Questions from a newcomer about LRMI
Zoe
I'm a newcomer to this list, so I hope these questions haven't been
hashed over a hundred times...
(I had to use my google email to sign up, but my work address is
Zoe....@bbc.co.uk for private conversation. I'm an information
architect in our Knowledge and Learning area, currently working on a
curriculum ontology for schools content.)
(the current link on wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI goes to spec v 0.5,
but I've also found 0.7 - I refer to both here as I'm not sure which
is for public discussion).
Question one: links to curriculum standards
I know we don't have many machine readable versions of the various
curricula/standards, but should there not be the capacity to
accommodate them when they start to become available? I can't see this
catered to anywhere in 0.5.
Question two: competencies (teaches, requires, assesses) (v 0.5)
I must admit to being a little disappointed that the only curriculum
model catered to is the 'learning outcomes' model (skill oriented).
It's not the worst model, but it's not the only model either. I think
we would be well served by being able to accommodate a syllabus/
content oriented models as well, specifically by including 'knowledge'
here - it is, after all, possible to teach knowledge, require
knowledge, and assess knowledge, even if knowledge is not
intrinsically classed as a 'competency'.
(If anyone would like to chat about curriculum theory, do drop me a
line.)
Question three: reduced list of competencies in 0.7
I note that in draft 0.7, the three competency types (teaches,
requires, assesses) have been reduced to one 'competency': 'The
competency, learning standard, skill and/or text complexity that the
work is aligned to.' Is the intention that competency here will be
extended to incorporate machine readable curriculum links (as per my
question one)? I admit a preference for the granularity of the 0.5
version, and I am not quite sure what 'text complexity' is intended to
mean (is this terminology rolled over from LOM?)
Question four: assessment
Assessment is nobody's favorite area of teaching and learning, but it
is of interest/importance to our teachers and learners. It is also
intrinsically different from standards/outcomes - while a given
assessment activity should be based on a learning outcome (IF the
curriculum model is outcomes based, which not all are), the link can
be tenuous. I'd be very much in favour of having assessments,
including type (exam) and instance (GCSE, edexcel GCSE) described.
An example of why is is useful can be seen in TESOL (English as a 2nd
language) education. The competency 'speaks with words of more than
two syllables' (a poor example, I know) may occur in both the IELTS
test and the TOEFL test. Searchers studying for either IELTS or TOEFL
could benefit from the material, so if it is marked up exclusively as
being a TOEFL competency (rather than a generic competency that is
also described in TOEFL), the IELTS candidate won't find it.
I use this example both because it's easy to follow and to show the
importance of the compentency != assessment issue - people's visas and
university admissions can ride on their IELTS score (something which,
as a migrant, I have a lot of sympathy for!)
Looking forward to your responses!
Zoe
Greg Grossmeier
<quote name="Zoe" date="2012-04-24" time="10:29:17 -0700">
> Hello!
>
> I'm a newcomer to this list, so I hope these questions haven't been
> hashed over a hundred times...
Not a problem.
> (the current link on wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI goes to spec v 0.5,
> but I've also found 0.7 - I refer to both here as I'm not sure which
> is for public discussion).
My apologies. I have now listed 0.7 in the announcements there. 0.7 is
indeed the one you should comment on.
> Question one: links to curriculum standards
>
> I know we don't have many machine readable versions of the various
> curricula/standards, but should there not be the capacity to
> accommodate them when they start to become available? I can't see this
> catered to anywhere in 0.5.
By machine readable you mean fully dereferencable URIs with RDF
describing the thing represented by the URI? If so, I believe our
current (0.7) model of letting users give a URL/URI to a standard will
allow that.
> Question two: competencies (teaches, requires, assesses) (v 0.5)
>
> I must admit to being a little disappointed that the only curriculum
> model catered to is the 'learning outcomes' model (skill oriented).
> It's not the worst model, but it's not the only model either. I think
> we would be well served by being able to accommodate a syllabus/
> content oriented models as well, specifically by including 'knowledge'
> here - it is, after all, possible to teach knowledge, require
> knowledge, and assess knowledge, even if knowledge is not
> intrinsically classed as a 'competency'.
Can you give me an example of what that would look like? It might be
able to be accommodated within the current framework, actually.
