SISO SG overview

1
Introduction to SCORM-Simulation Interface
Standards Study Group
2
Joint Effort of the Key Stakeholders

• One of the important challenges faced by
  designers and developers of learning, education
  and training technology is how to integrate
  simulation-based learning experiences with SCORM
  environments. This problem has many aspects, both
  pedagogical and technical. A clear first step is
  to enable SCORM content or Runtime Environments
  to invoke and communicate with simulations in a
  standardized and interoperable fashion. Such
  SCORM-Simulation Interface Standards will lower
  the cost of integration, lead to tools that save
  designers and developers time and money and help
  simulation vendors develop reusable simulations
  and components.

This language is in our chartering terms of
reference.
3
Study Group Org Chart
ISO Recognizes ANSI as representative of
volunteer consensus standardization in the US
The IEEE Standards Association is part of the IEEE
IEEE
ANSI Accredits IEEE Standards Association
IEEE Computer Society is part of the IEEE
IEEE CS Hosts Standards Sponsors under its
Standards Activities Board
The IEEE Standards Association recognizes Sponsors
LTSC is an IEEE Standards Sponsor
The SISO Standards Activities Committee is an
IEEE Standards Sponsor
SISO SAC is part of SISO
Current activity is here
Working Groups and Study Groups operate within
Standards Sponsors
4
SISO Vision

• SISO is dedicated to the promotion of modeling
  and simulation interoperability and reuse for the
  benefit of diverse MS communities, including
  developers, procurers, and users, world-wide.

SISO Mission
SISOs mission is to provide an open forum that
promotes the interoperability and reuse of models
and simulations through the exchange of ideas,
the examination of technologies, and the
development of standards. http//www.sisostds.org
A discussion reflector has been established
5
LTSC Mission

• The IEEE Learning Technology Standards
  Committee (LTSC) is chartered by the IEEE
  Computer Society Standards Activity Board to
  develop accredited technical standards,
  recommended practices, and guides for learning
  technology.
• http//ieeeltsc.org/wg11CMI/cmi-sim

6
Scope From the SISO Study Group Terms of Reference

• Call for position papers
• Survey technical and pedagogical approaches taken
  to date
• Determine where there is common ground
• Discuss potential standardization efforts
• Produce appropriate SISO PNs and/or PARs for IEEE
  standards projects

We are here!
Proposed Products
Complete

• Compilation of position papers
• Identification of potential standards
• Multi-part PN/PAR for a set of standards whose
  development is seen as valuable and feasible
• Final Report (the intent is to then turn this
  into a SISO PDG and/or IEEE Working Group)

7
Results of First Meeting

• 2-3 February 2006
• AICC Meeting, La Jolla, CA

8
Challenges to be Addressed

• What is/are the architecture(s)
• Is the SCO the correct integration point
• Are there new interfaces?
• State saving in simulations
• Is it done in the simulation or in the training
  system?
• Can it be used to replay the student
  activities for an instructor?
• SCO granularity
• Simulation 1 SCO?
• Starting up and shutting down (joining and
  leaving) simulations
• Persistence
• Initializing the scenario
• Launching and maintaining connectivity with
  multiple assets and/or SCOs
• What counts as a simulation in the
  instructional context?
• Taxonomy of simulations
• What are the right axes?
• Real time performance assessment
• Where and how are assessment done?
• Based on what data provided by whom?
• Individual vs. team training

9
Assumptions

• Run time environment doesnt need to know
  everything in the simulation, nor can the
  network/architecture support it
• Need the appropriate level of abstraction for the
  instructional context
• Assessment module can request specific
  information
• The simulation must be able to report data to
  support assessment
• The simulation does not have to be resident on
  the students computer
• Security is a cold, hard reality deal with it!
• No simulation interoperability standard is implied

10
Notional Tasks/Tiger Teams

• Instructional use cases to be supported
• Brandt Dargue Chris Bray
• Taxonomy of simulations
• Geoff Frank Katherine L. Morse, Shane Gallagher
• Common architectural components and approaches
• Avron Barr Robby Robson
• Outreach to other training simulation communities
• Lead ?
• Proposed standards
• Modifications to existing standards

Bi-weekly telecons 2nd 4th Wednesday each
month 0800 PT/1100 ET
11
Results of Second Meeting -Reports
fromInstructional Use Cases DargueTaxonomy of
Simulations FrankArchitecture Barr

• 5 April 2006
• 2006 Spring SIW, Huntsville, AL

12
Use Case Team Status

• Mapped simulation uses to Learning Systems
  Architecture Lab Templates
• Developed Generic Use Cases
• Input into spreadsheet for survey study

13
Why a Taxonomy?

• Provide a decision tree for Instructional System
  Designers considering using a simulation for
  learning.
• Identify market segments that can benefit from
  standards for simulation-based learning systems
• Suggest metadata to support selection of
  simulation systems to incorporate into learning
  systems.

