Quinnsights: State of This Acronyms – by Clark N. Quinn


My editor had several proposed topics when I started this column. Because each of these was sort of waning, I wasn’t too keen. However, I decided that I could do them all in 1 swell foop (as the expression goes).
What she wanted was an update on three acronyms: ADDIE (Analysis – Design – Development – Implementation – Evaluation), SCORM (Shareable Content Object Reference Model), and MOOCs (Massively Open Online Courses). Since the petition their standing has changed, but not significantly. So, here’s an update on those subjects, and I’ll close with some off-the-cuff ideas about tendencies.

ADDIE was developed in 1975 from Florida State University for the US Army. Since then, it has turned into a mainstream design strategy in use across design. It hasn’t, of course, stayed static, having shifted in accordance with outside pressures and understandings. Is it relevant?
One issue has to be made apparent: ADDIE is not an instructional concept. ADDIE makes no claims concerning what are good practices. It’s not Cognitive Load Theory, Elaboration Theory, Four Component Instructional Design, or any other approach to discovering requirements. Instead, it’s a process model. It to be taken to go out of a necessity to a implemented solution. And you are able to slot any concept into the design stage that you want!
When you look across design domains (interface, industrial, graphics, and much more ), you’ll see three-step models and four-step models predominantly. Some assume that the analysis from the design, or the execution is lumped in together with all the evolution. ADDIE separates out each step, and with reason that is plausible. Design Thinking, the new umbrella phrase for layout approaches, asks you to diverge and converge on the problem (analysis) until you likewise do so for design alternatives. And the issues could be separated from the evolution issues.
One of the drawbacks is that it originated as a’waterfall’ model; every stage contributes to the next, and ends. As interface layout recognized from the 80s, an strategy tends to discover adapts and assumptions to user awareness through testing. Of course, among ADDIE’S adaptations is to turn into iterative.
What does this mean to answer the query? ADDIE on principle is simply fine. If, however, it’s made it simple for your company to make 1 pass rather than analyzing and refining, then it’s a burden, not a boon. My inclination is to abandon ADDIE because of its luggage and take a new strategy up simply to keep the attention. As the expression goes:”your mileage may vary”.
What is the status of MOOCs?
These started as higher-education asynchronous courses for learning that many people could take them. There may be synchronous lectures, but at the scale that they were being taken up (10 K students at a time), the marking was auto-marked and self-evaluation. And they changed over time.
There were two comparatively immediate happenings. One was that many people started, but the end rate tended to hover around 10 percent. This wasn’t viewed favorably. The next was that they were liberated, but if you wanted certification for completion there was a fee to cover.
Another development has been the development of MOOC platforms. The scale tended to demand re-engineering, and committed platforms emerged, while any LMS might be utilized. Some were collaborations; others arose from jobs. And these platforms quickly combined capabilities with specific business models. Firms emerged around the different offerings, including selling the lists of students to potential employers (e.g., software course finishers to tech companies).
The proponents of MOOCs contended that sense was made by 10 percent; those were people who found what they wanted went in, and did not care about completion. In reality, this’ versions were created for self-directed learning. Others contended that such a rate meant that there were significant issues. And among those problems soon became obvious.
The shortage of evaluation, owing to the scale of the classes, was debatable. Students quickly made their own groups to share their understandings. Afterward MOOC platforms added abilities, including peer review. This emerged as a way to manage scale, and instructors might manage the peer review to keep it.
Responding to questions is not necessarily a fantastic way to learn. Ordinarily, a domain that represents a topic demands complicated responses, which are still tough to evaluate. Critics rightly noted that such classes may teach you something such as AI (a favorite topic), but wouldn’t make you a AI engineer.
Finally, I think MOOCs have morphed into more traditional classes. The model of’free’ did not last, and the absence of interaction with instructors was crucial. We’re seeing a movement to more astute pedagogy along with distinct kinds of approaches to meet with skilling needs that are urgent. They can work for subjects, but those are rarely of purposeful interest.
Can SCORM is replaced by xAPI?
This raises the question of whether there is still a role for SCORM. And that question necessitates examining history and the motives of the two criteria.
Tired of the’angels dancing on the head of a pin’ arguments entailed to create an interoperability standard, ADL chose a’good-enough’ interpretation. Labeled SCORM, and with all the weight of the US government behind it, it became the standard. With attempt to generate awareness and uptake, it gained a foothold.
And it worked; eventually SCORM became a sensible bet that articles would be migratable, while there were hiccups. There was a gap; the responses were at the’course’ level. If you wanted finer granularity–for example to learn what people were accessing, how independent components were doing, etc.–you were out of luck. Or, instead, you had to produce your own mechanics.
Inspired by the data a push was to get a finer granularity. The best result was that the xAPI, a simple standard for reporting information in a who<did format. These took a new mechanism to aggregate the information, and the LRS (Learning Record Store) has been created. The information is not necessarily useful, but correlating information such as’who does what’ with outcomes from other business intelligence systems starts giving a richer picture of performance. XAPI is not the only such — IMS for example has a similar standard called Caliper using a Sensor API — while Sensor API is more targeted at ed, but xAPI is.
What’s that ADL has released an aggregation of APIs that achieve the exact same thing SCORM does. The specification that is cmi5 is, at heart, a pair of statements that are xAPI plus rules that really are a SCORM that is greater. Ultimately, xAPI is a richer format for kinds of information, and cmi5 would be to supersede SCORM. XAPI was an enabler, although yes, SCORM is lifeless.
By acryonym into buzzword
As a little aside, it seems that there is a movement away from acronyms. (Maybe we’ve hit acronym fatigue! ) ) Regardless, we’re not overlooking buzzwords, but they’re getting. Although microlearning is not dead yet, right now, the hot topic is workflow learning. And the aforementioned Design Thinking (even I’m guilty) is in vogue.
The fast point is that there will always be new things together with the hype that is associated. Do the due diligence it is worth it to track the trends, understand the opportunities that are actual, when it makes sense, and engage. Make sense?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

New Thinking. New Online Learning.

Signup For Access To Free Courses and Lessons

For more details click on the below link.
Get the week’s best articles right in your inbox
Join 15K subscribers