(Picking up on just one theme in Jim’s recent post on open education, content and relevance)

I suspect that the continuing emergence of whole new tools, many of which perform the same functions as existing applications, comes from many sources: some people are just really into building new applications, companies are out to make money, egos strive to be seen and recognized, subtle differences that we might accept without reservation are features upon which someone else’s success may hinge…

But I think that as educational technologists in this particular time we face a real challenge in reconciling the feverish visions we must have to keep going with the technological reality that many of the things we dream about are basically possible. Even a decade ago, many of the things we wanted to do were dreams that we hoped (or assumed) could and would happen someday. The pioneers were working a few systems and making each one go beyond what many thought possible.

Things are a little different today. We have a wealth of small pieces that can go a long way toward achieving many of the dreams we once had. Not all of them, but there is a lot of room between current practices and the fences keeping the wild parts at bay. Thsoe solutions may not always be the prettiest and most elegant– they may not be 100% integrated and holistic with every aspect of our educational philosophy– but the benefits are there for the taking. We just have to adopt a “warts and all” approach, stop waiting for surety and perfection, and kiss a frog or two.

That’s one of the reasons that– whether WordPress is the most flexible system with the prettiest code or not– I love Jim’s approach. Take a tool that works (WPMU) and pimp it out with tools that get the job done. That’s not settling or giving up on innovation. There’s plenty of room for technological innovation in the interstitial spaces of any educational approach that involves social networks and the participatory web… and even more headroom for innovative practices and pedagogy, which is what we are all seeking.

So I agree, in general, that we need to focus on content and making use of the potential of what is there. Enough people will be compelled enough by other motivations to keep developing new applications that we won’t be missed. If anything, our strongest position to influence development in a way amenable to education isn’t through technical prowess, but through creating a significant demand for those features and affordances. There’s a reason that a business tool like Elluminate is now implementing educational features and striving to create and educational community at a great clip: demand.

At the same time, while I don’t see the need to re-create learning management systems, publication mechanisms, feed readers, etc… I do think that we should continue to push the mix-it-up, mashup, roll-your-own themes that Scott Leslie and others talk about and the class of applications that facilitate those creative acts. It’s the foundation of the PLE, which is what all of this is about, consciously or not.