Subject: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This compilation includes email from 29 December 142:46 -0500 through Tuesday 05 January at 2010 16:02:10 -0500 with a subject line of LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture or LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010. Some messages with this subject that were directed to individuals and covered administrative matters were omitted.
Subject: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: Avron Barr Date: 12/29/2009 2:46 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Dear LETSI Technical Roadmap Committee et al.,
I hope you all are enjoying the holidays. As the new year begins, I think LETSI is approaching a major decision point and I'd like to hear from you. Assuming that our sponsors renew their support for 2010 based on a very successful 2009 (Assumptions Document, RTWS project, DevLearn and I/ITSEC demos, Crispin's Orchestration proposal), we face a fork in the road.
The times are changing. Elearning will be different in ten years. A lot of people will learn a lot from the web for free, as new applications bring accurate, relevant, and timely information to anyone with a mobile phone. Our changing personal and industrial knowledge needs, along with opportunities created by new technologies, will lead to new kinds of educational institutions, products, and business models. There will be many new types of software systems, and the better they are, the more data they will need. Data about:
Types of learning activities available, not just programmed learning à la SCORM Specific resources available: SCORM lessons, game scenarios, virtual museums, assessment instruments, ... Students, teachers, parents, tutors, and others who use the various systems Goals or outcomes to be achieved, competencies, job requirements, assessment criteria
This breakdown of teaching-relevant data, which came out of the Pensacola "SCORM 2.0" meeting, is LETSI's high-water mark as far as architecture goes. The split we saw in Pensacola, between those who wanted to fix SCORM and those who wanted to re-think it, was never resolved. In talking to folks in recent weeks, I realized that by focusing our limited energy on the RTWS project in 2009, we pretty much neglected the larger architectural possibilities. As we start to define Phase 2 of the project, there is a temptation for LETSI to decide to just do what the ADL is no longer capable of doing - fix SCORM fast enough to keep up with the market. I can understand the frustration on the part of the adopters and vendors who are committed to SCORM. I am happy that our experimental, software-first approach seems to be effective. It will be adopted elsewhere, I'm sure. And we look like heroes in the SCORM community.
But I would strongly argue against limiting Phase 2 to extensions to SCORM's current capabilities, and I know that others have already backed away from LETSI for this reason. I am
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 1 3 January 2010 a strong supporter of SCORM. I recognize how much improvement could be made to SCORM, should the ADL decide to incorporate outside efforts like ours on runtime web service definitions, aggregation, orchestration, etc. But SCORM is nearing the end of its useful life anyway. The ADL has accelerated SCORM's decline by not relinquishing control years ago to a more effective and open steward. In the end, it is likely that the ADL's next SCORM, like IMS's Common Cartridge, will be a simple content standard assembled from proprietary component specifications that embody the status quo. In fact, the current ADL management is considering IMS for future components of SCORM, like QTI and LTI. The window for turning SCORM into a modern, open standard that enables disruptive innovation in education and training is closing.
I do think there is an opportunity for LETSI to do more than just patch SCORM. (I posted some thoughts on Phase 2 last month.) We came out of Pensacola with a mandate to propose a new vision for the architecture of learning systems. Perhaps the time is not yet right to take the leap, in which case our work will influence other organizations' efforts eventually. At our Technical Roadmap meeting next week, we will be discussing next steps for the RTWS Phase 1 and our relationship with the IEEE LTSC regarding the revision of the CMI specs for runtime communications in SCORM. I'd like to also get a sense from you, before or during that meeting, of where you feel LETSI should direct its efforts next year.
I realize that most of you are heavily invested in the SCORM marketplace and that many of you are running businesses and have much better insights than I on where the market is headed. It's time for LETSI to make a decision. Do we stick with SCORM and LMS-based elearning, or do we invest in a radically different future based on a modern, non-siloed enterprise architecture?
See you in the new year. The Technical Roadmap meeting is on Tuesday, January 5th, at 11:00am Eastern time.
.Avron
-- Avron Barr LETSI Communications Chair www.letsi.org +1.831.419.5829
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 2 3 January 2010 Subject: RE:LETSI, Phase2, Architecture, 2010 From: Peter Berking [email protected] Date: 12/29/2009 5:00 PM To: Avron Barr, [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Hi Avron,
Here is my 2 cents (as just another e-learning wonk, not representing ADL here).
Go with the “modern, non-siloed enterprise architecture” option. Don’t be wimps. J Build something boldly new, that is academically established and documented, and perhaps prototyped and even implemented already in some quarters as a best practice approach, but not yet implemented on a systematic large scale. You need to do something to get the LET world’s attention. Don’t be hamstrung by fears of slow uptake and slippery market traction. Give the hungry e-learning stakeholders out there who need an elegantly effective solution to their problems a starting place and clear path for getting to their goal. Don’t underestimate their inclination and ability to embrace a radically new approach. Trust in “build it and they will come”.
