Meeting 2 - 2021-04-20

Owned by Eric Jansson
Last updated: Apr 28, 2021
2 min read

Agenda

  1. Review the suggested canonical use cases that were extrapolated from Meeting #1 – these can be found in the meeting notes: https://edfi.atlassian.net/wiki/display/ESIG/Meeting+1+-+2021-03-30
  2. Gather feedback and direction on the overlap of LMS and Gradebook data and processes. This includes answering questions such as:
    • Should the gradebook data in the LMS data domain and current Gradebook be combined? Or do they represent a natural sequence of data from a more raw "assignment" to a formal grade?
    • Are there changes needed to Gradebook to make it function well in an API-based exchanges?
    • Is new guidance for usage of Gradebook needed?
  3. Ideas for visualizations (see  EDFI-899 - Getting issue details... STATUS )

Notes

Much commentary focused on what LMS data elements to focus on. It was generally agreed that assignment data is more normalized, more clear, and more stable as a concept across platforms, and therefore is a better starting point.

  • Trying to compare systems to each other, you will only get internal consistency.  For example, on some systems a login via the mobile app may count differently than a normal login. So assume internal consistency by not external consistency. This is another reason to start with assignment data: more externally consistent.
  • Is configurability an answer to helping to approach activity data? What is defined by local policy – can that be put into a layer of configurability?
  • Lessons learned around Caliper and XAPI – framework of activity and have struggled with what counts as activity.
  • Activity is a leading indicator – you have this before assignments, but it varies a LOT. It also varies considerably by content and subject areas. So it need to be scoped carefully – the complexity is much higher.

Q: Why isn't the LMS Toolkit pushing vendor specs? Long-term isn’t this on the vendor problem? Yes, but Ed-Fi taking a different approach for now but it could evolve longer term into a specifictions push. Why act differently?

  • The LMS market is more centralized
  • Major players already have significant and sophisticated investments in data out
  • Drive specifications by usage and not "by committee" - let's get usage data going first

Q: what SIS data to combine this with?

  • See Idaho RFP, shared as an example of this https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NripEG8tLHAezhgytbraPdHWLPfT64Xc/view
  • Start with demographics, evolve from there.
  • Another example: health care continuous improvement – sharing engagement data across teachers and courses might be important-- Is the student struggling in just one class or in multiple classes? Is it just math? Looking at teams of teachers and seeing how they work together.

Q: Grade Book vs LMS - what's the overlap?

  • These are a continuum, and not the same - data moves from the LMS to the gradebook, in a process of local record keeping. We should keep both domains for now

Q: what is the primary audience?

  • Unclear discussion: teachers obviously the most important, but hard to get to adopt new tools. But probably start there.
  • Non-individual teacher interventions made more possible by digital interventions. If you focus on the teacher, there is high resistance to that, as teacher are burdened.

Other

  • SEA’s working on rostering and assessment data enablement for LEAs
  • Performance / scalability a key factor too – maybe a reason to reconvene the SIG

Participants