Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/san/www/prod/html/blogs/darcusb/wp-settings.php on line 512
Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/san/www/prod/html/blogs/darcusb/wp-settings.php on line 527
Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/san/www/prod/html/blogs/darcusb/wp-settings.php on line 534
Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/san/www/prod/html/blogs/darcusb/wp-settings.php on line 570
Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/san/www/prod/html/blogs/darcusb/wp-includes/cache.php on line 103
Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/san/www/prod/html/blogs/darcusb/wp-includes/query.php on line 61
Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/san/www/prod/html/blogs/darcusb/wp-includes/theme.php on line 1109
As I’ve suggested in an earlier post, however, I have some rather ambitious plans for expanding that site. Following is a bit more fleshed out idea of what I have in mind.
Mendeley has put some resources into a promising new WYSIWYG CSL creation and editing interface. At this point, it’s far enough along to show a lot of promise, but is still missing a number of key CSL features that it really needs to be functional with real world styles. But I expect this will come soon enough.
I would really like to host this new application at citationstyles.org, and to use it to create a community supported style creation and editing repository. So imagine a few example use cases:
A fundamental flaw in LMS design is that the course, rather than the student, owns course documents. While it’s great that Moodle makes it easy to export course contributions to places where students can hold onto them after the course gets archived, this mechanism relies on students making specific efforts to save their work. I would prefer to see a system in which the canonical copies of student-created course documents (or faculty-created course documents, for that matter) live in the users’ private file storage space and the course instance is granted permission to access them.
I think is exactly right, but I see two issues. First, who owns group created/edited documents? I doubt this is an unresolvable issue, but it does add a layer of complexity to the discussion.
Second, I’d want to consider a broader notion of sharing. Consider an example:
I teach a large-enrollment introductory course that is part of the University’s “Top 25″ initiative, which seeks to reorient these sorts of more typically lecture courses around principles of inquiry-based learning. We have a team of people who teach this course who worked at figuring out new course modules that we could share among instructors. But the sharing happens (or not, as it were) through a wiki, and the kind of content we have up is not available in a fully ready-made form such that each of us can simply take it and go in our individual courses. Sharing just takes too much work as it is.
I’d like my LMS to make it really easy to share teaching resources among faculty; ideally not only within just a particular LMS instance at a single university, but across universities. Why can’t I, for example, create a course module and make it public? Why shouldn’t I be able to easily borrow work from colleagues at other institutions? And by easily, I don’t mean having to force them to export some damned package, email it to me, and then make me import it. I mean single-click sharing. What if, for example, I could search for particular concepts in my area of geography, and get a list of modules from both my colleagues here, but also other colleagues elsewhere, and simply click to use it in and/or adapt it to my course?
So that’s a use case: I really want to contribute to and borrow from my colleagues’ work in ways that go far beyond what’s now possible. What does it take to make that possible? Am not exactly sure, but think it’s likely to require rich metadata and structured content authoring. Sakai 3 will, for example, have a template system that allows for wizard-like creation of new content. I could imagine using those templates to layer RDFa metadata into the content itself, and then somehow collecting that metadata and exposing it through some sort of API (SPARQL?).]]>
So here’s my vision of where I’d like to be in another year or two:
But there’s still some distance between that idea and the current reality. For one thing, there’s not as much collaboration on CSL among developers as I’d like. Ideally, everyone that implements CSL should have some sort of public commitment to, and benefit from, future CSL development. At minimum, this should involve participating in development discussions. But beyond that, we need people to help with:
Given our roadmap to transition over the next year or so and have Sakai fully deployed in the Fall of 2011, the obvious question all of us that attended the Sakai 2010 conference were asking was: should we just look to jump straight to 3? Ultimately, after all the discussions, we ended up with about four different possibilities:
I got the feeling that our group was more attracted to the last two options, both of which would present faculty and students with the new face and the unique features of Sakai 3, and allow a more incremental and seamless transition to the next-generation LMS functionality as it became available. I also personally gathered that the ultimate decision will have to come down to facts on the ground, as they evolve. In short, we probably ought to concentrate on Sakai 2 now, but monitor the progress of Sakai 3. If the project moves at the pace projected in the roadmap then running 2 and 3 together in hybrid mode may well be a viable option. If not, running them separately initially might make more sense.
Another related important question will be what we use for portal functionality. Sakai 3 could hypothetically serve as a nice, flexible, portal interface. It is substantially more ambitious than the traditional LMS model. Certainly some of our people were thinking about this idea. And other institutions have as well. UC Berkeley, for example, is deploying Sakai 3 as its portal system for the coming Fall. But such a move at my campus would likely require a rethink of what our portal functionality should provide, and unlike Berkeley, we already have a portal constituency on campus. So I can imagine some political challenges as well.
Belorussian provided by PC]]>