This
AICC meeting was hosted by FAA |
|
16 June 2009
CMI Working Group/Independent Test Lab: Bill McDonald, Boeing/Alteon
Bill asked if there is any interest in completing an offline CMI spec.
Ed commented that the demand for an offline player has gone down because bandwidth has become more common and cheaper. Bill pointed out that there are aviation customers using disconnected training and there are reasons to support this concept.
Regarding packaging: Ed suggests that there is more information needed in the new AICC packaging spec.
We need a group review, so jack will collect a list of interested parties and send them the latest version of the spec. Jack is working on final edits and should have this version available by the end of June.
LETSI has meetings every two weeks by telecom. Jack will present the offline spec at the next telecom.
Bill wants to get feedback on offline CMI and have a vote in August, before the next AICC meeting in Stuttgart.
Tyde talked a little about what LETSI is doing regarding web services. There is a short term focus on an alternative to HACP. Then a longer term focus on web services for more general usage.
There is a question of how we should proceed with IEEE, LETSI, and AICC working on content services. Tom suggested that the project needs a “driving force”, a person with the passion to move this forward. Where is this person? IEEE, AICC, LETSI?? Bill believes that there is still a home for CSA in the AICC. Tom suggested we suspend CSA until a new chairman can be identified with the passion to continue this effort. It was agreed to temporarily suspend the AICC effort and watch and participate in the LETSI effort.
Executive Committee Meeting
Herbert Schwarz, Kris Rockwell, Kari Itkonen, Neil Cramer, Keven Schlipper, and Dave Jacobson participated via Skype.
Bill McDonald, Ed Cohen, Paul Jesukiewicz, Tyde Richards, John Alonso, Mike Sharp, Ray Butler, Tom King, Bruce Perrin, Bernard Bouit, Jack Hyde, Deborah Wilcox, and Anne Montgomery participated in person.
Topics discussed included: Funding and Finances, Membership, How AICC Continues, Projects, Stuttgart Meeting and Themes.
Bill: Target case studies designed to hot topics such as ICAO English.
Herbert: Hot topics is a key.
Tom: We don’t have a “hot topics” subcommittee. We don’t have a membership subcommittee.
Herbert: organizational issues should be discussed/settled in the September meeting.
Bill: Should we study this upcoming EATS Conference to see what hot topics are there?
Mike: If you go to the Halldale site you can see what the topics were for previous meetings.
Bill: Suggest that we have set aside positions on our executive committee for an airline from each major region: North America, Europe, Asia.
Debbie: Maybe we can get a booth presence at EATs or WATTS by piggybacking on someone else’s booth (they are very expensive).
Projects emerging from this meeting
- Membership Drive / Executive Committee
- Asia Pacific, Europe, North America airlines
- Meeting Planning “What’s In It For Airlines”
- Send simple emails to Herbert by July 10,
follow-up in Stuttgart (How would you answer Q?)
- Herbert to lead, Anne to facilitate, ALL to participate (suggest topics, one is “Cost Effectiveness in Training”)
- Having contacts at Airbus and Boeing/Alteon is part of the “what is in it”. Who else? Related topic ideas?
- Strategic Alliance with Halldale
- Goal – presentation & booth presence
- Stuttgart Planning
- Anne & Jack to create agenda template
- Theme must be selected/created
Upcoming meetings:
2009, Sep 28 – Oct 1, 2009, Stuttgart, Germany: Hosted by city of Stuttgart
2010, Jan 25 – Jan 28, Palm Coast, Florida: Hosted by FAA
2010, May 24 – May 27, Vancouver, Canada: Hosted by Pelesys)
2010, Sep – Possibly Czech Republic or Austria
Industry Affairs Subcommittee: Ray Butler, UPS
Ray’s presentation described the LMS as a database system.
He also discussed the paperless cockpit pros and cons.
Critical question: What are you doing now, why are you doing it, and if it has value, how can it be improved?
* Shared services: UPS has more of this now.
* Training shared services: Silos of learners. UPS will have a Single design, development, implementation and maintenance model.
Ray suggested an educational seminar on why and how you use standards. Take an airline through a piece of content and show how to make it standards compliant. This could be thought of as a standards school for dummies.
What the airlines are lacking is what we have to supply?
Continuation of Executive Committee Strategic Planning
How can AICC, ADL, and LETSI work together?
