Title:

System method and article of manufacture for creating a virtual university experience

Document Type and Number:

United States Patent Application 20020138590

Kind Code:

Abstract:

A system is disclosed that provides a goal based learning system utilizing a rule based expert training system to provide a cognitive educational experience. The system provides the user with a simulated environment that presents a training opportunity to understand and solve optimally. The technique establishes a virtual university by connecting a virtual university server and one or more users, selects a destination within the virtual university server to interact with the one or more users, couples the one or more users through the virtual university server based on the selected destination, and establishes interaction parameters for the one or more users based on the selected destination. The interaction techniques include rules for one to one correspondence and one to many. The destinations include a virtual classroom, administrative offices, virtual library and virtual student union. Additional support is provided for distributing grades, tests, homework materials, directory information and other classroom materials electronically.

Inventors:

Beams, Brian R. (Agoure Hills, CA, US)
Harris, Scott B. (Elgin, IL, US)

Plaque It!

What is claimed is:

1. A method for establishing a virtual university, comprising the steps of: connecting a virtual university server and one or more users; selecting a destination within the virtual university server to interact with the one or more users; coupling the one or more users through the virtual university server based on the selected destination; and establishing interaction parameters for the one or more users based on the selected destination.

2. A method for establishing a virtual university as recited in claim 1, wherein the destinations include a virtual student union where users can interact using a bulletin board or other collaborative functions.

3. A method for establishing a virtual university as recited in claim 1, wherein the destinations include a virtual library where a user can use resources, consult with a virtual librarian, search for resources and collaborate with one or more other users.

4. A method for establishing a virtual university as recited in claim 1, wherein the destinations include a virtual administration office where a user can register for courses, search a directory, utilize a class locator, consult with the administration help desk, add a course, drop a course and utilize a career center.

5. A method for establishing a virtual university as recited in claim 1, wherein the destinations include a virtual classroom where a user can learn, view a directory of other students in a class, view materials, grades, announcements, homework, review old tests, administer tests, ask questions of an instructor, enter a breakout room, review lectures, view the class schedule and view research topics.

6. A method for establishing a virtual university as recited in claim 1, wherein the destinations include a university directory that provides information on persons and entities associated with the university.

7. A method for establishing a virtual university as recited in claim 1, wherein tests are applied to the users.

8. A method for establishing a virtual university as recited in claim 1, wherein any two users can collaborate in the virtual university.

9. A method for establishing a virtual university as recited in claim 1, wherein grades are distributed electronically.

10. An apparatus for establishing a virtual classroom, comprising: logic that connects a virtual university server and one or more users; logic that selects a destination within the virtual university server to interact with the one or more users; logic that couples the one or more users through the virtual university server based on the selected destination; and logic that establishes interaction parameters for the one or more users based on the selected destination.

11. A computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium that establishes a virtual classroom, comprising: a code segment that connects a virtual university server and one or more users; a code segment that selects a destination within the virtual university server to interact with the one or more users; a code segment that couples the one or more users through the virtual university server based on the selected destination; and a code segment that establishes interaction parameters for the one or more users based on the selected destination.

12. A computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium that establishes a virtual classroom as recited in claim 11, wherein the destinations include a virtual student union where users can interact using a bulletin board or other collaborative functions.

13. A computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium that establishes a virtual classroom as recited in claim 11, wherein the destinations include a virtual library where a user can use resources, consult with a virtual librarian, search for resources and collaborate with one or more other users.

14. A computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium that establishes a virtual classroom as recited in claim 11, wherein the destinations include a virtual administration office where a user can register for courses, search a directory, utilize a class locator, consult with the administration help desk, add a course, drop a course and utilize a career center.

15. A computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium that establishes a virtual classroom as recited in claim 11, wherein the destinations include a virtual classroom where a user can learn, view a directory of other students in a class, view materials, grades, announcements, homework, review old tests, administer tests, ask questions of an instructor, enter a breakout room, review lectures, view the class schedule and view research topics.

16. A computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium that establishes a virtual classroom as recited in claim 11, wherein the destinations include a university directory that provides information on persons and entities associated with the university.

17. A computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium that establishes a virtual classroom as recited in claim 11, wherein tests are applied to the users.

18. A computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium that establishes a virtual classroom as recited in claim 11, wherein any two users can collaborate in the virtual university.

19. A computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium that establishes a virtual classroom as recited in claim 11, wherein grades are distributed electronically.

Description:

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

[0001] The present invention relates to education systems and more particularly to a rule based tutorial system that utilizes a virtual university experience.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0002] When building a knowledge based system or expert system, at least two disciplines are necessary to properly construct the rules that drive the knowledge base, the discipline of the knowledge engineer and the knowledge of the expert. The domain expert has knowledge of the domain or field of use of the expert system. For example, the domain expert of an expert for instructing students in an automotive manufacturing facility might be a process control engineer while the domain expert for a medical instruction system might be a doctor or a nurse. The knowledge engineer is a person that understands the expert system and utilizes the expert's knowledge to create an application for the system. In many instances, the knowledge engineer and domain expert are separate people who have to collaborate to construct the expert system.

[0003] Typically, this collaboration takes the form of the knowledge engineer asking questions of the domain expert and incorporating the answers to these questions into the design of the system. This approach is labor intensive, slow and error prone. The coordination of the two separate disciplines may lead to problems. Although the knowledge engineer can transcribe input from the expert utilizing videotape, audio tape, text and other sources, efforts from people of both disciplines have to be expended. Further, if the knowledge engineer does not ask the right questions or asks the questions in an incorrect way, the information utilized to design the knowledge base could be incorrect. Feedback to the knowledge engineer from the expert system is often not available in prior art system until the construction is completed. With conventional system, there is a time consuming feedback loop that ties together various processes from knowledge acquisition to validation.

[0004] Educational systems utilizing an expert system component often suffer from a lack of motivational aspects that result in a user becoming bored or ceasing to complete a training program. Current training programs utilize static, hard-coded feedback with some linear video and graphics used to add visual appeal and illustrate concepts. These systems typically support one “correct” answer and navigation through the system is only supported through a single defined path which results in a two-dimensional generic interaction, with no business model support and a single feedback to the learner of correct or incorrect based on the selected response. Current tutorial systems do not architect real business simulations into the rules to provide a creative learning environment to a user.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0005] According to a broad aspect of a preferred embodiment of the invention, a goal based learning system utilizes a rule based expert training system to provide a cognitive educational experience.

[0006] A system is disclosed that provides a goal based learning system utilizing a rule based expert training system to provide a cognitive educational experience. The system provides the user with a simulated environment that presents a training opportunity to understand and solve optimally. A system is disclosed that provides a goal based learning system utilizing a rule based expert training system to provide a cognitive educational experience. The system provides a user with a simulated environment that presents a training opportunity to understand and solve optimally. The technique establishes a virtual university by connecting a virtual university server and one or more users, selects a destination within the virtual university server to interact with the one or more users, couples the one or more users through the virtual university server based on the selected destination, and establishes interaction parameters for the one or more users based on the selected destination. The interaction techniques include rules for one to one correspondence and one to many. The destinations include a virtual classroom, administrative offices, virtual library and virtual student union. Additional support is provided for distributing grades, tests, homework materials, directory information and other classroom materials electronically.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0007] The foregoing and other objects, aspects and advantages are better understood from the following detailed description of a preferred embodiment of the invention with reference to the drawings, in which:

[0008] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a representative hardware environment in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0009] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a system architecture in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0010] FIG. 3 depicts the timeline and relative resource requirements for each phase of development for a typical application development in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0011] FIG. 4 depicts the potential savings in both functional and technical tasks in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0012] FIG. 5 illustrates commonalties in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0013] FIG. 6 illustrates a development architecture approach in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0014] FIG. 7 illustrates a small segment of a domain model for claims handlers in the auto insurance industry in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0015] FIG. 8 illustrates an instantiated domain model in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0016] FIG. 9 illustrates an insurance underwriting profile in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0017] FIG. 10 illustrates a transformation component in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0018] FIG. 11 illustrates the use of a toolbar to navigate and access application level features in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0019] FIG. 12 is a GBS display in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0020] FIG. 13 is a feedback display in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0021] FIG. 14 illustrates a display in which a student has made some mistakes in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0022] FIG. 15 illustrates a journal entry simulation in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0023] FIG. 16 illustrates a simulated Bell Phone Bill journal entry in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0024] FIG. 17 illustrates a feedback display in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0025] FIGS. 18 and 19 illustrate a feedback display in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0026] FIG. 20 illustrates a feedback display in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0027] FIG. 21 illustrates a simulation display in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0028] FIG. 22 illustrates the steps of the first scenario in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0029] FIG. 23 and 24 illustrate the steps associated with a build scenario in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0030] FIG. 25 illustrates how the tool suite supports student administration in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0031] FIG. 26 illustrates a suite to support a student interaction in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0032] FIG. 27 illustrates the remediation process in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0033] FIG. 28 illustrates a display of journalization transactions in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0034] FIG. 29 illustrates the objects for the journalization task in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0035] FIG. 30 illustrates the mapping of a source item to a target item in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0036] FIG. 31 illustrates target group bundles in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0037] FIG. 32 illustrates a TargetGroup Hierarchy in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0038] FIG. 33 illustrates a small section the amount of feedback in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0039] FIG. 34 illustrates an analysis of rules in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0040] FIG. 35 illustrates a feedback selection in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0041] FIG. 36 is a flowchart of the feedback logic in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0042] FIG. 37 illustrates an example of separating out some mistakes for the interface to catch and others for the ICAT to catch has positive and negative impacts in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0043] FIG. 38 is a block diagram of the hierarchical relationship of a transaction in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0044] FIG. 39 is a block diagram illustrating the feedback hierarchy in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0045] FIG. 40 is a block diagram illustrating how the simulation engine is architected into a preferred embodiment of the invention;