14
Definitions

• Simulation-Based Learning System (SBLS)
• Definition Systems that use simulations to
  support learning
• The primary users of these systems are learners,
  who exercise some level of control of what
  happens in the simulation
• These systems are controlled by instructors to
  achieve learning objectives
• Learners are assessed and learner records may be
  kept
• These systems can be characterized by attributes
  
• Taxonomy of SBLS
• A taxonomy is a tree, where each leaf node
  defines a collection of possible SBLS that all
  have the same attribute values.
• A node in the tree is characterized by an
  attribute and its value
• All SBLS in the subtree under that node have the
  same attribute value.

15
Attribute Categories

• Functional Attributes
• Human Computer Interface Attributes
• SBLS Operational Environment Attributes

16
Taxonomy Plan Forward

• Obtain concurrence on the key attributes
• Obtain concurrence on the priorities for the
  attributes (i.e., determine the tree structure of
  the taxonomy)
• Add illustrative examples
• Put the systems from the position papers into the
  taxonomy
• Estimate market share for the different nodes of
  the taxonomy
• Characterize standards needed for different nodes
  of the taxonomy

17
Architecture Teams Activity

• Over a dozen position papers have been submitted
  and they are still coming in.
• Additional position papers are welcome
• Working meeting held in Orlando in February
• 10 people spent half a day discussing 3 position
  papers
• Another working meeting held in Boston in April

18
The Potential Impact of Standards-Based Content
Development

• Cost savings when changing LMSs
• Running a course on a different LMS than it was
  originally developed for
• Sharing course materials a market for
  independent content developers that justifies
  greater investment
• Findng best-of-breed course materials and
  rewarding the developers
• Using training materials in real-time,
  performance support situations
• Assembling new courses from existing materials
• Repurposing existing course material vs. starting
  from scratch
• Assembling a new course from existing content
• Creating a student self-study guide using on-line
  materials
• Extending SCORM to virtual training environments
  should produce similar benefits

19
Simulations and Related Training Technologies

• Simulations, big and small
• Games
• PC games
• On-line games
• Multiplayer games
• Virtual worlds
• Intelligent Tutoring Systems
• Because they often watch students activity in a
  simulated environment

20
Preliminary Considerations

• Minimal impact on SCORM, LMSs, and existing
  simulations is preferable, and possible
• Solutions may depend on type of simulation,
  implementation topology, and design
• Legacy sims vs. new sims created for CMI browser
  vs. PC vs. server-based single vs. multiple
  students
• In a VTE, learning objectives, SCOs, assessment
  are different
• Scenario, conditions, roles, measures
• The life cycle of instructional content and of
  simulations are often quite different

21
SCORM-Simulation Interoperability Issues

• Non-browser delivery environments
• Software distribution to clients
• Network security within the DoD
• Multiple simultaneous students (scheduling,
  lobby, )
• Two-way runtime communication with simulation
• Rolling up simulation activity into assessment
  measures
• Instructional intervention during sim hints,
  coaching, tweaks, NPC actions,
• AAR is an essential component of VTE-based
  training

22
Preliminary Architectural Notions

• Extend the SCORM RTE with an assessment module
  API
• Have LMS and simulation share data directly
• Create a new software product category
  supplementing central LMS functionality
• Extend RTE to support experiential training
• Separate local training assets from centrally
  administered courses (local simulations, live
  training, )
• Reports student progress back to LMS

23
Interested?...

• Next mtg planned for August 23/24 in Orlando
• POCs
• Chair Brandt Dargue (brandt.w.dargue_at_boeing.com
  )
• Vice Chair Geoffrey Frank (gaf_at_rti.org)
• Secretary Brent Smith (brents_at_ecsorl.com)
• SG web site http//www.sisostds.org/
• go to study groups, then SCORM-Sim SG - SCORM
  - Simulation Interface Standards
• Next conference call
• Wed, 28 June, at 1100 EDT
• 800-366-7242, passcode 66728.
• 858-8266707

24
Questions?