NCTM Illuminations publishing test

[joe hobson]

We have been working with Thinkfinity and NCTM to get the Illuminations collection of Math lessons and interactives published to the Learning Registry. Verizon and EdGate worked with us to get a copy of the collection as XML to help us get it published for NCTM. Though we looked at several different methods we could use to convert the data to a common format and publish it, we ended up generating a CSV and publishing the records through EasyPublish. This way it will use LRMI, in a commonly seen format in the LR, and will allow the Illuminations admins to manage their LR records through the EasyPublish tool in the future. 

I published the first set of records to the Sandbox node as a test. It would be helpful if others in community with development systems connected to the LR could verify the data, and provide feedback where you think we could improve it. Here's a slice of the first set of records: https://sandbox.learningregistry.org/slice?identity=Illuminations%20%3Cillum...@nctm.org%3E

-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-

joe hobson, director of technology & innovation

   Navigation North Learning

[joe hobson]

We ran into few little performance issues with EasyPublish in our testing of the Illuminations publishing, so we updated it today and updated the spec to 0.51.0 to match the Alpha node. Changes can be found here: https://github.com/easypublish/EasyPublish/commit/d4447d6d69edb391d61559e5166cde63d05b1c24

If anyone would like to test out those Illuminations records with the 0.51.0 spec, you can find them here: http://alpha.learningregistry.org/slice?identity=Illuminations%20%3Cillum...@nctm.org%3E

[joe hobson]

Does anyone have feedback on the Illuminations records on the Sandbox or Alpha nodes? We'd like to move forward with publishing the collection to the live nodes early next week. Thanks 

[joe hobson]

I should have been a little more clear in my request, since really what we're looking for feedback on is the format of the data we're publishing. This is all going through EasyPublish, so I assume the format has already been analyzed by many developers for other resources that have been published through the EasyPublish tool, but it seemed like a good time to take another look at it. 

For the most part, the amount of data supplied is exactly what we were given by Illuminations through EdGate, but based on your questions, I looked at it again and there are a few places we can get a little more. I'll respond to each request in-line...

we need the learning objectives

We do have a field labeled "learning objectives" (for about 2/3 of the records) that we didn't publish in this test because for many records it just looked like a copy of the main standard addressed. Looking at it again, we should try to fit it in somewhere. 

Here's an example of one, A Lunch-In Affair: https://sandbox.learningregistry.org/obtain?by_doc_ID=false&request_id=http://illuminations.nctm.org/Lesson.aspx?id=818

The data we have for Objectives: "Students will: use problem solving skills, measuring techniques, and food preparation experiences to practice various math concepts apply previous learning to decision making that involves purchasing and preparing at least a five-item menu share the cost of the meal among class members proportionate to the amount of food ordered by each member"

The real question with learning objectives though - where do you include those in LRMI? Looking at the spec, none of the properties looks like the right fit. None of the examples include markup for Objectives, even the Complex Area Problems example which displays Objectives but doesn't designate them as LRMI data.

The resource type would also be useful. Illuminations has two types: Lessons and Interactives.

We do designate learningResourceType for Interactives. Here's an example: https://sandbox.learningregistry.org/obtain?by_doc_ID=true&request_id=6fcca0ee0643413d982588a38ad3aebd

We haven't been designating Lessons because the incoming data has it in another field. I'll get that fixed. Many of the other resources, like Brain Teasers, don't actually list as any particular type so we'll keep it that way.

Can you add the standard alignments? On the Illuminations site, there are alignments to Learning Objectives, NCTM Standards and Expectations, and CCSS; but I don't see those in the sample slice.

We only have the CCSS alignments, and I believe every record published shows at least one. For example: https://sandbox.learningregistry.org/obtain?by_doc_ID=false&request_id=http://illuminations.nctm.org/Lesson.aspx?id=1010

Finally, many (perhaps most) of the resources use related artifacts such as activity sheets. Ideally, those would appear in LR as related to the main resource.

We don't have that data to work with, unfortunately.

So my main question here is... what do we do with Learning Objectives?

[Jeanne Kitchens]

Joe, I concur with Andy, to be useful, we need the learning objectives and resource type, and the related artifacts would be nice to have as well.  Thank you very much, Jeanne

 

From: learnin...@googlegroups.com [mailto:learnin...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andy Miller
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 12:51 PM
To: learnin...@googlegroups.com
Cc: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [learningreg-dev] Re: NCTM Illuminations publishing test

 

Hello Joe, 

In order of usefulness for educators...

Can you add the standard alignments? On the Illuminations site, there are alignments to Learning Objectives, NCTM Standards and Expectations, and CCSS; but I don't see those in the sample slice.

The resource type would also be useful. Illuminations has two types: Lessons and Interactives.

Finally, many (perhaps most) of the resources use related artifacts such as activity sheets. Ideally, those would appear in LR as related to the main resource.

Andy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Learning Registry Developers List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to learningreg-d...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jim Goodell]

RE: "What do we do with Learning Objectives?"

IMHO... The "Learning Objectives" in this case are part of the resource data, a text excerpt from the content of the example lesson plan.  Including this text is not unlike full text indexing the entire lesson plan, or in this case a section of the content.  Not sure if the goal is to push content to LR or just metadata...seems like this crosses the line.    ...If the goal is comparability/fllter-ability, then using AlignmentObject to learning standards is the better way of including comparable "learning objectives".  ...just my opinion, welcome other views.

[Damon Regan]

I'm intrigued by this question: "what do we do with Learning Objectives?"

I see your point, Jim, and surely the AlignmentObject is needed as you suggest.  However, it doesn't feel satisfying to me to say the statement of learning objectives is just part of the full text.

I'm curious to hear from those who have participated in LOM, DC, and LRMI discussions about properties of metadata why learning objectives are not "core."  The alignment between objectives, content, and assessments is critical.  Perhaps the alignment with standards / educational frameworks is the best way to create alignment.  I know I have advocated for this important alignment.  However, what about the effort someone took to write a clear learning objective?  Is this not a valuable piece of alignment information in addition to the specific AlignmentObject or conformsTo properties pointing to educational frameworks?  Just as we expect as users searching for books to see a title, format, and preview image, do we not as educators expect to see how an educator specified the learning objective?  I'd imagine the variation in quality and completeness might limit the motivation to make the learning objective statement a property of its own.  If this is the case, high visibility to encourage better practice would seem to be what learning technology can provide.

Perhaps the author is an educational framework and the objective he or she wrote is a node in that framework?

Best Regards,

Damon

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
 
To post: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com.

[Jim G]

Part of this is semantics. We can agree that learning objectives come in multiple forms.   Do we need learning objectives defined differently by different people and within the context of delivering a lesson, or do we need standardized and comparable learning objectives?  Is the use case for display, or for discover-ability through a search engine?  If for discoverabilty using learning objectives defined as one or more items in a learning standards framework is the best option for comparability.  A learning resource can have both forms that serve different steps in the resource selection process.  A use case might be that the learning objectives (as metadata defined by alignment to learning standards) is used to filter search results, and then the person looks at the clearly stated objectives in the narrative/text to decide whether or not to use the discovered resource.