The research paper I wrote for the “Foundations of Learning Design and Technology” course, “From E-Learning to X-Learning: Transitioning from SCORM to xAPI,” demonstrated my ability to read and understand educational literature related to Educational Technology.

​

In the paper, I explored the development of xAPI (or “Tin Can”) as a viable alternative to overcome the limitations of the durable, yet limiting, Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) e-learning standard, which cannot track learning experiences occurring outside the browser. Because xAPI is still in its early versions of release, there is a paucity of critical xAPI research and even less discussion about specific pedagogic uses of xAPI. The thrust of my paper was to demonstrate how practitioners can use xAPI within an e-learning environment to create what Dempsey and Van Eck (2012) called instructional technics, or “activities or tactics that use technology designed or selected to attain specific learning outcomes” (p. 284).
 

By reading and understanding educational literature regarding my topic, I discovered that research regarding SCORM largely focused on its constraints, whereas research regarding xAPI focused on its potential. By being able to read and understand the literature related to my topic, I found specifics regarding xAPI’s conceptual and technical underpinnings as a learning technology so that I could contrast them with those of the SCORM standard. Likewise, by reading and understanding the body of literature on these two standards, I identified a gap in the research—specifically, that there has been little critical discussion about how xAPI can be leveraged pedagogically and pragmatically in the instructional design of an e-learning experience. By focusing on the gap in the literature, I feel I was able to advance the discussion of xAPI by providing my own pedagogical example that incorporated specific, authentic, and contextualized xAPI-based activities.
 

EDCI 51300 was the first course that I took in the Purdue LDT program. What I did not realize coming into the program as a freelance e-learning designer was that there was such a strong research component to the LDT field. Being a practitioner, I had never considered the practical value of research. As I was doing the research for this paper, I quickly discovered that learning design and technology is a field that demands to be continuously “refreshed” due to the ever-changing nature of technology, learning, and performance. I also realized that there is a strong practitioner’s element to a great deal of the research I have conducted for this paper and for other projects I completed throughout the program. I have thus come to appreciate how research can illuminate what I do as a practitioner. In fact, I have been able to implement ideas and concepts I have picked up from the research I have done throughout the program, such as adapting the layers of necessity ID model (Wedman & Tessmer, 1990) to my specific projects, or using Merrill’s first principles (2002) as a kind of best practices design checklist.

 

References

 

Dempsey, J. V., & Van Eck, R. N. (2012). E-learning and instructional design. In R. A. Reiser  & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (p. 281–289). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

 

Merrill (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

 

Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1990). A layers of necessity instructional development model. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 38(2), 77–85.