Abstraction of the content package to fairly granular, field based pools would allow for some VERY powerful possibilities. Like the content package, but don’t like the behavior of a course component, rework that component to behave the way you want without having to touch the content layer. Want your own branding for a common source design package – easy. Want to replace a few of the images or the audio used in the course, that’s easy to if it’s done right.

Modularizing content and building it so that we have maintainability (a far cry from what is typical) is where it’s at! The current momentum of Web 2.0 trends also seems to indicate that ‘anything can be a SCO’ could be a viable model (bookmarklets). Let the owners system determine how to best display the content. A package functions when delivered, but the behavior can be modified because of the virtues of a well abstracted content architecture.

Extend this further into open competency mapping and equivalent qualifying interventions… Wow – how cool would that be? An example:

In a galaxy of our own, a time not far from now, a parent searches the open competency database for approved packages for their homeschooled 1st grader. There are a variety of direction packages that share core elements, skills, and knowledge -but there is some variance in the focus and talent exploration. The parent decides to select a specific competency path.

Parallel with this path, a preset pairing of interventions has been determined as well as a discovered (search) pairing of both approved and unauthorative activities, sources, and other learning opportunities. The parent, or perhaps the teacher, is able to tune both the competency path and configure the session and activity types from an approved set for reaching each path milestone.

If the parent, or the student, finds something new they have the opportunity to tag this new resource back to the milestone (community driven competency resource expansion).

Not necessarily on the courseware path — but it’s related. What a tangent…

“I’d like to discover a learning object and just click a link/bookmarklet. That bookmarklet would pop-up a confirmation/password dialog from my LMS to ‘register’ the current page as a SCO.”

You should really look at Martin Ebner’s blog, brother. He was just writing me about a similar wish with bookmarklets, using something akin to Tumblr.

I like where you’re going with the persistence idea that’s firewalled — could be advantageous for both learner and the organization.

Tie that together with some discovery using subscription to RSS by keywords (or objectives, or competencies) and you accomplish intelligent tutoring, comptency mapping, performance management… all with a handy assist of the learners themselves. Talk about learner engagement.

I’d like to discover a learning object and just click a link/bookmarklet. That bookmarklet would pop-up a confirmation/password dialog from my LMS to ‘register’ the current page as a SCO.

Data & the SCO could be added to some sort of walled-off holding-pen of my learner data. Letting me create a portfolio with some persistence of training that *I* found and learned from. Imagine having THAT for your annual corporate performance evaluation review.

That’s a pretty brilliant concept. I mean, that’s the kind of idea that would’ve made CORDRA work (the federated repositories deal that ADL put out). It’s so obvious to me when you spell it out like that. It’s basically an extension of what Steve and I were discussing above, with an abstraction not just of packaging, but of “delivery.” Very intriguing.

There’s a lot of room to expand here. I’m aiming to have a first draft on this topic up on Google Docs today, and I would certainly welcome you to help write, if not review.

So when the course ran the manifest would define a link to an external content service and the pkg would have the template for the presentation side to know how to display it. It would need changes as the manifest would need to have attributes for the content address and an attribute for the template address which might be outside the pkg as well. Possibly allowing the lms to adapt/switch the template based on what is requesting the service-cellphone, flash runtime, html browser on a display in a car.

I just misunderstood the “service”, I get it now.

“is this more in the authoring environment some how connected to the repository and then generates static xml files included in the pkg?”

This is more of how I was looking at it. I wanted to a) propose a learning content model that all SCORM content will conform to, and then expose such a service to promote user-generated content in such a way that when endorsed by the administrators of the system, can be integrated into learning experiences out of the repository — using organization-established “skins” that allow the content to more easily stay in continuity with other learning content.

Now, when you talk about “the content to be exposed from a repository via a RSS-like service that is targeted in the manifest,” I’m not sure I get the picture you’re painting. Can you walk me through a scenario of what it would do, or how it would work?

“Exposing a content authoring feature as a service”

Were you thinking of the content to be exposed from a repository via a RSS-like service that is targeted in the manifest or is this more in the authoring environment some how connected to the repository and then generates static xml files included in the pkg?

I’ll be happy to have your input any time you have. Unfortunately, this white paper is due for submission by August 15.

“One of my ideas should to build a web service like basecamp for teams that create courses.”

I would be happy to include you on the action on this topic. I would LOVE to offer a model of collaborative workflow in support of an authoring service, but I fall short of the “daisy-chain” every time.

Better model for newer organizations, I can see this being pretty efficient.

I’ll draft up what I’m thinking and, if you’re open to it, send it on to you to pile on and/or edit. I think we’re talking about the same idea, but the limits of commenting here may be too restrictive. I’ll email you my skype and IM information — maybe we can share some notes.

As Scorm2.0 is under development, we are currently thinking about how we can adopt it. One of my ideas should to build a web service like basecamp for teams that create courses.

Your reflexion seems to go in the same way and I’m interested to share opinions with you as my reflexion advances (for now it’s not the case, but I’ve looked about DITA which seems promising.

Nautile

Behavior template + Behavior template + Behavior template… = Functional assembly

content is consumed by the org behavior templates -

Better model for newer organizations, I can see this being pretty efficient.

I would love to work with you on this idea. The one thing I want to be cautious of is the idea of a “cartridge” metaphor. As you may know, IMS has a specification brewing for Common Cartridge, and IMS and SCORM… not such good bedfellows. Save that, however, and the idea of a runtime design layer is pretty much what I was thinking. You open up a market for people to build the custom skins for organizations that run the same datafeed to fulfill the content.

I’m actually keenly interested in #1 above. Having served the military courseware development machine (various customers) for a decade or so, I recognized that content reuse has been rare and maintenance and deployment have been the biggest gotchas in the investment equation.

I’ve been a proponent of tool support and development, standardized pattern definitions, as well as standards based transport / transformation. DITA, S1000D, and similar standards that employ common source data ‘pools’ are the secret to minimizing redundancy. There are a lot of issues associated with a successful implementation (I lean towards simple and now vice sophisticated enough for the future.)

One of the other areas I think is lacking in this area is the transport of design data. I see no reason that a fields based standard design definition couldn’t be established. This would REALLY help folks share things that ARE absolutely reusable and might result in a higher rate of reuse.

I’ve worked with a lot of vendors, both when I was with the government and more recently as partners, that have use deployment methods that essentially create ‘content cartridges’.

So picture a standard runtime packaging that consumes a cartridge / organization specification to run a course. Think common source pooling and we can start to access bits of a cartridge (like DITA) from within a package. Cool enough – but move that backwards to a design standard (prior to final transformation) that can be handed off between centers, between organizations, and becomes a (potentially unused) part of the content package. So to see the design specifications, edit the design, etc.. it’s suddenly really easy if it’s contained in the content package. In the case of service driven assemblies, mash-ups, etc.. these specs could be functions of reports. Now to move a design from one authoring system to another, conceptually it shouldn’t matter what the original source for the design was.

Steve