GTN-Québec_2010 05-25

514 views

Published on

presentation for a web-based seminar for the "Groupe de travail sur les normes en éducation" based in Québec, who are interested in interoperability for e-portfolio tools

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

GTN-Québec_2010 05-25

  1. 1. Recommendations for e-portfolio portability or interoperability Simon Grant JISC Centre for Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards (CETIS) 2010-05-25
  2. 2. <ul><li>(These will be elaborated in this presentation) </li></ul><ul><li>Detail your application scenarios and needs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>You need to know what the scope of your interoperability will be </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Deepen your understanding of information structure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>within the information that you are holding </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Choose an appropriate interoperability specification </li></ul><ul><ul><li>that works for the information you and others want </li></ul></ul>Three major recommendations
  3. 3. 1. Detail your application scenarios and needs
  4. 4. Tools are only as useful as the human processes they support <ul><li>Interoperability serves e-portfolio tools </li><ul><li>in particular, serves passing information between them </li></ul><li>E-portfolio tools serve human processes </li><ul><li>and interoperable tools serve extended processes </li></ul><li>What processes do you need or want to support? </li><ul><li>perhaps thought of as “life-long” or “life-wide” learning
  5. 5. what information that supports these processes </li><ul><li>could be used by
  6. 6. and then moved between
  7. 7. supporting tools? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 8. e.g. what could be moved for... <ul><li>Personal development planning </li><ul><li>including records of achievements </li></ul><li>Reflective logs
  9. 9. Results of self-awareness exercises
  10. 10. Assessment results: formative and summative
  11. 11. Self-presentation including linked online CVs
  12. 12. Professional development / certification / validation
  13. 13. Feedback, review, appraisal communications
  14. 14. … and anything from VLE / LMS / e-learning? </li></ul>
  15. 15. What do you need to consider? <ul><li>You need to think in some detail about your processes in in a lifelong life-wide perspective …
  16. 16. What information from other processes may be useful to your processes? </li><ul><li>e.g. what portfolio work in schools may be relevant to HE? </li></ul><li>What information might want to be passed on to others? </li><ul><li>e.g. what from HE may be useful to professional development? </li></ul><li>What information might be shared at the same time? </li><ul><li>e.g. what may be useful to share between e-portfolio tools or other development support or learning tools? </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Who else has similar scenarios? <ul><li>What are their scenarios and processes? </li><ul><li>You may move some or all of your system information to or from (e.g. if you switch systems)
  18. 18. Can you pick up anything from what they do? </li></ul><li>The way these other systems store and use information is significant to you </li><ul><li>as it may constrain the extent of information portability or interoperability </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. 2. Deepen your understanding of the structure of the information you hold
  20. 20. Different views of information <ul><li>We see complex things in our own differing ways </li><ul><li>(if we're lucky, we see simple things in similar ways) </li></ul><li>The way you structure or represent your information could well be different from the way others do it
  21. 21. For mutual understanding you need to engage in close dialogue with others
  22. 22. Consensus may come through including extra things in the conceptual models of each party </li><ul><li>enough things to cover everyone's way of thinking </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. The Leap2 model <ul><li>Leap2 inherits several years thinking about the nature of portfolio information, going back to IMS LIP in 2001 </li><ul><li>but improved, of course... </li></ul><li>Makes explicit many things that are easy to gloss over </li><ul><li>so one entity in your system may be represented by several related entities in Leap2 </li></ul><li>May be a good starting point for looking at the structure of your own portfolio information </li></ul>
  24. 24. The information in your system... <ul><li>Compare it against Leap2
  25. 25. Compare it against other systems
  26. 26. Where are the genuine common points? </li><ul><li>Not just fields with similar names
  27. 27. But fields that are actually used in similar ways </li></ul><li>Try a paper exercise of mapping across </li><ul><li>With other real systems doing similar things