Enough ranting pep talk. Here are some suggested possibilities:
Competency-based learning framework, with inventory structures, standards, engine, and scalability to national competency profile objects as described in the ECD meeting a while ago. Immersive learning environments interoperability framework – a virtual world/serious game portable learner profile object (I can send you more details if you are interested) Build software modules and APIs (open source probably) that interconnect disparate functionalities, like what Wayne is doing with S1000D. These modules could either be geared for use by system vendors or by learners. You could get a partner like Mike Rustici to develop, commercialize, and license the ones for use by system vendors.
There are plenty of other ideas in the SCORM 2.0 papers. Whatever you do, do not just publish specs for standards and sit back and assume that vendors will incorporate them into products. ADL made this mistake, as you know, especially with authoring tools. You gotta actually create products and push them out into the community and let them become the de facto standard simply by dint of their widespread adoption.
Peter Berking
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 3 3 January 2010 Subject: RE:LETSI, Phase2, Architecture, 2010 From: Estes Ethan
Avron, I'm personally for tossing a grenade into the room. SCORM and the ADL/DOD control of it, has limited the ability to push it. I think we need to step outside their borders, build what the industry needs and then talk to them about connecting it back to SCORM if that makes any sense.
SCORM can't even deal with things like rss, instant messaging, wiki's, or blogs where so much of the knowledgebase is going (l always wondred why the rss spec could not be used as a lesson flow of content with some extensions). Twitter would probably give ADL a heart attack. If we think about whatever we work on with an eye for connecting then we can wire stuff up during a later phase.
SCORM is great for certain things but the "edge" is not one of them, also "rapid" is not one of them. -Ethan
***************************************** Ethan Estes Bullzi Security, Inc. CourseWare Developer email: [email protected] mobile: (248) 770-0197 801 International Parkway - 5th Floor Lake Mary Florida 32746 usa
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 4 3 January 2010 Subject: RE:LETSI, Phase2, Architecture, 2010 From: Michael Bush
Avron:
Is it possible that you are observing here the confrontation of the power of the status quo and the challenge of any disruptive innovation? The interaction of those two tendencies with typical technology life cycles is well expressed by Gartner as an overlay of their hype cycle, a typical technology adoption curve, and a typical performance S-curve (See the graph there on page 6) [http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~jgerlach/emergingtechnologyOL/FirstReadings/HypeCycleIntro.pdf]. The trick of course is to figure out where in time we find ourselves on those various curves.
I remember from a discussions with Phil early on when I was just learning about SCORM, and he explained that DoD had undertaken SCORM because others (mainly IMS) were not moving quickly enough. As things have moved forward and like all things that age, they now just move more slowly, right? Now that things are established and SCORM is part of the “establishment” so to speak, is it possible that it has lost some flexibility, just as IMS had done in those early days? That is probably a safe assumption.
In our lab at BYU we made the decision early on to not listen to the detractors who said (essentially) that because SCORM was not perfect, it was not worth the time. We therefore took the position that it was better to work within the system to try to have a positive impact where possible rather than standing on the outside throwing stones.
Does all of this mean that we are at a fork in the road with one direction being future-SCORM and the other being something else that takes better advantage of today’s (and the future’s) technologies? This seems in some ways to be very much like a classic case that fits Clayton Christensen’s disruptive innovation theory. As you acknowledge in your request for suggestions, this means that many will encounter significant challenges (translated as cash flow problems!) if they adopt the new and abandon the old too soon. Yet, sticking with the old for too long will without a doubt eventually lead to the same type of problems that would come from being hasty. The bottom line is that forecasting is tough business, especially when it involves the future! Indeed, the first person I am aware of who said that was Paul Saffo. He quoted futurist Roy Amara, saying that Amara had told him over thirty years ago that “there is a tendency to overestimate the short term and underestimate the long term” (Harvard Business Review, July-August, 2007, p. 127).
My position is that I am not sure that we must consider ourselves to be at a fork in the road. Is it not possible to pursue the new, based on solid architectural principles in a way that is compatible with the old?
I am sure that many Apple fans will not see the value in my comparison, but the bottom line with Intel’s technology is this. Yes, it was brain dead from an architectural standpoint from the beginning. Efforts, primarily by Microsoft along with those of Intel, however, enabled the DOS and now Windows community to extend that architecture such that even today I can open up a DOS Window (heaven
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 5 3 January 2010 forbid! ) and run Ashton Tate’s Framework that I used 25 years ago, in an era before Mac was popular and Windows even existed!
There is something to be said for dropping the old and starting fresh with the new. But at what cost?
If LETSI were to facilitate the solution of real problems in an elegant and architecturally sound way, keeping the means for expressing the derived solutions in light of what SCORM can already do (and will be able to do in the future), then perhaps we can have our cake and eat it too!
Cheers,
Michael Bush
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 6 3 January 2010 Subject: RE:LETSI, Phase2, Architecture, 2010 From: Crispin Weston
Hi Avron,
Michael questions whether we are at a fork in the road at all. I suggest that the fork-in-the-road question can be thought of at two levels: (a) a process/political//branding level and (b) a technical level. I think that we are at a fork in the road at level (a) but not at level (b). Technically, we require rapid evolution, not revolution. The difference between the two being not the pace of change, but whether we preserve or discard the old.