[0046] FIG. 41 is a block diagram setting forth the architecture of a simulation model in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0047] FIG. 42 illustrates the arithmetic steps in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0048] FIG. 43 illustrates a drag & drop input operation in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0049] FIG. 44 illustrates list object processing in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0050] FIG. 45 illustrates the steps for configuring a simulation in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0051] FIG. 46 illustrates a distinct output in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0052] FIG. 47 is a block diagram presenting the detailed architecture of a system dynamics model in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0053] FIG. 48 is graphical representation of the object model which is utilized to instantiate the system dynamic engine in accordance with a preferred embodiment.

[0054] FIG. 49 is a PInput Cell for a simulation model in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0055] FIG. 50 is a PInput backup cell in a simulation model in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0056] FIG. 51 is a display illustrating a POutput cell in accordance with a preferred embodiment. The steps required to configure the POutput are presented below;

[0057] FIG. 52 is an overview diagram of the logic utilized for initial configuration in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0058] FIG. 53 is a display of the source item and target configuration in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0059] FIG. 54 is a display of video information in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0060] FIG. 55 illustrates a display depicting configured rules in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0061] FIG. 56 illustrates feedback for configured rules in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0062] FIG. 57 illustrates a display with follow-up configuration questions in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0063] FIG. 58 illustrates configuration of aggregate rules in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0064] FIG. 59 illustrates a set of coach items in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0065] FIG. 60 is an ICA Meeting Configuration tool display in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0066] FIG. 61 illustrates an ICA utility in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0067] FIG. 62 illustrates a configuration utility display in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0068] FIG. 63 illustrates an object editor toolbar in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0069] FIG. 64 illustrates the seven areas that can be configured for a simulation in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0070] FIG. 65 illustrates a display that defines inputs in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0071] FIG. 66 illustrates a list editor in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0072] FIG. 67A illustrates a define student display in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0073] FIG. 67B illustrates a ControlSourceItem display in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0074] FIG. 68 illustrates a simulation workbench in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0075] FIG. 69 illustrates an object viewer in accordance with a preferred embodiment. As shown in

[0076] FIG. 70 illustrates an Object Viewer Configuration in an Utilities menu in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0077] FIG. 71 illustrates a log viewer in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0078] FIG. 72 illustrates a Doc Maker display in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0079] FIG. 73 illustrates a Feedback display in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0080] FIG. 74 is an object editor display that illustrates the use of references in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0081] FIG. 75 presents the detailed design of smart spreadsheets in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0082] FIG. 76 presents the assembly of a telephone operator training simulation in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0083] FIG. 77 presents the domain expert's work station utilized to assemble a simulation in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0084] FIG. 78 presents multiple domain expert's work stations linked/networked to collaborate on the assembly of a simulation in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0085] FIG. 79 presents the detailed flowchart of a telephone operator training simulation in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0086] FIG. 80 presents a user training station linked/networked to the simulation server in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0087] FIG. 81 presents a detailed flowchart of a user query of the knowledge base in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0088] FIG. 82 presents an example of feedback from a coach in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0089] FIG. 83 presents multiple user's training stations linked/networked to collaborate in the execution of a simulation in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0090] FIG. 84 is a block diagram of a system environment in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0091] FIG. 85 is a block diagram of a virtual consulting channel in accordance with a preferred embodiment;

[0092] FIGS. 86 and 87 are data structures for a virtual consulting environment in accordance with a preferred embodiment; and

[0093] FIGS. 88 - 99 are flowcharts of a virtual university system in accordance with a preferred embodiment.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0094] A preferred embodiment of a system in accordance with the present invention is preferably practiced in the context of a personal computer such as an IBM compatible personal computer, Apple Macintosh computer or UNIX based workstation. A representative hardware environment is depicted in FIG. 1 , which illustrates a typical hardware configuration of a workstation in accordance with a preferred embodiment having a central processing unit 110 , such as a microprocessor, and a number of other units interconnected via a system bus 112 . The workstation shown in FIG. 1 includes a Random Access Memory (RAM) 114 , Read Only Memory (ROM) 116 , an I/O adapter 118 for connecting peripheral devices such as disk storage units 120 to the bus 112 , a user interface adapter 122 for connecting a keyboard 124 , a mouse 126 , a speaker 128 , a microphone 132 , and/or other user interface devices such as a touch screen (not shown) to the bus 112 , communication adapter 134 for connecting the workstation to a communication network (e.g., a data processing network) and a display adapter 136 for connecting the bus 112 to a display device 138 . The workstation typically has resident thereon an operating system such as the Microsoft Windows NT or Windows/95 Operating System (OS), the IBM OS/2 operating system, the MAC OS, or UNIX operating system. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the present invention may also be implemented on platforms and operating systems other than those mentioned.

[0095] A preferred embodiment is written using JAVA, C, and the C++ language and utilizes object oriented programming methodology. Object oriented programming (OOP) has become increasingly used to develop complex applications. As OOP moves toward the mainstream of software design and development, various software solutions require adaptation to make use of the benefits of OOP. A need exists for these principles of OOP to be applied to a messaging interface of an electronic messaging system such that a set of OOP classes and objects for the messaging interface can be provided.

[0096] OOP is a process of developing computer software using objects, including the steps of analyzing the problem, designing the system, and constructing the program. An object is a software package that contains both data and a collection of related structures and procedures. Since it contains both data and a collection of structures and procedures, it can be visualized as a self-sufficient component that does not require other additional structures, procedures or data to perform its specific task. OOP, therefore, views a computer program as a collection of largely autonomous components, called objects, each of which is responsible for a specific task. This concept of packaging data, structures, and procedures together in one component or module is called encapsulation.

[0097] In general, OOP components are reusable software modules that present an interface that conforms to an object model and which are accessed at run-time through a component integration architecture. A component integration architecture is a set of architecture mechanisms which allow software modules in different process spaces to utilize each others capabilities or functions. This is generally done by assuming a common component object model on which to build the architecture. It is worthwhile to differentiate between an object and a class of objects at this point. An object is a single instance of the class of objects, which is often just called a class. A class of objects can be viewed as a blueprint, from which many objects can be formed.

[0098] OOP allows the programmer to create an object that is a part of another object. For example, the object representing a piston engine is said to have a composition-relationship with the object representing a piston. In reality, a piston engine comprises a piston, valves and many other components; the fact that a piston is an element of a piston engine can be logically and semantically represented in OOP by two objects.

[0099] OOP also allows creation of an object that “depends from” another object. If there are two objects, one representing a piston engine and the other representing a piston engine wherein the piston is made of ceramic, then the relationship between the two objects is not that of composition. A ceramic piston engine does not make up a piston engine. Rather it is merely one kind of piston engine that has one more limitation than the piston engine; its piston is made of ceramic. In this case, the object representing the ceramic piston engine is called a derived object, and it inherits all of the aspects of the object representing the piston engine and adds further limitation or detail to it. The object representing the ceramic piston engine “depends from” the object representing the piston engine. The relationship between these objects is called inheritance.

[0100] When the object or class representing the ceramic piston engine inherits all of the aspects of the objects representing the piston engine, it inherits the thermal characteristics of a standard piston defined in the piston engine class. However, the ceramic piston engine object overrides these ceramic specific thermal characteristics, which are typically different from those associated with a metal piston. It skips over the original and uses new functions related to ceramic pistons. Different kinds of piston engines have different characteristics, but may have the same underlying functions associated with it (e.g., how many pistons in the engine, ignition sequences, lubrication, etc.). To access each of these functions in any piston engine object, a programmer would call the same functions with the same names, but each type of piston engine may have different/overriding implementations of functions behind the same name. This ability to hide different implementations of a function behind the same name is called polymorphism and it greatly simplifies communication among objects.

[0101] With the concepts of composition-relationship, encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism, an object can represent just about anything in the real world. In fact, our logical perception of the reality is the only limit on determining the kinds of things that can become objects in object-oriented software. Some typical categories are as follows:

[0102] Objects can represent physical objects, such as automobiles in a traffic-flow simulation, electrical components in a circuit-design program, countries in an economics model, or aircraft in an air-traffic-control system.

[0103] Objects can represent elements of the computer-user environment such as windows, menus or graphics objects.

