SIMNET Weblog

April 13, 2009

Part III- Web Services API for SCORM Run-Time Communication

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — Frank Polster @ 9:14 pm

For those that were on spring vacation I wanted to update you all on our last meeting which was highlighted with a tour of the project’s software development site on SourceForge.

There was a great discussion led by Mike Rustici, Chuck Allen and Schawn Thropp on the project concept model. There is general agreement on phase 1 and the notion that the authentication by a web services by separating the SCO from the server side opens up a whole set of new possibilities and solutions to known problems e.g. cross domain scripting, synchronous vice asynchronous, multi player access to a SCO, access to multiple LMSs, etc.

Exciting possibilities and it brought back to mind the great set of discussions that we had last summer with the SCORM 2.0 200 plus white papers. From my point of view we have passed from talking about issues and embarked on taking the first set of steps to solving those issues we discussed last summer and came to a consensus about in Pensacola.

As most of you know, one of the things that make LETSI different from others is the notion that we will develop open source software solutions in parallel to pursing a standard. An innovative approach and consistent with our community’s idea that “working code trumps all theories” To that end we discussed our first stab at an IP Agreement.

Simply stated, the IP agreement says:

* You retain ownership/rights over everything that belongs to you that you contribute.

* You grant LETSI and others in the LETSI community who has access to your contributions a royalty-free license to such contributions.

* In turn, LETSI makes its work available under the Simplified BSD license. This is a “business permissive license” that allows derivative works. Under BSD, you are free to modify, use, redistribute LETSI work as you see fit.

Occasionally, members may want to volunteer use of a system or content for testing or similar purposes or might otherwise want to reference or discuss a proprietary system or approach as an example of industry practice. These situations can be accommodated without such materials/systems being deemed contributions — If these situations arise, simply be explicit as to your intentions, record in meeting minutes, memo agreement, etc.

If you are interested in contributing to this effort download and sign the IP agreement. As necessary, bring to the attention of those within your company who need to review. See:

https://letsi.org/resources/LETSI-Contributor-IPR-Agreement-r1.doc

https://letsi.org/resources/LETSI-Contributor-IPR-Agreement-r1.pdf

Sign and email to info@letsi.org or fax to: +1 919-573-9124

Please cc Frank at polsterf@gmail.com

If you are interested in participating but not quite sure dial in to one of our online meetings this coming Wed at 1200hrs EST (15 April) the project’s software developers will meet and the following Wed 22 April the general project members will meet at 1200hrs EST.

The project documentation and dial in information for the Wed 1200hrs EST is:

Project Documents – see: http://wiki.letsi.org/display/Arch/LETSI+Software+Development+Pilot+Project

Date: 15 & 22 April Time: * 16:00 UTC * 9:00am U.S. Pacific * noon U.S. Eastern * 4:00pm UK * 5:00pm France/Germany Duration: 1 hour

Skype phone: +9900827049304412

Conventional phone: local number + access code 9304412

US 201-793-9022 Austria 0820 401 15470 Belgium 0703 57 134 France 0826 109 071 Germany 0180 500 9527 Ireland 818 27 968 Italy 848 390 177 Spain 902 881 270 Switzerland 0848 560 397 United Kingdom 0870 0990 931

Adobe Connect session: http://pcpbu.na4.acrobat.com/letsi Log in as a guest

September 23, 2008

CCK08: “What is Knowledge and what is Learning?”

Filed under: CCK08 — Tags: , , , , , — Frank Polster @ 5:45 pm

Dear CCK08 and SCORM 2.0 Colleagues,

I am still trying to make sense of Connectivism and within this week’s topic of Networks. I am revisiting my Week 2 question — “Maybe I am asking the wrong question and it is not “What is Connectivismn but the question is “What is knowledge and what is learning?”.

The readings on networks go me thinking of Knowledge Management (KM), Etienne Wenger’s, the theory of situated cognition and his more recent work in the field of communities of practice. KM is an area that I‘ve spent a bit of time studying and practicing. Part of why KM works for me is that it bridges the issue that Jay Cross poses on Formal vice Informal Learning and part of it is that KM focuses on the Human Performance (Joe Harless), the outcome, or the so what. I think the larger issue is that if learning is a life-long pursuit, then my gut instinct says informal learning, communities of practice (CoP), KM, and Connectivism are part of that learning process along with formal learning.

I say to folks, that 20% (at most) of what you learned about doing your “job” you obtained from formal schooling and the other 80% came from on the job/informal channels. I think we can do better in the 80% arena.

From a theory point of view I am comfortable with situated cognition (Lave, J., Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation). I’ve seen some evidence from the Games and Learning Society and from Jim Gee (Situated Language and Learning (2004) which places video games within an overall theory of learning and literacy and shows how they can help us to better understand human learning). I’ve found Joe Harless’s Human Performance approach effective (where most successful interventions on performance problems have nothing to do with training solutions but management practices and human engineering interventions).

Is it possible and is it likely that Connectivism is an extension of other learning theories like situated cognition? Is it possible that when Stephen says Connectivism is “knowledge distributed across networks (of people, increasingly aided by technology) and that “learning is the act and process of forming and navigating networks”— is that much different from John Dewey’s (1938) description of education as an essentially a “social process” where the quality of education (learning) is realized in the, “…degree in which individuals form a community group”?

In my simple mind Stephen and Dewey are describing networked communities of practice (CoP).

Thanks Frank

Blog at WordPress.com.