When everyone throws out the old and starts again from a clean sheet of paper, people generally underestimate the diversity of opinion that emerges from all sorts of dark corners. Revolutions generally end up in bad-tempered talking shops or everyone killing each other. A set of core assumptions (i.e. our inheritance from SCORM and an SC36-liberated IMS CP spec) is really useful as starting point – the grit around which the pearl can form.
But we have to stop looking for others for permission before anything can be done. Also, it seems to me that building standards is as much to do with building a self-fulfilling sense of confidence. Its therefore about PR as much as getting the technicalities right.
In UK Schools, both SCORM and IMS have bad vibes. They are seen as “instructionalist”, “content-driven” etc. and I constantly find myself fighting a rear-guard action along the lines of “yes, that is how it has generally been implemented so far, but you have to understand the potential of this technology when it is pushed forwards”.
People thought LETSI could push it forwards when we were going to be “stewards of SCORM 2.0”. And now we are not, we are in danger of being seen as irrelevant. This is a marketing problem. Too many people only see the sizzle.
I think we need a new acronym which can act as a PR banner and answers the cocktail party question “what does LETSI do?”. I propose “STARLET” (Shareable Tools, Activities and Resources for Learning Education and Training). STARLET would be the replacement for SCORM 2.0. It could be sold as the vehicle to bring convergence between different standards. From my point of view, the fact that it does not say “SCORM” on the lid is an advantage – although for people with investments in SCORM, we can explain that it will be backwards compatible. It gets away from the word “content” which carries all sorts of bad connotations.
STARLET would have a starting point (SCORM) but would have no defined outer boundary. New functionalities would be added as the industry demonstrated the will to join pilot implementation projects; while the LETSI governance procedures would ensure that new specs were compatible with the old and with each other.
Two further points:
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 7 3 January 2010 1. I agree that LETSI has to be bold. We must therefore drop the self-denying ordinance “we don’t do specs”. I don’t see why anyone should take LETSI seriously while we continue to say that.
2. (Declaration of interest…) Implementation projects will generally only attract support within a particular community of practice. Research Machines, whose market is in UK schools, is unlikely to want to explore interoperability with someone working in the US defence industry. LETSI therefore needs to distinguish those bits of itself which are US-centric (i.e. which are, effectively, the US defence/corporate community of practice) and those bits which provide the global umbrella for a number of different communities of practice.
Happy new year.
Crispin
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 8 3 January 2010 Subject: RE:LETSI, Phase2, Architecture, 2010 From: Michael Bush
I like really like Crispin’s summary. We, too, have seen the same sorts of negatives regarding SCORM that he cites. Therefore, to politely lay aside the name while keeping backwards compatibility (which can come in several flavors I might add) would be a terrific idea.
We have liked from the beginning LETSI’s focus on interoperability, on which in fact we have also always tried to focus our discussion of SCORM. I also like Crispin’s proposed name, primarily because it underscores that interoperability can take place at several levels. I feel that one problem with SCORM was that despite all of the “ilities” it embraced, it really only underscored interoperability at the activities level. The issue of granularity that followed just seems to be so huge. As David Merrill said at our very first ID2SCORM (now ID+SCORM Conference) at BYU, the fact that a learning object “can beas small as a drop of water or as big as the ocean means that it can be anything, which really means that it is nothing!”
Not that we needed yet one more “ility,” but we have been discussing at BYU the concept of what we are calling “tool and content malleability,” which means interoperability, modularity, and openness. Our purpose is to look at principles that work, all the way from resources to content (at various levels along the way). Interoperability would be possible at any level with tools from any source. Because STARLET addresses tools, activities, and resources, the ideas it encapsulates feel really good with respect to our thinking thus far.
Cheers,
Michael Bush
P.S.
Then again, I guess I am a sucker for acronymic approaches to naming efforts! With my permission, students working in our lab years ago named our operation the “ARCLITE Lab” which stands for “Advanced Research in Curriculum for Language Instruction and Technology in Education.” They also came up with our logo:
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 9 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: Avron Barr Date: 12/30/2009 11:45 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
LETSI,
I am forwarding a reply from yesterday from Ron Kleinman from the SIF Association. I think Ron's wise words resonate with the "embrace and extend" approach Crispin has proposed.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Ron Kleinman"
Avron,
Oh I think the grenade was tossed into the room a bit earlier on in this email thread.
It's time for LETSI to make a decision. Do we stick with SCORM and LMS-based elearning, or do we invest in a radically different future based on a modern, non-siloed enterprise architecture?
This is the debate that has been a long time coming. Based on my fairly extensive experience with vertical industry standards (and what SIF is wrestling with now), I would advise the following 3 guiding principles be used to frame the eventual decision. Your call of course.
I would also ask that you keep this email confidential, as I am speaking for myself here and not the SIF Association.
1. Extend and Embrace not Rip and Replace
Protect the value of the existing SCORM vendors and deployers by using their work as the basis of what you do next, rather than replacing it with “radically different, but more advanced technology”. In fact, if the phrase “radically different” were never used again, that would IMHO have a net positive influence on LETSI’s ultimate chances of success in the marketplace of ideas.
The split we saw in Pensacola, between those who wanted to fix SCORM and those who wanted to re-think it, was never resolved.
