<rant>
OK, I think it was precisely the "Intelligent LMS" comment that set off my danger meter regarding the adaptive learning stuff. I am a very, very big fan of adaptive learning. I'm pushing my company to put a lot of energy into it right now because I think it's critically important. But I get nervous when we start using (or making up) buzzwords so far out from implementation or even implementable definitions.
To begin with, dotLRN doesn't even have an LMS, never mind an "intelligent" one. And having worked with a number of LMS's recently, I can tell you that it will be a major industry advance to have non-intelligent LMS that simply works well.
Second, there is currently no standard or model that comes close to showing us how to build an "intelligent LMS." If you look at this IMS document [http://www.imsproject.org/simplesequencing/v1p0pd/imsss_bestv1p0pd.html], you will see that even the IMS iteself claims that the sequencing spec only gets you "limited" adaptive learning. Beyond "limited" (the next box beyond their scope on the chart they show) is "full." Beyond *that* is "intelligent."
I have no issue whatsoever with the curriculum module. I also have no issue whatsoever with setting ambitious goals. But I have a big issue with aiming for buzzwords rather than well-defined educational goals. I don't even know what "intelligent LMS" means, really.
</rant>
OK, now that I have that out of my system, let me not make any assumptions about what other people have in mind. Rafael, putting the buzzwords aside for a minute, what is the long-term goal that you were thinking of when you used the phrase "intelligent LMS"? What would that look like? How might it work? Let's hash this out into a vision that's concrete enough to be turned into an implementation plan.
