8.1 Learning design and open source teaching  (Page 14/18)

This kind of “rich” tools interoperability will be very demanding to get right, and will probably take quite awhile. Those working in the standards world will need to agree on core and optional features for each main type of activity tool, so as to provide a reasonable chance at interoperability as Learning Designs move between systems (eg, should a non-LAMS forum tool have the behavioural constraints described above? Would a text message to students telling them to do these things, without enforcing them in software, be sufficient for interoperability?).

As it happens, it was Tools Interoperability that ended my close involvement with the IMS specification development group. I had been closely involved with IMS for several years, and was excited when IMS decided to work on Tools Interoperability, as I felt this was key not just for Learning Design, but Learning Platforms in general. Unfortunately, it was made clear to me at the time that the Learning Design issues I was raising were not considered important at that time, so after failing to have this perspective included, I took time out from IMS, and haven’t yet returned.

There is some new work that has recently started on Version 2 of IMS Tools Interoperability, and I’ve spoken to a number of those working on this about the importance of including a Learning Design perspective, but my sense so far is that Learning Design issues are not high on the list of priorities for those leading this work. It may come as a surprise to those outside the standards world, but despite IMS releasing the Learning Design specification, the concepts of Learning Design are not well understood among most IMS participants, and it was an unpleasant surprise to discover that among the many product areas designated for potential awards at the 2007 IMS Learning Impact Conference (including many that are not the basis of IMS specifications) - Learning Design was not mentioned (see (External Link) ).

Apart from Learning Design issues for Tools Interoperability, I think there are other ideas in the LAMS Tools Contract which are worth considering for any tool, not just a Learning Design-enabled tool. For example, LAMS V2 has a new a new feature called “export portfolio” - this feature allows a student to export a static HTML record of every activity they have been involved in within a running sequence. This allows students to keep their own “offline” record of their learning, which can then be stored in an e-portfolio (hence the name) or other location. We’ve found this feature to be very popular with students who want to keep an archival copy of their learning independent of their access to a particular Learning Platform. So while this feature is not specific to Learning Design, we see it as a useful new feature to be considered as part of a rich Tools Interoperability specification.

So in summary, open standards for Learning Design are very important, but challenging to get right, at both the “flow” and “tools” level. I hope the LAMS Tools Contract provides some useful new ways of thinking about these ideas for future standards development, although I’m sorry to say that I’m quite concerned about the state of standards development in this area. It is always hard to get the balance right between innovation and consensus in standards development, but in this case, I feel that Learning Design issues in Tools Interoperability have mostly been ignored to date.