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 10 3 January 2010 I think that debate should be reframed, because neither side is very appealing.
A. “Fixing” implies SCORM is broken. But the job of providing these sorts of minor fixes really belongs to ADL.
B. “Re-thinking” implies SCORM is yesterday’s standard. This approach unfortunately turns the present against the future. Everyone with skin already invested in the SCORM game will oppose work based on this approach – and if history is a guide, this resistance will prove insurmountable.
Why develop a new and parallel standard if no one is prepared to adopt it?
Why adopt a new and powerful standard if no products are available in the market that exploit it?
It’s the deadly “new standards adoption chasm” and it is very hard to cross that gap successfully. Notice what happened to WSDL 2.0? Even the owning organization couldn’t gain adoption of its latest release. I would propose a middle ground.
C. “Extending” implies SCORM is limited, and the purpose of LETSI is to remove those limits. If you can possibly frame the discussions this way, life will be a lot simpler.
2. Provide a clear motive to migrate
The feature set of the first “Letsi on SCORM” release must be compelling for both those who have already heavily adopted SCORM and those who have not. Ideally the major adopters will be the existing SCORM adopters.
3. Provide the means to migrate
Ensure there is a seamless and where possible incremental “SCORM to “Letsi on SCORM” migration strategy for both vendors and end users. Every significant new feature should include a migration plan in its announcement.
Carrying the legacy baggage means moving forward slower – but dropping the legacy baggage means you move forward alone.
Anyway, best of luck with whatever you decide. I’m tracking this, and actively rooting for your success.
Regards,
RonK
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 11 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: Daniel Standage
Mike raises a very good point. LETSI's ability to make useful contributions in this area depends upon a clear understanding of the problems a "modern learning architecture" (or whatever we want to call it) is intended to address. Let me take a stab at the "elevator" pitch.
A move away from the monolithic LMS paradigm to a more modular approach would enable the e-learning space to more fully capitalize on emerging technologies. The goal of LETSI is to define an open learning architecture that is robust and flexible enough to support any conceivable learning environment without unnecessary complexity.
Perhaps a "water cooler" pitch would be beneficial too.
Organizations that use e-learning have been unable to unlock the full potential of emerging technologies because it has not been easy to move away from the decade-old paradigm centered around the monolithic LMS. LETSI's goal is to define an open learning architecture that would enable just such a migration. A modular approach to e-learning would enable the integration of small, independently functioning components to create a unified learning environment. LETSI will focus its development on the architecture required to support such a modular approach while maintaining legacy support for SCORM. Organizations that use e- learning will benefit because they will not be forced to choose between a variety of inflated uber- LMSs, none of which fully addresses their needs. Small software vendors will benefit as they would be empowered to compete in a market currently dominated by large vendors Even large LMS vendors would benefit as such an architecture definition would enable them to extend integration support to a much larger space.
Both of these could probably use some polishing, so feel free to critique or share your own ideas. There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered, such as...
how we can produce deliverables that are flexible enough to support the huge variety of use cases that exist without being so abstract as to be useless how much of what we do will be abstract definitions vs specs/formats vs code/products vs other things (and what are those other things?)
I look forward to tomorrow's discussion.
Daniel Standage Research Assistant ARCLITE Lab BYU Center for Language Studies
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 12 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: Tom King
I like the proposed elevator pitch from Daniel. Likewise the water cooler version, but a bit softened. LMS vendors and some of us who started with a CMI or LMS way back when might appreciate wording along the lines of: Organizations that use e-learning have been unable to unlock the full potential of emerging technologies because it has not been easy to move away from a decade-old paradigm centered around the monolithic LMSa monolithic approach to an LMS (and learning systems in general). LETSI's goal is to define an open learning architecture that would enable just such a migration transitions to modern and yet-to-emerge models. A modular approach to e- learning systems would enable the integration of small, independently functioning components to create a unified learning environment. LETSI will focus its development efforts on the architecture required to support such a modular approach. while maintaining legacy support for SCORM. Organizations that use e-learning will benefit because they will not be forced to choose between a variety of inflated uber-LMSs… I'm not sure that LETSI needs to lay claim to supporting SCORM (nor proclaim to diverge from it). One might continue as follows: Organizations, learners and suppliers will benefit from the ability to select, connect, provide and adapt collections of functionality to suit needs. An approach needs to offer "just right," flexible, expandable solutions without deep "lock-in." It needs to be scale up, yet not have an entry point that begins at the level of an "enterprise-class" behemoth. An open architecture developed with transparent and open processes such as LETSI is doing seems to be the path forward.
Some might say that the current "one-size-fits-all" solutions can be customized. However, LMS industry satisfaction surveys and anecdotal evidence suggest offerings either fall short, or offer too much-- broad and complex capabilities heaped together in response to a decade's worth of "requirements" from anyone with a RFP or a claim as a "learning industry analyst." Trans- millennial feature-creep. Yet no one will allow their feature to be slashed from the monolith-- so the complexity and cost of the beast grows for everyone.
