16.1 Open source and open standards  (Page 10/10)

12. rob abel - september 28th, 2007 at 9:18 am

Hi Patrick, Very thoughtful. I have only a few comments to add for those who are interested in this rather eclectic world of learning technology standards:

Reference implementations and where do some systems end and others start: Ten years ago we did not know where the learning management system and content boundary was - as the CMS/LMS/VLE did not exist as a separate component - and in some cases (adaptive learning applications) we still don’t. The evolution of the product categories and functions is ongoing. We have something we call the “Learning Enterprise” which is a diagram that we are working with interested parties (mostly vendors right now), to help inform the market what these interfaces are currently and what’s coming next (see the Achieving Learning Impact Report for a view of this - see page 19 of the Exec Summary: (External Link) ).

Standards vs definitions: I spent a lot of time thinking about this coming into IMS and I think that most regulars at IMS meetings are tired of hearing my views on this. I’m convinced that the innovation comes first (e.g. world wide web) and then, either through the brilliance of the individual inventor or some other group of designers interacting around it, it becomes apparent that there are needed interface points tht need to be agreed upon, and those are what become standards. I personally don’t believe that a bunch of smart people sitting around a table can successfully architect anything - whether an interface definition or standard - in the absence of implementing. Again (see some threads above) this comes back to the “critical mass” of implementors and implementations. Until a true critical mass and majority of a market adopt something it is not a standard - it is simply a good idea, a toolkit, a development aid, etc. In learning technology right now, we have a bunch of the later and pretty much no actual standards. IMS Content Packaging is the closest thing to it in this market. However, we are doing our best to change that situation with some of the steps I outlined in the original post. We have high hopes and good signs on both Common Cartridge and Enterprise.

How well is the standards identification process going? - Well, IMS has about 20 approved standards and they all focus on teaching and learning. Many - probably most - were well ahead of their time in terms of seeing the future of learning technology instead of what actually existed in the mainstream at the time - things like Learning Design and Simple Sequencing come to mind but actually the majority were and still are ahead of the market. What is kind of exciting is that there seems to be significant renewed interest in IMS. We’ve had a double in membership/subscribers and participation in the last 18 months. What we are finding is that the great work that is captured in those 20 standards can be “profiled” and applied to what folks are interested today. For instance, in that base set of work we have all the tools we need to address tagging of learning content with curriculum standards pr learning objectives, test for those, report on attainment, and change the sequence of activities for the learner. That scenario involves about six different IMS specs. So, what we are doing in some of the newer workgroups is applying that prior work in a group setting through prototyping and testing. From there we use the experience as input into how to profile the existing specs and create something like Common Cartridge - which is much better defined than past learning tech standards - so, it will actually result in interoperability and not just a nice toolkit or connonical architecture. This kind of stuff is a lot more fun and or more interest to developers than sitting around the table and talking about a specification document.

IMS is a member organization and my job is to do my best to represent what the board of directors and members want to do. However, my personal view of what we should be trying to do in IMS is to be a “force multiplier” with respect to investment in technology that improves teaching and learning. Despite all the money that is spent in the education and training sectors, a pitifully small amount is actually spent on advancing the R&D in learning technology. Education and learning is the most important priority if humankind wants to achieve a better future. It is also critically important for economic development. It’s a long story, but, if we don’t figure out how to apply technology to the learning challenge we are not going to improve much. It is the higher education sector in particular that has the most motivation and dedicated resources to address this challenge. The idea of standards and, in my personal opinion, IMS in general as a platform, is to maximize the investment across the various organizations and communities focused on advancing learning tech. We need to do this because the amount of current investment is small and we can’t afford the normal reinventing of the wheel at every institution, country, and so forth.

Best, Rob

13. patrick masson - september 28th, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Rob, Thanks, you’re spot on: “Despite all the money that is spent in the education and training sectors, a pitifully small amount is actually spent on advancing the R&D in learning technology.”

I guess I am just so frustrated by that. I continually struggle with my colleagues about the role of colleges and universities: we should be innovators, not consumers, partners not patrons, involved in design not just deployed, etc. etc. etc.

Because in the end we are the ones who benefit most through not only better tools and thus better education, but better systems and thus better operations.

Keep up the good work, I am glad to hear of IMS’ continued growth. Patrick