Adapt Learning Community: Definition of first Framework release (Framework MVP)

Hi,

having worked through the requirements of both the Adapt framework and the authoring tool, we have had our initial discussion on the essential requirements for the first release of the Adapt Framework (i.e. the minimum viable product). The high level outcome was captured as part of Deborah's notes. It's very positive to note that we were pretty well aligned at the high level.

I have attempted to capture how this translates into the detailed requirements in the attached documents. I have tried to make this as easy as possible to digest: there is one document, which lists all requirements associated to the MVP (including some non-functional success criteria) and also another document, which shows the requirements I propose as in scope in (green tick + bold) context with all known requirements.

Seeing as this release is focused on the Adapt Framework only (and excludes authoring tool functionality altogether), the ticks on the side of the authoring tool should be read as 'the framework has to include relevant functionality' according to these requirements.

I'd like to ask the project members with active roles as well as the steering group members to comment. I'd also very much welcome comments and questions from the community.

Our key aim is to get our priorities right and achieve a robust (well tested) and useful framework deliverable before Learning Technologies in order for us to launch to a developer audience. As part of this, we're hoping to attract developers into this open source project.

Thanks,
Sven

Hi Sven I have taken an initial look at both documents.

This looks great.

I think what would be great is if we could identify what activities have already been achieved. This might make the remaining workload feel a little smaller? From the framework side I would imagine a lot of these can be closed down already? I guess most of these will be in the back log.

My initial comments from the development framework (leaving the authoring tool aside):

Non-functional
- All looks great here, think this covers everything
Locking functionality implemented:
- I think we need to add here:
  - Section level locking, e.g. Articles complete, the next article in sequence is then unlocked (effectively section level locking), my terminology might not be correct here.
Assessment
- Ability to re-take the assessment I feel is crucial (and I wouldn't think this would be a massive task), users would find it frustrating if they could only try once and might create furuther issues for admins having to re-set learners
- LRN-ASSM-004 and LRN-ASSM-005 Are these not the same feature?
- I personally feel due to work load, we should limit the version 1 assessment to
  - multi-choice with a single correct option
  - and multi-choice with a multi correct options
- Opening this up to all question type templates might create a lot of work, maybe some of the developers could chip in here?
- Push the score to the LMS and set passed / failed, complete / incomplete

Also following on from what Mark said earlier in the call, we need to make sure what we do put out is robust and doesn't fall down, limiting it to this can enable us to have a strong foundation which can be rapidly built upon when we gain more input after the launch.

I think taking these into consideration this should put the framework in a very good position.

Show parent | Reply

Hi Alan,

thanks for reading through and commenting. Quick responses below:

Section level locking: creating and adding to the MVP a new requirement: CCR-MEN-007: Able to lock navigation between articles dependent on block completion
Adding to the MVP: LRN-ASSM-003 Able to re-take the assessment
LRN-ASSM-004 and LRN-ASSM-005 are ever so subtly different but logically be packaged together. LRN-ASSM-004 captures a generic feedback screen, i.e. shows score, passmark and result (but excludes the ability to deliver feedback dependent on the outcome). This could stand alone but would likely be insufficient. LRN-ASSM-005 adds the ability to give written feedback on the basis of the result and completes the feedback screen. On balance, these should probably not have been separated but I wanted to express the ability to give feedback explicitly.

Leaving the other items for discussion.

Thanks,
Sven

Show parent | Reply

Hi,

Alan, the Framework deliverable has been agreed during the workshops last week and reflects the changes above. Could you review you are happy with this, please? It's in this post: https://community.adaptlearning.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=96

Thanks,
Sven

Show parent | Reply