Tyde reviewed a little history of how we got to where we are today.
ADL decided to set up a stewardship organization and that became LETSI.
Purpose today is to see if there is a path to solve everyone’s needs. Maybe revisit CMI/SCORM convergence.
Another option is to look at LETSI. There are two working groups working on SCORM/AICC problems (Web services, and Orchestration (sequencing))
Tom described orchestration as taking a broader look at training. Not just sequencing individual lessons for individual learning. Orchestration does not have to be a part of the model for a simple sequencing successor.
Tyde: IEEE is a more logical place for ADL and AICC to move forward. ISO offers far less control for these organizations. LETSI can coordinate the work. AICC can offer CMI as a base document.
Web services effort of LETSI can serve the AICC and ADL.
Paul sees a need for convergence. We need to have a foundation. It needs to be extensible, open, and simple.
Ed suggests we get a base for convergence. Then look at pain points. Solve the pain points in a converged manor.
Tom suggested we take lessons learned and move forward. Some customers take AICC and SCORM content and use it in the same course. A core principle of LETSI is that we have this monolithic approach to everything, and we throw it out there and then see what the problems are. How can we make things simpler and hot swappable?
17 Jun 2009
ADL, SCORM, ADL and the Future: Tyde Richards, ADL
Tyde’s presentation briefly discusses the history of CMI. He defines CMI as an interoperability model to measure learner performance.
We need a new approach to collaboration between organizations working on the same problems related to learning activities.
Ed suggests that we look at the process of building a training system.
Bill suggests a collaboration framework be established.
Agents and Semantic Technologies in a Learning Context: Jeff Bradshaw, Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition
Jeff’s presentation spent a small amount of time discussing his organization. Then he talked about agents and agent technology and semantic technologies and how they might impact learning.
Interaction Modeling with XML: David Castillo, Buena Vista Learning
David is using XML to describe state engines that model behaviors that can be simulations.
His presentation covers development of sophisticated behavior lessons which are encoded in XML.
ConnectSolutions Collaboration Services: Tom Person, ConnectSolutions
Tom’s presentation covers the ConnectSolutions service.
Using Branching Simulation for Assessment in These Trying Times: Ken Spero, Humentum LLC
Ken’s presentation defined simulation as a branching story. The emphasis is on critical thinking. Allow people to make decisions and experience consequences.
Ken passed out a sample simulation that the group could work on. The attendees were divided into small teams of 3 to four people to work on the sample simulation. The simulaition was written strictly to demonstrate capabilities of the tool, not provide authoritative training.
18 June 2009
Progress Reports: Offline CMI, Course Description in XML, XSD for Metadata, Jack Hyde, AICC
In Jack’s report the Offline CMI Plan and how we are moving forward (as was discussed in Monday’s CMI session) was summarized.
After a discussion during Jack’s presentation, it was decided to not move forward on the Metadata XSD. It was also decided to focus on examining the ISO/SC36 standard for Content Packaging to see if the AICC information could fit. A report will be made by Jack in Stuttgart.
Offline Data Collection: Jeff McGowan, Jet Blue
Jeff spent a little time describing Jet Blue and their training center organization.
Jeff discussed their AQP (Advanced Qualification Program) data management. It allows an adaptive curriculum based on new techniques, technologies, and performance data collected from Previous training. So the key is collecting data.
Jeff then described the Jet Blue AQP Data Management System.
Recommendations for Use of 3D Environments in Training: Dr. Bruce Perrin, Boeing
The first part of Bruce’s presentation summarized the data gleaned from the survey on training evaluation that was taken last year. For a more complete result analysis see his presentation in Frankfurt.
Bruce then described the use of 3D or immersive environments for training. He concluded with some recommendations that could be made regarding these technologies. A white paper supporting these recommendations could be a valuable asset for AICC members.
Training at the FAA: Debbie Wilcox, FAA
Debbie presented an overview of FAA training. Then she discussed training in her part of the FAA – Flight Standards. A wide variety of approaches are being used to design courseware. Many of the approaches involve subject matter experts using simple tools to turn PowerPoint presentations into e-Learning.
Stuttgart Planning: Jack Hyde, AICC
The group discussed activities for the upcoming September meeting in Stuttgart. A tentative schedule was made with general topics for 4 days of the meeting, and optional organized tours for the 5th non-meeting day.
|