[0104] An object can represent an inventory, such as a personnel file or a table of the latitudes and longitudes of cities.

[0105] An object can represent user-defined data types such as time, angles, and complex numbers, or points on the plane.

[0106] With this enormous capability of an object to represent just about any logically separable matters, OOP allows the software developer to design and implement a computer program that is a model of some aspects of reality, whether that reality is a physical entity, a process, a system, or a composition of matter. Since the object can represent anything, the software developer can create an object which can be used as a component in a larger software project in the future.

[0107] If 90% of a new OOP software program consists of proven, existing components made from preexisting reusable objects, then only the remaining 10% of the new software project has to be written and tested from scratch. Since 90% already came from an inventory of extensively tested reusable objects, the potential domain from which an error could originate is 10% of the program. As a result, OOP enables software developers to build objects out of other, previously built objects.

[0108] This process closely resembles complex machinery being built out of assemblies and sub-assemblies. OOP technology, therefore, makes software engineering more like hardware engineering in that software is built from existing components, which are available to the developer as objects. All this adds up to an improved quality of the software as well as an increased speed of its development.

[0109] Programming languages are beginning to fully support the OOP principles, such as encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism, and composition-relationship. With the advent of the C++ language, many commercial software developers have embraced OOP. C++ is an OOP language that offers a fast, machine-executable code. Furthermore, C++ is suitable for both commercial-application and systems-programming projects. For now, C++ appears to be the most popular choice among many OOP programmers, but there is a host of other OOP languages, such as Smalltalk, Common Lisp Object System (CLOS), and Eiffel. Additionally, OOP capabilities are being added to more traditional popular computer programming languages such as Pascal.

[0110] The benefits of object classes can be summarized, as follows:

[0111] Objects and their corresponding classes break down complex programming problems into many smaller, simpler problems.

[0112] Encapsulation enforces data abstraction through the organization of data into small, independent objects that can communicate with each other. Encapsulation protects the data in an object from accidental damage, but allows other objects to interact with that data by calling the object's member functions and structures.

[0113] Subclassing and inheritance make it possible to extend and modify objects through deriving new kinds of objects from the standard classes available in the system. Thus, new capabilities are created without having to start from scratch.

[0114] Polymorphism and multiple inheritance make it possible for different programmers to mix and match characteristics of many different classes and create specialized objects that can still work with related objects in predictable ways.

[0115] Class hierarchies and containment hierarchies provide a flexible mechanism for modeling real-world objects and the relationships among them.

[0116] Libraries of reusable classes are useful in many situations, but they also have some limitations. For example:

[0117] Complexity. In a complex system, the class hierarchies for related classes can become extremely confusing, with many dozens or even hundreds of classes.

[0118] Flow of control. A program written with the aid of class libraries is still responsible for the flow of control (i.e., it must control the interactions among all the objects created from a particular library). The programmer has to decide which functions to call at what times for which kinds of objects.

[0119] Duplication of effort. Although class libraries allow programmers to use and reuse many small pieces of code, each programmer puts those pieces together in a different way. Two different programmers can use the same set of class libraries to write two programs that do exactly the same thing but whose internal structure (i.e., design) may be quite different, depending on hundreds of small decisions each programmer makes along the way. Inevitably, similar pieces of code end up doing similar things in slightly different ways and do not work as well together as they should.

[0120] Class libraries are very flexible. As programs grow more complex, more programmers are forced to reinvent basic solutions to basic problems over and over again. A relatively new extension of the class library concept is to have a framework of class libraries. This framework is more complex and consists of significant collections of collaborating classes that capture both the small scale patterns and major mechanisms that implement the common requirements and design in a specific application domain. They were first developed to free application programmers from the chores involved in displaying menus, windows, dialog boxes, and other standard user interface elements for personal computers.

[0121] Frameworks also represent a change in the way programmers think about the interaction between the code they write and code written by others. In the early days of procedural programming, the programmer called libraries provided by the operating system to perform certain tasks, but basically the program executed down the page from start to finish, and the programmer was solely responsible for the flow of control. This was appropriate for printing out paychecks, calculating a mathematical table, or solving other problems with a program that executed in just one way.

[0122] The development of graphical user interfaces began to turn this procedural programming arrangement inside out. These interfaces allow the user, rather than program logic, to drive the program and decide when certain actions should be performed. Today, most personal computer software accomplishes this by means of an event loop which monitors the mouse, keyboard, and other sources of external events and calls the appropriate parts of the programmer's code according to actions that the user performs. The programmer no longer determines the order in which events occur. Instead, a program is divided into separate pieces that are called at unpredictable times and in an unpredictable order. By relinquishing control in this way to users, the developer creates a program that is much easier to use. Nevertheless, individual pieces of the program written by the developer still call libraries provided by the operating system to accomplish certain tasks, and the programmer must still determine the flow of control within each piece after it's called by the event loop. Application code still “sits on top of” the system.

[0123] Even event loop programs require programmers to write a lot of code that should not need to be written separately for every application. The concept of an application framework carries the event loop concept further. Instead of dealing with all the nuts and bolts of constructing basic menus, windows, and dialog boxes and then making these things all work together, programmers using application frameworks start with working application code and basic user interface elements in place. Subsequently, they build from there by replacing some of the generic capabilities of the framework with the specific capabilities of the intended application.

[0124] Application frameworks reduce the total amount of code that a programmer has to write from scratch. However, because the framework is really a generic application that displays windows, supports copy and paste, and so on, the programmer can also relinquish control to a greater degree than event loop programs permit. The framework code takes care of almost all event handling and flow of control, and the programmer's code is called only when the framework needs it (e.g., to create or manipulate a proprietary data structure).

[0125] A programmer writing a framework program not only relinquishes control to the user (as is also true for event loop programs), but also relinquishes the detailed flow of control within the program to the framework. This approach allows the creation of more complex systems that work together in interesting ways, as opposed to isolated programs, having custom code, being created over and over again for similar problems.

[0126] Thus, as is explained above, a framework basically is a collection of cooperating classes that make up a reusable design solution for a given problem domain. It typically includes objects that provide default behavior (e.g., for menus and windows), and programmers use it by inheriting some of that default behavior and overriding other behavior so that the framework calls application code at the appropriate times.

[0127] There are three main differences between frameworks and class libraries:

[0128] Behavior versus protocol. Class libraries are essentially collections of behaviors that you can call when you want those individual behaviors in your program. A framework, on the other hand, provides not only behavior but also the protocol or set of rules that govern the ways in which behaviors can be combined, including rules for what a programmer is supposed to provide versus what the framework provides.

[0129] Call versus override. With a class library, the code the programmer instantiates objects and calls their member functions. It's possible to instantiate and call objects in the same way with a framework (i.e., to treat the framework as a class library), but to take full advantage of a framework's reusable design, a programmer typically writes code that overrides and is called by the framework. The framework manages the flow of control among its objects. Writing a program involves dividing responsibilities among the various pieces of software that are called by the framework rather than specifying how the different pieces should work together.

[0130] Implementation versus design. With class libraries, programmers reuse only implementations, whereas with frameworks, they reuse design. A framework embodies the way a family of related programs or pieces of software work. It represents a generic design solution that can be adapted to a variety of specific problems in a given domain. For example, a single framework can embody the way a user interface works, even though two different user interfaces created with the same framework might solve quite different interface problems.

[0131] Thus, through the development of frameworks for solutions to various problems and programming tasks, significant reductions in the design and development effort for software can be achieved. A preferred embodiment of the invention utilizes HyperText Markup Language (HTML) to implement documents on the Internet together with a general-purpose secure communication protocol for a transport medium between the client and the Newco. HTTP or other protocols could be readily substituted for HTML without undue experimentation. Information on these products is available in T. Berners-Lee, D. Connoly, “RFC 1866: Hypertext Markup Language—2.0” (November 1995); and R. Fielding, H, Frystyk, T. Berners-Lee, J. Gettys and J. C. Mogul, “Hypertext Transfer Protocol—HTTP/1.1: HTTP Working Group Internet Draft” (May 2, 1996). HTML is a simple data format used to create hypertext documents that are portable from one platform to another. HTML documents are SGML documents with generic semantics that are appropriate for representing information from a wide range of domains. HTML has been in use by the World-Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. HTML is an application of ISO Standard 8879; 1986 Information Processing Text and Office Systems; Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML).

[0132] To date, Web development tools have been limited in their ability to create dynamic Web applications which span from client to server and interoperate with existing computing resources. Until recently, HTML has been the dominant technology used in development of Web-based solutions. However, HTML has proven to be inadequate in the following areas:

[0133] Poor performance;

[0134] Restricted user interface capabilities;

[0135] Can only produce static Web pages;

[0136] Lack of interoperability with existing applications and data; and

[0137] Inability to scale.

[0138] Sun Microsystem's Java language solves many of the client-side problems by:

[0139] Improving performance on the client side;

[0140] Enabling the creation of dynamic, real-time Web applications; and

[0141] Providing the ability to create a wide variety of user interface components.