> Question three: reduced list of competencies in 0.7
>
> I note that in draft 0.7, the three competency types (teaches,
> requires, assesses) have been reduced to one 'competency': 'The
> competency, learning standard, skill and/or text complexity that the
> work is aligned to.' Is the intention that competency here will be
> extended to incorporate machine readable curriculum links (as per my
> question one)? I admit a preference for the granularity of the 0.5
> version, and I am not quite sure what 'text complexity' is intended to
> mean (is this terminology rolled over from LOM?)
The competency term in 0.7 takes a competencyObject
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/Properties/CompetencyObject
That object has a value that can be one of:
assesses, teaches, requires, or textComplexity.
textComplexity being the odd-ball there which might not seem to fit at
first but it does allow us to say additional things about the work in
the same framework as we do competencies.
> Question four: assessment
>
> Assessment is nobody's favorite area of teaching and learning, but it
> is of interest/importance to our teachers and learners. It is also
> intrinsically different from standards/outcomes - while a given
> assessment activity should be based on a learning outcome (IF the
> curriculum model is outcomes based, which not all are), the link can
> be tenuous. I'd be very much in favour of having assessments,
> including type (exam) and instance (GCSE, edexcel GCSE) described.
>
> An example of why is is useful can be seen in TESOL (English as a 2nd
> language) education. The competency 'speaks with words of more than
> two syllables' (a poor example, I know) may occur in both the IELTS
> test and the TOEFL test. Searchers studying for either IELTS or TOEFL
> could benefit from the material, so if it is marked up exclusively as
> being a TOEFL competency (rather than a generic competency that is
> also described in TOEFL), the IELTS candidate won't find it.
Interesting proposition. I don't know about what kind of major changes
can be made along these lines, but do you know of a good vocabulary that
describes those assessments that are mapped to the two competency's
(TOFEL and IELTS)?
> Looking forward to your responses!
I hope that has helped! And thanks for your thoughts.
All the best,
Greg
--
Greg Grossmeier
Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier
Joshua Marks
One note re: Question three: reduced list of competencies in 0.7
In our change from .5 to .7 the reason we added alignmentType as a property
of the CompetencyObject was to accommodate other types of alignments and
acceptable values then just assess, teaches, requires, and textComplexity.
So I think the following needs to indicate that these are not the only
acceptable values->
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/Properties/CompetencyObject
Also we discussed that the alignmentType property was optional or reportable
(In the case the resource both teaches and assess, for example).
Zoe,
Great question about similar or equivalent statements in two different
standards frameworks. This has been a big challenge for a long time with 50
US states all with similar but different standards. It may well be an issue
even with variations of the common core. I don't have an answer, but it is a
question many of us have had to deal with time and time again when adapting
curriculum from one state to another.
Joshua Marks
CTO
Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community
jma...@curriki.org
www.curriki.org
I welcome you to become a member of the Curriki community, to follow us
on Twitter and to say hello on our blog, Facebook and LinkedIn communities.
Stuart Sutton
Stuart
Stuart A. Sutton
Associate Professor Emeritus
Information School
University of Washington
"Between saying and doing are a lot of worn out shoes.". --Tuscan proverb
Phil Barker
Hello Zoe, everyone.
On 24/04/2012 23:48, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
>> Question two: competencies (teaches, requires, assesses) (v 0.5)
>>
>> I must admit to being a little disappointed that the only curriculum
>> model catered to is the 'learning outcomes' model (skill oriented).
>> It's not the worst model, but it's not the only model either. I think
>> we would be well served by being able to accommodate a syllabus/
>> content oriented models as well, specifically by including 'knowledge'
>> here - it is, after all, possible to teach knowledge, require
>> knowledge, and assess knowledge, even if knowledge is not
>> intrinsically classed as a 'competency'.
> Can you give me an example of what that would look like? It might be
> able to be accommodated within the current framework, actually.
a little uneasy with the term competency in this context, Zoe has got me
thinking about it again, and looking at some curricula. For example,
for my children the school curriculum is about them developing
"attributes, knowledge and skills" or "attributes and capacities"[1]
I'm happy with skills being synonymous with competencies, but less so
with knowledge and attributes.
The curriculum itself is framed in terms of "experiences and outcomes"
with statements like "I have observed living things in the environment
over time and am becoming aware of how they depend on each other." [2] I
don't want to pretend that I understand this curriculum (or any aspect
of curriculum design) in great detail, but it seems to me that the
outcomes may be a competence but not the experiences.
