« My edublog 2008 nominations | Main | SatNav - a microstudy in digitisation »



AJ Cann

Decho: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/decho_to_offer_api_access_to_a.php

John Connell

Niall's 'duh' comment is precisely the rationale I have been using to justify the development of Glow in Scotland for the past half dozen years or so to anyone willing to listen to me. As things stand, tools such as GoogleDocs and the myriad other free Web 2.0 tools around offer amazing functionality to individuals or to small groups. But they do not scale in the sense that Niall indicates.

A national development such as Glow, entirely web-based, integrated, single-sign-on - and even though it includes what might be seen as a Web 1.0 VLE (although this would be wrong given the VLE's complete integration into the broader web environment) - requires at its heart a national system of authentication. With this, Glow users have both a level of inbuilt security AND the ability to cut the total user-base in a million different ways to create communities of interest. Such 'Glow Groups' (to given them their localised name within the environment) offer untold levels of flexibility to users. Anyone within the system (so long as they have the requisite permissions - and that is too often the rub for some of the more authoritarian local authorities in Scotland in the way they manage Glow) can create any Glow Group they wish: a group of 2, 20, 200, 2000 or 20,000!

And once created, the group can then use the full panoply of applications within Glow to interact, learn together, share resources, share ideas, etc - all without the necessity of central control or intervention.

Unfortunately, in Scotland, there are some third-rate academics (http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6005181) who simply cannot see past their own prejudices to recognise the potential for distributed learning using an environment such as Glow.


Having read the post I was going to make some points about us having been here before while working on the JISC Joinin project (creating tutor groups cohorts using Learning Design, LAMS and Moodle). If you remember, Martin, this was the one where "the line Patrick adds which makes it really difficult" was that we would use IMS Enterprise to pass the user information around. It was all a lot more difficult than it should have been, and then when we had done it no-one wanted that bit of the work anyway.

So this is something that there are quite a few pretend solutions to, and perhaps some real solutions that are too complex in practice. I don't think though that it is just about authorisation - in which case OpenID starts to sound good enough. It is about identity. OpenU does operate an openid server and I have used it but it actually doesn't give me very much and I am not sure of its status as a sort of secret way to be open. What I would value more is somewhere that can really deal with more of the identity issues that can be passed around and grouped rather than just the authorisation side.

Should not be impossible and I think a light enough version could be put together - but then be swamped by extra features.

Anyway - I was going to write something like this - but can't now that I watched the Seesmic video and know that Barbie talks just like a certain Professor of Educational Technology! That is just too disturbing.

Richard Treves

I agree something like Uniglu would be a good thing, there are ever more wonderful apps we should have access to for our students.

However, there is an important downside when you consider the typical landscape of the UK University. You, me and your blog readers are power users and champions of IT, we all hunt out new tools and experiment with them on our own and are capable in training themselves in their use. However below that in the IT strata there is the rump of averagely skilled tutors and a whole lot of laggard tutors who want as little to do with the VLE as possible.

Even if you could take away all the technical work involved in supporting a new app (as Uninglu would) you still have a significant cost in terms of training and supporting the new functionality with the average and laggard Tutors. You also have to consider the cost in time to the student in learning to use the new tool. If its only going to be you using it in your course they will have mastered the tool in course time, a precious resource for a skill they won't use again.

Which is not to say I'm a luddite, just that the true cost to the institution and its students need to be considered.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos and videos from edtechie99. Make your own badge here.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter