|
|
Learning
Technology publication
of IEEE Computer Society |
|
|
Volume 7 Issue 1 |
ISSN 1438-0625 |
January 2005 |
SCORM 2004 Sequencing & Navigation
|
Guest Editors: |
Dr. Eric Roberts |
Dr. Michael W. Freeman |
|
|
Chief Scientist for
Learning, |
Deputy Director, |
|
|
Advanced Distributed
Learning Initiative |
ADL Initiative |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr David Wiley |
Dr Demetrios
Sampson |
|
|
Assistant Professor, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Converting the Common Ground Station Operator’s Course
from SCORM 1.2 to 2004
Conversion of Air Force Modeling and Sim course to SCORM
2004
Meeting Armor Requirements with SCORM Reuse within the
Scope of Content Repositories
Building
Intelligent Learning Managment Systems to mimic the Teacher Student
relationship
The
different ways to implement the RTE and SN
Sequencing
and Navigation in Simulation-based Training
SCORM
Learning Sequence Modeling with Petri Nets in Cooperative Learning
Simple
instruction and assessment workflow templates
Using
Topic Maps to Support Non-linear Navigation for UK Defense E-Learning Programs
Regular article: Aligning Campus Portals with Learners'
Needs
Regular article: Developing a Collaborative Virtual
Learning Model for P2P Grid Environments
The release of SCORM 2004 (Sharable Content Object Reference Model) represents a moment of stability, according to official statements from the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative (http://www.adlnet.org). ADL derived its initial SCORM 2004 "Sequencing and the Navigation" book on the IMS GLS Simple Sequencing specification, version 1.0, and then developed refinements that permit its integration with the other parts of SCORM. This version of the document suite realizes the functionality originally imagined as a necessary baseline capability. Changes are expected to be minimal, repairing small pieces when bugs are identified, decreasing in frequency and scope over time.
This is true only from an engineering perspective, however. It is true that the functionality is stable. That is an important point for those charged with investing in instructional materials. Yet the functionality being described in SCORM only defines communications between instructional content and learning management systems. What creative instructional designers can accomplish for the benefit of learners -- using such communication functionality has only just begun to be demonstrated – as the papers collected in this edition of the Newsletter show.
These papers were received in response to a
formal call put out by ADL for a Workshop on SCORM 2004 Sequencing &
Navigation. The first such workshop ever
held, the intent was to speak directly to critics who decry how SCORM limits
the conduct of instructional design by showcasing clever uses of SCORM 2004
Sequencing and Navigation capabilities.
Even using the relatively limited functionality of SCORM v1.2, some of
the paper authors show how they have exploited the technology to solve problems
never imagined by SCORM architect and developers. The Arora paper, from the Dhirubhai
Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology, discusses a novel
application to address a need for disseminating scientific information. JGP Consulting in the
Perhaps not commonly known, it is interesting to note that the affordances of such instructional technologies were in the minds of ADL and SCORM creators from the beginning of the initiative in 1997. It is the case that industry-provided "use cases" drove the development of SCORM. Training scenarios of the type most often found in U. S. Department of Defense technical training were used to ground and orient the development of the reference model. The use cases provided a touchstone to determine if the problems that were intended to be solved actually were being solved. At the same time, SCORM developers included certain constructs that were intended to be used in ways un-imagined in the use cases but frequently discussed by instructional technologists. One of these is a rudimentary student model –one of the defining elements of any intelligent tutoring system.
So why were these constructs and technologies
not included in the use cases?
Looking back over the history of ADL and the development of SCORM, it appears that one of the keys to the success of the effort has been the negotiated, consensual determination of the model. The mandate to ADL to "advance the state of the art" in the development of instruction for the Pentagon was contradicted to some degree by the additional mandate to include all industry stakeholders in determining how this was to be accomplished. Some have said that the compromise resulted in an overwhelming momentum purchased, perhaps, at the expense of a less-than-wholly-elegant architecture. That momentum is attested to by the array of organizations and institutions represented in these papers.