I think Greg is probably right that the current framework could
accommodate this, but it would be better if the property of the learning
resource were a "curriculumAlignment" with associated expected type
"curriculumElement" (or some such terms that are more neutral with
respect to what the curriculum might comprise)?
1
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/thecurriculum/whatiscurriculumforexcellence/index.asp
2
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/all_experiences_outcomes_tcm4-539562.pdf
(example given is from page 260)
[Greg, is this suitable for adding to the list of promulgators?]
>> Question three: reduced list of competencies in 0.7
>>
>> I note that in draft 0.7, the three competency types (teaches,
>> requires, assesses) have been reduced to one 'competency': 'The
>> competency, learning standard, skill and/or text complexity that the
>> work is aligned to.' Is the intention that competency here will be
>> extended to incorporate machine readable curriculum links (as per my
>> question one)? I admit a preference for the granularity of the 0.5
>> version, and I am not quite sure what 'text complexity' is intended to
>> mean (is this terminology rolled over from LOM?)
> The competency term in 0.7 takes a competencyObject
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/Properties/CompetencyObject
>
> That object has a value that can be one of:
> assesses, teaches, requires, or textComplexity.
>
> textComplexity being the odd-ball there which might not seem to fit at
> first but it does allow us to say additional things about the work in
> the same framework as we do competencies.
property alignmentType which really describes a property of the link
between the competency thing and the learning resource. Doing this
properly would I think be too complex and just get broken in
implementation (remember this is schema.org not RDF, it needs to be good
enough to help search not describe the entire world).
Phil
--
<http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/>
--
Heriot-Watt University is the Sunday Times
Scottish University of the Year 2011-2012
We invite research leaders and ambitious early career
researchers to join us in leading and driving research
in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please see
http://www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders
for further information and how to apply.
Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity
registered under charity number SC000278.
Stuart Sutton
So, my position is that this widget (ooops competency) property can reference any learning expectation (actually a mapping to a learning expectation) that has been explicitly identified and can be framed in a reasonably brief string of text. Additionally, if you can point to a location where the consumer of the metadata can get more information about the widget, include the location's URL. If the widget has been identified by dereferencable URI, include it (although no machine will know whether you are referencing a page of HTML markup or a resource).
So, the bottom line for me is: (1) there is absolutely _no_ acceptable label to tack onto this property that will not be considered limiting by one party or another; and (2) the key to meaning should NOT BE THE LABEL but what is there in the expressed definition for the property. Right now, the current definition of competency property breeds confusion and limits interpretations of applicability. [1]
Stuart
[1] "The competency, learning standard, skill and/or text complexity that the work is aligned to."
Stuart A. Sutton,
CEO and Managing Director, Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
Associate Professor Emeritus, The Information School
University of Washington
Greg Grossmeier
just going to have many more terms added to LRMI to accommodate the
other concepts that are semi/completely overlapping.
The current description of competency reads as a set list of acceptable
types. Should/can this be expanded/made more open ended? Is that more or
less confusing to the 'end user' (in this case a webmaster or someone else
trying to implement LRMI into a platform using either existing data or
thinking about how to get new data from users).
Greg
<quote name="Stuart Sutton" date="2012-04-25" time="12:49:44 -0700">
> > whatiscurriculumforexcellence/**index.asp<http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/thecurriculum/whatiscurriculumforexcellence/index.asp>
> > 2 http://www.educationscotland.**gov.uk/Images/all_experiences_**
> > outcomes_tcm4-539562.pdf<http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/all_experiences_outcomes_tcm4-539562.pdf>(example given is from page 260)
> >
> >
> > Question three: reduced list of competencies in 0.7
> >>>
> >>> I note that in draft 0.7, the three competency types (teaches,
> >>> requires, assesses) have been reduced to one 'competency': 'The
> >>> competency, learning standard, skill and/or text complexity that the
> >>> work is aligned to.' Is the intention that competency here will be
> >>> extended to incorporate machine readable curriculum links (as per my
> >>> question one)? I admit a preference for the granularity of the 0.5
> >>> version, and I am not quite sure what 'text complexity' is intended to
> >>> mean (is this terminology rolled over from LOM?)
