- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 15:03:21 -0500
- To: crispin.weston@saltis.org
- CC: public-most-important-priorities@w3.org
- Message-ID: <549B1C09.8000902@w3.org>
Crispin, Comments in-line. Jeff On 12/24/2014 4:00 AM, Crispin Weston wrote: > Dear jeffe, > > First, my belated apologies for missing the call on 18 December. I'm > afraid I became confused about the two groups - entirely through my > own fault. I think we're OK here! The 18th was the kickoff call for [Core]. I thought you were more interesting in [Education} which doesn't kick off until next year. > > Second, I realise that I am joining an existing conversation, so it > may not be particularly helpful if I introduce a completely new > direction. However - here goes! > > Having been involved in formal standardisation in the UK's BSI, > ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36 and CEN, I welcome the emphasis on the developers' > perspective - something that tended to be missing from these > organisations. > > However, what is being proposed with the Application Foundations > strikes me as being a sort of developer's toolkit or library. While I > do not doubt that many would find this useful, I am not sure: > 1. why there needs to be a single such library - can't people compete > in this area? Yes people can and will compete. But if it gets in the way of interoperability then it becomes a detriment. > 2. in what senses these foundations will be specific to education. They are not! Again, the 18th related to [Core]. > > In my view, the critical enabler for ed-tech is interoperability. > Again, much of the technical and transport layers in any solution to > this issue will not be education-specific. The problem is in creating > the structured data models that are at the same time 1) standardised > and 2) flexible, to encourage innovation. > > Much software development occurs in the context of what might be > termed a binary topography, consisting of user and software. > Educational software development occurs in a triangular topography, > the corners of the triangle being software, teacher and learner. This > fact alone makes the persistence and interoperability of data much > more important. > > Another way of making the same point is in my abstract model of how > education progresses > at http://edtechnowdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/slide-220.jpg. > Educational apps will generally encapsulate some sort of learning > activity, shown by the inner, light grey figure of eight loop. But to > play a meaningful part in a wider educational process, the individual > learning activity is embedded within a learning management cycle, > represented by the dark grey loop, representing assignment, reporting > and analytics. Unless the individual learning activity shares the data > it requires at launch with the learning management system, and the > data by which it reports learning outcomes then it becomes meaningless > in the context of the programme of study. Launch parameters - and in > some cases the sharing of runtime data - are important because of the > huge variability of educational contexts (different students, > different teacher preferences, different learning objectives). The > reporting of learning outcomes is vital to the job of the teacher, and > vital too if anyone is to make learning analytics fly. > > In the early 2000s, there was a massive effort on formal metadata > taxonomies to support search and discovery. The theory was that > teachers had difficulty in finding the correct learning resource. In > my view, this assumption was wrong - teachers had no trouble finding > resources - their problem was in deploying them in the classroom. > Similarly, it strikes me that the assumption of this group is that > developers are having trouble developing good apps and again, I am not > sure this is right. Development has never been easier. It is the > automatic plug-and-play integration that is the problem. > > Another way of visualising this problem is by comparison with business > software. Businesses tend to use very sophisticated and expensive > software suites (e.g. Oracle, SAP) which command monopoly prices and > either ensure good in-house integration, or rely on large budgets for > consultants to effect bespoke integration. Education's requirement for > interoperability and integration is every bit as acute as business', > but they do not have the money to afford either the costs of closed, > proprietary systems, or for bespoke integration work. > > My proposals for priorities are therefore: > > 1. A schema description language that would allow developers to > declare their data models in a way that allowed the sharing and > piggy-backing off different schemas. The problem is not a technical > one of sharing data - but making semantic sense of that data. So > interoperable software needs to be able not only to read the schema > but to understand which parts of that schema map to data that it > already understands and can use. > > 2. Management of privacy is a prerequisite for good data sharing. What > I think is needed in this area is not a set of rules (which will vary > across jurisdictions) but a data handling description language - an > ability to codify in machine-readable format the sort of processes and > commitments that a parent might agree to in a human-readable consent > form, or which might be encapsulated in a regulatory instrument. This > will not only provide clarity and the ability to discuss difficult > issues (e.g. around anonymisation of data) but will also allow > software to help enforce such procedures (e.g. this data item cannot > be sent to that person, or this sensitive data item has expired and > needs to be deleted). These are good proposals for the education focus. Please bring them to the kickoff call that we will have next year. > > Finally, I should acknowledge that much ed-tech theory to date has > been predicated on the "independent learner" going out onto the > internet and finding things out and networking with peers. In such a > theoretical model, interoperability is not so important as you are > taking the teacher out of the equation and falling back on a standard, > binary topography. Nor is there any requirement for longitudinal > process management. But I think the theoretical justification for this > approach was always deeply flawed and it is for this reason that the > research shows that technology has to date had virtually no impact on > raising the quality of educational outcomes. > > For the same reason, I think that if W3C could provide a platform for > interoperability and automatic integration of educational apps, it > could have a completely transformative effect on the market for > innovative ed-tech software. > > That is my opening position - I hope it helps! > > Kind regards, > Crispin > > On 23 December 2014, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > >> Today, I've also put a more elaborated discussion of these questions >> in our wiki [1] if people would like to comment there. >> >> Jeff >> >> [1] >> https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities/w3c_most_important#Core_task_force >> >> On 12/18/2014 10:17 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: >> >> On today's scheduled [Core] call there was disappointing >> attendance and insufficient critical mass to make progress. >> >> We decided to progress via mailing list and wiki for now, until >> our first phone call a month from now (January 15th). >> >> Here are some relevant points. >> >> 1. The agenda for today's call was comprised of a set of >> questions below. I invite discussion of these questions on the >> mailing list as a way to move this forward. >> >> 2. If there are other items that you feel we should explore as >> part of "what is most important for the core of the Web", please >> add your thoughts as well. >> >> 3. Early next year, the Team will try to address some of these >> questions as well. That will provide further fodder for our >> discussion. Let me know if you have questions/comments for the Team. >> >> Jeff >> >> On 12/9/2014 9:39 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: >> >> >> >> Here is the agenda for the Core call on 18 December. >> >> 1. Application Foundations - do we have the right categories? >> >> * Are there topics that are currently omitted that should >> be added? >> o For example, at the TPAC breakout, Daniel Glazmann >> proposed that we needed to focus on UI requirements >> as well. >> * Is the taxonomy correct? Should the functions be >> re-factored differently (move things around between >> categories; subdivide categories) >> >> 2. Developer input. Most of us work inside organizations >> that produce infrastructure - we don't have sufficient number >> of developers in the discussion. How do we get more >> developer input? What kind of roadshow might work? This >> would help us answer questions such as: >> >> * Are we providing developers what they need in each area. >> For example: are we providing everything needed to ensure >> secure apps? Are we providing everything that is needed >> to deal with responsive design? Are we making all the >> knobs needed available for performance? How should the >> task force start taking on these questions? >> >> 3. Next steps: >> >> * Description of Application Foundations: Is the >> description in the blog post accurate? Is it at the >> right level of description? Does it need more detail? >> Less detail? >> * Mapping of existing work: Assemble a list of all existing >> work and make clear which category it fits in. >> >> I don't expect to reach closure on these items, but we should >> discuss how we make progress during the course of this effort. >> >> The next meeting of Core is 15 January; then bi-weekly after >> that. >> >> I will do some work on the wiki in the next few days to >> reflect our status. >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> >>
Received on Friday, 26 December 2014 03:20:04 UTC