To be sure, many of the papers included here do reflect an authoritative, directed orientation to the conduct of instruction. DoD training is usually focused on imparting and certifying specified levels of competence at demonstrable, job-performance skills as opposed to completely individualized goals of self-actualization that are more common in institutions of higher education. But SCORM 2004 is stable now. That is no longer a constraint. We can use it how we want.
The challenge is issued: how clever can you be? What can you imagine? What can you make?
We look forward to the next Special Issue on Sequencing and Navigation to celebrate your answers.
|
Dr. Eric Roberts Chief
Scientist for Learning, Advanced
Distributed Learning Initiative Dr. David Wiley Assistant Professor, |
Dr. Michael W. Freeman Deputy Director, ADL Initiative Dr. Demetrios Sampson |
Converting the Common Ground Station Operator’s Course from SCORM 1.2 to 2004
In November, 2001, Imedia.it, Inc. was
tasked with developing an Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI) product to
provide training on the basic operation of the Common Ground Station (CGS). The
CGS is a system which acquires, processes, displays, and disseminates data from
multiple sensors including Moving Target Indicator (MTI) radars; Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (UAV); Imagery Intelligence (IMINT), Signal Intelligence
(SIGINT), and Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) platforms. The purpose of the
course was to prepare Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers for
reclassification into the 96H MOS and replaces 70 hours of classroom
instruction from the active component CGS Operator’s Course currently taught at
The enabling learning objectives for the
CGS course come from 23 lessons out of the active component POI. These lessons were specified by the Distance
Learning office and the Army Reserve design team at
The assessment scenarios provide realistic
situations for the student to practice with the CGS software. Using animated graphics, the student is put
into a setting where his performance on his mission can be tracked and
assessed. The missions are carried out using the CGS e-Trainer, which provides
an accurate emulation of the software capabilities of the CGS system. This emulator, programmed in JAVA, allows the
students to perform the prescribed tasks just as they would in a CGS. The emulator tracks their performance on
these tasks and records them to a SQL database for tracking purposes. The performance results (the
The Statement of Work (SOW) specified that
the course be SCORM 1.2 compliant. The
resulting course structure is divided into 24 independent SCOs and one
dependent SCO. Each of the
knowledge-based lessons is a separate SCO, and the three assessment scenarios
are combined in a SCO. Incorporating the
assessment in a single SCO allows for control navigation within the assessment
module. In order to provide the
remediation from the
When the course was restructured to be SCORM 2004 compliant, the objective was to take advantage of the sequencing and navigation control offered. The LMS would be used to control all navigation and book marking. Additionally, it would be used to direct remediation. The assessment module was broken into nine chunks by defining each vignette as a SCO. The vignettes were then combined into three aggregations. To break the module down it was necessary to rework the transition pages so there was a smooth flow back to the LMS at the end of the vignette. Here the next step was either advancement to the next vignette or remediation. Additionally, it was necessary to see that the beginning for next vignette was not awkward.
At this time some questions remain. First, the original remediation directed the learner to a specific point within the lesson. Our new application merely directs the learner to the beginning of the lesson. We are looking into how we might still direct the learner to a specific point in the lesson. Secondly, the simulation module utilizes a database to facilitate transfer of the learner performance data from the Java code to the LMS. We are continuing to examine how we can drop use of the database. The new Activity Tree for the SCORM 2004 compliant manifest is shown below.
|
Don Holmes Imediait Jaime Henderson Imediait Jeff Choat Imediait |
Conversion of Air Force Modeling and Sim course to SCORM 2004
Background
The course domain is an introduction to
Modeling and Simulation (M&S) for Air Force (AF) personnel. We originally
planned to convert the course to a SCORM v1.2 conformant course. At the time
the conversion effort began, the subject course was being delivered through
Meridian Learning Management System (LMS).
