Forum .LRN Q&A: Re: Request for advice from the OCT
in an IMS QTI implementation. (And there is nothing in the IMS SS spec that
indicates that simple sequencing should be used for anything besides sequencing
of its own learning activities.)
</blockquote>
Ola,
IMS specs aren't quite necesarily (I hope they would though) pieces of a puzzle that you can just put together. As a matter of fact, there are several committees attending different issues that very often tend to overlap slightly. In just cases, they usually specify in their specification work that is/has been carried out by other comittees and posible relations.
For instances, this is for IMS SS:
IMS Simple Sequencing Best Practice and Implementation Guide
Version 1.0 Public Draft Specification
2. Relationship to Other Specifications
2.1 IMS Specifications
The IMS Simple Sequencing Specification is related to other IMS specifications, both complete and in-progress. This specification is intended to be consistent with these other initiatives wherever possible, in order to reduce redundancy and confusion between specifications. The related specifications are:
...
* IMS Question and Test Interoperability Specification - the IMS QTI Specification defines the structures used to support the exchange of question and test data [QTI, 01a], [QTI, 01b], [QTI, 01c].
2.1.2 IMS Question and Test Interoperability
Several potential areas of harmonization with QTI have been identified during the development of Simple Sequencing. These include:
* randomization, selection, and ordering
* assessments as learning activities
* using assessment to affect sequencing behavior
--
http://www.imsproject.org/simplesequencing/v1p0pd/imsss_bestv1p0pd.html
Although it doesn't say specifically how they "fit together" it does acknowledge that potential areas have been identified.
And some of the issues of sequencing are part of them as show in the last bullet points above.
That's it then, that for now, there's no decision in terms of how these gray areas are going to be resolved, but they might be part of sequencing in the future / or they might be not.
<blockquote> To clarify: SS is restricted to sequence its own "learning activities" only,
but you are right in the sense that these learning activities can map to any
type of object, including a question in an assessment. However, there is a
practical (and very sensible) restriction placed by Malte et al who doesn't
want SS to run the internal works of Assessment, which it is best suited to do
itself.
</blockquote>
I think it wouldn't take so much effort to leave the door open for an option in the assessment package that allows another packages input for sequences, in the case that IMS SS version 2 does include its rule on QTI.
For instance, at the moment on runtime, LORSm asks LORS for the sequence it needs to display objects and render the index page accordingly. However, if we would have a SS engine, a SCORM course (version 1.3) could send the appropiate sequence of SCOs on the fly to the delivery environment.
It might be good if the assessment package could accomodate as well for this now. As it will make it still be useful if things changed in the near future.
<blockquote> Further, the fact that SS should not act as the internal sequencer in
Assessment, pretty strongly indicates, IMO, that the same might hold true for
other packages as well, such as LORSm, File Storage, CR, Forums, etc. I repeat,
SS is in fact very limited to sequencing learning activities, and is not a
general sequencer of any type of objects.
</blockquote>
So, Ola, now that the US Department of Defense has spent about 40 billion bucks on setting up SCORM, that includes IMS CP, MD and on their latest version adds IMS SS, are you gonna tell them that they got it all wrong?... man, I will be an angry tax payer! 😊
Ola, you said it yourself: "learning activities can map to any
type of object, including a question in an assessment."
Why would you limit yourself to your package? Would it seriously be much of an effort to open it up? Even for the engineering point of view, implementing a cool and neat IMS SS engine will be worth the challenge and make much more sense. I could have a good use to it, anyone willing to deliver SCORM 1.3 courses will be delighted by it.
Even I volunteer to code if required...
Is there any point of keep going back and forward on this? I really don't think so.
The truth is: the IMS specs are evolving functional specs (needless to say far from perfect), and not implementation specifications. They tell you how things should work, but they leave you in the dark in term on how to go about making them a happen. However, they do make sense. And they have some really smart people and with more experience than all of us put together in this area, and that's worth considering it.
If you still think that you should keep it for you own, fine. That's your decision and I'm not planning to keep pushing you otherwise. You loose your chance of making something worth for others...
Ernie
