2006-07-17 Manchester
XCRI's success in securing extension funding has enabled a number of activities to take place, the status of which are summarised below:
- A review of the R1.0 XML Schema with a view to proposing a simpler, more flexible structure [ongoing - further details below...]
- A review of initiatives currently used to model competencies to explore the extent to which they could be incorporated as intended outcomes or entry requirements for defined study opportunities [comissioned report now available - further details below...]
- Further deployments of the R1.0 XML Schema to develop a deeper appreciation of the workflow and service requests in which XCRI data is used [new case study to appear shortly]
- A review of options available for authoring and versioning curriculum content [work commissioned]
There have also been a number of recent development of potential significance for the project
- UK Quality Assurance Agency update their guidelines are producing Programme Specifications [link]
- IMS Global Learning Consortium and the e-Framework Initiative announce a Partnership to Promote Service Enabled Infrastructures for Global Higher Education [link]
- HR-XML Consortium announce plans for web services interface definitions for exchanging data between employee performance management systems (tracking CPD) and learning managements systems (offering training and development courses) [link]
- Finnish Virtual University releases draft specifications for teaching data [Degree, Study Module and Course Unit and Course Unit Realisations]
XCRI Schema Review
The R1.0 schema evolved in response to particular requirements gathered through a process of interviews, surveys, prototyping and community feedback on emerging drafts. To ensure that the schema develops from as solid a basis as possible, XCRI has commissioned a schema and repository expert from Kainao.com (Ben Ryan) to review the schema and propose a cleaner, extendable information model from which a revised schema could be drawn. XCRI is conscious of existing implementations of the R1.0 schema, and proposals for revision will bear these in mind.
A back-to-basics analysis has revealed that the complex R1.0 schema actually boils down to a simple organising pattern of curriculum fragments and associations. XML instances can define and/or refer to fragments. This basic organising pattern is shown below:
Work is now underway to articulate and refine to a bare minumum with minimal overlap the complete list of associations. The current working list is:
- isParentOf/hasParent
- isDemonstratedBy/demonstrates
- isAssessedBy/assesses
- isPartOf/hasPart
- isOwnedBy/owns
- isTaughtBy/teaches
- isAccreditedBy/accredits
- isAimOf/hasAim
- isBenchmarkedAgainst/benchmarks
- isAwardedBy/awards
- isCorequisiteOf
- isPrerequisiteOf/hasPrerequisite
- isExclusionOf/hasExclusion
- isFollowOnFor/hasFollowOn
- isSatisfiedBy/satisfies
- isEvidencedBy/evidences
- isCoveredBy/covers
- isOfferingOf/hasOffering
- isContactFor/hasContact
- isEquivalentTo
- isNotEquivalentTo
- isPolicyFor/hasPolicy
- isSupportedBy/hasSupport
Curriculum fragments that extend the basic definition include:
- spec
- offering
- organization
- accreditations
- adjustment
- aim
- assessment
- award
- benchmark
- competence
- contact
- learningOutcome
- requirement
- resource
On Modelling Competence in XCRI
XCRI commissioned experienced consultant, Simon Grant, to review the handling of entry requirements and recognitions of completion within the R1.0 schema, to analyse current approaches to modelling competence and to make recommendations for schema development to maximise potential for supporting initiatives in this area. Simon's executive summary is as follows:
- Representing course entry requirements and outcomes in a standard way would go some of the way towards enabling services to learners that clarify possible educational pathways for them, and which could also lead through to employment. XCRI has started out representing entry requirements in terms of previous courses, and now there is a clear motive for broadening this to including competency requirements, where the term “competency” is understood inclusively.
- HR-XML includes a useful spec for representing competency in human-readable terms, but needs to be profiled before it can effectively provide the basis for automatic processing of requirements and outcomes. The RCD spec is used for representing individual competencies, used as identifiers when writing requirements or outcomes. For some attainments, there may be authorities willing to define and hold identifiers centrally, but for generality and use with competencies another approach is needed, extending RCD.
- A new approach is outlined whereby competency definitions can be federated through explicitly naming equivalents in other institutions, and excluding non-equivalents if necessary. It is proposed to add a representation of this to the RCD spec. This will allow institutions to hold their own competency maps and definitions, and still participate in the movement towards common definitions, enabling a more open approach to educational pathway information. This approach fits well with a “Web 2.0” philosophy.