This LMS offered the ability to deliver SCORM v1.2 courses, but since
SCORM 2004 had just recently been released, the LMS did not yet support SCORM
2004. This was the primary basis for
creating a SCORM v1.2 course. Later on the decision was made to convert the
course to SCORM 2004, due to the ability to sequence and navigate the content
to produce a more robust and effective course.
ReLoad: The free, open-source Reload Editor was a good tool for our purposes. It is a tool designed to facilitate the packaging of existing content into SCORM conformant content packages. Two different versions are available: 1) the original version which creates SCORM 1.2 packages and 2) the updated version by the Alexandria ADL Co-Laboratory which creates SCORM 2004 packages.
Word: We built a design map, or course outline in Word, which really helped to clarify and define the organization. For example, see part of outline below:
L02: Lesson 2: Categories and Processess (aggregation)
L02-C1: Lesson Intro (SCO) (child of aggregate)
L02-C2: Legacy and Next Gen systems (SCO) (child of aggregate)
There was discussion about whether to use the reload tool metadata generator. We weren’t sure if all data elements would be supported for SCORM 2004 yet, so we decided to enter them manually using textpad.
CMU
Templates: The
Sample RTE: We used the sample Run Time Environment (RTE) to test the content, due to scarcity of SCORM 2004 conformant LMS. This sample RTE platform gave us a chance to view the content after it was developed. The look and feel of the particular SCOs and learning objectives could be discussed. The navigation of the SCOs could be seen and debugged. Since the content was being converted to SCORM conformant content, there was much discussion about how the content may have to be changed to accommodate navigation rules without compromising Air Force policy.
SCORM Test Suite: Once the content ran successfully in the sample RTE, then we tested it using the SCORM Test Suite Version 1.3.1.
Initial Considerations
Size
– The AF M&S Introductory Course (“course”) is
quite large in storage size due to the extensive use of multi-media audio and
video. As a consequence, we will need to
ensure we are efficient in our SCORM packaging (i.e. only including files in
the package that are used by the lessons.) Also we consulted Air Force Policy
regarding SCO size and found that Aggregation should be at lesson level, and
SCO should be at learning objective level.
Context
– The course currently makes use of a main menu,
which will not be available in the SCORM version of this course. So we will likely need to make some
adjustments to the content. For example,
the course introduction as a SCO, being launched by the Sample RTE shows a
reference to a non-existent Main Menu button.
Asset
Definition – There are a lot of assets in this
course. Ideally, each of the assets used
by the course will be referenced explicitly in the manifest file (rather than
just existing in the Package Interchange File (PIF) – the compressed zip
file). This will require a lot of
Resource entries in the manifest and some decisions as to what these entries
will look like. For instance, should all
of the navigation gif image files (back, forward, help, etc.) exist as individual
assets? Or should they be packed together
as one asset?
LMS
Communication – Do we wish to have any learner
tracking activities with this course?
For example, do we want to require the course introduction to be viewed
prior to taking any lessons? Do we want
the LMS to enforce any time restrictions associated with any lessons? Do we want any scores to be communicated back
to the LMS?
Meta-data – It seems to make the most sense to begin constructing meta-data after the assets have been defined (i.e. the manifest’s resources have been completely defined). This approach should prevent the possibility of wasting time constructing meta-data for an asset, which might be rolled into another (as in the navigation images example above).
Other
considerations: We decided it would be best to
include each quiz question with the associated learning objective versus making
them their own SCOs. We discussed how content may have to be changed due to
navigation of LMS, and obtained input from Air Force on allowed changes to
content. We discussed about how pretest and post test might be tracked by LMS;
the instructional design choice was for these tests to be tracked, but not to
allow the student to test out of any lessons.
Snippets from our design and development notes
Building
the SCOs: The newly created index file is
responsible for creating the frameset of the lesson and has been updated to
reference global media files, such as the global navigation frame source. Once
the lesson directory is prepared, copy the directory to a new directory – this
will be your first Sharable Content Object or Sharable Content Asset of the
lesson. I made my directory names the
same as the identifiers used in the specification templates (e.g. “L05-C-1” is
the directory where the first child of the lesson 5 aggregation can be found). Delete
any files from this directory that are not relevant to the SCO (i.e. html
files, graphic files, flash animations, other directories etc.). If the SCO does not reference them, delete
them – we don’t want to waste space.