> >>>
> >> The competency term in 0.7 takes a competencyObject
> >> That object has a value that can be one of:
> >> assesses, teaches, requires, or textComplexity.
> >>
> >> textComplexity being the odd-ball there which might not seem to fit at
> >> first but it does allow us to say additional things about the work in
> >> the same framework as we do competencies.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, it's a little bit of a cludge, the CompetencyObject thing has a
> > property alignmentType which really describes a property of the link
> > between the competency thing and the learning resource. Doing this properly
> > would I think be too complex and just get broken in implementation
> > (remember this is schema.org not RDF, it needs to be good enough to help
> > search not describe the entire world).
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > --
> > Heriot-Watt University is the Sunday Times
> > Scottish University of the Year 2011-2012
> >
> > We invite research leaders and ambitious early career
> > researchers to join us in leading and driving research
> > in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please see
> > for further information and how to apply.
> >
> > Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity
> > registered under charity number SC000278.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Stuart A. Sutton,
> CEO and Managing Director, Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
> Associate Professor Emeritus, The Information School
> University of Washington
Brandt Redd
I always wanted to call it “CompetencyAlignment” rather than Competency since it doesn’t really define a Competency (or Learning Objective, Standard, Skill, etc.) it only express alignment to such. I think the only reason we didn't do that is because "CompetencyAlignment" is really long and unwieldy.
With that in mind, what if we change the name of the property (and its associated type) to “Alignment”. In that context, an “AlignmentType” of “textComplexity” makes much more sense while the meanings of “teaches”, “requires” and “assesses” also work. And, in the spirit of Schema.org, future values for “alignmentType” would also make sense.
We're getting awfully close to the designated 1.0 release to consider a change like this but I think it's important enough to consider.
Thanks,
Brandt
From: lr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stuart Sutton
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 12:50 PM
To: lr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Questions from a newcomer about LRMI
The problem we face with this property called "competency" in LRMI and the notion of assertions regarding learning outcomes in terms of knowledge, skills, and habits of mind is that there are simply _no_ settled definitions to attach as a label for this property. "Competency" is not right, but neither is "curriculum" (US/Europe conceptions of this notion don't align) and the U.S. is the only place on the planet where the general notion of these assertions can be referred to meaningfully as "standards" (as in Common Core State _Standards_). But, even in the U.S. there is not universal agreement around what "standard" means in this context. In Europe, refer to these assertions as "standards" and they will just cock their heads to the side and politely wonder what you are talking about. It makes me want to strip all meaning from the label (defeating the purpose of a label) or consider the use something like "widget" (as they use that notion in U.S. legal thinking) where you can say "Mr. Smith contracted for a bushel of widgets" and substitute for widget the "thing" required by the moment's discussion. Otherwise it means that every conversation must begin with a grounding in a consensual understanding of terms (note: I said understanding and not agreement).
Stuart Sutton
But, I would think it would nevertheless need some refining of the property's definition--i.e., where the real semantics of the property are defined. A logical interpretation of the current "definition by example" will lead many to the conclusion that the enumerated examples represents a closed list of acceptable alignment types (already has done so--thus the initial post in this thread). That's the danger of defining by example as opposed to a definition followed by an _open_ (including, but not limited to) list of clarifying examples.
Stuart
Phil Barker
1. on naming: I think the name of something does matter, it sets an expectation that is hard to shift with a detailed definition. It also betrays what the namers had in mind when they created the thing. If you saw an establishment called "Joe's Dog hotel" that offered to look after dogs, cats and other small pets while their owners were away, you might a) not bother to read detail that Joe will look after cats or b) think that Joe's primary interest is dogs and perhaps cats were a bit of an after thought. Either way you wouldn't put your cat there. It'll be the same if we have a property called 'competency' that can also align to other types thing that might make up curriculum/set of core standards/outcomes/assessment criteria/whatever it is.
Also, I don't think enough people have yet created instances or tools that use LRMI for renaming properties to be an issue.
So +1 to renaming the property to alignment. It has the benefit of being so neutral that implementers will have to look at the definition to know what it means. And yes, that definition needs more thought.
2. on the Object type: there is a technical issue here. The URL inherited from schema.org/Thing is the url of the object, so if that object is an 'alignment' then the URL will be the URL of the alignment (whatever that means), not the URL of thing to which the resource is aligned. The thing to which the resource is asserted to align would then be out of the model (unless we put it back in).