There will always a place for "box cake mixes" and "frozen dinners," but the learning community not only needs, but deserves to be able to cook-up solutions with the ingredients they want and need, without having to start with tilling the soil or raising animals. There are plenty of solutions, options, and businesses to be had in the range beyond seeds & soil, but before a cafeteria of canned, complete "frozen dinner" solutions.
Looking forward to the discussions.
Tom
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 13 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: "Aaron E. Silvers"
I second Tom's take. This is something I can support.
Tom, I'm glad "cooler" heads are prevailing (that's for you).
-a- http://www.aaronsilvers.com/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/aaronsilvers http://www.twitter.com/mrch0mp3rs ------"Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 14 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: Mark Oehlert
Tom. et al,
I like the new language BUT and this may be way outside of scope here but no one else is so...... all of this below is fine and let's assume it all just works out...what do we get? We get the satisfaction of having moved the technical bar higher (which is hopefully the right direction) but what we haven't done is ensure that anyone will use anything that LETSI will have made possible. I know, I know, LETSI can't do everything and be everything but the awareness should be there that what I consider to be the main failing of ADL has been that it has never addressed the issue that LMSs nor authoring tools nor technical specs build training Designers and developers do. These folks are trained (some) in programs of higher ed that teach them models of ISD which I believe, limit at the outset the degree to which any functionality LETSI enables can be useful.
So let's assume we get the technology where it needs to be, we manage to change all the ISD programs now all we have left is to get to the clients to ensure that new RFP's and/or client expectations so that their requirements reflect the new capabilities.
My point, belabored and probably out of scope, is that all of this work will take place within a context that if left unchanged will continue to constrain how any tool is actually used. That being said...forge ahead...
Mark Oehlert Innovation Evangelist / PM for Advanced Technology Global Learning Technology Center / Defense Acquisition University 9820 Belvoir Road, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060
-- Visit the e-Clippings Blog http://blogoehlert.typepad.com/eclippings/
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 15 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: Ed Cohen
I would agree with Mark. This is nice language and interesting ideas, but its getting away from what I understood LETSI to be about. Moving the bar higher is not the problem, people can always create new specification that in theory would allow people to do newer and cooler things. The problem is that the amount of effort and level of understanding given the current specifications is so high that a very small part of the industry actually takes advantage of what exist today.
The methods we are using today to communicate the most basic information between content and management systems are far more complicated then the information itself, this is insanity. Whoever makes the job of designers, authors, SMEs, administrators, tool developers and others easier will get the greatest adoption.
You first have to solve the problems of the least common denominator before you focus on the high-end developer.
Ed
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 16 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: "Aaron E. Silvers"
My brother. et al,
You hit the nail on the head: what's the instructional model?
I'm for any of the following:
* LETSI is going to develop a modular platform for e-learning, based on current assumptions.
* LETSI is going to develop a modular platform for something... that has yet to be defined.
Building to solve the problems we know today, right now, is an easy thing. It's likely a good thing. You ask the Enterprise 2.0 people, they'll tell you this is the path to go, because you know exactly what needs to be fixed, and trust me, this is something that no matter what we build, we'll always be fixing. This falls in line with Agile and at the very least addresses Mark's flash of insight.
If LETSI is to go the second option, this is a loftier goal. It is bigger than the lot of us -- not undoable by any means, but it requires us to have vision before we have architecture -- and I suspect there's a lot of architectural ideas just bubbling underneath already.
In Pensacola, our group spent two days talking about the use cases -- what the learning had to look like; what we wanted to see happen. Are we chucking that, or are we leveraging that as the vision -- and what's in or out?
As a designer/developer -- I don't care about silos and enterprise architecture -- I want to know what it's going to enable, in terms of how my learners interact with content, each other and our various tools and systems.
-a- http://www.aaronsilvers.com/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/aaronsilvers http://www.twitter.com/mrch0mp3rs ------"Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 17 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: Estes Ethan
As one of the hot heads, what is being crafted makes a lot of sense. My main concern is that the scope of what we want to do is not limited to fixing SCORM. As long as we craft it so our solutions can potentially interact with SCORM if deemed worthy, then it will allow us to move forward without scaring people off.
I also have been concerned about cost of entry. The WS group has talked about some SDK- type packages for the major platforms to drive adoption. We need to keep in mind how to improve the tooling that will produce our improvements. Especially from the content side the skill level can be very basic. In my circles most of us went to art school, most of us have no interest in the structure of the specs and simply want solutions that allow focus on content during development. If not then our ideas will collect dust on the shelf next to "simple" sequencing.
-Ethan
***************************************** Ethan Estes Bullzi Security, Inc. CourseWare Developer email: [email protected] mobile: (248) 770-0197 801 International Parkway - 5th Floor Lake Mary Florida 32746 Usa
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 18 3 January 2010 08 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:01:26 -0500 From: Ed Cohen
Agree 100%... [with Ethan Estes]
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 19 3 January 2010 Subject: RE: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: "Taite, James D CIV DLA DTC"
Hello to All:
Have to agree with Chris Sawwa's observation - SCORM should have come to LETSI, so DoD could re-focus energies on eL R&D, which SCORM was, IMO. DoD tends to move slowly on leading-edge tech projects, short of 'skunk-works'. Seems like the 'baby' was taken from LETSI, now it's looking a foster child(ren).