Update the index file to reference your
first html file – the point where the SCO begins. Edit this html file. All references to shared media files should
already be updated due to the preparation step; however, if any references
appear incorrect, now is another time to change them. Also, when building a
SCO, global search and replace is very helpful in this process (i.e. find and
replace in all files instances of src=”gui” and replace with
src=”../gui”). I used TextPad
extensively, www.textpad.com. If you use search and replace, be sure to pay
attention to both double quoted strings and single quoted strings – “pic1.gif”
is not the same as ‘pic1.gif’.
Building package with sequencing rules: In reload tool, right click on the lesson node, “Lesson 5: Organization”. Select “Advanced Sequencing: Add Sequencing”. A new sequencing node appears under the lesson. Right click on this new sequencing node and select “Advanced Sequencing: Add Control Mode”. Set all the values (choice, choiceExit, etc.) to true except for the value of forwardOnly, set it to false. Right click on the original sequencing node again and select “Advanced Sequencing: Add Sequencing Rules”. A new sequencing rules node appears. Right click on it and select “Advanced Sequencing: Add ExitCondition Rules”. A new set of nodes appear. Set the rule action node’s action to “exit”. Right click on the “ExitCondition Rules” node and select “Advanced Sequencing: Add Rule Conditions”. A new set of nodes appear. Set the Rule Condition’s operator to “noOp” and its condition to “satisfied”.
Issues: Evidently the Sample RTE does not offer any reporting capability to retrieve the data model element cmi.interaction at this time. This is something under consideration for future Sample RTE releases. This is important because, for this course, we wanted the LMS to track such things as which question on a test multiple students got wrong, so we could see a trend.
Activity
Tree showing application of sequencing rules
Conclusions:
Use tools whenever possible! Monitor adlnet.org for
updates to document, test suite, and tool releases. Run content on multiple LMS
if possible.
|
Damon Regan Joint ADL Co-Lab Susan Marshall Joint ADL Co-Lab Patricia Mulligan Air Force Agency for Modeling and
Simulation |
The Boeing
Introduction
This paper describes how we integrated a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) learning management system (LMS), SCORM-Compliant training that used SCORM 2004 Sequencing and Navigation, a full-fidelity DIS-Compliant flight simulator device, and automated performance assessment for the Boeing booth at the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) December 2004.
The goal of the demonstration was to showcase Boeing technology for Net-Centric Learning Management by letting people experience the concept first-hand. The demonstration featured technology that used DIS to automatically assess student performance in an F/A-18 weapon system trainer (flight simulator) and report the assessment to a COTS LMS. To verify the ability to perform complex performance measurements, we chose a mission that consisted of several complex and semi-complex maneuvers including taking off, climbing, turning, selecting weapon, operating the mission computer, and launching a missile.
The demonstration was held at a very large trade show that had a wide variety of attendees from various military, academia, government, and industry careers plus was open to the public. In order to be enjoyable to everyone who experienced the “Boeing Fighter Training Center,” we had to create several missions of various degrees of difficulty and properly prepare each “student” to fly their specific mission in a way that was stimulating to each of them. Since the trade show was held in conjunction with a very busy conference, a very tight time schedule constraint was imposed for the training.
This paper discusses the SCORM-compliant,
web-based training that was created to determine which mission the student
should attempt and prepare the students to fly that mission. It includes a brief discussion of the SCORM
2004 sequencing and navigation rules, CMI data model elements, and API
functions used. Due to space
limitations, this paper includes a very brief discussion of using the SCORM to
integrate the simulator performance assessment with the LMS. This paper does not discuss the simulator
performance assessment technology or the evaluation criteria used. Those subjects will be discussed at the
WoSS&N workshop and in forthcoming papers and presentations by Boeing.
