September 4, 2014
8 PDT/9 MDT/10 CDT/11 EDT/16 BST/17 CEST
Attending: Matthew Cownie, Joel Farrell, Ellen Meiselman, Valerie Smothers, Lorraine Spencer, and Luke Woodham.
1 Review minutes
The minutes of the meeting were accepted as submitted.
2 Discuss use cases
Ellen shared several Nursing Competencies Checklists that were linked from the use cases and scenarios page on the wiki. Each checklist has the same kind of structure, skills and steps involved in performance of that skill. It includes a Self-Evaluation and Validator-Evaluation to determine how well they are doing.
Valerie made changes to the use cases based on the discussion and the checklists received from Ellen. The additions are in purple. For use case number 5, Track competence assessment data, she added “including preceptor assessment and learner self-assessment.” Number 6, 6.Track supervisor/faculty feedback, now includes “or recommendations for remediation.” She added number 7, tracking supervisor/faculty signoff on competency achievement or non-achievement.
Ellen noted in the paper competency portfolio they have to work up to the higher skills from novice to expert. Checklists are used as part of that portfolio. Matt mentioned they are looking at using Pebblepad for their nursing portfolio to track pass/fail of competencies and mentor annotations. Valerie asked if there was a need for XAPI to enable pebblepad to connect to the LRS. Matt answered they do need it. Without standards it is difficult to migrate from proprietary systems. Currently Pebblepad points to Blackboard; he would rather point it to an LRS. Luke commented that St. Georges’ process is similar.
There was agreement on the Actors, Trigger event, and Success end condition in the 1st use case. The group agreed on the need for the learner to be authenticated or identified to the instructional system. Luke mentioned there are instances at his institution where uses are verified by lightweight means. Assessors fill out the assessment on behalf of the student which generates an email to the assessor saying the assessment has been completed. Valerie also added two new assumptions:
- The instructional system is indicated in the context of the XAPI messages or the instructional system is authenticating to the LRS.
- If the instructional system is not the "home" institution, the agent offering the activity may be indicated as the authority asserting that the individual did what the statement says they did
Under Description Valerie added “The instructional system sends a message to the LRS recording a learner action (i.e. a response to a question, a choice in the learning path, etc.)”. Ellen commented if there was a fair bit of activity, they could indicate performance at each stage indicating different levels. Andy suggested using score or percent correct. Lorraine asked what happens if someone abandons the task? Ellen suggested adding the verbs completed, failed or user suspended or resumed activity. Valerie made the adjustment. Lorraine asked about courses taken outside the University system and how that is recorded. Someone may want to know organization or site description. Ellen noted for each activity there is a spot for description. Valerie added an assumption to address that. Lorraine asked how one on one training like SIM center training could be recorded. Andy asked if each institution would have the same SIM center training. Valerie answered there currently is no standard for recording simulation based activities. Ellen gave an example of patient engagement of lifestyle changes activity. Valerie noted that gets into health data and HIPPA, but we could add a use case for allowing the learner to track something extracurricular done offline. Luke agreed to help with writing that use case.
3 Open discussion
- Valerie will work on a patient use case including health assessment, patient education and patient activities.
- Valerie will follow-up with Luke on an extracurricular use case.