Jim
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 20 3 January 2010 Subject: RE: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: "John Alonso"
How do I start .... I love SCORM ... nope, I hate SCORM, nope ... I love LETSI, nope ... I love standards, nope ... I have a problem to solve ... ok, that'll do.
I'll speak not as a technologist, or learning person, or even intellectual (no jokes please). But as a business owner.
Our customers don't really care about standards, they really only care about solving their business problem, doing it efficiently and doing it quickly. I've never been to a meeting where the business problem was the implementation of SCORM, or the failure, was the inability of SCORM. Neither have I ever heard articulated a problem as requiring a new standard.
My perspective, is that of corporate learning, which in our world also encompasses military and government.
I have come across very few who are unlighted enough to articulate a problem, that requires a set of standards to exist. Most want a quick and easy way to capture the knowledge of the organization and "teach" it to others. In my experience, standards have often gotten in the way of doing that ... wrongfully accused, but still ... a common thing I hear... "we cannot build the learning we need within SCORM". To which my inside voice says "bullshit" ... the outside voice says ... "You can't build it cheaply or fast enough using SCORM".
Sorry, back from my tangent ... our customers and I believe the industry, just wants simple, easy, quick ways to "capture" and "share" knowledge ... they don't want standards, they don't want tools ... unfortunately, what they are sold are tools ... based sometimes on standards ... so to that end ...
I wonder if LETSI is not trying to be a better mouse trap, in a room with few mice. When I shared some of the LETSI discussion with our big corporate clients, they glazed over ... when I asked what they would like to see from a "standards body", I got poor answers, but some ideas ...
1. Best practices and approaches for creating content
2. Models for interactions and learning experiences
3. Proven techniques for capture knowledge
When I asked what they would like to see as a deliverable ... again, poor answers, but some ideas...
1. A working example of great "learning"
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 21 3 January 2010 2. A walk-through of how the "learning" was built
3. A discussion on what was learnt in putting the "learning" together
4. A conversation on what was needed to create the "learning"
5. A recipe for making more "learning"
When I probed further about next steps ... I got some of these ideas, more like questions ...
1. How will this work with my existing LMS?
2. Can this work with my "knowledge portal" (not the word they used)
3. Can I buy a tool that does all of this? Will there be many tools? Will I have choices?
4. Will I be locked into one vendor?
>From my perspective, LETSI needs to define the "problem", and in my experience it should be something that is very easy for anyone in understand ... then research and demonstrate approaches for a solution .. leading to proposed best practices for a solution ... leading to maybe a set of standards.
I think the key is in the "demonstrate approaches for a solution" ...
I asked our customer how many would "fund" something like LETSI ... silence ... I asked how many would "fund" something that they could directly relate to their business problem ... some sparkles ...
I think LETSI needs to think of define the "customer" as the business owner, not a technologist, nor an ID ... I believe that solution to the problem is a model/approach that marries the knowledge of ID with the capabilities of the technologist ... but, always for the benefit of the business ... not the techies, nor the IDs.
Sorry for my rant, been enjoying the discussion ...
-John Alonso
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 22 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: Philip Hutchison
I like the idea of LETSI supporting SCORM as a 3rd party. Build a new e-learning ecosystem, with backwards-compatibility for SCORM being merely one sliver of the project, not the primary focus. At this point, being officially tied to SCORM would be something of a noose.
As some of the others have said, social media and other technological innovations mean that whatever LETSI comes up with must be able to support new non-traditional instructional design models... the very ones SCORM has struggled to support. The trick is to avoid accidentally codifying a specific instructional design approach through technical limitations, which is exactly what happened with SCORM.
SCORM *does* provide a degree of flexibility that remains unused by many developers because of reporting limitations... most LMSs don't provide reporting for the full cmi model. No reporting means no usage (see: cmi.interactions). Perhaps we need to explicitly include standards for reporting to ensure the entire spec is useful to end-users/instructors/managers.
I agree with Ethan about keeping this easy for content developers to implement, otherwise you'll get no adoption and no foothold in the market. Not all of us were computer science majors or enjoy reading technical specs. I know, I know... many of you will respond by saying "well, that's up to the TOOL makers!" Okay, then it should be also reasonably easy for toolmakers and LMS (post-LMS?) vendors to implement as well.
On the whole, I really like where this discussion is going. Except that bit about Americans loving to sue people... I'm American and have nothing to do with those idiots. Greedy people -- nationality be damned -- love to sue people. Period. Let's keep pointless and derogatory comments like that out of the discussion, ok?
- Philip
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 23 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: "Aaron E. Silvers"
This has been brought up before, but the message rings very true today.
Personally? I feel John's dead right. 100%. Not only can I get behind this, I would get behind this.
LETSI as a lobbying organization for designers, developers and users of learning content, tools and systems -- This is something that no other group does. Standards bodies don't, vendors advocate for their particular user base, organizations like my beloved E-Learning Guild -- they don't take sides.
But LETSI, should it choose to... could be very powerful leveraging the relationships our members have with lots of vendors and standards bodies. And there's a niche here, because there's no public organization that fills this need.