The Problem
Provide stimulating, engaging, quality training consisting of basic information, intermediate knowledge, and mission information custom-tailored to students with a wide variety of proficiency within a very tight training time schedule.
Solution
ADL’s vision is to “Provide access to the highest quality education and training, tailored to individual needs, delivered cost effectively, anywhere and anytime.” SCORM 2004 was designed to provide the ability to deliver custom-tailored, quality training integrated with an LMS. Therefore, the solution was to create SCORM 2004 Compliant content that provided an assessment, proper sequencing and automated navigation through the variety of content.
Details, Design Decisions, and Lessons Learned
Three simulator missions and sets of assessment criteria were created for novice, intermediate, and expert students which we titled “Wingman,” “Flight Lead,” and “Mission Commander.” The same skill categories were used for the training which had to both familiarize the student with the cockpit (Cockpit Fam) and had to introduce the particular mission and key grading criteria (Mission Brief). Therefore, the training consisted of a pre-assessment (Proficiency Eval) and three different paths through two topics; followed by a common simulator mission generator and performance assessment interface. Multiple entry points were defined for remediation to specific topics within the familiarization and mission briefs based on simulator performance. The activity tree for this lesson can be expressed two different ways as shown in Figure 1 below. Option A required fewer sequencing and navigation rules but the course outline as presented to the student was not as intuitive as Option B.
Figure 1. Boeing
Proficiency
Evaluation
The performance evaluation unit was used to determine the level of training and mission to present to the student. The key decisions were first, how familiar was the student with the F/A-18 cockpit, its controls, and the terminology used; and second, how skilled is the student in flying an aircraft and operating a weapon system. The evaluation sets the success_status of the wingman, flightlead, and commander objectives.
Although this unit would ideally be a performance assessment, the short seat time did not allow time for novices to fumble around. Instead, a questionnaire was designed to assess whether the student was familiar with a) how to fly an aircraft; b) where the controls on an F/A-18 are; c) how to engage a threat and launch a missile. The first questionnaire, consisting of several questions, had a complex scoring algorithm that rated the student on a normalized score. However, the questions and answers were often misinterpreted and many people were uncomfortable with the choices. Additionally, the logic used in scoring was very difficult to understand. The sequencing rules that sequenced based on that score was also hard to understand. Therefore the, questionnaire was just as time-consuming as the performance evaluation and often provided a faulty recommendation.
The questionnaire ultimately used at I/ITSEC 2004 consisted of one question that asked the student to describe himself as a novice, an intermediate who knew how to fly aircraft other than a fighter aircraft, a skilled fighter pilot who was unfamiliar with the F/A-18, or an experience F/A-18 pilot. Each answer in the multiple-choice question was tied directly to one of three skill ratings. Until amended to include simulator experience, the questionnaire assessed a large number of highly skilled students as “novices.” While the amended question provided a decent categorization of skills, there were still a number of pilots that should have been in the intermediate level classified as novices.
better proficiency evaluation would have been provided by a simple interactive knowledge-based assessment with direct ties to objectives such as “knows location of throttle”, “knows purpose of throttle”, “knows location of TDC”, and “knows how to operate TDC”. To implement using simple sequencing, each answer sets the success_status for all three “objectives;” failing one, and passing two of them. Although this closely matches the common use case of scoring a pre-test and skipping units of instruction if topics are mastered, it is disconcerting to view the novice as having “mastered” the intermediate and expert curriculum. A possible solution is to add another sequencing variable of “assigned” in addition to satisfied and completed. Whenever branching is based on skill level or career path, this should be considered as a review records showing that the student mastered material that had not been assigned can lead to a great deal of problems. The student did not successfully master or complete the units of instruction nor the objectives they represent. Rather, based on the student’s current skill level or job assignment, those units (objectives) are not (yet) relevant.
