Inspirational vs. runnable (learning) designs
In collecting and structurally describing typical approaches that instructors use for training and teaching, I came across this clear difference between the way instructional approaches are usually described in literature and how they are described when prepared for implementation in IMS Learning Design. Apparently, due to the different purposes, the descriptions feature different structures, which I am looking at analyzing this coming week.
Sheila MacNeill (CETIS Educational Content Domain Co-ordinator) also discusses this issue on her blog, and talks about the difficulty of capturing an inspirational design in a standardized description, which a machine could read. It seems that you can only have either, but not both: either have the necessary elements to grab a (human) instructor's attention to adopt or try an instructional approach, or have it be formalized for machine interpretation.