[0142] With Java, developers can create robust User Interface (UI) components. Custom “widgets” (e.g., real-time stock tickers, animated icons, etc.) can be created, and client-side performance is improved. Unlike HTML, Java supports the notion of client-side validation, offloading appropriate processing onto the client for improved performance. Dynamic, real-time Web pages can be created. Using the above-mentioned custom UI components, dynamic Web pages can also be created.

[0143] Sun's Java language has emerged as an industry-recognized language for “programming the Internet.” Sun defines Java as: “a simple, object-oriented, distributed, interpreted, robust, secure, architecture-neutral, portable, high-performance, multithreaded, dynamic, buzzword-compliant, general-purpose programming language. Java supports programming for the Internet in the form of platform-independent Java applets.” Java applets are small, specialized applications that comply with Sun's Java Application Programming Interface (API) allowing developers to add “interactive content” to Web documents (e.g., simple animations, page adornments, basic games, etc.). Applets execute within a Java-compatible browser (e.g., Netscape Navigator) by copying code from the server to client. From a language standpoint, Java's core feature set is based on C++. Sun's Java literature states that Java is basically, “C++ with extensions from Objective C for more dynamic method resolution.”

[0144] Another technology that provides similar function to JAVA is provided by Microsoft and ActiveX Technologies, to give developers and Web designers wherewithal to build dynamic content for the Internet and personal computers. ActiveX includes tools for developing animation, 3-D virtual reality, video and other multimedia content. The tools use Internet standards, work on multiple platforms, and are being supported by over 100 companies. The group's building blocks are called ActiveX Controls, small, fast components that enable developers to embed parts of software in hypertext markup language (HTML) pages. ActiveX Controls work with a variety of programming languages including Microsoft Visual C++, Borland Delphi, Microsoft Visual Basic programming system and, in the future, Microsoft's development tool for Java, code named “Jakarta.” ActiveX Technologies also includes ActiveX Server Framework, allowing developers to create server applications. One of ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes that ActiveX could be substituted for JAVA without undue experimentation to practice the invention.

[0145] A simulation engine in accordance with a preferred embodiment is based on a Microsoft Visual Basic component developed to help design and test feedback in relation to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. These spreadsheet models are what simulate actual business functions and become a task that will be performed by a student The Simulation Engine accepts simulation inputs and calculates various outputs and notifies the system of the status of the simulation at a given time in order to obtain appropriate feedback.

Relationship of Components

[0146] The simulation model executes the business function that the student is learning and is therefore the center point of the application. An activity ‘layer’ allows the user to visually guide the simulation by passing inputs into the simulation engine and receiving an output from the simulation model. For example, if the student was working on an income statement activity, the net sales and cost of goods sold calculations are passed as inputs to the simulation model and the net income value is calculated and retrieved as an output. As calculations are passed to and retrieved from the simulation model, they are also passed to the Intelligent Coaching Agent (ICA). The ICA analyzes the Inputs and Outputs to the simulation model and generates feedback based on a set of rules. This feedback is received and displayed through the Visual Basic Architecture.

[0147] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a system architecture in accordance with a preferred embodiment. The Presentation ‘layer’ 210 is separate from the activity ‘layer’ 220 and communication is facilitated through a set of messages 230 that control the display specific content topics. A preferred embodiment enables knowledge workers 200 & 201 to acquire complex skills rapidly, reliably and consistently across an organization to deliver rapid acquisition of complex skills. This result is achieved by placing individuals in a simulated business environment that “looks and feels” like real work, and challenging them to make decisions which support a business' strategic objectives utilizing highly effective learning theory (e.g., goal based learning, learn by doing, failure based learning, etc.), and the latest in multimedia user interfaces, coupled with three powerful, integrated software components. The first of these components is a software Solution Construction Aid (SCA) 230 consisting of a mathematical modeling tool 234 which simulates business outcomes of an individual's collective actions over a period of time. The second component is a knowledge system 250 consisting of an HTML content layer which organizes and presents packaged knowledge much like an online text book with practice exercises, video war stories, and a glossary. The third component is a software tutor 270 comprising an artificial intelligence engine 240 which generates individualized coaching messages based on decisions made by learner.

[0148] Feedback is unique for each individual completing the course and supports client cultural messages 242 “designed into” the course. A business simulation methodology that includes support for content acquisition, story line design, interaction design, feedback and coaching delivery, and content delivery is architected into the system in accordance with a preferred embodiment. A large number of “pre-designed” learning interactions such as drag and drop association of information 238 , situation assessment/action planning, interviewing (one-on-one, one-to-many), presenting (to a group of experts/executives), metering of performance (handle now, handle later), “time jumping” for impact of decisions, competitive landscape shift (while “time jumping”, competitors merge, customers are acquired, etc.) and video interviewing with automated note taking are also included in accordance with a preferred embodiment.

[0149] Business simulation in accordance with a preferred embodiment delivers training curricula in an optimal manner. This is because such applications provide effective training that mirrors a student's actual work environment. The application of skills “on the job” facilitates increased retention and higher overall job performance. While the results of such training applications are impressive, business simulations are very complex to design and build correctly. These simulations are characterized by a very open-ended environment, where students can go through the application along any number of paths, depending on their learning style and prior experiences/knowledge.

[0150] A category of learning approaches called Learn by Doing, is commonly used as a solution to support the first phase (Learn) of the Workforce Performance Cycle. However, it can also be a solution to support the second phase (Perform) of the cycle to enable point of need learning during job performance. By adopting the approach presented, some of the benefits of a technology based approach for building business simulation solutions which create more repeatable, predictable projects resulting in more perceived and actual user value at a lower cost and in less time are highlighted.

[0151] Most corporate training programs today are misdirected because they have failed to focus properly on the purpose of their training. These programs have confused the memorization of facts with the ability to perform tasks; the knowing of “that” with the knowing of “how”. By adopting the methods of traditional schools, businesses are teaching a wide breadth of disconnected, decontextualized facts and figures, when they should be focused on improved performance. How do you teach performance, when lectures, books, and tests inherently are designed around facts and figures? Throw away the lectures, books, and tests. The best way to prepare for high performance is to perform; experience is the best teacher! Most business leaders agree that workers become more effective the more time they spend in their jobs. The best approach for training novice employees, therefore, would be letting them learn on the job, acquiring skills in their actual work environment. The idea of learning-by-doing is not revolutionary, yet it is resisted in business and academia. Why is this so, if higher competence is universally desired?

[0152] Learners are reluctant to adopt learning-by-doing because they are frightened of failure. People work hard to avoid making mistakes in front of others. Business leaders are hesitant to implement learning-by-doing because novice failure may have dramatic safety, legal and financial implications. Imagine a novice pilot learning-by-doing as he accelerates a large jet plane down a runway; likewise, consider a new financial analyst learning-by-doing as he structures a multi-million dollar financial loan. Few employers are willing to endure such failures to have a more competent workforce.

[0153] The concerns of employee and employer can be relieved if the training (and accompanying failure) didn't occur in front of co-workers and clients, if it didn't jeopardize a multi-million dollar aircraft or a multi-million dollar deal. What if the training was performed privately, in a richly modeled simulation of the workers actual job? In a simulated environment, failure would result in dedicated instruction instead of embarrassment, injury, or monetary losses. Simulated environments provide a sense of liberation for exploration that does not exist in the real world. Knowing that the consequences of experimentation will unlikely be dire, learners are able to explore the “what if . . . ” inherent in us all. In this way, the best way to prepare for high performance is to simulate actual performance. New media technologies utilizing multimedia provide the possibility to create such business simulation experiences.

[0154] Even if companies didn't make the mistake of focusing on “what” learning vs. “how” learning, they still tend to have the overly narrow view of education/training as something that only occurs prior to workers being asked to actually perform their job. Learning is something that is constantly occurring, and doesn't cease once “real work” has begun. The closer new lessons occur in time with the application of those lessons, the greater the resultant learning. This fact helps to explain some of the reasoning behind the benefits of business simulation, described in the previous section. In those systems, all new lessons are taught in close relationship to their real world use; everything is in context and, most importantly, are presented at the appropriate time. But as the properly trained worker performs their job, the working environment changes. New demands occur, and new methods and rules are developed. As these events occur, there is a need for new support/training that, in most cases, must wait to be addressed until the next “pre-performance” training session.

[0155] In these cases, the need (or demand) for additional training doesn't match the supply. This lag between a training need and the fulfilling lesson has a dramatic negative impact on productivity, accuracy, and customer satisfaction. Workers need to have the opportunity to learn while they are performing. Just as during pre-performance training, one powerful mechanism for identifying and correcting (simulated) performance problems is to have an expert available at all time to watch your actions and remediate when appropriate. This, obviously, is too costly and time intensive of an approach to be practical with actual experts. But what if workers had access to a support system that provided the majority of the benefits of a real expert, transparently integrated into their work environment? Such a system would provide advice at key moments in the work flow for problem resolution and/or process improvement, tools to ease task completion, reference material of best practice knowledge, and point of need training courses. With a support system that proactively assists the worker in performance of their job tasks at a higher level of competency, productivity and customer satisfaction (both internal and external) would soar.