  28. 28. Need to involve practitioners, not just developers </li></ul><li>Be prepared to split up what you have and add things </li></ul>
  29. 29. Can you improve your database? <ul><li>When you have understood more about the information you hold, there may be an opportunity to change your database (or however you store the information) to better reflect the deeper structure of that information </li></ul>
  30. 30. 3. Choose an appropriate interoperability specification ...
  31. 31. … likely to be used by partners <ul><li>Even the best interoperability specification is only useful if other systems use it
  32. 32. Not only what other systems use now, but also
  33. 33. What can they be persuaded to use in the near future?
  34. 34. Features that may be motivating: </li><ul><li>Ease of implementation / low cost to implement
  35. 35. Openness of the specification or standard
  36. 36. Similarity of approach to other currently used specifications
  37. 37. Wide implementation and usage
  38. 38. Extensibility
  39. 39. Appropriate governance </li></ul></ul>
  40. 40. ... representing your information <ul><li>The specification has to represent your information well </li><ul><li>If really well, you can use it for your own backup & restore
  41. 41. But from your point of view, it does not matter about whether it covers things you do not use </li></ul><li>And it will need to grow at the right speed along with your system and the information you use </li><ul><li>Not so fast that you have to make many software changes
  42. 42. But not so slow that it holds back your development
  43. 43. Good governance again! </li><ul><li>Difficult to overemphasise this
  44. 44. There is plenty of questionable governance around
  45. 45. What is the best governance that you can imagine? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  46. 46. Thanks... <ul><li>... for your attention
  47. 47. … for your interest, further information: </li><ul><li>Leap2A is at http://wiki.leapspecs.org/2A/specification </li><ul><li>more information following if you are interested </li></ul><li>JISC CETIS is at http://jisc.cetis.ac.uk/
  48. 48. My home page at http://www.simongrant.org/home.html </li><ul><li>My book “Electronic Portfolios: Personal information, personal development and personal values” ISBN 9781843344018 </li></ul></ul></ul>
  49. 49. Extra slides in case of interest and time
  50. 50. More about Leap2A <ul><li>Built on Atom </li><ul><li>Basic structure as blog entries
  51. 51. With attached files </li></ul><li>Atom entries are the items of information </li><ul><li>Units of information have a type </li></ul><li>Atom links represent relationships between them
  52. 52. Atom categories help to give richer meaning </li></ul>
  53. 53. Leap2A item types <ul><li>Record of anything useful -> resource </li><ul><li>publication as special case
  54. 54. Can be linked to attached files </li></ul><li>Blogs, logs, diaries -> plain entry
  55. 55. Record of skill, competence etc. -> ability
  56. 56. Things that took time -> activity </li><ul><li>meeting as special case </li></ul><li>Things that will take time -> plan
  57. 57. Good things that have happened -> achievement
  58. 58. Structured presentations, CVs etc. -> selection
  59. 59. Also person , organization to hold information </li></ul>
  60. 60. Leap2A relationships <ul><li>Links between items can represent useful things like </li><ul><li>Author, contributor if listed separately
  61. 61. Evidence and support
  62. 62. Containment (part-whole)
  63. 63. What reflects on what
  64. 64. Replying to messages
  65. 65. Agenda, outcomes, attendance for meetings etc. </li></ul></ul>
  66. 66. Leap2A governance <ul><li>Community-led
  67. 67. Fundamentally open
  68. 68. Uses Open Web Foundation Agreement for licence
  69. 69. For the time being, has a contributor licence agreement similar to open source initiatives
  70. 70. Current caretaker: JISC CETIS at University of Bolton
  71. 71. Intention to form lightweight self-governing association </li><ul><li>full membership for appropriate stakeholders </li><ul><li>e.g. those who develop systems that implement the spec </li></ul></ul></ul>
  72. 72. Leap2A history and future <ul><li>Initiative started in late 2006, following developer dissatisfaction with IMS LIP, IMS ePortfolio & UK LeaP
  73. 73. First working version agreed 2009-03
  74. 74. Currently building towards light consolidation / fix </li><ul><li>probably 2010-07 </li></ul><li>Now working on portfolio interoperability with </li><ul><li>4 new UK / Canadian partners
  75. 75. MedBiquitous “Educational Trajectory”
  76. 76. Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (UK) revalidation portfolio </li></ul><li>Idea of RDF version </li><ul><li>RDFa would open it up to embedding in other specifications </li></ul></ul>

×