 |
 |
I agree that standards should be open which is why I like the ADL perspective of building a reference model that evolve as the standards incorporated in it do. I have worked for over 15 years with Phil Dodds, the Chief Architect of SCORM. In those day we tried to set up the IMA (Interactive Multimedia Association) which would work on creating standards and recommendations for the then hyped Multimedia industry. The problem was the conficting interests of the groups and vendors and in particular the scramble to "own" the standard by having particular vendor's implementations recognised as "the" standard. This was a nightmare to control which is why after completing "standards" on digital audio Phil and I folded the organisation. The fact that SCORM works in close collaboration with rather than against eLearning and related standards bodies such as IMS, AICC, IEEE and Dublin Core makes it so attractive. I am unsure to what extent Standards stifle Creativity. Did VHS stifle the creative production of media. Did MP3 stifle music production? I think there is a difference between transmission standards and inter-operability standards. I think we should be thinking more creatively on how to make use of the facilities that an integrated technological platform offers and look to pedagogy and even possible radical new ways at looking at learning in general than getting hung up on "shifting sands" -----Original Message----- From: Ken Smith [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 02 May 2002 09:04 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Standards-Compliance-Students I feel that standards are a double edged sword. Yes they do allow people toto work towards a common goal and share their experiences much more easily. This is extremely important if we are to make content available as quickly as possible. On the other hand they also stifle creativity and seriously inhibit thinking "outside of the box". Probably the biggest mistake is to try to enforce a standard before the pace of development has levelled off. Just think where we would be if the old Microsoft MSX standard had been successful, still using z80 processors. Perhaps we should be looking at looser standards. Ones that allow a large amount of leeway within a set framework. Take RS232c a very loose standard protocol for serial transmission. Invented for the old Teletype machines in the 1950s and still being used (although it is now dying out) on all our PCs It survived this long by not being too restrictive. Quoting Steve Molyneux <[log in to unmask]>: > I must disagree. Standards are extremely important. Especially if we > "the tax payer" are to get value for public funds spent on content and > systems. This is exactly why interoperability is paramount. I feel there > are a number of issues with equal validity. These include Pedagogy, > Interoperability, Access (addressing disability) and multi-channel > support. > > Maybe if colleagues feel it is a problem we should request a separate > list managed by CETIS on the standards issue as that is exactly their > domain. > > As one who is heavily involved in advising Government, Industry and > Customers of learning technologies I would welcome it. > > What do colleagues think? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Black [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 01 May 2002 09:54 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Standards-Compliance-Students > > > Dear List > I feel that our 'VLE' list is in danger of becoming the > official 'Standards and Compliance' debate list. Surely, > (apologies for repeating myself) at the end of the day, the > only thing that really matters is whether or not students > and teachers are using ICT to enhance their teaching and > learning? > > Again I have to agree that 'it would be nice' > to "Standardise" VLEs and tell vendors what to do when > developing their products. However, I and many of you, live > in the real (Virtual) world where commercialism rules and > evolution of products is market driven. Instead of getting > wrapped up in our own self inflicted 'issues' with > compliance and standardisation, we should really be > encouraging those colleagues who have had minimal exposure > to these technologies, to have a go! > > Who are we anyway to impose 'standards' and > demand 'compliance' when we are not the ONLY consumers of > VLEs? Or are we once again, attempting to justify our own > jobs whilst neglecting the 'real' end users - the > students... > > Member of the Content Council and registered as an e- > learning consultant. www.contentcouncil.co.uk > > Get your own zoom email - click here - http://www.zoom.co.uk/ > > ***************** List information: ***************** > Remember - replies go by default to the entire list. > Access the list via the web on > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/vle.html > The Ferl VLE Focus Area is at > http://ferl.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?page=76 > To unsubscribe, email [log in to unmask] with the message: leave > vle > > ***************** List information: ***************** > Remember - replies go by default to the entire list. > Access the list via the web on > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/vle.html > The Ferl VLE Focus Area is at > http://ferl.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?pagev > To unsubscribe, email [log in to unmask] with the message: leave > vle > Ken Smith I.L.T. Specialist JISC RSC - SE Office 01189 675451 Mobile: 07814023986 ***************** List information: ***************** Remember - replies go by default to the entire list. Access the list via the web on http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/vle.html The Ferl VLE Focus Area is at http://ferl.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?page=76 To unsubscribe, email [log in to unmask] with the message: leave vle ***************** List information: ***************** Remember - replies go by default to the entire list. Access the list via the web on http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/vle.html The Ferl VLE Focus Area is at http://ferl.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?pagev To unsubscribe, email [log in to unmask] with the message: leave vle