[0156] The key to such a support system is that it is seamlessly integrated into the business system that the knowledge worker uses to execute their job tasks. Workers don't need to go “off-line” or seek out cryptic information buried within paper manuals and binders for guidance or to find the answer to queries. All the support components are made available through the same applications the worker's use, at the point in which they need them, tailored to the individual to show “how”, not just “what”. Learning would be occurring all the time, with little distinction between performing and improving performance.

[0157] Establishing that training should focus on performance (how), rather than facts (what), and extending the model of learning to include assistance while performing, rather than only before performance, still leaves us dangerously exposed in preparing to compete in the new, chaotic economy. As was mentioned in the opening of this paper, the pace of change in business today is whiplash fast. Not only are new methods of doing business evolving every 18-24 months, new competitors emerge, dominate, and fade in time periods businesses used to take to perform demographic studies. Now more than ever, those who do not reinvent themselves on a regular basis will be fossilized by the pace of change.

[0158] Even the best pre-performance training and the most advanced performance support tools are destined to be outdated if there isn't a fresh supply of real-world requirements and lessons learned being fed back as inputs for the next go 'round. Innovation is a key step in the Workforce Performance Cycle. This step requires business to employ Stephen Covey's famous habit of “sharpening the saw”, or “take time to be fast”.

[0159] There is an untold wealth of information buried within the heads of business users responsible for implementing the steps outlined in their pre-performance training and performance support tools. No other group within an organization can more accurately assess the effectiveness of current methods, or project needed changes that will have dramatic future impact. This step of reflecting on the current and past state of affairs, uncovering new approaches by identifying what is working and what is not, and adapting accordingly for the future is the last phase of the learning/performance cycle.

[0160] Innovation to fuel future training and performance support comes directly from the community most closely tied to task performance. Effective businesses need to develop and cultivate a mechanism for communication and collaboration among the experts in these communities to more efficiently benefit from their collective wisdom. In todays business, that which is evident to your business is evident to nearly all your competitors as well. The competitive advantage lies in uncovering that which is unexpected or not immediately apparent, adapting your business processes to exploit the discovery, and quickly, but effectively, educating your workforce on the new policies and procedures, all before the competition catches on or the market changes again.

[0161] This innovation process is the critical final step in continuous education of the most effective and up-to-date policies, procedures, and information. Without formalized innovation, companies not only risk being a step behind the ever advancing competition, but compound the problem by continuing to train their personnel with outdated strategies and information. One way to formalize this vital step in the Workforce Performance Cycle is to construct Virtual Learning Communities, where many ‘experts’ can share experiences, submit ideas for improvements, play out “what-if” scenarios, and contribute on complex problems that may be insurmountable without significant collaboration with others. Such Learning Communities could nurture up-to-date discussion of what is actually happening within a business, eliminating the traditional information-passing lag that plagues many business as new data travels through corporate hierarchies. This increased nimbleness would help organizations quickly address new competitive trends and outdated strategies, identify potential solutions, and implement improved processes in the form of updated training and performance support reference materials.

[0162] Currently, a typical BusSim engagement takes between one and two years to complete and requires a variety of both functional and technical skills. FIG. 3 depicts the timeline and relative resource requirements for each phase of development for a typical application development in accordance with a preferred embodiment. The chart clearly depicts the relationship between the large number of technical resources required for both the build and test phases of development. This is because the traditional development process used to build BusSim solutions reflects more of a “one off” philosophy, where development is done from scratch in a monolithic fashion, with little or no reuse from one application to the next. This lack of reuse makes this approach prohibitively expensive, as well as lengthy, for future BusSim projects.

[0163] The solution to this problem is to put tools in the hands of instructional designers that allows them to create their BusSim designs and implement them without the need for programmers to write code. And to put application architectures that integrate with the tools in the hands of developers, providing them with the ability to quickly deliver solutions for a number of different platforms. The reuse, then, comes in using the tools and architectures from one engagement to another. Both functional and technical resources carry with them the knowledge of how to use the technology, which also has an associated benefit of establishing a best-practice development methodology for BusSim engagements.

[0164] The tools and architectures described herein are part of a next-generation Business Simulation delivery framework that will reduce the total effort necessary to build solutions in accordance with a preferred embodiment. FIG. 4 depicts the potential savings in both functional and technical tasks in accordance with a preferred embodiment.

Development Cycle Activities

[0165] Design Phase

[0166] In the Design Phase, instructional designers become oriented to the content area and begin to conceptualize an instructional approach. They familiarize themselves with the subject matter through reading materials and interviews with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). They also identify learning objectives from key client contacts. Conceptual designs for student interactions and interface layouts also begin to emerge. After the conceptual designs have taken shape, Low-Fi user testing (a.k.a. Conference Room Piloting) is performed. Students interact with interface mock-ups while facilitators observe and record any issues. Finally, detailed designs are created that incorporate findings. These detailed designs are handed off to the development team for implementation.

[0167] The design phase has traditionally been fraught with several problems. Unlike a traditional business system, BusSim solutions are not rooted in tangible business processes, so requirements are difficult to identify in a concrete way. This leaves instructional designers with a ‘blue sky’ design problem. With few business-driven constraints on the solution, shallow expertise in the content area, and limited technical skills, instructional designers have little help in beginning a design. Typically, only experienced designers have been able to conjure interface, analysis, and feedback designs that meet the learning objectives yet remain technically feasible to implement. To compound the problem, BusSim solutions are very open ended in nature. The designer must anticipate a huge combination of student behavior to design feedback that is helpful and realistic.

[0168] Build Phase

[0169] During the build phase, the application development team uses the detailed designs to code the application. Coding tasks include the interfaces and widgets that the student interacts with. The interfaces can be made up of buttons, grids, check boxes, or any other screen controls that allow the student to view and manipulate his deliverables. The developer must also code logic that analyzes the student's work and provides feedback interactions. These interactions may take the form of text and/or multimedia feedback from simulated team members, conversations with simulated team members, or direct manipulations of the student's work by simulated team members. In parallel with these coding efforts, graphics, videos, and audio are being created for use in the application. Managing the development of these assets have their own complications.

[0170] Risks in the build phase include misinterpretation of the designs. If the developer does not accurately understand the designer's intentions, the application will not function as desired. Also, coding these applications requires very skilled developers because the logic that analyzes the student's work and composes feedback is very complex.

[0171] Test Phase

[0172] The Test Phase, as the name implies, is for testing the application. Testing is performed to verify the application in three ways: first that the application functions properly (functional testing), second that the students understand the interface and can navigate effectively (usability testing), and third that the learning objectives are met (cognition testing). Functional testing of the application can be carried out by the development team or by a dedicated test team. If the application fails to function properly, it is debugged, fixed, recompiled and retested until its operation is satisfactory. Usability and cognition testing can only be carried out by test students who are unfamiliar with the application. If usability is unsatisfactory, parts of the interface and or feedback logic may need to be redesigned, recoded, and retested. If the learning objectives are not met, large parts of the application may need to be removed and completely redeveloped from a different perspective.

[0173] The test phase is typically where most of the difficulties in the BusSim development cycle are encountered. The process of discovering and fixing functional, usability, and cognition problems is a difficult process and not an exact science.

[0174] For functional testing, testers operate the application, either by following a test script or by acting spontaneously and documenting their actions as they go. When a problem or unexpected result is encountered, it too is documented. The application developer responsible for that part of the application then receives the documentation and attempts to duplicate the problem by repeating the tester's actions. When the problem is duplicated, the developer investigates further to find the cause and implement a fix. The developer once again repeats the tester's actions to verify that the fix solved the problem. Finally, all other test scripts must be rerun to verify that the fix did not have unintended consequences elsewhere in the application.

[0175] This process has inherent difficulty. If the tester is inaccurate in recording his actions, or the developer is inaccurate in repeating them, then the problem may never be duplicated and the defect never found. Furthermore, the problem may be dependent on some condition in the tester's environment that is not readily observable or is not even related to the application. This process has proven to be tedious, time-consuming, and of limited reliability.

[0176] For usability testing, test students operate the application as it will be operated in production. Ideally, their progress is only impeded by their lack of mastery of the content. As they gain proficiency, they are able to complete the activities and move on. As is often the case, however, they are impeded by unclear instructions, a non-intuitive interface, or other usability shortcomings. When these difficulties are encountered, the facilitators document the problems and student comments on what is needed to improve usability.

[0177] There are two major risks associated with usability testing. First, student action recording is not as rigorous because actual students are performing the testing, so functional problems that don't appear until now are difficult to reproduce. Second, resolutions to usability problems often involve significant modification to the application code and interface which requires repeating of portions of design, build, and test.

[0178] For cognition testing, students are surveyed and/or tested to determine their level of understanding of the material. If results indicate that the learning objectives are not being adequately met, the design is reevaluated. Changes proposed to improve the cognition may include massive redesign and rebuilding.

