Forum .LRN Q&A: Re: Adaptive learning

Collapse
9: Re: Adaptive learning (response to 1)
Posted by Staffan Hansson on
Talli, I appreciate your concern for keeping the atmosphere in the community a friendly one. You certainly contribute to this with your good-humored posts. Me, I wasn't using a heated language according to my own standards, but I did grow up in a rough neighborhood, so... I too deeply respect integrity, even though I might have a slight problem with authority (but who hasn't these days?). It was indeed because of Michael's strong integrity I felt I could speak my mind. What I do regret is the doubt I expressed about the financers' integrity and hence ability to make an independent judgment of the actual facts in this case. I apologize.

Michael, I think you have just landed this discussion on the level where it belongs. Thanks.

By now we all know that the Curriculum module will not revolutionize dotLRN; its stated goal is not to solve the problems of true adaptive learning but to offer a simple sequencing that fully meets the top standard. We further know that we have the human resources within the community to address the issue of adaptive learning and eventually offer services the world has never seen. And, finally, we know that the community might want to aim at making dotLRN as a whole an implementation of SCORM 1.2 (why not 1.3?).

Let me try to explain why we never claim that Curriculum with its simple sequencing will be an implementation of SCORM. If we eat salad, and rabbits are known to eat salad, this doesn't make us rabbits. Similarly, if we follow IMS simple sequencing standards, and SCORM 1.3 is known to follow the same standards, this doesn't make us followers of SCORM standards. We are vegetarians: we eat salad, not rabbits; we follow IMS, not SCORM. So, Curriculum itself does not imply SCORM 1.3, but neither does it prevent dotLRN as a whole from following SCORM 1.3 - or 1.2, for that matter. We have no opinion about dotLRN as a whole.

About the need for common definitions; Curriculum will indeed be partly compliant with SCORM, making it all right in IMS's view for us to call it an LMS. Is it the community's opinion that we, nevertheless, should refrain from calling it an LMS? We may simply state that Curriculum offers simple sequencing without claiming it is an LMS. Whichever causes the least confusion and puts OpenACS and dotLRN in the best marketing position is fine by us. Fortunately, we have never used the term adaptive learning in any of our texts on Curriculum. To be honest, I didn't even know the term until it became the title of this thread...