Articulating the problem space and helping find common solutions to the problems -- that's a huge win with lasting, renewable potential. If LETSI can energize a constituency and maintain a base membership -- this is a job that really never goes away because with every advancement in standards, tools, technologies -- these issues around big Interoperability continue to come up.
-a- http://www.aaronsilvers.com/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/aaronsilvers http://www.twitter.com/mrch0mp3rs ------"Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 24 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: Nautile Bleu
Hi,
I think all this discussion very interesting. I have nothing to share except that this exchange should be available for all people interested by the future of e-learning, not only LETSI members.
Goulwen
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 25 3 January 2010 Subject: RE: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: "Crispin Weston"
I don’t think it is for standards bodies to define best practices or pedagogical solutions. I think that is for e-learning providers to do. I think standards bodies should allow different people’s different solutions to work together and the standards should, as far as possible, be pedagogically neutral. That is the best way to encourage open ended innovation.
I am not surprised that John’s customers are not interested in SCORM as they are, as he says, interested in solutions to their problems. But the standards should help John provide those solutions. I see businessman with glazed eyes as John’s customer; John as LETSI’s “customer”.
My view is that we should define our starting point and our process but not be too specific about exactly where we are intending to end up. It will probably be somewhere different.
Crispin.
_____
I know some very keen users here in the UK.
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 26 3 January 2010 Subject: RE: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: "John Alonso"
I agree that the "customer" for standards is the technologists in the room, or maybe some ID's ... my issue with this is the value that it brings me in this case ...
The value of the standard has to be truly clear, and the cost to implement relatively low, and the return fairly assured ... being early adopters of standards is hugely expensive, and at times with little reward.
As a customer of LETSI, I would need to see the problem domain defined, so that I could apply it to my business ... I would need to evaluate, if the standard is the cheapest way to implement the solution, or, if a proprietary solution is not faster, cheaper or provides a more competitive position.
I'm not anti-standards
I think LETSI, or any organization ... needs to look at that, needs to understand that adoption of a standard, true adoption, is the real challenge, not the definition of it.
>From my perspective ... and our experiences with SCORM ... we would be very cautious to implement a new standard, one of interoperability with others ... having seen little real progress in multiple people implementing the same standard in the same way.
My suggestion/comments ... are not about stopping LETSI, or the creation of new, better, more wonderful standards, but about the reality of today, the reality of having to justify everything, to explain value to understand costs ...
I want to go to the moon, as much as the next guy ... but unless, I can explain the business value for it, I won't be allowed ... I don't suggest stopping, just taking, maybe, a different approach.
Build a community, focus on value, evolve a series of solutions, articulate them clearly, codify what you can, document deeply, provide countless examples ... in that order.
-John
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 27 3 January 2010 Subject: RE: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: "Parmentier, Michael [USA]"
I've been enjoying this dialog immensely and hope to contribute when I have the time to do it justice. I would, however, like to make one simple point.
In my opinion John Alonso has things in the right context. And that is:
We need to "well define" the problem in output terms
It is about performance and it is about value added
LETSI can be the enabler for achieving those goals; it is a means to those ends
If we - LETSI - do not adopt this perspective, we will very quickly become irrelevant.
That said, then all the other stuff applies.
Thanks.
Michael
Michael A. Parmentier Principal - Organization and Strategy Booz | Allen | Hamilton ______One Dulles Center Office: (703) 984-0081 Cell: (703) 304-1913 Fax: (703) 984-0163 13200 Woodland Park Road Herndon, VA 20171-3025 [email protected]
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 28 3 January 2010 Subject: RE: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: "Jacqueline Haynes"
OK..so after reading much of this discussion, I am left with the following thoughts:
LETSI seems to be orienting itself to the e-learning space much as ADL did once upon a time. There are many components to the space, with some being more difficult to address than others. Success in distributed distance learning requires
● good designs for learning in the distributed e-learning context
● learning content
● media (of various types, which certainly could include social media, VE, etc.) to hold the content
● methods/tools to develop the content and put it into the media
● a mechanism for storing stuff (content, media, learning designs, etc)
● a mechanism for delivering stuff to learners
● a method and mechanism for managing the above stuff
● a method and mechanism for managing student learning experiences
● a method and mechanism for tracking and reporting what students do (and how well they do it)
AND--I think this is the most difficult part
● a way for all the enterprises involved in this process to receive value for their effort (student learning outcomes, money, product with value, glory, karma points--whatever)
● a way for the community
It seems to me that the most difficult problem is creating or defining a value proposition that is enticing to all required participants, and neither ADL nor LETSI have been successful in this regard. I think addressing the technical solution independent of the other factors is taking the easy way out. Perhaps within the limitations of ADL or LETSI, that’s the only thing to do. But I think we can do more.
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 29 3 January 2010 I think that so far the most valuable thing LETSI has done is sponsor the Pensacola meeting and its associated white papers. This meeting stimulated a tremendous outpouring of interest, creativity, work, and a great sense of community among a very diverse group of stakeholders (where the “stake” held by some was purely personal interest/passion--which we need). We came out of that meeting with a strong consensus in some areas, and a sense of not being able to get much of anywhere in others (another kind of consensus, I believe).
