LET standardisation – framing the activity space using the JITSR special issue

The simple framework of Wand and Weber (2002) (Figure 1) could be used to position standards, methods and contexts; and the special issue on LET standardisation of the International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research (to be published 2010) to give us the accounts of the current state of affairs.

Figure 1 Framework for Research on Conceptual Modelling, from Wand and Weber (2002)

The specifications and standards are the “conceptual modelling scripts” this community work towards. However, there is no consensus on how to define these outputs among the authors of the special issue papers. Cooper’s definition is wide: “the word “standards” is used (…) for virtually any multi-laterally agreed set of technical conventions” (Cooper 2010). Pawlowski & Kozlow reuse the 1990 IEEE definition of a standard as “a set of mandatory requirements employed and enforced to prescribe a uniform approach in a specific area” (Pawlowski & Kozlow 2010). This leads to the definition of a reference model as being “a framework that can be used as a blueprint for system development” (ibid.). Between a “convention” and a “(mandatory) blueprint there is space for a range of ontological and epistemological considerations. We would claim that Cooper’s definition opens more up for the discursive and consensus process aspects of standardisation, while the definition of a standard as a technical blueprint is more part of technical engineering tradition looking for a true representational model of the domain.

The choice of conceptual modelling grammar is seldom raised as an issued within the standards community. “Language skills” seems to go with the territory, and information scientists are equipped with a toolbox that make it routine to turn out information and data models in notations universally understood. However, in the European discussion on concepts and standardisation in areas related to competence we have seen more focus on conceptual modelling  as a means of communicating with the stakeholders and to better scope the work in LET standardisation projects.

Conceptual models provide a vital underpinning for information models, helping ensure that the concepts represented in different information models are compatible, and that specifications built on those information models will actually help with interoperability and portability. (Grant & Rowin 2010)

The broader conceptutal modelling method discussion is mostly focussed on the process aspects of standardisation, e.g., if formal standards setting bodies are the appropriate means to come up with the specifications that the LET community needs (Wilson 2010).

Related to conceptual modelling context Wand and Weber (2002) point to individual difference factors, task factors and social agenda factors. Reviewing the JITSR Special Issue related to these factors we see that we deal with a domain where the boundaries are still under negotiation. Some authors seem to presuppose that they work with sub-domains that are well scoped and where more targeted approaches could apply (e.g., approaches that could be subject to automatic conformance testing) (Dahn & Zimmerman 2010; Najjar et al. 2010, Pawlowski & Kozlow 2010). Other authors envisage a domain that is emergent, complex and unruly (Cooper 2010), that is more adapt to a pragmatic and community-driven approach (Wilson 2010), in which collaborative modelling building up common conceptual models is needed (Grant & Young 2010) to explore the new boundaries of learning technologies (Livingstone & Hollins 2010).

This short overview of the LET standardisation domain, based on recently published research, shows that there is no unified view on how we go about to design the building blocks we need to innovate learning technologies. This underline the need for a continued discussion based on models and constructs that will help us to improve both the process and product of this activity.

Wand and Weber’s simple framework is a starting point for building a research agenda. The next step is to come up with an approach for building concepts to deal with the scripts and their development, the methods used and the contexts that frame the activity.

For some time I have been a little concerned that we are making life too simple for ourselves when mapping the different layers of the ICOPER reference model to the relevant standards. We should also observe that there are different “families” of standards, and allow for a discussion on what family is the best match for the competency domain.

In Simon Grants excellent blog posting on our last deliverable with the long title “Model for describing learning needs and learning opportunities taking context ontology modelling into account” there are some seeds for the discussion I call for.

Then it [the deliverable] goes on to suggests an information model for “Learning Outcome Definitions”. This is a tricky one, as one cannot really avoid IMS RDCEO and IEEE RCD. As I’ve argued in the past, I don’t think these are really substantially more helpful than just using Dublin Core, and in a way the ICOPER work here implicitly recognises this, in that even though they still doff a cap to those two specs, most of RDCEO is “profiled” away, and instead a “knowledge / skill / competence” category is added, to square with the concepts as described in the EQF.

When Simon is referring to Dublin Core, it is the DC Abstract model he thinks of, the model based on RDF and semantic web. I wonder if the specifications we turn out as a result of the ICOPER project is “web architecture enabled” – or if our focus is still the repository view of walled “content spaces”, be it OICS or others.

In CEN/ISSS WS-LT, one might say that this approach was started with the MLO-AD work, where the workshop passed a resolution in October 2007, coined “The Athens declaration”, where it is stated:

5 Harmonization should balance the benefits of common standardization with the necessity for meeting local contextual needs and infrastructure.

6 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.

MLO-AD is now established as a CEN Workshop Agreement (15903), and the work continues now in the European Learner Mobility project within WS-LT. Here the next new building block will be a CWA on Credit Information Model.

Credit represents a measurement of learner achievement on modular units of learning. Credit forms a common currency within a given scheme of credit transfer; for example, the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System [ECTS] provides a common credit exchange model that is supported by and integrated in many European policies. Also at national level other credit schemes and exchange mechanisms exist. This model provides a common format for representing credit in any scheme as part of any larger information model or standard.

The draft Scope of the new 5 page specification reads

This standard defines the semantics of classes and properties used to represent Credits in electronic form. The definitions in this standard are primarily intended to be referenced by other bindings, specifications, and standards; for example, specifications representing learning opportunities and units of learning.

Building a suite of small independent specifications presupposes perhaps some sort of orchestration or master model. As long as the small specifications are based on real needs and real life use cases, a very tight orchestration is not needed. If the music sounds nice - and the band consists of more or less the same people…

Technorati Tags: CEN, CWA

This is the relevant text from the Call:

e-Skills and e-Learning e-Skills
Following the Communication on “e-Skills for the 21st Century: Fostering Competitiveness, Growth and Jobs” of 7 September 2007 which is presenting a long term e-skills strategy for the European Union, the ESOs are invited to further develop European standards in the field of e-skills with a focus on ICT practitioners and advanced ICT users. Areas of interest include:

• European e-Competence Framework: methods and tools for the development, the promotion, the acceptance, the implementation and the maintenance and of a European e-Competence Framework;
• ICT job profiles: definition of main job profiles based on the e-Competences Framework;
• European e-Competence Curriculum Guidelines: development, the promotion and the implementation of European e-Competence curriculum guidelines to facilitate the mutual recognition of training, transparency of qualifications and credit transfer between formal, non formal and industry education and training.

e-Learning
ICT support for education and training is crucial to achieve the objectives of the European i2010 strategy (COM(2005) 229 final). The Seventh Framework Programme is continuing the support for use of ICT in education, in particular for innovation. Following the report of the Commission on “The use of ICT to support innovation and lifelong learning for all - A report on progress” of 9 October 2008 (SEC(2008) 2629 final) and that ICT for education has become one of the four transversal lines of the Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme the ESOs are invited to further develop European standards in the field of e-learning. Areas of interest include:

• Technical and semantic interoperability regarding e-learning context adaptable systems;
• E-learning content repositories and exchange mechanisms, formats and vocabularies.

Download the full document by clicking the icon below:

Technorati Tags: CEN

See invitation

And see the agenda for the seminar. The output of the seminar should be a SIG on Competencies, so book your Berlin flight now!