Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


Lynn Ward, Luke Fernandez, Mathieu Plourde, Josh Baron, Robin Hill, Janet de Vry, Salwa Khan, ? from Montreal, Clay Fenlason, Janice Smith, Keli Amann, David Goodrum

Goal of this call

  • Review and organize current list (spreadsheet -- more than 100 entries).
  • Define this phase and move on to the next one.


Introduction (Josh):  This group has been engaged in collecting "learning capabilities".  What are the gaps?

Recap (Clay):  Two months ago, design project for continuation of Sakai 3 interface, hired Sam Peck.  Goal-- early implementation that can be deployed in June and July for early adopters (Cambridge and Georgia Tech).  Clay himself serving as liaison, with the danger than the process seemed less open that it should be.  Goals:

1. Simple Course Activites (LEs)
Simplified to assignment activities.  Wireframes emerging.  Feeding into step 2.  These simple activities (the user journeys) will be the core of the first deployment, with components from Sakai 2

2. Templates (structured sites)

3. Communities of users 

User Journeys

  1. Instructor posts task for learners.
  2. Learners receives and submits
  3. Assessment and feedback

Josh:  What do we want to do with the spreadsheet now? 

Clay:  Spreadsheet not meant to replace user analysis, but complement it.
Two possible directions:  (1) Like Sam's PDF, containing user and task maps, directly useful to designer (detailed); user journeys (2) understanding gaps between deployment and future design (broad and long-term).

Call for organization of spreadsheet contributions. 

Janice:  OSP community concerned about underying functionality, shared by all components, as well as specific functions.

Lynn:  In assignment documentation, rubrics appear.  How do we distinguish between assignment tasks and cross-cutting tasks?

Josh:  Will this be easier in Sakai 3, since everything is content?
Clay:  Yes.  Still useful to designate fundamental components.

Lynn:  Spreadsheet items range from practical to idealistic.  Needs refinement before viewed as comprehensive. 

Josh:  Yes, some contributions user-centered, but some tool-centered, understandably.  Need "scrubbing." 

Should we give feedback on Sam's documents?  Clay:  Yes.

Web session could be led by Clay to review those, involving both T&L and UX groups. 

Josh:  Possible organizational dimensions for spreadsheet-- fundamental to "blue-sky," independent to integrated, teaching themes, others?

Robin:  What about freezing it but still allowing further contributions?

Lynn:  Save state to work with but allow development.

Let's explore how to perform this analysis as a group.  What scenarios will work?  Josh:  Game plan and prep work, for virtual meeting in early January.  Timeline okay?

Clay:  No problems, but note that we (Sam et al.) will still be in development.  Not so concerned with immediate results as long-term guidance.

Summary (Josh):  For next three weeks or so, discuss game plan for organizing spreadsheet contributions.  Schedule virtual meeting and mechanisms.  Will report out to the list and announce spreadsheet checkpoint.

Robin:  All should read spreadsheet. 

 Clay:  No one should be worried that ideas not in spreadsheet will be ignored.  Plenty of time.  We will attempt not to design ourselves into a corner, but rather allow for enhancement and elaboration.

  • No labels