LETSI Open Forum, August 25, 2008

LETSI hosted an impromptu Open Forum on Monday, August 25th, at 6pm Eastern for those attending the ADL's Implementation Fest in Orlando.

Minutes from the Open Forum:

ImplementationFest 2008 - Orlando, FL

Participants

Remote:  Lewis Algazi, Mark Friedman, Don Holmes, Frank Polster, Tyde Richards, Aaron Silver

In Person:  Fred Banks, Avron Barr, John Bell, Peter Berking, John Campbell, Nina P. Deibler, Chris Dubuc, Ellen Epstein, Mike Fore, Wayne Gafford, Shane Gallagher, Peter Ghali, Jason Haag, Jackie Haynes, Bob Hess, Lang Holloman, Paul Jesukiewicz, Angelo Panar, Tammy Pierce, Eric Roberts, Robby Robson, Reggie Smith, Shirley Tessler, Tracey Williams, Chris, Robbe Addis, Michelle McCormick, Maggie, Mike Rustici, Dan Young

Call to Order

Avron Barr called the meeting to order at 6:05 PM and asked all of the participants to introduce themselves. 

Avron provided a brief overview of LETSI and the transition of SCORM out of ADL and into a new entity.  He also described the LETSI governance model and SCORM 2.0 timeline. 
SCORM 2.0 Workshop Updates

Mike Rustici provided an overview of the goals of the SCORM 2.0 workshop and the white paper review process.  Mike described the "birddog" process and how birddogs will summarize, tag, and further describe the author's intentions.  Each paper has a wiki for additional descriptions, tags, and discussion.  Papers will be clustered for secondary discussions.  The first categorization is evolution (fixes and enhancements to current SCORM) verses revolution (new and innovative directions for SCORM).  Before the workshop we at least need to have an understanding of the choices of what can be done. 
Robby demonstrated how to use the Wiki. 

Jackie mentioned the need to conduct a wider vetting of the requirements and needs as LETSI moves forward.  

Eric Roberts proposed some initial paper categories for SCORM 2.0:

• Fix SCORM
• Core SCORM
• Extend SCORM
• Increased Standardization
• No category
• New instructional capabilities vs. traditional didactic e-learning 

Robby opened the floor for comments and questions at 6:47 PM which included:

• Record and outline assessment strategies in a dynamic environment
• Would like to see more cloud types or polls for interaction with the content without writing a white paper on the LETSI website 
• DoD worldwide education forum in July2009 - meets every 3 years - might be a good time to vet/share ideas for SCORM 2.0 
• Roadmap and timeline needed 
• Next SCORM should move in a modular and extensible direction 
• To see the papers sorted based on the labels, go to SCORM 2.0, scroll down , about halfway down the page is an indexed list by topic to see initial groupings/clusters 
• Interoperability is a huge issue, moving objects between systems, if this isn't resolved other features and functionality won't be useful 
• Look at structure of training online and offline, launching SCOs in different locations, populating LMSs with data from offline systems, sharing data with multiple systems (LCMS, enterprise systems, etc.), avatars that could override learner or system defined systems, bring up proven technologies 
• Need to consider evolution vs. revolution and the timelines for each.  Need a process for SCORM 2.0 workshop, voting, etc. 
• Evolution is amazingly powerful, we can get to a lot of places by evolving the current product - may be easier for those frustrated with LMSs to digest 
• Where has e-learning been and where is it going - need to build that into the process, bringing in Web 2.0 processes 
• What modes of learning haven't we addressed because the technology wasn't there, learning hasn't changed, the way we can deliver it has 
• Process:  we need to specify what the objectives are for what we are trying to achieve so we can create metrics to know if we achieved it and how well we did 
• Common data standards would go a long way to getting data from the system to know what learners are really doing in the course and have tools to get the reports out 
• Evolution vs. revolution - need to still accommodate the -ilities. 
• Focus on real industry problems (solves real pain, leads to real adoption).  Evolution is a very powerful thing that could accommodate the revolutionaries in some areas.  Must nail interoperability with this release. 
• Need a process soon, need goals before we get there.  Need a concrete mission for SCORM within LETSI. 
• Two trajectories need to be addressed: 
  • Specification development trajectory (how do we act as stewards and as contributors). 
  • Making it easier for the users to implement (SCORM toolkit to make it simpler, like DITA)
• Evolution vs. Revolution.  DoD SCORM - what is the requirement going forward?  Keeping it simple.
• Who, what, where, when, why, and how?  What is the impact of what SCORM does?  Why is SCORM always stove-piped into the training domain?  Need to get our user audiences to understand how SCORM helps them.  Need something to happen that makes this really useful.  Need SCORM to be transparent to us - they need to know why it's important and WIFM for the people who are doing stuff w/ knowledge. Need to have confidence in technical stuff, but not know how to do it.  Need to know who all of the audiences are.  Who is responsible for what in this transition?  STRATEGY, ROADMAP, and PLAN as part of SCWG.  Need to have the requirements.  Go back to basics, looking at requirements and what users really care about.
• Need to look at all types of learning models.  Managing content as collections of activities and experiences.  Is it evolution or intelligent design?  Collaborative learning.  Don't forget about all of the other communities.
• Haven't heard a lot of discussion about tools.  Divergence - DoD SCORM .  Need more communication about what we're doing in DoD vs. what LETSI is doing before things get too far down the road.
• Need to identify who the user is: Individual making content, learner, vendor?
• Adaptability is one of most important decisions we need to make to move SCORM forward.
• Don't forget -ilities?  Are they all still relevant today?  What's the scope of SCORM?  Want revolution.  What topics did we think we'd see white papers on that we didn't?
• Evolution and revolution are not mutually exclusive; lay them out in a timeline.  Peter Berking volunteered to create some demos to show what some of the ideas would look like.
• Do we have the right people in the room?  How do make sure diverse points of view get into the working groups?  Need requirements and use cases from the broader constituencies.  What about our relationships with other spec and standard groups?  Do we need strategic relationships with them?
• Scope is critical, probably the hardest thing we'll ever do.  Are others not listening to what the scope is or are we not listening to what the scope should be?  Make more comments on the wiki.  

Robby tried to summarize the comments/concerns expressed.  Co-chairs of the program committee and others will try to flesh out a process.   
1.      Metrics

• Business: Will SCORM 2.0 enable the industry to grow 10x in 10 years?  AVRON BARR volunteered to look at this.
• Technical:  Interoperability & Implementability
• Pedagogical/Education: How do we measure the success of those technologies?  JACKIE HAYNES volunteered to look at this.

2.      Intersection of Evolution and Revolution - how can this be set out in a meaningful way that others can understand.  What's the timeline and continuum for the roadmap?  Nina and Mike Rustici will work on this.

• Evolution and revolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
• Need a roadmap that includes short-term hits for evolution but doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

Whitepapers

Need some kind of a response to the authors to acknowledge their contribution.  We also need use cases and requirements to drive the metrics, and not vice versa.  Need to know where we are going then how we're going to get there. 

At 8:01 PM Avron closed the meeting.