Month: October 2005

“How to Choose a Content Management Tool According to a Learning Model”

by

The article of this post’s title is on the eLearningEuropa site. The article maps teaching models to web learning systems. Peter Baumgartner lists three teaching models, and then goes on describe five types of content management systems for learning. He notes which CMS fit with each teaching model. I’ve replaced systems listed in the article with ones that I’m more familiar with, in this summary table :

To transer knowledge To acquire, compile, gather knowledge To develop, to invent, to construct knowledge
The Pure CMS Mambo
Weblog CMS Blogger Movable Type Typepad
Collaborative CMS Drupal
Content, Community, Collaboration MS ELGG
Wiki Systems TWiki

I would note that Moodle is probably a hybrid of a Collaborative CMS and Wiki System. Drupal also has a wiki-like capability with its shared books that can be edited by multiple authors and all revisions are accessible for viewing.This type of matrix appeals to me as a starting point for conversations about what technology is appropriate for an educational institution. First, you come to an agreement about the teaching model (these three are not the entire spectrum) and then you can create a short list of systems for further evaluation. This is a better starting point than the more typical feature-list approach.

BlackWeb

by

Probably the best wrap-up on Blackboard absorbing WebCT is on Stephen Downes’ post. Stephen links to a lot of the commentary and criticisms post-merger. One anonymous poster showed some frustration with the merger, "We’ve customized WebCT over the years to fit our needs. We have to grow exponentially rather quickly due to legislative mandate, and there isn’t much choice here."
This is the reason that open source fits the academic, e-learning business model. Every time that some proprietary system is bought, sold or goes down the tube, then the institution has to figure out how to deal with a system that is no longer supported or upgraded. Open source is not just about free licenses, it also allows you to own your core technologies. For academic institutions doing business on the web, the LMS/LCMS/CMS is core technology. However, most institutions do not have the means to actually "own" a proprietary system. Enter open source.
Open source enables each insitution to join a community of users & developers and share in the vision of what the software should be (the dynamics of the community should be a key factor in selecting OSS). They can help to drive pedagogical models (such as Moodle and its constructivist model). Had WebCT been an open source system, and had the core developer community decided to take an extended vacation, then some of the existing WebCT users could get together and continue to develop & support the platform. This could be with internal resources or as a buyer share group from a third-party support company. One of the long-term benefits of open source is that you are not held hostage by your technology provider.
In order to achieve this independence, institutions have to take a slight risk. They have to give up the illusion that the vendor will handle all of their problems. Comments on Stephen’s post and on SlashDot indicate that there is little vendor support anyway.
This merger is a great opportunity for educational institutions to fully understand what is the optimal relationship between their learning services and their web technology.
PS: Thanks to Dave Cormier for the title.

A Common Future

by

If you want to see what one of the new organisational models for work in the 21st Century will look like, then watch (and perhaps participate in) the Innovation Commons wiki. The folks in Vancouver have organised a web space to discuss all of the issues around the creation of a common work place (the actual name is still being discussed) including a business plan and marketing strategy. This is exciting because wiki technology will allow anyone to see how the community grows; both locally and as a network. The whole world can watch this (I will) and learn from it. It means that successes can be replicated and mistakes can be addressed before they spread. The Commons network may become the first truly transparent organisational model.

I’ve been watching and learning from the Queen Street Commons, as I want to create a local Commons here in Sackville. I discussed it over coffee this morning with a local entrepreneur for the first time, and a work Commons seems to be an idea whose time has come.

The idea is a very easy sell. The most difficult part seems to be in finding the initial capital for the space. In a small town like Sackville this is tough, but we have some ideas. I really appreciate the fact that others are paving the way to make it easier for the rest of us. Once the first few are created, then I expect a great explosion of the entire Commons network.

Blackboard + WebCT = ?

by

Via Stephen is the news that the two biggest course management systems for the academic market are going to merge into a single corporate entity, though the Blackboard company name will dominate. Here are my initial thoughts:

  • My first question remains, "Does it do anything for the learner?" A: I don’t think so.
  • Elliott will say he saw it coming all along ;-)
  • This makes the comparison with open source learning systems a lot easier, because there will be fewer proprietary systems to compare with :-)
  • The WebCT brand will quickly fade away (don’t want to confuse the client)
  • License fees will increase for this "new & improved" product.
  • Those really interested in facilitating learning, like George, will continue to do their own thing and still not be engaged in a discussion by Blackboard.

