See also: IRC log
... Crispin will now present
Crispin: I'll talk first about the history
of edtech, then standardization opportunity
... slides were distrib by email
... edtech not extensive impact yet on education
... backed up by recent study from the UK
... for standards org, difficult to assess market need then.
... first must ask why not more effective.
<Pierre> instruction is interaction
Crispin: basis of ed is child interacting
with a bicycle
... and there are other natural instructive partners
<Pierre> will try
Crispin: We haven't seen sufficient development of complex interactive software
<scribe> scribe: Pierre
Slide 5 representation of Bllom 's taxonomy
Instructional stack for digitizing interactions
Traditionnal teaching is managed by the teacher
Publisher providing textbooks
Teacher responsible for implementations
Digital Education : we do not want to replace the teachers
Slide 6
More process management type
Slide 7 : other way to characterize that
Activities embedded in a management cycle
Adaptive learning select next activities
Multiple activities in order to cover the curriculum
Interface between the two need standard (Red arrows)
Slide 8 : Pedagogy us activity sequencing
There are many sorts of sequences : according to performance, ...
Independent activities can be dependent on each other
scribe: There are many sorts of sequencing...
Slide 10 : abstract slide : around assessment
Assessment is a continuum....
... two triangles....
... Failure is key concept....
... we learn from failure....
... Reliable method to more integrated continuous assessment...
Slide 11 : Supply chain
scribe: Interactive courseware based on
information and activity softwares....
... there are gaps in this edtech supply chain...
Slide 12 : expressing learning objectives
people based on paper and digital....
... Education is interested by capabilities...
... we often certificate people on performance and not on capability..
... Capability representation is needed...
... Capabilities taxonomies could be defined by different people...
Slide 17 : Moderation
An authority is mamanging a process...
Slide 18 : moving to standards
We do not have the management system we need
We do not have any interoperability between LMS and activity softwares
Slide 19 : Key standards in this area
History of the SCORM initiative, which was a collection of many standards
OILS: UK initiative
There were a lot of organizations involved
American department of Defense
SCorm 1.2 included CMI, content packaging
Legal disputes between IMS and EDL
Everything stopped
A lot of disccusions there
Slide 20 : how SCORM works
Within the content package, you have a manifest and SCOs
... you can launch individual SCOS...
... SCO is an activity, with a beginning and an end
... 2004 : add of simple sequencing to that...
... it became complex.....
... need for in house implementation....
... othe people did not implement the runtime as well..
... dry TOC...
Slide 21 : Problems with SCORM
Legal disputes with IMS + Javascript API +
Fixed Data Model in CMI was a pbm....
... as knewton in the last Educ call...
... key point to draw out : field SCORM : SCO + Asset
You really can't have a fixed data model for innovation
scribe: more technical information needed (Transportation mechanism for example)...
Poor sequencing specification
Single learner model => No multi players ... gaming ??
2008: attempt to move beyond that
Slide 22 : Tin Can replaced Javascript
The Data model was very simple (Inspired by Social Networks)
Tin Can does not deal with object launches
Does not deal with metadata
Slide 23 : Standard issues
SCORM covered all the basis
We need multi player for pair learning
Datamodel definition language is necessary
LMS could basically discover
sequencing...
... elephant to the room : Privacy for Data
Transparency at minimum
Crispin focusing on interoperability, application development is a separate requirement
interoperability needs to be agnostic with regard to application platform
difficult to get consensus on something that hasn't happened yet, so standards creation is challenging
need to allow framework for innovation, and then specifications emerge from that
<Pierre> My question on privacy
Crispin: privacy is a key factor in this framework. Suggests create a description language that allows adaptation for different jurisdictions and legislatory environments
Judy: when W3C looks at taking on
standardisation activity it needs to consider pressing needs; which
organisations are active in this area and could partner; existing
technical work in the area
... may be overlap with digital publishing activity
Ivan: W3C has focus of work, i.e. core web technologies. Difficult now to define what this is, but W3C does have some sense of what this is. Of standardisation questions raised in this and previous call's presentations, which are in areas within W3C expertise?
<Pierre> Data interoperability Platform
Crispin: depends on what you see the Web as.
TinCan as an example provides a web service API. Real crying need in edu
is what the Web can offer as data interoperability platform
... web services is a key area
Judy: mhakkinen may be able to comment on edu standards and core web technologies
mhakkinen: currently in transition from
paper based delivery to web based rich assessments
... concerns over lack of harmonization in accessibility across
different standards for assessment
... example new initiative of interest is AQTI (Accessible QTI)
<Pierre> Open learning XML
MarkS: right now, EdX started own standard on Open Learning XML (OLX), would be good to see commonalities with goals of this group
Pierre: we suggest using wiki to propose
ideas for standardisation in education, for open discussion
... next call on 20 February will focus on discussion of wiki
<Pierre> -> Wiki site: https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities/w3c_most_important#Education_task_force