Rob, Your introductory question got me really excited. “Open source, open content, open technologies, open standards - is there any relationship between these things?” I was hoping (dreaming, no fantasizing) your post would outline not only a technical roadmap, for implementing an architecture around integration and interoperability (I think these terms are often inappropriately interchanged, see below) between services, but also a political roadmap with advice for those looking to include standards as a technical requirement within campus systems.
But perhaps the introduction was not rhetorical, so I'll bite: yes I believe there is a strong relationship between these things. (Although I admit to being very thin with regard to open content, but the other issues related to openness: definitely)
The theme of Terra Incognita's “OSS and OER in Education Series” seems to revolve around learning management systems and the integration/interoperability (there they are again) of teaching and learning tools, with the contributions, perspectives, opinions etc. primarily from those within higher ed with some role in the design, development and/or deployment of educationally focused software.
I can't put my finger on it, but there seems to be another set of values, or perceived benefits, that drives interest in, and adoption of OSS, within education, particularly higher education - and I think the four postulates that Rob presents highlights this.
Reference Implementations. I'm not sure if a parallel can be drawn between Apache and Moodle, Sakai, uPortal, Kauli, etc. My interpretation of a reference implementation includes, not just the methods for collaboration, design, development, communication, control, governance, etc. but also the user-developers and “customers,” i.e. those defining technical requirements based on functional requirements. Apache, the project, is driven by a (rather narrow) shared need and understanding of an http server. However, sitting through several conferences regarding educational technology, I'm not sure if there is a shared vision of how teaching and learning tools should function, and thus the technologies (including those standards). I never really know where a “Content Management System” ends and an “ePortfolio” starts; or if a Learning Management System needs a blog or wiki or both for “small group work.”
Standards Organizations: I know I have played both the roles Rob describes, “Can I get the standards library for grade books integration/interoperability,” (again): student, faculty, course, section, session, assignment, date, values, weights, etc. (or whatever you called them when you “standardized”). And of course, “this app will be so bitch'in everyone will want to use it and thus our specifications will become the standard. Yet the complexity of teaching and learning definitions and thus the feature set included in those tools don't allow for “standards” because there are no standard definitions for functionality. Again, what is a grade book vs. an ePortfolio, vs. a content management system? And thus what is a standard set of functions to be described? I guess I wonder what comes first, the standard or the definition?
Adding to the complexity is the architecture for integration and/or interoperability. Quickly I consider integration as the aggregation of content through a standard interface (I guess that's a double entendre): for example single-sign-on allows for multiple applications to be presented to the end user, perhaps through a portal. These systems all seem “integrated.” Interoperability is the use of data generated in one application resulting in some event within another. For example, I add an assignment (including due date) in my LMS and that assignment shows up in my email calendar. How these services are obtained (integrated) and shared (interoperate) can be achieved by a variety of technical approaches” from point to point integration through an API to canonical data models” all requiring different “standards.” In fact one comment made when we where connecting the Sakai grade book to a legacy LMS was that we, “should modify the OSID interface, currently the interface is only implemented in 'spirit'.”
Customization: “Those that want open source solutions include in the key factors control and customization. “ I don't know if this is as important to those outside teaching and learning. I can tell you, as a programmer analyst and now CIO, I have never wanted to customize or control Apache or Linux. And while we are implementing Moodle at SUNY Delhi, we are not interested in customizing that either. My interest in open source is based on, what I consider more important qualities found in open projects: quality, support, pace of development, TCO and, germane to this discussion, adherence to standards or at least open specifications that we can then at least access to provide integration and hopefully interoperability. In fact, I have seen customization; arguably the most touted benefit of OSS next to it being “free,” actually hinder adoption of open source and thus open standards. Again because those assessing the value of open source in teaching and learning applications tend to be those involved with teaching and learning, the prospect of having a customizable applications that can be modified to meet the diverse needs of the campus' faculty, unique teaching styles and/or specialized academic programs is very appealing. Yet as Rob highlights customization (forking) demands support, something IT shops are usually not interested in.
Open source can be strategic: Again, in my experience (and admittedly I have been in some messed up organizations), I don't see a lot of senior campus leaders looking at technology as an investment to “further the educational mission of the institution or further society's progress in the use of technology for learning.” I see senior leadership providing the minimum in order to keep their faculty from storming the castle, or simply keeping up with the University of the Jones', or using technology of some scheme (e.g. distance learning to increase tuition dollars).
IMS is a great effort and I wonder how well the standards identification process is going with regard to services related to higher education, and more specifically teaching and learning, versus other technology efforts? Is my perception of the ambiguity in what teaching and learning tools are, and thus the functionality they have, as well as the alternate value/benefit of OSS accurate, and can this be the cause for such a slow process?
- 1090 reads
