Tallahassee
Ted Baker(baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu), Larry Dennis(dennisl@csit.fsu.edu), Ian Douglas( idouglas@lsi.fsu.edu), Carole Hayes(chayes@oddl.fsu.edu), Chris Lacher, Sara Stoecklin
Roles of new attendees
We defined some new sections
“Florida Testbed” mainly discussed yesterday
Curriculum Vision (See later)
Learning Models
XML Standards (See later)
These have implications for existing sections on
a) Assessment
b) Educational model (distance education futures as in current introduction)
c) Technology which must support distance delivery, curriculum framework (Course repository) and assessment
We agree to complete drafts of the new sections in the next week and then update existing material. Sara Stoecklin will update her discussion of job force needs. We need input from non Tallahassee participants – especially on HBCU/MSI network.
1) Curriculum model will support assessment and portfolio analysis
2) Publishers should be interested in repository (a.k.a. warehouse)
3) We focus on foundational issues versus technical skills
4) Dissemination activities include research/scholarly work, repository and use/development of standards
5) Our innovative ideas are perhaps more in methodology than detailed technology
6) We discussed at length bottom up (develop course modules) versus top down (overall framework and standards based on things like objectives – such as train students for industry and core competencies)
7) Explain why our work is generally relevant
8) Look at IBM “alphaworks” process for selecting software to be productized
9) Also amazon.com rating method
10) Analogy to software engineering in top down curriculum design. Could use UML and XMI
11) Note our repository is in “software analogy” a repository of library components and not complete courses
12) We need to explain specific scenarios
13) Our approach is “experimental”. We are building course components to test methodology and technology.
Start by defining the concept of repository (see March 9 Discussion)
a) Dynamic Flexible Curriculum Framework for building tomorrows curricula with each item in repository of “any” licensing scheme.
b) The repository is a Library of components
c) We will simultaneously pursue top down (define framework) and bottom up development (build and use modules). The framework will be instantiated as a set of XML standards consistent
d) The framework will support modules that can be used in curricula from multiple standards ACM, CSAB, ABET, ACM/IEEE 2001, IS 2000
e) We support Curriculum composition using modules and module development. The modules can be developed in many technologies (see March 9 Discussion) but the developer is required to register metadata externally if not defined by authoring tool.
f) Capabilities/Services or tools built into repository – Store content, (Distant) delivery, assessment, comments (evaluation of modules in structured or unstructured fashion), search
g) We need XML standards for needs, prerequisites, objectives, content, lexicon, and document fragments. The lexicon (which is related to glossary) tries to encourage a common notation for important concepts. For instance we need to distinguish task versus process versus job.
h) Search tools should access both material stored in a “structured repository” as well curriculum nuggets stored as mycontent.xml on web servers (or as in napster on local files)
i) We need to describe relation of this framework to Blackboard, IMS, Publishing community, and Portal fields
j) We need references
k) We need Top-down metadata (define curriculum architecture) and bottom up metadata with scenarios to illustrate
Tool for searching existing repository
Support for 5-star like comments
Given a module, we should display relation to other schools and courses
Refine description in current introduction in context of above framework
Constructivist – learn by doing
Behaviorist – learn by reinforcement
Schema – build components and scaffolding to understand
We revisited the issue of community colleges but again decided not to focus on them as part of Florida testbed. In a perfect world, this would be a good idea but today, this seems not to be useful.
We need to quantify members of the network of collaborating universities – JSU MSU, FAMU, and James Turner contacts seem key here.