e-Literate

Present is Prologue

Tag: Scott-Leslie

  • Taking the Wikipedia Prior Art Effort to the Next Level

    The wikipedia prior art effort has been spectacularly successful so far, racking up close to 200 additions and changes in just a few days. I believe this work has significant intrinsic value in addition to its potential legal value. At any rate, I’d love to see us take our game up another notch.

    Now that many of the basic historic innovations have been documented on the page (not that we should stop doing that), I’d like to see more of the items listed linked to their own Wikipedia entries that provide more detail. If you’re looking for good examples, check out the entries for PLATO and Moodle. If possible–and this is important–they would provide a link to changelogs in the “External Links” section of the entry and/or a narrative summary of the important milestones in the product’s development within the entry itself. We want to make available as much detail as possible about specific developments in each project or product. If you need help reconstructing that information, Scott Leslie recommends using the Wayback Machine to visit an archived copy of Landonline, the precursor to Edutools.

    tags: , ,

  • How to Grow Standards

    Scott Wilson has a terrific response to my recent post calling for “more standards.” To begin with, he articulates one of the underlying issues that I think was bugging Scott Leslie as well. In the abstract, it’s hard to argue against standards. In practice, however, the particular Standards that are Issued from the Official Bodies that Bless Them sometimes seem like they add a whole lot of complexity to relatively little benefit.

    So how do you solve this problem? How do you increase the probability that a given standard is going to have significant practical value? Scott W. offers solid formula which I will paraphrase and expand just a bit as follows:

    1. Identify a user problem that you need to solve.
    2. Check to be sure that you can’t solve it using an existing standard.
    3. If possible, find a few other organizations that have the same problem and talk it through.
    4. Build a pilot solution implementation with standardization in mind.
    5. Test the solution and encourage your peer organizations to test it as well.
    6. Refine based on testing.
    7. When you believe you have a stable, workable solution, then select an appropriate Standards Body to have it live with. In general, avoid having education-specific standards bodies (e.g., the IMS) Bless the Standard unless you are solving an education-specific problem.
    8. Have the appropriate Standards Body examine the proposal, suggest changes when appropriate, and Issue a Blessing.

    In this scenario, the Standards Bodies really act as a quality assurance and dissemination mechanism. While they certainly could assist member organizations in the early stages of preparing a standards proposal, it would be healthiest to cast a broad net and encourage grassroots solution development as broadly as possible. Scott W. holds up JISC’s eLearning Framework (eLF) as good example of that approach, and while the jury is still out on how productive eLF will ultimately be, I agree that it’s a good example of the right approach.

    Here’s an example of how this sort of approach could work, drawing on a discussion that’s happening right now in the Moodle community: (more…)

  • Why We Need More Standards

    I almost missed this post by Scott Leslie expressing his mixed feelings about the standards talk coming out of Alt-i-Labs. Lucky for me, Stephen picked it up in OLDaily. Scott writes:

    Part of me really wants some of these developments to come true, to deliver the promised ‘plug and play’ elearning environments described herein, and in my rational moments I know that 10 years really isn’t that long for a field like this to coalesce around an open set of interoperability specs. And yet it would be hard to fault a newcomer looking at these presentations for wondering if this represents what is still to be done, how anyone manages to develop quality online learning experiences now (and how many PhDs will be required to operate the CMS of the future)?

    The thing is, the newcomer would be correct to wonder. While a good teacher can cultivate quality learning experiences (online or otherwise) with a rock and a stick, the truth is that today’s online learning environments don’t really help them much. The majority of online courses basically use the LMS as a discussion board (a.k.a. “the rock”) and a file sharing system (a.k.a. “the stick”). There are several reasons why interoperability standards should help this situation a great deal. (more…)

  • A Conversation About BRR and LMSs

    I’ve been meaning to write this up for a couple of weeks now. Ken Udas and I recently had a great conversation with folks from OpenBRR and Edutools/WCET about creating a community and framework to evaluate both Open Source and proprietary LMSs, drawing on the knowledge and resources of both OpenBRR and Edutools. In attendance were Tony Wasserman from Carnegie Mellon West, Murugan Pal of SpikeSource, Scott Leslie of BCcampus (and EdTechPost fame), Russell Poulin of WCET, and Bruce Landon of Douglass College (and LandOnline fame). What follows are some notes from the conversation.

    (more…)