Phil
-- <http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/> Please note new email address: phil....@hw.ac.uk
Heriot-Watt University is the Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2011-2012.
Stuart Sutton
2. on the Object type: there is a technical issue here. The URL inherited from schema.org/Thing is the url of the object, so if that object is an 'alignment' then the URL will be the URL of the alignment (whatever that means), not the URL of thing to which the resource is aligned. The thing to which the resource is asserted to align would then be out of the model (unless we put it back in).
Stuart
Joshua Marks
Indeed, this is the rub and why we went to Competency rather than CompitencyAlignment as Brant was suggesting. The URL/URI is the competency statement while the AlignmentType property expresses and classifies the alignment between the resource being tagged and the competency. While I do agree there are things we might align to that are not necessarily competencies, it is more flexible then the notion of a standards statement. I am not sure what other term might be better, but I am open to other terms then competency (even though I was warning up to that term.)
Joshua Marks
CTO
Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community
I welcome you to become a member of the Curriki community, to follow us on Twitter and to say hello on our blog, Facebook and LinkedIn communities.
From: lrmi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lrmi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stuart Sutton
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:40 AM
To: lrmi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: lr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Questions from a newcomer about LRMI
Greg Grossmeier
I think this is a valid topic for a LRMI TWG call.
Additionally, pending this discussion we should think about anointing a
1.0 release. This can happen on the same call (the discussion part).
I'll send the Doodle pool to the LRMI TWG members now.
Greg
<quote name="Joshua Marks" date="2012-04-26" time="09:52:29 -0700">
>
>
>
> Joshua Marks
>
> CTO
>
> Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community
>
> jma...@curriki.org
>
> www.curriki.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: lrmi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lrmi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stuart Sutton
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:40 AM
> To: lrmi...@googlegroups.com
> Cc: lr...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Questions from a newcomer about LRMI
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Phil Barker <phil....@hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2. on the Object type: there is a technical issue here. The URL inherited from schema.org/Thing is the url of the object, so if that object is an 'alignment' then the URL will be the URL of the alignment (whatever that means), not the URL of thing to which the resource is aligned. The thing to which the resource is asserted to align would then be out of the model (unless we put it back in).
>
> On this point, Phil is absolutely correct. I also think that Phil has previously pointed out that this 'object' is a bit cludgy.
>
> Stuart
>
> --
> Stuart A. Sutton,
> CEO and Managing Director, Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
> Associate Professor Emeritus, The Information School
> University of Washington
>
>
>
Stuart Sutton
The issue brought up by Phil _was_ raised during that call. It was commented that if CompetencyObject was clearly defined as a resource describing a mapping, that people doing markup would likely use Thing:description to say things like "The learning resource only maps partially to the competency" as opposed to some statement representing the competency itself such as "Student can tie shoe laces in under 30 seconds." I do not recall whether there was specific discussion of "what" the URL identified.
The final outcome is somewhat neither fish nor foul (thus the kludge comment). The LRMI recommended way of using Thing:name, description is to represent aspects of the competency (leading some to think this resource is a competency description) and competencyAlignment representing an aspect of a mapping (leading others to think this resource is a description of a mapping). I believe Phil's observation (please correct me if I'm wrong, Phil) is that if this is truly a description of a mapping then the recommended use of Thing:URL is "off" and that there is nothing really there in the schema that points to the competency to which the learning resource is being mapped.
Stuart
Stuart Sutton
Zoe
This has been a terrifically useful insight into the thinking that has
gone into the structure of the LRMI.
Rather than reply here, I'm going to open up a new thread, as I think
some of the research into curriculum and search behaviours that we've
been doing at the BBC might be of some use in assessing the options
that have been covered here.
