixed? If not, what should replace it? Should we replace it? What are the possible alternatives for replacing the current sequencing specification and what are the associated pros and cons of each? What is the purpose of a sequencing specification and what are the requirements of and goals for such a specification? Is sequencing intended to create portable instructional design or is it closer to a scripting and control language? 4, 8, 15, 20, 23, 27, 34, 36, 46, 65, 68, 77, 85, 88, 89
Web Service Interfaces
There is a clear call for an SOA / web service approach to be included in SCORM 2.0. Which services are desired and what are the requirements for each? Are there existing specifications that can be considered for inclusion? Can an SOA approach support modularity and extensibility? There are a lot of reasons why SOA is being requested (solve the cross domain problem with a runtime service, supporting content exchange [CSA / PENS / OLSA / etc], providing asynchronous data exchange for integration with simulations and other systems, enabling offline access etc). Do all of these requirements point toward a unified SOA architecture and solution, or, are they problems to be solved separately? 1, 6, 12, 17, 18, 21, 25, 29, 41, 43, 45, 53, 66, 75, 76, 82, 85, 88, 93, 98
Evolutionary Fixes to SCORM 2004
The white papers included many suggestions for making incremental improvements to SCORM 2004 that could add a lot of value. Which of these suggestions add the most value? Are any of them low hanging fruit that should definitely be included? How can we change things to remove unnecessary complexity and lower the barriers to entry (especially for content developers)? Can we accommodate the people who want nothing more the simple, basic interoperability? Some of the suggestions include (this is by no means a comprehensive list): 1, 10, 11, 16, 19, 25, 32, 36, 45, 57, 67, 69, 70, 81, 82, 85, 88
• Fixing objective scope
• Allowing rollup to learning objectives
• Allowing SCOs to have more interaction with one another
• Increased UI interoperability
• Better support for review / reference modes
• Better support for search and direct linking into SCOs
• Increased security
• Adding more description to interactions and objectives
• Better support for reporting and data persistence
Content Aggregation and Content Formats
Many people believe that SCORM 2.0 needs a new model for content aggregation. Is this the case? If so, why and what are the requirements for a better solution? Do learning objects still make sense? In today's connected world, is the concept of a package still relevant and should a package be the only deployment model? What are the alternative content aggregation and packaging schemes and what standards/specifications are relevant? Can any of these schemes help us to deal with permutations of content? Should SCORM specify how content is structured within SCOs? Why? If so, what are the requirements? Is structured data within a SCO relevant to the entire community or just specific communities of practice? If it is just for specific communities of practice, how do we reconcile their needs with the needs of the larger community? What specifications are relevant to structured data within a SCO (DITA, S1000D, etc)? 9, 11, 13, 26, 29, 31, 33, 39, 43, 44, 71, 79, 80
Assessment and Competencies
How will SCORM 2.0 support assessments and assessment data? What will assessments look like in the future? Do we need a more secure assessment framework? Do we need a better capacity for reporting assessment results? How should assessment data be linked to competency data? How will competency information be managed, exchanged and applied? Can LETSI bring together non-LET players to achieve consensus on competency portability? 14, 21, 27, 37, 42, 46, 63, 64, 81, 83, 85, 88, 93
Integration with Other LET systems and Modalities (simulations, team training and shared data)
SCORM 2004 allows for one user to interact with one system. There are many other training modalities, such as collaborative learning and immersive learning in simulations/games. What should SCORM 2.0 do to facilitate these? A common requirement seems to be to allow SCOs to share data. Shared data can take on many forms. There is data shared between SCOs whether within a course or across courses (such as what is enabled by IMS SSP); data shared across learners (such as real time data exchange during a team simulation or latent data written to a "high score" list); and data shared across systems (such exchange of data between and LMS and a high fidelity simulator). What are the needs of these various modalities and is there a common solution that will allow SCORM 2.0 to address all of them? Are there existing specifications/standards that SCORM 2.0 can leverage or integrate with (such as HLA or IMS SSP)? 2, 3, 10, 35, 40, 43, 47, 48, 72, 74, 76, 88
Market Realities Facing LETSI
Gathering support and gaining adoption is never easy. What are some of the business realities facing LETSI as it moves forward? What are the issues and resistance points for adoption of SCORM 2.0? How can LETSI best facilitate the creation and adoption of SCORM 2.0? What services and resources can we offer (demo code, tools, Plugfests, etc)? What aspects of SCORM 2004 should be preserved in SCORM 2.0? What is an appropriate timeline for adoption of evolutionary vs. revolutionary features? What is common across different communities of practice and what is inherently different? How can vendors best cope with a fragmented market? How do communities of practice differ in the life cycle of learning materials (development, distribution, billing, maintenance, re-use, etc)? 7, 28, 52, 73, 92, 95, 97, 98
Supporting ISD's and Instructors
LETSI's mission is to support all of learning, education and training. How can SCORM 2.0 best move past SCORM 1.x's focus just on trainers? What additional support is needed to accommodate educational environments? What are the barriers to SCORM 2004's adoption in education? What can SCORM 2.0 do to better facilitate learning and education? Instructional designers have also felt left out of the SCORM process. What unmet needs do they have and how can SCORM 2.0 better address them? 4, 38, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 62, 64, 81, 84, 88, 91
Intelligent Systems
Some white papers look to support intelligent tutoring systems, agents and adding intelligence to LET systems. Will SCORM 2.0 address this? If so, how and when? 87, 90
Content Lifecycle Management
The current model for deploying an entire SCORM 2004 package introduces difficulties for managing content throughout its lifecycle. How can these difficulties be alleviated? What else needs to be addressed to better accommodate maintenance of content? How do non-LET systems relate to LET content and how can SCORM 2.0 facilitate a link with these systems? Specifically, can SCORM 2.0 coordinate with S1000D to manage the inherent coupling of training data with technical data? Are there any other forms of data for which a similar linking might be required? 13, 14
Accessibility and Usability
Accessibility is a regulatory hot button for many vendors. How can SCORM 2.0 better accommodate accessibility for all? Accessibility is also tied to usability. A more user-friendly system is inherently more accessible. What can SCORM 2.0 do to improve the learning experience? Are there also usability improvements for other actors in SCORM (ISDs, courseware administrators) that we could look at? 19, 31, 45, 86, 88, 96