I think we need more of this type of opportunity to define the big picture and address ALL the issues, including those that are most difficult to consider. By saying that any part of this process is “outside the purview of LETSI,” we may neglect the most important part of the enterprise. This doesn’t mean that LETSI can or should develop any of it. And what relationship this may have to standards or standards bodies I think is one of the questions to address.
Maybe LETSI’s role is to be the community catalyst. To ask the hard questions. To bring together folks with enough passion to address the hard questions. Would I (or my firm) pay to participate in this community? Certainly. I have been doing this for years (as have many on this e-mail list).
So--those are my thoughts, for whatever they’re worth.
Jackie
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 30 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: Avron Barr
Responding to Goulwen's comment, would anyone like to figure out how to move this discussion to the LETSI website/wiki/blog?
-- Avron Barr LETSI Communications Chair www.letsi.org +1.831.419.5829
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 31 3 January 2010 Subject: RE: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: "Banks, Frederick Z"
Before we forget remember what the purpose of SCORM is or was? It has accomplished a lot.
I showed a relationship diagram at Pensacola on the first day showing how the e-learning technologies are related. I was hoping that we would look at the whole picture. That never happened. There was a discussion about a top-down approach and a bottom-up approach, but I don't think we got anywhere.
I'll look for my old notes.
Fred
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 32 3 January 2010 Subject: RE: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: "Crispin Weston"
John,
And I agree with what you are saying about cost and value and making business sense.
At the risk of being facile, it seems to me that the way forward on achieving interoperability is not to implement the standards but to standardise the implementation. That way, you hitch a ride on what people are doing anyway and make it at least over the first hurdle. What you say about community coming first is then very important to ensure that you have netted more than one implementation and that they are all consistent.
My concern about being too specific in defining the problem space is that that might limit the organisation’s ability to respond to unanticipated market demand. A very architectural approach strikes me a being rather academically-driven top-down, rather than implementation-driven bottom-up. I would see the mission statement being more fuzzy-edged vision than hard-edged design.
Crispin.
_____
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 33 3 January 2010 Subject: Fwd: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: Avron Barr
All,
The strategic planning methodology described by Mark Ewer below is quite general and might be useful in sorting through our deliberations....
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Ewer, Mark"
>Could you review these areas of focus and, if you think they are worthwhile, send them out to the group?
> 50,000 Feet View - Life > We start with the big picture. Why does LETSI exist? When LETSI was first formed we were all expecting that LETSI would become the steward of SCORM and the coordination point for future versions of SCORM. We now know that the ADL will retain SCORM, so what is the reason for LETSI's continued existence? I think that we can all see real value in the LETSI organization but that we need a clear purpose for the group stated openly to everyone. > > 40,000 Feet View - Five Year Outcome > What is the outcome we expect for LETSI to have achieved in five years. I am a firm believer that we have to start with the end in mind. What does it mean for LETSI to be successful? What does "success" look like? If you don't have a clear definition of success then you can't select the right goals. > > 30,000 Feet View - One Year Goals > What goals do we need to achieve in 2010 to move the group towards success? At this level, we should be defining which working groups LETSI needs to accomplish the goals it has for the coming year. Again, start with the end in mind. If each WG has clear goal then they can focus on a achieving that goal. > > 20,000 Feet View - Areas of Responsibility
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 34 3 January 2010 > What is each working group responsible for? Each Working Group needs an area of responsibility to guide and constrain their efforts. I think these are fairly clear now but will need to be re-evaluated annually based on the goals for that year. This will allow the working group leaders to easily select which projects deserve the group's attention and which do not based on if they fall in that area or not. > > 10,000 Feet View - Current Projects > Projects are the activities that LETSI undertakes. Each Working Group should have several projects at any given moment. Each project should have a clear goal or desired outcome and that goal should contribute to the annual LETSI goals. I am a firm believer that LETSI should remain a highly agile organization. To that end, we should keep our projects short and each WG should be able to complete several each year. We select projects by evaluating the ideas the group generates and pick the ones that move us toward the annual LETSI goals. For a group the size of LETSI, we should have thirty to fifty projects at any given moment. > > Ground Level View - Next Actions > What is the next action? Projects don't move forward by great planning or clever thinking. They move forward based on actions. Every WG meeting should end with a discussion on the question What is the next action? You don't need to plan ever action for your project ahead of time. Instead, we embrace the agile mindset of planning only the next action that moves us toward the goal. We should review the Next Action list at every WG meeting. Each WG should have thirty to fifty actions at any given moment.
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 35 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: Ellen Meiselman
Hi All -
Per Aaron's suggestion, I've created a Wiki page where we could move this discussion.I'll paste in the comments so far in a moment. http://wiki.letsi.org/display/nextscorm/Discussion-+LETSI%2C+Phase+2%2C+Architecture %2C+2010 or shortened: http://bit.ly/7CMcIc
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 36 3 January 2010 Subject: Re: LETSI, Phase 2, Architecture, 2010 From: Ellen Meiselman
OK - the whole discussion has been moved over. Please continue it there: http://bit.ly/7CMcIc
E.
Compiled from email by instructional media + magic inc. 37 3 January 2010