Quinnsights: State of the Acronyms – by Clark N. Quinn
March 5, 20200 Comments
When I started this column, my editor had topics that are proposed. Because they each were kind of waning, I wasn’t too keen. However, I decided I could do them all in 1 swell foop (as the expression goes).
Their status has changed, but not significantly. So, here’s an update on those topics, and I’ll close with some off-the-cuff thoughts about trends.
Florida State University for the US Army developed in 1975 ADDIE. Since then, it has turned into a mainstream design approach being used across design. It has not, of course, stayed static, having shifted in accordance with understandings and pressures. Is it relevant?
One issue needs to be made apparent. ADDIE makes no claims concerning what are good practices to achieve learning endings. It’s not some other approach to discovering requirements, Cognitive Load Theory, Four Component Instructional Design, or Elaboration Theory. On the contrary, it’s a process version. It to be taken to go from a need to a implemented solution. And you are able to slot any theory that you want!
When you look across design domains (interface, industrial, images, and much more ), you’ll see three-step versions and four-step models predominantly. Some suppose the analysis in the design, or more commonly the execution is lumped in together with the development. ADDIE separates out each measure, and with reason that is logical. Design Thinking, the new umbrella term for layout approaches, asks you to diverge and converge about the issue (analysis) until you likewise do so for layout solutions. Along with the issues could be separated from the development issues.
One of the drawbacks is that it originated as a’waterfall’ model; every stage leads to the next, and finishes. As layout recognized in the 80s, an iterative approach will discover initial assumptions and adjusts to greater user awareness through testing. Of course, among ADDIE’S adaptations is to become iterative. Still, an approach like Michael Allen’s Successive Approximation Model (SAM), or Torrance Learning’s LLAMA (Lot Like Agile Management Approach) both naturally highlight iteration.
What exactly does this imply to answer the question? ADDIE on principle is just fine. If, however, it has made it easy for your organization to create 1 pass instead of testing and refining, then it is a burden, not a boon. My tendency is to abandon ADDIE because of its baggage and take a new approach up to maintain the focus. As the expression goes:”your mileage will vary”.
What is the status of MOOCs?
These started as higher-education asynchronous courses for learning that folks can take them. There might be synchronous lectures, but in the scale that they were being consumed (10 K learners at some time), the marking was auto-marked and self-evaluation. And they changed over time.
There were two comparatively phenomena that are immediate. One was that folks started, but the end rate tended to hover around 10 percent. This wasn’t viewed positively. Another was that they were free, but if you desired certification for completion there was a fee to pay.
Another development has been the development of MOOC platforms. While in theory any LMS could be used, the scale tended to demand re-engineering, and dedicated platforms surfaced. Some were collaborations; others emerged from endeavors. And these programs united capacities. Firms emerged around the different offerings, including selling the lists of students to prospective employers (e.g., software class finishers to technology companies).
The proponents of MOOCs argued that 10 percent made sense; those were people who went in, found what they wanted, and didn’t care about completion. In reality, this’ constructivist variations were created for learning. Others argued that a rate supposed that there were issues. And among these problems became obvious.
The shortage of external evaluation was problematic. Students made their own groups to share their understandings. Afterward, many MOOC platforms added abilities, including peer review.
Responding to queries isn’t necessarily a fantastic way to find out. Ordinarily, a domain name that represents a intricate subject demands complex answers, which are as yet still difficult to automatically evaluate. Critics noted that these classes may teach you something like AI (a popular topic), but wouldn’t cause you to a AI engineer.
Ultimately, I believe MOOCs have morphed into conventional classes. The version of’free’ didn’t last, and also the lack of interaction with instructors was crucial. Instead, we’re seeing a movement to distinct kinds along with more pedagogy of approaches to satisfy skilling requirements. They may work for topics, but these are infrequently of meaningful interest.
Can xAPI replace SCORM?
This raises the legitimate question of if there a role for SCORM. And that question necessitates examining the motives and background of the 2 criteria.
Labeled SCORM, and with the weight of the US government behind it, it became the standard. With effort to create uptake and awareness, it gained a foothold.
And it worked; finally SCORM became a reasonable bet that articles would be migratable while there were first hiccups. There was a gap; the answers were in the’course’ level. If you desired finer granularity–for example to learn what people were getting, how independent elements were doing, etc.–you’re out of luck. Or, instead, you had to create your own mechanisms.
Inspired by the data available through web activity monitoring, a push was for a finer granularity. The best outcome was the xAPI, a simple standard for reporting data in a who> format. These required a new mechanism to aggregate the data, and also the LRS (Learning Record Store) has been born. The data isn’t necessarily useful, but correlating data like’who does what’ starts giving a richer picture of functionality. XAPI is whereas Sensor API is much more targeted at ed — IMS for example has a standard although xAPI isn’t the only such.
This doesn’t answer this question: Does xAPI replace SCORM? What’s the fact that ADL has released an aggregation of APIs that accomplish exactly the exact same thing SCORM does. The specification that is cmi5 is, at heart, a set of statements that are xAPI plus rules that are a simplified, SCORM that is better. XAPI is a richer format for kinds of data, and cmi5 would be to supersede SCORM. Yes, SCORM is lifeless, but xAPI was only an enabler.
By acryonym to buzzword
As a little aside, it seems that there is a motion away from acronyms. (Perhaps we’ve hit acronym fatigue! ) ) Regardless, we’re not overlooking buzzwords, but they’re getting more phrase-like. Though microlearning isn’t dead now, the topic is workflow learning. Along with the above Design Thinking (even I am guilty) is in vogue.
The point is that there will remain shiny things together with the hype. It pays to track the trends, do the due diligence, comprehend the real chances, and engage when it is logical. Make sense to you?