[0179] Execution Phase

[0180] The Execution Phase refers to the steady state operation of the completed application in its production environment. For some clients, this involves phone support for students. Clients may also want the ability to track students'progress and control their progression through the course. Lastly, clients may want the ability to track issues so they may be considered for inclusion in course maintenance releases.

[0181] One of the key values of on-line courses is that they can be taken at a time, location, and pace that is convenient for the individual student. However, because students are not centrally located, support is not always readily available. For this reason it is often desirable to have phone support for students.

[0182] Clients may also desire to track students'progress, or control their advancement through the course. Under this strategy, after a student completes a section of the course, he will transfer his progress data to a processing center either electronically or by physically mailing a disk. There it can be analyzed to verify that he completed all required work satisfactorily. One difficulty commonly associated with student tracking is isolating the student data for analysis. It can be unwieldy to transmit all the course data, so it is often imperative to isolate the minimum data required to perform the necessary analysis of the student's progress.

[0183] A Delivery Framework for Business Simulation

[0184] As discussed earlier, the traditional development process used to build BusSim solutions reflects more of a “one off” philosophy, where development is done from scratch in a monolithic fashion, with little or no reuse from one application to the next. A better approach would be to focus on reducing the total effort required for development through reuse, which, in turn would decrease cost and development time.

[0185] The first step in considering reuse as an option is the identification of common aspects of the different BusSim applications that can be generalized to be useful in future applications. In examination of the elements that make up these applications, three common aspects emerge as integral parts of each:

[0186] Interface

[0187] Analysis

[0188] Interpretation

[0189] Interface

[0190] Every BusSim application must have a mechanism for interaction with the student. The degree of complexity of each interface may vary, from the high interactivity of a high-fidelity real-time simulation task, to the less complex information delivery requirements of a business case background information task. Regardless of how sophisticated the User Interface (UI), it is a vital piece of making the underlying simulation and feedback logic useful to the end user.

[0191] Analysis

[0192] Every BusSim application does analysis on the data that defines the current state of the simulation many times throughout the execution of the application. This analysis is done either to determine what is happening in the simulation, or to perform additional calculations on the data which are then fed back into the simulation. For example, the analysis may be the recognition of any actions the student has taken on artifacts within the simulated environment (notebooks, number values, interviews conducted, etc.), or it may be the calculation of an ROI based on numbers the student has supplied.

[0193] Interpretation

[0194] Substantive, useful feedback is a critical piece of any BusSim application. It is the main mechanism to communicate if actions taken by the student are helping or hurting them meet their performance objectives. The interpretation piece of the set of proposed commonalties takes the results of any analysis performed and makes sense of it. It takes the non-biased view of the world that the Analysis portion delivers (i.e., “Demand is up 3%”) and places some evaluative context around it (i.e., “Demand is below the expected 7%; you're in trouble!”, or “Demand has exceeded projections of 1.5%; Great job!”). FIG. 5 illustrates commonalties in accordance with a preferred embodiment.

[0195] Common Features of Business Simulation Applications

[0196] There are several approaches to capturing commonalties for reuse. Two of the more common approaches are framework-based and component-based. To help illustrate the differences between the two approaches, we will draw an analogy between building an application and building a house. One can construct a house from scratch, using the raw materials, 2×4s, nails, paint, concrete, etc. One can also construct an application from scratch, using the raw materials of new designs and new code. The effort involved in both undertakings can be reduced through framework-based and/or component-based reuse.

[0197] Framework-Based Reuse

[0198] Within the paradigm of framework-based reuse, a generic framework or architecture is constructed that contains commonalties. In the house analogy, one could purchase a prefabricated house framework consisting of floors, outside walls, bearing walls and a roof. The house can be customized by adding partition walls, wall-paper, woodwork, carpeting etc. Similarly, prefabricated application frameworks are available that contain baseline application structure and functionality. Individual applications are completed by adding specific functionality and customizing the look-and-feel. An example of a commonly used application framework is Microsoft Foundation Classes. It is a framework for developing Windows applications using C++. MFC supplies the base functionality of a windowing application and the developer completes the application by adding functionality within the framework. Framework-based reuse is best suited for capturing template-like features, for example user interface management, procedural object behaviors, and any other features that may require specialization.

[0199] Some benefits of using a framework include:

[0200] Extensive functionality can be incorporated into a framework. In the house analogy, if I know I am going to build a whole neighborhood of three bedroom ranches, I can build the plumbing, wiring, and partition walls right into the framework, reducing the incremental effort required for each house. If I know I am going to build a large number of very similar applications, they will have more commonalties that can be included in the framework rather than built individually.

[0201] Applications can override the framework-supplied functionality wherever appropriate. If a house framework came with pre-painted walls, the builder could just paint over them with preferred colors. Similarly, the object oriented principle of inheritance allows an application developer to override the behavior of the framework.

[0202] Component-Based Reuse

[0203] In the paradigm of component-based reuse, key functionality is encapsulated in a component. The component can then be reused in multiple applications. In the house analogy, components correspond to appliances such as dishwashers, refrigerators, microwaves, etc. Similarly, many application components with pre-packaged functionality are available from a variety of vendors. An example of a popular component is a Data Grid. It is a component that can be integrated into an application to deliver the capability of viewing columnar data in a spreadsheet-like grid. Component-based reuse is best suited for capturing black-box-like features, for example text processing, data manipulation, or any other features that do not require specialization.

[0204] Some benefits of using components include:

[0205] Several applications on the same computer can share a single component. This is not such a good fit with the analogy, but imagine if all the houses in a neighborhood could share the same dishwasher simultaneously. Each home would have to supply its own dishes, detergent, and water, but they could all wash dishes in parallel. In the application component world, this type of sharing is easily accomplished and results in reduced disk and memory requirements.

[0206] Components tend to be less platform and tool dependent. A microwave can be used in virtually any house, whether it's framework is steel or wood, and regardless of whether it was customized for building mansions or shacks. You can put a high-end microwave in a low-end house and vice-versa. You can even have multiple different microwaves in your house. Component technologies such as CORBA, COM, and Java Beans make this kind of flexibility commonplace in application development.

[0207] The Solution: A Combined Approach

[0208] Often, the best answer to achieving reuse is through a combination of framework-based and component-based techniques. A framework-based approach for building BusSim applications is appropriate for developing the user interface, handling user and system events, starting and stopping the application, and other application-specific and delivery platform-specific functions. A component-based approach is appropriate for black-box functionality. That is, functionality that can be used as-is with no specialization required.

[0209] In creating architectures to support BusSim application development, it is imperative that any assets remain as flexible and extensible as possible or reusability may be diminished. Therefore, we chose to implement the unique aspects of BusSim applications using a component approach rather than a framework approach. This decision is further supported by the following observations.

[0210] An application can only be based on one framework. Using the house analogy, if you like the first floor of one framework and the second floor of another, it is difficult or impossible to integrate the features of the two. Or, it is so costly as to erase the benefit of using a framework in the first place. Likewise with application frameworks. You can only use one framework when building an application You can't mix and match features from multiple frameworks, so any framework that we developed would have to compete against existing and future frameworks. With components, however, you can mix and match from multiple vendors.

[0211] Components are less platform and development tool dependent, leaving more options open for development teams. An appliance like a dishwasher is not restricted for use in a particular type of house. Similarly, component technologies exist that are independent of platform and development tool. For example ActiveX can be used in almost every development environment for Windows and Java Beans components can be used on a wide variety of platforms.

[0212] Frameworks become obsolete more quickly. Rapid emergence and evolution of technology has introduced a wealth of new feature requirements into application development. Frameworks that do not include the most current features become obsolete quickly. Components typically address a more focused feature set and are not as impacted by technology advances outside their core functionality areas.

[0213] Based on these observations, we believe a combined framework/component approach is optimal for achieving reuse. FIG. 6 illustrates a development architecture approach in accordance with a preferred embodiment.

[0214] Delivery Framework for Business Simulation

[0215] This diagram illustrates an ideal solution where components are combined with an Application Framework and an Application Architecture to achieve maximum reuse and minimum custom development effort. The Application Architecture is added to provide communication support between the application interface and the components, and between the components. This solution has the following features:

[0216] The components (identified by the icons) encapsulate key BusSim functionality.

[0217] The Application Architecture provides the glue that allows application-to-component and component-to-component communication.

[0218] The Application Framework provides structure and base functionality that can be customized for different interaction styles.

[0219] Only the application interface must be custom developed.

[0220] The next section discusses each of these components in further detail.

[0221] The Business Simulation Toolset

[0222] We have clearly defined why a combined component/framework approach is the best solution for delivering high-quality BusSim solutions at a lower cost. Given that there are a number of third party frameworks already on the market that provide delivery capability for a wide variety of platforms, the TEL project is focused on defining and developing a set of components that provide unique services for the development and delivery of BusSim solutions. These components along with a set of design and test workbenches are the tools used by instructional designers to support activities in the four phases of BusSim development. We call this suite of tools the Business Simulation Toolset. Following is a description of each of the components and workbenches of the toolset.

