Agenda

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
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?
Ideas for visualizations (see EDFI-899 - Getting issue details... STATUS )
- Jamboard: https://jamboard.google.com/d/1M1MgFWnmLDcW2X4V63dcH09ubzWYM7EjnOTJJjXQqAs/viewer?f=0

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