Child pages
  • 2009-10-07
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information

Date:

October 7, 2009

Time:

8 AM PDT/11 AM EDT/4 PM BST


Rosalyn Scott, Tim Willet, co-chairs; Susan Albright, Mary Pat Aust, Simon Grant, Sean Hilton, Valerie Smothers

Guest: Wayne Shebliske 

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last meeting

Tim reviewed that we had deferred conversations of other frameworks until David and Maria would be available. The group reviewed the updated competency framework white paper. We made a distinction between performance, which is in real clinical situations, and test situations. Simon described some of his work with JISC. In looking at the competency object, the group decided to remove assessment information as that would be defined in an external specification. In addition the group decided to keep the type field open-ended.

 

2 Review of aviation competencies


Valerie summarized that the group is developing a technical specification for defining a set of interrelated competencies. This framework could then be used as the basis for education, assessment, and performance management. 
Wayne introduced himself. He is in the Department of psychology and has done research in aviation and medicine related to human factors. 
Emphasized that in simulation having a competency to measure is important. He added that the individual needs to see the path through the forest as well as the forest as a whole. The whole is different than the sum of its parts. An individual can be competent in individual sub competencies but still not have the larger abilities one is seeking. One advantage of simulation is that it can assess not only individual competencies but holistic competencies, the ability to put them in context.  
Wayne described analyses he had done related to simulation and suggested that pretraining briefing and after action review could be useful techniques. He also indicated that tasks could be broken down meaningfully for learners. When the park is taught in the context of the whole, there is better acquisition of the task. 
Rosalyn asked Wayne if he thought about how competencies might be categorized. He replied that part of what must be accomplished is teamwork. Recording a team in a simulation and then playing back the videotape in discussing different perspectives can be useful. Training differs for experts than for those who are new to a task. 
Tim asked if skills were described separately but then tested simultaneously within a simulation. Weighing replied that he tests both individual skills and the larger abilities. Simulation makes much possible.

3 Review revised competency specification

Valerie provided a summary of the revised competency specification. Changes were made to reflect the changes in the competency framework white paper. Several new metadata elements were added to the white paper, so the law metadata element was added to the specification. Competency definitions have been renamed competency objects in keeping with the definitions in the white paper. The category and references elements have been moved, competency objects have been made extensible, and elements have been added to the competency map reflecting the broader term/narrower term distinctions in the white paper, in addition to a related term element. 
Simon asked if competency objects other than RCD would be allowed. If we allow basic RCD objects, you could have a separate map. If we want to stick to a predefined competency type, only then would it be possible to incorporate relations and the competency itself. Simon added that having a separate map would make sense if you could reuse the competency objects but that the current specification wouldn't allow that. 
Tim commented that frameworks we've reviewed her packages onto themselves. He added that an organization may take a subset of competencies from other organizations when creating its own framework. Being able to map out the competencies to something published elsewhere would be advantageous. This would not be possible if relations were defined in the competency definitions. Tim asked Simon if he saw any disadvantages to having map separate. Simon commented that the only disadvantage was that when relations are embedded in the object, all the information is right there. 
The group then discuss the applicability of Lom. Simon commented that many of the subelements of Lom were inappropriate and recommended something like Dublin core. Tim asked if we would have to identify the applicable elements. Simon commented that we would and that that would be part of creating a profile. 
Valerie and Tim agreed to identify relevant pieces of metadata before the next call.

 
Simon asked why we not use the reusable competency definition as it is. Tim commented that we need to support competencies in medicine. Medicine has additional requirements that are not addressed by the existing reusable competency definition. Valerie proposed that she and Tim present these questions to the technical steering committee and get back to the working group. 
Tim asked about the distinction between definition and statement. Simon commented that the fact the definition could exist in either to description or statement is confusing. Tim asked that Valerie provided an example of a competency object from one framework that uses the description and one that uses the statement. 
Simon questioned whether group didn't leave out the pieces of RCD that were not commonly used. Rosalyn replied that MedBiquitous works on the basic principle of extending existing standards. Simon offered that it may be cleaner to leave things out if they were not necessary. 
Tim agreed to take the questions to the technical steering committee and come back with recommendations. Rosalyn suggested that we investigate to see if anyone has used the RCD statement elements. Tim agreed that we should ask IEEE to see if using both description and statement is unnecessarily confusing.

4 Discuss related competency efforts

  • in aviation
  • at ABMS
  • in pharmacy

5 Open discussion

Decisions

Action Items

  • Valerie and Tim agreed to identify relevant pieces of metadata
  • Valerie, Tim, and Rosalyn will discuss questions with the technical steering committee and report to the working group.
  • Valerie will investigate to see if anyone has used the RCD statement elements.
  • No labels