Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Standards Ant
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Standards Ant

141
views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
141
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The Politics of E-Learning Standardization Introduction Technical standardization has been widely acknowledged as a new and growing area of interest for social-theoretical and historical research. Processes and products associated with the development of standards for the Internet, the World Wide Web and other technologies have recently been subject to significant scholarly investigation and scrutiny. As Feng observes, “scholars in various social science disciplines have shown newfound interest in standards. …this is because standards,” Feng continues, “are no longer seen as ‘neutral artifacts’ but as products of society” (2003). The field of education, and particularly educational technology and distance education (or “e-learning”), has also shown signs of a new interest in technical standards. One standard for the classification of learning resources or “objects” (known as “metadata;” IEEE, 2002), and another for the interoperation of e-learning systems (or “architectures;” IEEE 2005) have been recently developed and widely promoted. However, unlike the social sciences, the interest in standardization in e-learning has not been historical and theoretical in character, but thoroughly economic and instrumental. E-learning standards are frequently described in this context as a necessary precondition for the blossoming of the new post-industrial, knowledge society or age: “common standards for metadata, learning objects, and learning architecture are mandatory for [the] revolutionary…success of the knowledge economy” (Hodgins & Connor, 2000). Standards in e-learning contexts, unlike social science disciplines, appear to be generally understood as “neutral artifacts.” In many cases, they are explicitly described as being pedagogically --and otherwise-- “agnostic” or “neutral” (e.g. Wiley, 2005). It is the intent of this paper to adopt the perspectives of socio-theoretical research in order to explore the “non-neutrality” of standards as social artifacts --and to show that that they are constructions that embody specific interests and agendas. In doing so, this paper will give special emphasis to what is likely the most widely discussed and implemented e- learning standard, the aforementioned Learning Object Metadata standard (also known as IEEE 1484.12.1 or simply, the “LOM”). This paper will undertake this exploration by considering a range of research on standardization, emphasizing their non-neutrality and their eminently political nature. Standards as Uniformity, Objectivity and Justice There are many different ways of understanding the social and political aspects of technical standards and standardization processes. An effective overview of a range of such understandings provided in the literature of science and technology studies is offered by Patrick Feng, in “Studying Standardization: A Review of the Literature.” Feng’s overview proceeds from the initial recognition that social and political “meanings and motivations of standardization are multiple and change over time” (2003). Among others, Feng identifies three ways of understanding standards, their promise and peril: as “uniformity,” “objectivity” and as “justice.” This paper will now briefly survey these 1
  • 2. three ways of understanding standardization, relating them, whenever possible, to specific developments in e-learning standards. The role of standards as instruments of uniformity can perhaps be most easily explained through reference to their origin in the industrial age. Industrialization, as a shift from local craftwork to mass production and trade, is bound up with the emergence of standards enabling the production and distribution of uniform commodities. The standardization of railway gauges, screw threads and scientific instruments occurring at this time is not only an expression of the uniformity imposed by their mass production, but is also necessary for the consolidation of regional and national trading networks occurring simultaneously. It is perhaps no coincidence that many have similarly argued that e-learning and education generally would also benefit from a related transformation from a “cottage industry” --with teachers each creating lessons and activities individually-- to a “mature market” of goods and services. E-learning standards are often described as a significant catalyst in this development (Mason, 2005). As in the industrial revolution, technical standards would allow e-learning products and services to be offered as “globally scalable solutions,” as uniform products created through a rational division of specialized labour, made available across regional and national boundaries. The association of technical standards with specialized labour, and its rational (re)organization is an important consequences of their close association with uniformity. As Slaton and Abbate explain, "the adoption of standards may simplify some aspects of [a] system while creating a demand for more skilled labor elsewhere" (Slaton & Abbate, 2001, p. 96). Information specialists who have worked, for example, on the implementation of the Dublin Core or the IEEE Learning Object Metadata standard will likely have first-hand knowledge of the labor-intensive requirements and challenges that these standards can introduce. The ability of standards to re-order labor relations is also illustrated in the way that the standards-based technology of the Web has enabled international reorganization or outsourcing of service jobs, and the sale of courses or course components between various educational