[0223] Components

[0224] A Component can be thought of as a black box that encapsulates the behavior and data necessary to support a related set of services. It exposes these services to the outside world through published interfaces. The published interface of a component allows you to understand what it does through the services it offers, but not how it does it. The complexity of its implementation is hidden from the user. The following are the key components of the BusSim Toolset.

[0225] Domain Component—provides services for modeling the state of a simulation

[0226] Profiling Component—provides services for rule-based evaluating the state of a simulation

[0227] Transformation Component—provides services for manipulating the state of a simulation

[0228] Remediation Component—provides services for the rule-based delivering of feedback to the student

[0229] Domain Component

[0230] The Domain Model component is the central component of the suite that facilitates communication of context data across the application and the other components. It is a modeling tool that can use industry-standard database such as Informix, Oracle, or Sybase to store its data. A domain model is a representation of the objects in a simulation. The objects are such pseudo tangible things as a lever the student can pull, a form or notepad the student fills out, a character the student interacts with in a simulated meeting, etc. They can also be abstract objects such as the ROI for a particular investment, the number of times the student asked a particular question, etc. These objects are called entities. Some example entities include:

[0231] Vehicles, operators and incidents in an insurance domain

[0232] Journal entries, cash flow statements and balance sheets in a financial accounting domain

[0233] Consumers and purchases in a marketing domain

[0234] An entity can also contain other entities. For example, a personal bank account entity might contain an entity that represents a savings account. Every entity has a set of properties where each property in some way describes the entity. The set of properties owned by an entity, in essence, define the entity. Some example properties include:

[0235] An incident entity on an insurance application owns properties such as “Occurrence Date”, “Incident Type Code”, etc.

[0236] A journal entry owns properties such as “Credit Account”, “Debit Account”, and “Amount”

[0237] A revolving credit account entity on a mortgage application owns properties such as “Outstanding Balance”, “Available Limit”, etc. FIG. 7 illustrates a small segment of a domain model for claims handlers in the auto insurance industry in accordance with a preferred embodiment.

[0238] Example Domain Model

[0239] The domain model is created by the instructional designer in a visual editing design tool called the Knowledge Workbench. The designer creates the objects of the domain model using generic entities and properties; that is, not having specific values associated with the entities and properties.

[0240] At runtime, an application's domain model is instantiated so that every entity and property is given a particular value that makes it unique. The result of a domain model instantiation is called the domain. The values of a domain's entities and properties can change throughout the course of the simulation based on student actions and updates from other components. FIG. 8 illustrates an instantiated domain model in accordance with a preferred embodiment.

[0241] Example Domain

[0242] Creating a domain model in data rather than in code facilitates reuse of the components in multiple applications in multiple domains without code changes. For example, a typical application in the Financial Services domain would have to define classes in code such as ‘Customer’, ‘Account’, etc. An Insurance Domain application might have classes such as ‘Customer’, ‘Incident’, ‘Prior Policy’, etc. To be able to perform analysis on any of these classes, the analysis logic must be coded to recognize the classes. This requires all logic to be custom-coded for every application; an effort-intensive undertaking that demands a high degree of technical skill.

[0243] By modeling the domain in data using generic objects, we can build standard generic analysis capability that can be applied to the domain. This allows implementation of analysis logic with much less effort by people with a low degree of technical skill. Functional experts can create the objects of the domain and apply various types of analysis from a pallet. All of this is accomplished in a visual development environment that supports the designer with visual feedback and only allows valid designs to be created.

[0244] Profiling Component

[0245] In the simplest terms, the purpose of the Profiling Component is to analyze the current state of a domain and identify specific things that are true about that domain. This information is then passed to the Remediation Component which provides feedback to the student. The Profiling Component analyzes the domain by asking questions about the domain's state, akin to an investigator asking questions about a case. The questions that the Profiler asks are called profiles. For example, suppose there is a task about building a campfire and the student has just thrown a match on a pile of wood, but the fire didn't start. In order to give useful feedback to the student, a tutor would need to know things like: was the match lit?, was the wood wet?, was there kindling in the pile?, etc. These questions would be among the profiles that the Profiling Component would use to analyze the domain. The results of the analysis would then be passed off to the Remediation Component which would use this information to provide specific feedback to the student.

[0246] Specifically, a profile is a set of criteria that is matched against the domain. The purpose of a profile is to check whether the criteria defined by the profile is met in the domain. Using a visual editing tool, instructional designers create profiles to identify those things that are important to know about the domain for a given task. During execution of a BusSim application at the point that feedback is requested either by the student or pro-actively by the application, the set of profiles associated with the current task are evaluated to determine which ones are true. Example profiles include:

[0247] Good productions strategy but wrong Break-Even Formula

[0248] Good driving record and low claims history

[0249] Correct Cash Flow Analysis but poor Return on Investment (ROI)

[0250] A profile is composed of two types of structures: characteristics and collective characteristics. A characteristic is a conditional (the if half of a rule) that identifies a subset of the domain that is important for determining what feedback to deliver to the student. Example characteristics include:

[0251] Wrong debit account in transaction 1

[0252] Perfect cost classification

[0253] At Least 1 DUI in the last 3 years

[0254] More than $4000 in claims in the last 2 years

[0255] More than two at-fault accidents in 5 years

[0256] A characteristic's conditional uses one or more atomics as the operands to identify the subset of the domain that defines the characteristic. An atomic only makes reference to a single property of a single entity in the domain; thus the term atomic. Example atomics include:

[0257] The number of DUI's>−1

[0258] ROI>10%

[0259] Income between $75,000 and $110,000

[0260] A collective characteristic is a conditional that uses multiple characteristics and/or other collective characteristics as its operands. Collective characteristics allow instructional designers to build richer expressions (i.e., ask more complex questions). Example collective characteristics include:

[0261] Bad Household driving record

[0262] Good Credit Rating

[0263] Marginal Credit Rating

[0264] Problems with Cash for Expense transactions

[0265] Problems with Sources and uses of cash

[0266] Once created, designers are able to reuse these elements within multiple expressions, which significantly eases the burden of creating additional profiles. When building a profile from its elements, atomics can be used by multiple characteristics, characteristics can be used by multiple collective characteristics and profiles, and collective characteristics can be used by multiple collective characteristics and profiles. FIG. 9 illustrates an insurance underwriting profile in accordance with a preferred embodiment.

[0267] Example Profile for Insurance Underwriting

[0268] Transformation Component

[0269] Whereas the Profiling Component asks questions about the domain, the Transformation Component performs calculations on the domain and feeds the results back into the domain for further analysis by the Profiling Component. This facilitates the modeling of complex business systems that would otherwise be very difficult to implement as part of the application. Within the Analysis phase of the Interface/Analysis/Interpretation execution flow, the Transformation Component actually acts on the domain before the Profiling Component does its analysis. The Transformation Component acts as a shell that wraps one or more data modeling components for the purpose of integrating these components into a BusSim application. The Transformation Component facilitates the transfer of specific data from the domain to the data modeling component (inputs) for calculations to be performed on the data, as well as the transfer of the results of the calculations from the data modeling component back to the domain (outputs). FIG. 10 illustrates a transformation component in accordance with a preferred embodiment.

[0270] The data modeling components could be third party modeling environments such as spreadsheet-based modeling (e.g., Excel, Formula1) or discrete time-based simulation modeling (e.g., PowerSim, VenSim). The components could also be custom built in C++, VB, Access, or any tool that is ODBC compliant to provide unique modeling environments. Using the Transformation Component to wrap a third party spreadsheet component provides an easy way of integrating into an application spreadsheet-based data analysis, created by such tools as Excel.

[0271] The Transformation Component provides a shell for the spreadsheet so that it can look into the domain, pull out values needed as inputs, performs its calculations, and post outputs back to the domain.

[0272] For example, if the financial statements of a company are stored in the domain, the domain would hold the baseline data like how much cash the company has, what its assets and liabilities are, etc. The Transformation Component would be able to look at the data and calculate additional values like cash flow ratios, ROI or NPV of investments, or any other calculations to quantitatively analyze the financial health of the company. Depending on their complexity, these calculations could be performed by pre-existing spreadsheets that a client has already spent considerable time developing.

[0273] Remediation Component

[0274] The Remediation Component is an expert system that facilitates integration of intelligent feedback into BusSim applications. It has the following features:

[0275] Ability to compose high quality text feedback.

[0276] Ability to compose multimedia feedback that includes video and/or audio.

[0277] Ability to include reference material in feedback such as Authorware pages or Web Pages.

[0278] Ability to actively manipulate the users deliverables to highlight or even fix users' errors.

[0279] A proven remediation theory embedded in its feedback composition algorithm.

[0280] Allows integration of digital assets into the Remediation of a training or IPS application.

[0281] The Remediation model consists of three primary objects:

[0282] Concepts

[0283] Coach Topics

[0284] Coach Items

[0285] Concepts are objects that represent real-world concepts that the user will be faced with in the interface. Concepts can be broken into sub-concepts, creating a hierarchical tree of concepts. This tree can be arbitrarily deep and wide to support rich concept modeling. Concepts can also own an arbitrary number of Coach Topics.

