Standards as enablers for innovation in education - a reality check
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
1 j'aime•750 vues
Invited talk at ICCE 2013 conference, Bali, Indonesia, on 21 November
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (14)
Similaire à Standards as enablers for innovation in education - a reality check
Similaire à Standards as enablers for innovation in education - a reality check (20)
Plus de Tore Hoel
Plus de Tore Hoel (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Standards as enablers for innovation in education - a reality check
- 1. Standards as enablers for innovation in education – a reality check Tore Hoel check – a reality of Applied Sciences Oslo and Akershus University College Oslo, Norway ICCE 2013, Bali, Indonesia
- 2. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
- 4. Outline • Paradoxes of Standardisation • Innovation • Creation – the standardisation process • Implementation • Feedback • Why the process doesn't work? • Could it be put right?
- 5. Battle of the Standard 22 August 1138 in Yorkshire, England.
- 6. Standards make a positive contribution to the world we live in
- 9. disseminate innovative advances in technology
- 10. and share good management and conformity assessment practices
- 11. Types of standards Measure Compatibility Semantic Interface & testing & Quality
- 14. Prisoner’s dilemma: Nobody uses standards because nobody uses them
- 15. Open and Closed
- 16. Participation in standardisation without domain knowledge
- 17. Standards too complicated to be understood & implemented
- 18. Innovation in our domain
- 20. The standardisation process Factors in the standards development setting Factors in the implementation setting Creators Idea Implementers Specification Standards (maintenance) process Implement -ation Implementation process Users Egyedi 2008
- 21. The standardisation process Factors in the standards development setting Creators Idea Specification
- 22. The standard setting experts
- 23. Input – from where? Interest project, 2006
- 25. September 24th September 25th The Death of CEN WS/LT The launch of EU’s Opening Up Education open-stand.org
- 26. Ken Krechmer (2005) Open Standards Requirements Creators, implementers and users see openness differently
- 27. e-InfraNet: ‘Open’ as the default modus operandi for research and higher education http://e-infranet.eu/output/e-infranet-open-as-the-default-modus-operandi-for-research-and-higher-education/ The range of Opens
- 28. Timing - when to start creating the standard? Need Responsiv e standards Anticipator y standards Participator y standards Product or Service
- 31. Specifying the standard document (Hoel, in press)
- 33. Implementation process Factors in the standards development setting Factors in the implementation setting Creators Idea Implementers Specification Standards (maintenance) process Implementation process Users Implement -ation
- 34. Implementation process Factors in the implementation setting Implementers Specification Implement -ation
- 35. Standards characteristics – Small is beautiful • Well-formed • Understandable • Right size Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., and Cardoso, J. (2007). What makes process models understandable?
- 36. Is formal Standards Setting Organisatons able to compete with Consortia?
- 37. ISO MLR vs. LRMI
- 38. User feedback Factors in the standards development setting Factors in the implementation setting Creators Idea Implementers Specification Standards (maintenance) process Implementation process Users Implement -ation
- 40. Users do not provide feedback & requirements (unless asked)
- 41. Leave it to the market?
- 43. Forward we go!
- 44. Doing the full Innovation Circle Idea Design Implement
- 45. Go with the SSOs that have a truly Open Process
- 46. Standards development and implementation are intertwined …
- 47. … standard bodies should therefore shift their focus to also include implementation concerns
- 48. More engagement from Implementers and Users
- 50. Eductional authorities must take responsibility The Market is not going to fix it alone!
- 51. Questions? tore.hoel@hioa.no Twitter: @tore Twitter: @tore Twitter: @tore Twitter: @tore Twitter: @tore
Notes de l'éditeur
- ICCE Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Open Educational Content, and Standards
- Grim, pessimistic picture
- England vs. Scotland 1138 Carraccio
- Open and Closed? Let us crack this paradox, so we can move on the more interesting ones. The formal standards organisations may claim that they are doing open standards because they have an open and transparent process leading up to a document that is available for all for a fair and reasonable price. However, if the contributors to these documents and their users are being part of a culture that see even a small price as an obstacle to their involvement, «open closed» will be taken for closed and not a viable option. This is especially the case, when the community (in this case the educational community) is starting to buy in to ideas like OER and Open Access.
- Open vs. closed innovation Knowledge widely distributed - found outside the company. Inbound & outbound flows of knowledge
- Actors - Engaging research Process - Openness Output (product / document) - Quality and Timeliness
- Standards bureaucrats Researchers - University
- Expenses, flexible process, positive for my research, my expertise relevant, knowledge about the process, influence, cost…
- 2 days in September 24 Sep The Workshop has been on a wrong track for more than ten years: To produce standards that are open and freely available for download and use for all is wrong. CEN standards are documents for sale. The experts that are contributing their work for free in the workshop need to buy the standards back in order to read and use them. This is a matter of principle, compromising this system will put all CEN standardisation in jeopardy. It must be stopped, even if not a single euro is earned by selling the CWAs of the Workshop. 25 Sep Alle educational materials supported by EU projects should be available to the public under open licenses. Open interoperability standards are necessary to ensure economics of scale, and «such standards must remain open». Therefore, the Commission will «promote the development of open frameworks and standards for interoperability and portability of digital educational content, application and services, including OER, in cooperation with European standardization organisations and programmes».
- Creators, implementers and users see openness differently (Kretschmer, 2005)
- Research willing to do anticipatory Industry more reluctant Participants role: «Wait!»
- Standards characteristics ⁃Small is beautiful ⁃How to engage implementers and users - need of agencies to promote; what if the vendors don't botherUnderstanding the market ⁃Is formal standardisation able to compete with consortia? Example, MLR vs. LRMI
- Accounting principles inspired frameworks: correctness, clarity, relevance, comparability, economic efficiency, and systematic design Asking the users: “larger models tend to be negatively connected with quality” (Mendeling et al. 2007) Athens declaration (MLO-AD): “Harmonization efforts should focus on small, simple models based upon existing commonalities that can be expanded upon at national or regional level, rather than all- inclusive monolithic standards.”
- MLR: ISO backing, nearly 10 years, academic semantic web interest LRMI: June 2011, schema.org (Google, Yahoo..), visibility in web searches, industry involvement, CC, Gates foundation, freely used by all,