institutions However, as indicated at the outset of this paper, the standardization of e-learning technologies is generally not understood in terms of industrialization, but as being associated above all with post-industrial transformation. It is in the context of the postindustrial that Feng’s conception of standards as objectivity is perhaps most readily understood. Terms such as “post-industrial” or the “knowledge” or “information age” are commonly used to designate an economic and social order in which knowledge and networks are paramount, and for which customization and flexibility --rather than mass uniformity-- are most characteristic. Those advocating the use of e-learning standards also depict a flexible and customizable combination of standardized functions and content as the desired outcome this standardization. However, many also recognize that the final result of such a standardization process remains uncertain, with a possible outcome being a “neo-industrial” uniformity --rather than post-industrial flexibility: 2
  • 3. many of those involved hope that the interoperable infrastructure that the standards enable will provide end users with much more flexible environments and will enable [education and research] on a dramatically larger scale than ever before. At the same time, there is some apprehension that the final result may be an increased commercialisation of education, which could herald the ‘neo- industrialization’ of academia. (Duval, 2002) The two scenarios of (neo)industrial uniformity and post-industrial flexibility are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it can be argued that the two are closely and necessarily bound together: the flexibility made possible by standards on one level requires strict uniformity and homogeneity on another. Ultimately, all standards --regardless of their individual emphasis on industrial uniformity or postindustrial flexibility-- “aim at making actions comparable over time and space” (Berg and Timmermans, 1997, p. 273). In the case of the Internet, these actions become interoperable --and in some cases, identical-- rather than simply “comparable:” The contents of an email from Boston can be read on an email client in Bejing; a digital resource in from Turin can be combined with or substituted for a learning object from Toronto. Speaking specifically of the standardized Internet protocols mentioned above (TCP, IP, etc.), Alex Galloway describes the mutual implication of flexibility and homogeneity as follows: “in order for protocol to enable radically distributed communications between autonomous entities, it must employ a strategy of universalization, and of homogeneity. It must be anti-diversity” (Galloway, 2004, p.142). This uniformity, homogeneity or even identity is an important part of what is implied in the term “objectivity.” As will be discussed further below, this uniformity has a significant, albeit indirect impact on the practices it so “flexibly” supports. Simply put, it has the ultimate effect of valuing forms of knowledge that are universal, modular, and interchangeable, at the price of knowledge and practices local and contextually- dependent. And education, as will be shown below, is in many ways profoundly local and contextual in character. The notion of knowledge and comparability that can be brought to bear across space and time can, of course, present great positive potential when understood in terms of justice. One simple illustration of this potential goes back to a time prior to the post-industrial and industrial eras, to the age of feudalism and craft practices in manufacture and agriculture. Describing the pre-industrial, localized measure of rents and feudal dues in the form of bushels, Porter explains how during the early stages of the French Revolution…measures were among the most frequently mentioned [peasant] grievances. The local bushel…had been growing ever larger, to the profit of seigneurs. It was time to declare a single, true bushel, valid for the whole of France. (Porter, 1995, p. 25, emphasis added) The introduction of such a standardized measure can be seen as presenting a powerful instrument for economic justice on the part of France’s disenfranchised peasants. Another, more recent example of the function of standards as an instrument of justice is provided by quality assurance standards; specifically by the widely-implemented and -certified ISO 9000 standard series. As ISO (the International Organization for 3
  • 4. Standardization) itself explains, the purpose of this group of standards is to provide a set of requirements that, if they are effectively implemented, will [ensure] supplier[s] can consistently provide goods and services that: Meet [customer] needs and expectations and comply with applicable regulations (ISO, 2005) By thus regulating the provision of goods and services between suppliers and business customers in different points in space and time, these ISO standards can be seen as arbitrating kind of economic justice, albeit narrowly-defined. This scope and ambition is broadened considerably in the more recently developed ISO 14000-series standards for “environmental management.” This series of standards specifies requirements for establishing [a corporate] environmental policy, determining environmental aspects and impacts of products/activities/services, planning environmental objectives and measurable targets, implementation and operation of programs to meet objectives and targets, checking and corrective action, and management review. (ISO14000.com, 2005) The potential of standards to address issues of social, environmental, labour and other forms of equity and responsibility has just begun to be explored in the standardization world in general. This same potential has not yet been