Zoe
On Apr 26, 11:58 pm, Stuart Sutton <stuartasut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Been thinking that "neither fish nor _foul_" (unintentionally) says too
> much...:-) --Stuart
>
>
> >> ** **
>
> >> Joshua Marks****
>
> >> CTO****
>
> >> Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community ****
>
> >> jma...@curriki.org****
>
> >>www.curriki.org****
>
> >> ** **
>
> >> ** **
>
> >> I welcome you to become a member<https://www.curriki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/JoinCurriki> of
> >> the Curriki community, to follow us on Twitter<http://twitter.com/Curriki> and
> >> ****
>
> >> ** **
>
> >> *From:* lrmi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lrmi...@googlegroups.com] *On
> >> Behalf Of *Stuart Sutton
> >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:40 AM
> >> *To:* lrmi...@googlegroups.com
> >> *Cc:* lr...@googlegroups.com
>
> >> *Subject:* Re: Questions from a newcomer about LRMI****
>
> >> ** **
>
> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Phil Barker <phil.bar...@hw.ac.uk>
> >> wrote:****
> >> 2. on the Object type: there is a technical issue here. The URL inherited
> >> from schema.org/Thing is the url of the object, so if that object is an
> >> 'alignment' then the URL will be the URL of the alignment (whatever that
> >> means), not the URL of thing to which the resource is aligned. The thing
> >> to which the resource is asserted to align would then be out of the model
> >> On this point, Phil is absolutely correct. I also think that Phil has
> >> previously pointed out that this 'object' is a bit cludgy.
>
> >> --
> >> Stuart A. Sutton,
> >> CEO and Managing Director, Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
> >> Associate Professor Emeritus, The Information School
> >> University of Washington
>
Jim Goodell
Competency entity is as follows,
Learning Standards Item (Competency Statement)
Content that either describes a specific competency (learning
objective) or describes a grouping of competencies within the taxonomy
of a Learning Standards Document.
And with possible clarifying statements to improve and fit LRMI use
[in brackets]...
"Content that either describes [and references] a specific competency
(learning objective) or describes [and references] a [more granular]
grouping of competencies within the taxonomy of a Learning Standards
Document [or framework]."
suggestions for revision?
In CEDS the competency entity is separate from its alignment to a
resource, and in LRMI the context of a competency in a document/
framework is left to the referenced url, but we can craft a common
definition with compound definitions on both sides using compatible
parts. Might be something like this for LRMI...
"Object that describes and references a specific competency (i.e.
learning objective) or a more granular grouping of competencies
related to a learning resource AND optionally the type of alignment
(e.g. teaches, assesses, requires) between the resource and the
competency."
> > [mailto:lr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:lr...@googlegroups.com>] *On
> > Behalf Of *Stuart Sutton
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2012 12:50 PM
>
> > *To:* lr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:lr...@googlegroups.com>
> > *Subject:* Re: Questions from a newcomer about LRMI
> > 2
> > http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/all_experiences_outcomes_t...
> > [Greg, is this suitable for adding to the list of promulgators?]
>
> > Question three: reduced list of competencies in 0.7
>
> > I note that in draft 0.7, the three competency types (teaches,
> > requires, assesses) have been reduced to one 'competency':
> > 'The
> > competency, learning standard, skill and/or text
> > complexity that the
> > work is aligned to.' Is the intention that competency here
> > will be
> > extended to incorporate machine readable curriculum links
> > (as per my
> > question one)? I admit a preference for the granularity of
> > the 0.5
> > version, and I am not quite sure
>
>
> read more »
Zoe
I hadn't seen CEDS before - thanks. As I'm working in Britain it's not
something that we'll be using.
As things currently stand, we have four national curricula (England,
Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland) so standards alignment is an issue
for us, just a different one.
The CEDS definition seems very reasonable. The issue I have, however,
is a bit different.
I started a whole new string on this group specifically about this,
it's over here https://groups.google.com/group/lrmi/browse_thread/thread/368fa436ac3bcdb5
and it's probably the best place to keep the discussion running.
For this string, the shortest-possible-version of where I see problems
with 'competency'/'learning objectives' in a html markup context is
this:
- We are designing for google, not linked data/any API
- Compentencies are long, verb-based statements. Google users search
on short, noun-based keywords.
- Our investigations in the UK show that there are very few google-
appropriate keywords in the outcome/competency statements of the four
UK national curricula. Early investigations show similar results in
the common core standards.
- So - there is limited match between user search behaviour and the
information recorded in outcome/competency statements.
And as a final issue -
- Paradoxically, accuracy != usefulness for search. 'Teaches',
'assesses', and 'requires' are not strings that users are likely to
use in their google searches. (e.g. the search string 'cell structure
assesses' is unlikely.)
OK, that's a *much* shorter version of what I put in the other thread!
See you over there?
Zoe
On Apr 30, 1:29 pm, Jim Goodell <james.donald.good...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> read more »