Call 800-516-9571 now to initiate a conversation with InterEd

Scalable Curriculum FAQ

Following is a representative sample of questions that can be answered more-or-less separate from your specific context.

Click the question to see the answer.
Why are discussions about Learning Objects and Scalable Content now so prevalent in higher education?
Several factors are driving this new way of developing and managing content. Central are 50 years of learning sciences leading to significant advancements in pedagogy, dramatically increased levels of participation in higher education (especially the growth of the adult-centered sector), the development of relatively inexpensive hardware and software to support object-oriented design and systems, and the pressures of competition in adult-centered and professional higher education.
What are the advantages of creating a system for developing and maintaining structured and scalable content for working adult and professional audiences?
The briefest possible answer is that the right kind of system can produce curriculum that is demonstrably superior, is easier to maintain, costs less, and is more easily repurposed or scaled to other learning environments and contexts than curriculum developed by conventional means. We define "conventional means" as instructors developing their own content to widely varying standards of quality, scrutability, comprehensiveness, and suitability-to-purpose, with little attention paid to modern learning sciences, pedagogical sciences, and education technologies.
What are the disadvantages of creating such a system?
Not many, if the time is right. In 2007, there are few reasons for developing curriculum the way our great-great grand-professors did it. The few reasons that do exist are largely political and owe to the fact that many institutions are not in control of their destinies. Other exceptions might include exploiting novel opportunities for teaching and learning. Is a Nobel Laureate in economics agreeing to teach a course on monetary policy? Forget structure and scalability! Seize the opportunity.
Will having a system for developing and maintaining structured and scalable content for working adult and professional audiences make my program more competitive?
Yes! You will get to market sooner with a better and more current product developed at a lower cost.
Why is my faculty so strongly opposed to structured and scalable content?
First let's address, and dismiss as groundless, the red herring of "quality" that underscores at least half of the arguments faculty make to resist change (the other half of their arguments being "academic freedom"). Ceteris paribus, the kind of structured content we are talking about will produce more outcomes, with greater certainty, with fewer inputs. Quality, which is logically dependent on suitability to purpose (Quality for what?), will be higher, if for no other reason than the fact that we will replace vague and potentially self-serving claims pertaining to quality with appropriate assessments, including agreed-upon measurement constructs, rubrics, metrics, and performance standards.

It is often said that faculty resist structured and scalable content because they fear a significant loss in their favored position in the system of higher education. This is not what we have observed. In large measure, faculty resist because they do not understand how such a system works, especially how their contributions as subject matter experts are integral to the process of developing and maintaining modern curriculum.

Other reasons include the fact that, as a body, the professorate constitutes one of the most conservative affinity groups in western society. While our scientific understanding of teaching and learning processes—and the biological, cognitive, and psychological functions that underscore them—have progressed many orders of magnitude in the past half century, instructors still develop content and teach as they did 150 years ago. This level of conservatism is difficult to comprehend because many of those who teach as if there were no sciences of teaching and learning, and as if there were no large corpus of knowledge derived therefrom, nonetheless make their living teaching in one or more of these sciences.
How will the general advantages and disadvantages play out for my particular environment and how should I decide whether or not to invest in a more structured approach to content development and management?
We believe that all content will eventually evolve toward InterEd's Durable Objects™ model. If we are correct, the decision to implement is one of timing. We recommend that you conduct a thorough SWOT analysis. InterEd can assist in that process.
Is InterEd's Durable Objects™ model similar to SCORM?
Only in that it subsumes the basic construct of SCORM classification as one of its object properties. Initially a great idea, the compromises SCORM underwent to meet the objections of various special interest groups have reduced the potentially robust notion of a Learning Object to little more than a well-classified library resource. This is a very useful step (not logically a first step, however) but it does little to address the challenge of modern learning environments and less still to exploit the programmatic or financial leverage made possible through the application of technology. InterEd's Durable Objects™ model produces fully self-contained learning objects. Each object contains the atomic elements: Learning Objective, Group and Individual Activities positioned at various levels of learning appropriate to the learners and the Learning Objective, and Assessments containing rubrics and metrics to ensure that the appropriate type of learning took place at the appropriate level. Additionally, each Durable Object™ contains a family of secondary object properties making it useful for integration into courses and degrees, for scaling and repurposing, for maintaining currency, and for resource allocation and management.
How much technology—software, hardware, greyware—do I need to support a structured and scalable content system? Can I develop it incrementally, on a budget?
Given $10M and a competent back office of analysts and programmers, any institution can develop a system for developing, maintaining, and scaling content. Some of the largest for-profit universities, corporate universities, and publishers are moving in this direction.

The middle-ground represented by InterEd's Durable Objects™ model is otherwise unaddressed. This position focuses on the end-product of a working and scalable content engine that organizes and deploys curriculum of demonstrable high quality (assessment metrics are built in) and, over time, does so in a fraction of the time and for a fraction of the cost required via conventional methods. InterEd's Durable Objects™ approach develops business rules, systems infrastructure, roles, and metrics that will create and sustain a working system for programs whose human and technical resources are modest. Equally important, we think, is the organizational and technical guidance we provide to achieve an effective migration from your current method of developing and managing content, including unmanaged, instructor-centric systems. InterEd's Durable Objects™ model rationalizes a large number of incremental approaches that do not require large investments of capital or human resources. After the first year, these approaches can be advanced on a "pay as you earn" model.

The least structured alternative to developing structured content is an application of the SCORM guidelines.
What other systems will I need to develop and manage a content development system built around InterEd's Durable Objects™ system?
In brief, you will need the following subsystems and their associated business rules:

  • Market driven programs and courses
  • A relational database architecture to house Durable Objects™
  • Durable Objects™ (about 12 to 20 for the typical course)
  • Subject matter experts (SMEs) to develop Durable Objects™
  • Training processes for SMEs
  • Programmatic evaluation processes