the focus of any e-learning standards in particular. One important exception to this comes in the form of a number of incipient “accessibility” standards in e-learning. These identify the assistive and adaptive capabilities of e-learning resources and systems, and systematically enumerate user interface preferences (e.g. for visible enhancements or audio translation). This suite of standards, or rather, specifications, holds out the promise of enabling equitable access to e-learning and other systems --regardless of the physical circumstances under which this access may occur. Conclusion As indicated earlier, the domains of education and learning can be understood as being especially local, heterogeneous and contextual in ways that few other organized activities are. Evidence of this situated and heterogeneous character is provided perhaps most powerfully by the persistence of pre-industrial craft practices in education. These practices --to be found in many areas of educational activity-- have survived successive waves of industrial and post-industrial transformation, which have otherwise been so important for standards related to measures, materials, quality and communication itself. The local and contextual networks in education also appear to be continuing in their resistance to rationalization and re-engineering introduced in the form of standardized content and processes. Local, situated knowledge of how, for example, to teach a universal scientific principal such as a=πr2 (i.e. the area of a circle) in a class or to a particular student is not likely to be trumped even by the most well designed learning object or standardized practice for such a teaching process. This is despite the fact that arguments for institutional efficiency and cost-savings in such cases appear, as Stephen 4
  • 5. Downes (2001) puts it, “relentless.” The resistance of educational practices to this relentless logic it is not simply a function of institutional inertia or worse yet, of teachers’ or curriculum designers’ entrenched interests (e.g. Papert, 1998). Instead, an important part of it arises from local and situated nature of education itself. References: Berg, M. and S. Timmermans (1997). “Standardization in action: Achieving local universality through medical protocols.” Social Studies of Science, 27(2) pp.273-305. Downes, S. (2001). Learning Objects: Resources for Distance Education Worldwide. Stephen Downes. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 2 (1). Retrieved July 13, 2005 from: http://www.irrodl.org/content/v2.1/downes.html Duval, E. (2002). “Learning Technology Standardization: Too Many? Too Few?” Proceedings of Standardisierung im eLearning, Frankfurt/Main, Germany, 2002. Feng, P. (2003). Studying standardization: A review of the literature. Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Conference on Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology (SIIT 2003), 22-24 October 2003, Delft, The Netherlands. New York: IEEE Press. Foo, C. (2002). “Speech by Mr Cedric Foo, Minister Of State For Defence And Deputy Chairman.” (Standards, Productivity And Innovation Board). Plugfest 2002. 10 Jul 2002. Retrieved July 13, 2005 from: http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/data/pdfdoc/2002071001.htm Galloway, A. (2004). Protocol: How Control exists after Decentralization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. IEEE LTSC http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg1/par1484-1.html IEEE. (2002). Draft Standard for Learning Object Metadata (IEEE 1484.12.1-2002). Retrieved July 13, 2005 from: http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf IEEE. (2005). The Computer Managed Instruction Standard. Retrieved July 13, 2005 from: http://ieeeltsc.org/wg11CMI/CMIdescription ISO. (2002). Information Technology: Learning by IT. ISO Bulletin. June 2002. Retrieved July 13, 2005 from: http://jtc1sc36.org/doc/36N0264.pdf ISO. (2005). ISO 9001:2000 - What does it mean to the supply chain? Retrieved July 13, 2005 from: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/explore/9001supchain.html#2 ISO 14000. (2005). ISO14000.com - Your ISO 14000 Information Center. Retrieved July 5
  • 6. 13, 2005 from: http://www.iso14000.com/ Mason, J. (2005). “From E-learning to E-knowledge.” In Madanmohan Rao (ed.) Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques. London: Elsevier. Pp. 320-328. Retrieved July 13, 2005 from: http://www.educationau.edu.au/papers/KMTool_Tchnqs_JM.pdf Papert, S. (1998). Does Easy Do It? Children, Games, and Learning. Game Developer. June. p.88. Retrieved July 13, 2005 from: http://www.papert.org/articles/Doeseasydoit.html Porter, T. (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rehak, D. (2003). How can E-Learning Standards help you right now? Presentation. Retrieved July 13, 2005 from: http://www.lsal.cmu.edu/lsal/expertise/papers/presentations/tpic200307/tpic2003072 9-color.pdf Slaton, A. & Abbate, J. (2001) The Hidden Lives of Standards: Technical Prescriptions and the Transformation of Work in America. In Technologies of Power. Allen, M.T. & Hecht, G. (eds), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 95-144. Sun Microsystems. (2002). “E-learning Interoperability Standards.” White paper. Retrieved July 13, 2005 from: http://www.sun.com/products-n- solutions/edu/whitepapers/pdf/eLearning_Interoperability_Standards_wp.pdf The Maisie Center. (2002). Making sense of Learning Standards and Specifications: A Decision makers guide to their adoption. Retrieved July 13, 2005 from: http://www.masie.com/standards/S3_Guide.pdf Wiley, D. (2005). Pedagogy-Agnostic Standards and a Much Needed Rant. Iterating Toward Openness. Retrieved July 13, 2005 from: http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/archives/145 6