Market Data
1.
Stakeholder Feedback
Structured reviews of User Stories: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uWgD6tN0nMwyhXBFJCnstEuKjHpfFiWNCSTmD-0mmfw/edit#
Key takeaways:
The most highly valued use case is the need to reuse OEX course components in other OEX courses. All levels of the course hierarchy must be composable, including components, units, subsections and sections. The need is particularly potent for problems.
The need to create content outside of the course structure wasn’t limited to the sites that want to deliver modularly (MRI and HMSx). WGU and MIT [I also suspect Penn] also have the need to author units and subsections independently of a course. However, they would eventually use the independently authored components in a course, rather than delivering them as stand-alone things.
Uniformly, all sites gravitated toward using the authoring infrastructure as it currently exists, ie creating a component, creating a unit, creating a subsection, etc, either in a content library or in a course. The addition of a third stream to author items or sequences was confusing, and so was the new terminology (item, sequence).
In the reuse cases, configuration needs to be stripped from the content. One unit may be configured differently in different contexts, whether it is added to a full course, multiple courses, or delivered independently.
The “mix and match” course was a popular use case - being able to deliver the same core course with two version, where say module 3 contains different videos for different audiences
Template concept popular across the board, both for creating units and for creating Master courses that can be copied and edited/configured centrally.
2.
Early raw data
https://lucid.app/lucidchart/4aa8ed6f-0fac-41db-9f84-42895311b348/edit?beaconFlowId=DD006CC216290D68&invitationId=inv_82bba75f-9e3d-4387-8c47-a0e9e457e898&page=0_0#?referringapp=slack