Cockpit
Familiarization and
The cockpit familiarization and mission brief units consist of a single dynamic web page from the Boeing Virtual Training Environment that is able to load an interactive, 3D simulation of the F/A-18 cockpit and a lesson script that controls the text and audio displayed and also controls the 3D simulation. Each node in the activity tree for those units loads the same resource but assigns a different primary objective and has a unique set of parameters that describe which lesson script to load providing streamlined testing of the SCORM API calls. In the interest of keeping the tight training time schedule, all user interactivity with the 3D cockpit was disabled. Although we have demonstrated that this provides less training effectiveness, it ensured that every student spent the same amount time in the lesson. Each node presented several learning objectives that would need to have individual remediation, yet the nodes were not broken into multiple SCOs since that would require the 3D cockpit to be unloaded and reloaded between each SCO transition. SCORM Navigation was used in every SCO, providing for automatic navigation when each SCO is complete also ensuring that the training time schedule was followed.
Simulation
Interface and Remediation
Remediation is accomplished by reading a file generated by the simulation and setting the score.scaled, score.raw, score.min, score.max, success_status, completion_status, and description of several learning objectives. Although remediation involves the same resource and 3D simulation, additional information is used to provide streamlined, specific remediation. This can be accomplished by having the SCO examine the success_status of the learning objectives as set by the performance evaluation in the simulator. It can also be accomplished by having specific remediation nodes that have additional parameters and are skipped if mastered. Neither remediation method is shown in the activity tree.
|
Brandt Dargue The Boeing Company, |
Meeting Armor Requirements with SCORM Reuse within the Scope of Content Repositories
SCORM
Principles Meet Real Requirements
The US Army Armor School has real, immediate requirements to reaggregate content, which can be met using existing SCORM standards and the projection of developing SCORM principles. These principles can be grouped as follows:
- SCORM proper: packaging and metadata standards to support reuse
- CORDRA: processes for searching and finding courseware across repositories
- Repository Communication & Delivery: processes for SCORM/CORDRA conformant LMSs and repositories to communicate, share, recombine, and deliver recombined content to students
Of these, the first exists in its 2004
version. The second is under development. The third describes the functional
domain that will allow SCORM and CORDRA to reach their full vision. Although
the ADL is placing this development following the CORDRA search development,
the immediate
The development of a prototype, proof-of-principle solution for the Repository Communication & Delivery domain will not only meet the Armor School requirements, it will also serve as an early model that can be used by the Army, ADL, and other SCORM adopters.
Requirements
and Reaggregation Solution Model
Requirement: Create and update DL content that is delivered to different military occupational specialty (MOS) audiences containing a significant overlap of “core common” tasks and a large number of tasks which are almost identical except that the different audiences will execute them with different equipment (“core parallel”).
Requirement: Retain already developed, effective DL courseware for courses which will be discontinued in their current form, but whose content will still remain a training requirement to be taught in other venues not yet determined.
Requirement: Leverage the investment in DL content by allowing key portions of it to be reused in the instructor-led mode by resident and DL instructors and leaders in the field.
Reaggregation Solution Model: Create all future courseware not as a stand-alone SCORM-conformant course, but as “a bucket of SCOs” where each task is packaged as a SCO and designed to be intelligible individually or packaged as part of one of several pre-identified modes. SCOs will include their own help files, so will not be dependent on “course overview” SCOs. These SCOs will use both SCORM 1.2 and SCORM 2004 models.
Reaggregation Solution Model: As resources permit, some pre-identified SCOs may be developed at the sub-task level with core components and MOS-specific components to be deployed as MOS-specific tasks built up from common SCORM-conformant building blocks. We intend to build on the work of Dr. Adelaide Cherry, who has developed the concept of the “encapsulating module.”
Reaggregation Solution Model: The above SCOs will be managed in and delivered from within a prototype SCO Repository. This repository will follow the CORDRA concept of a number of distributed repositories whose content can be searched, accessed, configured, and delivered by distanced management tools to distanced users, all via a variety of SCORM-conformant technologies, not requiring a specific common proprietary platform.