[0286] Coach Topics are objects that represent a discussion topic that may be appropriate for a concept. Coach Topics can own an arbitrary number of Coach Items.

[0287] Coach Items are items of feedback that may include text, audio, video, URL's, or updates to the Domain Model. Coach Items are owned by Coach Topics and are assembled by the Remediation Component algorithm.

[0288] Details of the Remediation Component algorithm for feedback is discussed in The Intelligent Coaching Agent Tool whitepaper and can be found on the Knowledge Exchange at the Technology Enabled Learning ETA Home Page.

[0289] Workbenches

[0290] The BusSim Toolset also includes a set of workbenches that are used by instructional designers to design and build BusSim applications. A workbench is a tool that facilitates visual editing or testing of the data that the BusSim Components use for determining an application's run-time behavior. The BusSim Toolset includes the following workbenches:

[0291] Knowledge Workbench

[0292] The Knowledge Workbench is a tool for the creation of domain, analysis and feedback data that is used by the BusSim Components. It has the following features:

[0293] Allows the designer to ‘paint’ knowledge in a drag-and-drop interface.

[0294] Knowledge is represented visually for easy communication among designers.

[0295] The interface is intelligent, allowing designers to only paint valid interactions.

[0296] Designer's Task creations are stored in a central repository.

[0297] The workbench supports check-in/check-out for exclusive editing of a task.

[0298] Supports LAN-based or untethered editing.

[0299] Automatically generates documentation of the designs.

[0300] Generates the data files that drive the behavior of the components.

[0301] Simulated Student Test Workbench

[0302] The Simulated Student Test Workbench is a tool for the creation of data that simulates student's actions for testing BusSim Component behaviors. It has the following features:

[0303] The Test Bench generates a simulated application interface based on the Domain Model.

[0304] The designer manipulates the objects in the Domain Model to simulate student activity.

[0305] The designer can invoke the components to experience the interactions the student will experience in production.

[0306] The designer can fully test the interaction behavior prior to development of the application interface.

[0307] Regression Test Workbench

[0308] The Regression Test Workbench is a tool for replaying and testing of student sessions to aid debugging. It has the following features:

[0309] Each student submission can be individually replayed through the components.

[0310] An arbitrary number of student submissions from the same session can be replayed in succession.

[0311] Entire student sessions can be replayed in batch instantly.

[0312] The interaction results of the student are juxtaposed with the results of the regression test for comparison.

[0313] Development Cycle Activities

[0314] Design Phase

[0315] The design phase of a BusSim application is streamlined by the use of the Knowledge Workbench. The Knowledge Workbench is a visual editor for configuring the objects of the component engines to control their runtime behavior. The components are based on proven algorithms that capture and implement best practices and provide a conceptual framework and methodology for instructional design.

[0316] In conceptual design, the workbench allows the designer to paint a model of the hierarchy of Concepts that the student will need to master in the activity. This helps the designer organize the content in a logical way. The visual representation of the Concepts helps to communicate ideas to other designers for review. The consistent look and feel of the workbench also contributes to a streamlined Quality Assurance process. In addition, standard documentation can be automatically generated for the entire design.

[0317] As the design phase progresses, the designer adds more detail to the design of the Concept hierarchy by painting in Coach Topics that the student may need feedback on. The designer can associate multiple feedback topics with each Concept. The designer also characterizes each topic as being Praise, Polish, Focus, Redirect or one of several other types of feedback that are consistent with a proven remediation methodology. The designer can then fill each topic with text, video war stories, Web page links, Authorware links, or any other media object that can be delivered to the student as part of the feedback topic.

[0318] As the designer's thoughts for the interface become clearer, she can begin to model the domain objects in the Knowledge Workbench. The student's world is constructed using objects in the Domain Model.

[0319] The designer again uses the Knowledge Workbench to configure objects in the Transformation Component. The Transformation Component is used to perform calculations or other analysis of the student's domain. Lastly, the designer uses the workbench to configure objects in the Profiling Component. The Profiling Component examines the student's domain, looking for conditions that indicate what feedback topics are appropriate for delivery. More importantly, the Student Simulator Test Workbench allows the designer to exercise the designs. It allows the designer to manipulate the domain as if she were a student. The designer can interact with the simulated interface and invoke the component engines to see the feedback that the student would receive. This capability can also be utilized in a usability test such as a Conference Room Pilot. As the test student interacts with screen mock-ups, a facilitator can mimic his actions in the interface simulator and tell the student what the actual feedback will be. This results in much more rigorous testing prior to application construction. A big payoff is realized downstream in the form of reduced redesign after usability and cognition testing.

[0320] Throughout all these steps in the initial design, the workbench supports the design process by allowing the designer great flexibility within the framework of a proven methodology. This allows experienced users to design rich, realistic interactions, and inexperienced users to become competent in a shorter time by learning from the best practices embedded in the workbench. This greatly diminishes the ‘blue sky’ design problem. Also, since the designs can be tested prior to application construction, there is reduced rework after testing. Lastly, the visual knowledge representation enhances communication within the design team and greatly streamlines the QA process.

[0321] Build Phase

[0322] It is very clear how the tools support the Build Phase. The designs that the designer painted in the Knowledge Workbench drive the components at runtime. The application developer no longer has to write code that analyzes the student's work and provides feedback. The developer only has to build the interface and logic to report any student actions to the domain model. The components do the rest. What used to be the most difficult part of the build phase has been eliminated!

[0323] There is no chance for a developer to misinterpret the feedback designs because she never has to interpret them. In fact, the developer doesn't even have to know anything about the feedback behavior as long as she is familiar with the domain model. This also means the skill level required to develop the application can be greatly reduced. It's not hard to teach someone how to paint a screen in Visual Basic or Delphi and call API functions to notify the Domain Model of student actions.

[0324] In addition to the economies gained by the components, it is possible to use templates to further streamline design and development of commonly used interactions. We have created templates for several common interactions. For example, Journalizing of Transactions is an interaction that has appeared in several applications. We have built application and Knowledge Workbench templates for Journalization. All one must do to create a new Journalize task is to add graphics for new Transactions and fill in new data into placeholders in the Knowledge Workbench.

[0325] Test Phase

[0326] The toolset greatly reduces effort during functionality testing. The key driver of the effort reduction is that the components can automatically track the actions of the tester without the need to add code support in the application. Whenever the tester takes an action in the interface, it is reported to the domain model. From there it can be tracked in a database. Testers no longer need to write down their actions for use in debugging; they are automatically written to disk. There is also a feature for attaching comments to a tester's actions. When unexpected behavior is encountered, the tester can hit a control key sequence that pops up a dialog to record a description of the errant behavior.

[0327] Of far greater impact is the ability to replay the tester's actions automatically through the Regression Test Workbench. The designer does not need to spend hours trying to duplicate the error. She simply loads the tester's session into the Regression Test Workbench and replays it. In seconds the error is replicated and can be located and fixed using a variety of debugging utilities. After changes have been made, one more pass through the Regression Test Workbench verifies the fix.

[0328] The major difficulties of usability and cognition testing are also addressed by the toolset. First, since student tracking is no longer a manual activity, the precision of functional testing can also be applied to usability and cognition testing. Second, because of the increased rigor in the Conference Room Pilot, the risk of significant rework is greatly reduced.

[0329] Execution Phase

[0330] During the Execution Phase, the components are deployed to the student's platform. They provide simulated team member and feedback functionality with sub-second response time and error-free operation. If the client desires it, student tracking mechanisms can be deployed at runtime for evaluation and administration of students. This also enables the isolation of any defects that may have made it to production.

[0331] Scenarios for Using the Business Simulation Toolset

[0332] A good way to gain a better appreciation for how the BusSim Toolset can vastly improve the BusSim development effort is to walk through scenarios of how the tools would be used throughout the development lifecycle of a particular task in a BusSim application. For this purpose, we'll assume that the goal of the student in a specific task is to journalize invoice transactions, and that this task is within the broader context of learning the fundamentals of financial accounting. A cursory description of the task from the student's perspective will help set the context for the scenarios. Following the description are five scenarios which describe various activities in the development of this task. The figure below shows a screen shot of the task interface.

[0333] FIG. 11 illustrates the use of a toolbar to navigate and access application level features in accordance with a preferred embodiment. A student uses a toolbar to navigate and also to access some of the application-level features of the application. The toolbar is the inverted L-shaped object across the top and left of the interface. The top section of the toolbar allows the user to navigate to tasks within the current activity. The left section of the toolbar allows the student to access other features of the application, including feedback. The student can have his deliverables analyzed and receive feedback by clicking on the Team button. In this task, the student must journalize twenty-two invoices and other source documents to record the flow of budget dollars between internal accounts. (Note: “Journalizing”, or “Journalization”, is the process of recording journal entries in a general ledger from invoices or other source documents during an accounting period. The process entails creating debit and balancing credit entries for each document. At the completion of this process, the general ledger records are used to create a trial balance and subsequent financial reports.)

[0334] In accordance with a preferred embodiment, an Intelligent Coaching Agent Tool (ICAT) was developed to standardize and simplify the creation and delivery of feedba