This just in: Jay posts a copy of the official letter to customers.
… and Scott’s (new) analysis;
… as well as Godfrey’s take on the merger

Web 2.0 – the next e-mail?

by

Ross Mayfield on on Many2Many notes that Web 2.0 (aka the two-way web, etc) is an attempt to create the next e-mail. The current version  doesn’t suit anyone’s purposes anymore:

The reason we are building Web 2.0 is because we were not able to build Email 2.0. The first web didn’t support our social needs, so we used email for everything. But we couldn’t really hack it. Most social software has by now adapted to email, but email could never have adapted to it.

Given all the hype around Web 2.0 over the past few weeks, I think that this may be the best elevator pitch so far, – Web 2.0 is the next stage in the evolution of Internet technologies that are everywhere and anyone can use them – including your grandparents. For me, the closest tool to E-Mail 2.0 so far is ELGG, but we’ll see what else comes down the pipe.

School & Reality – Disconnected

by

Many of us have anecdotes about the problems encountered in our school systems – public and private. Here is an example of a real, science-based, disconnect:

It’s a bit ironic that when scientists need to study how people learn in the fMRI scanner, it’s almost the complete opposite to how students are taught in the classroom. For researchers to see brain changes associated with learning, they have to provide regular feedback about errors; whereas in the classroom, the ‘learning’ process is mostly watching and listening passively.

The Eide Neurolearning blog is an excellent resource that shows the science of how the brain actually works. Written by Doctors Fernette and Brock Eide who "are strong advocates for neurologically-based approaches to learning and learning differences", this blog and its accompanying site are a must read for anyone interested in how the brain works and how this relates to learning. At ISPI, we are constantly urged to base our work on sound science. This is some of it.

Vendors have only one thing to sell

by

George Siemens was not too impressed by a recent presentation from Blackboard:

The entire presentation was focused on two things: money, and implementation challenges. If I adhere to their assumptions, then they presented their case well. However, I’m at odds with their core statements of what it means to learn. In the end, it’s very likely that, in North America at least, there isn’t a large cost savings between open source and proprietary software. But as an educator, that’s not my concern. I’m concerned about the learners. And their learning. This wasn’t mentioned at all. I know administrators are cost and implementation focused, but I would hope that they also see the instructors and learners as stakeholders in the process. A bad solution, well-implemented, still sucks.Why not ask learners what they want? Or faculty? If Blackboard, D2L, and WebCT are genuinely interested in meeting learner needs, then engage us (as faculty and learners) in a legitimate discussion. Once you listen to what we need/want, rather than telling us what you’ll do for us, we can begin to partner.

I agree with George, other than his assumption that there "isn’t a large cost savings". Open source IS cheaper, when you look at licensing and when you look at total cost of ownership. Examples include detailed cost comparisons, such as this one for the Québec public school system.
However, George’s point about the vendors’ lack of focus on learning is the root of the problem. Having worked for an LCMS vendor, I learned that there is only one bottom line – sell more licenses. That is what brings in the money. Selling services is not what they are about. Therefore, until you separate the services from the technology you will have an ongoing conflict of interest. The vendor will try to sell you licenses, even if you do not need their system. It’s how they are measured by their investors.
I don’t think that any vendors are going to have legitimate discussions about learning with George or anyone else in the foreseeable future.

Large Pieces Tightly Joined

by

So the news is that Saba (learning management system company) just purchased Centra (real time web conferencing & learning system company). Now you can have all of your e-learning delivered from one bucket – for a price.
My own limited view of this merger is that it’s no big news. The movement in most of the learning technology market is toward "small pieces loosely joined" and cheaper systems, especially systems that can plug into each other.
Many people whose organisations have an LMS or LCMS tell me that they feel locked-in to the vendor’s technology. License fees are increasing and they see no way out. They ask me about open source and whether it’s a viable option. As I expressed before, the business case for open source in learning is basically :

  • Information technology infrastructure should not be the largest cost of any human performance or learning project.
  • It is not your technology that gives you a competitive advantage but your organisation’s strategy, leadership and the talent of your workforce.
  • Using open source from a trusted collaborative partner saves money and leaves the technology open to further development.
  • By driving down the cost of software or content, the open source model frees capital for other projects, thereby fostering innovation.
  • Most of the market leading products in the learning content management space (and other enterprise applications) are so costly that many organizations cannot pay the price of admission. Let’s face it, most organizations do not need a space shuttle to go to their mailbox.

The Saba-Centra merger also seems way behind many of the open source initiatives that have caught up to and even surpassed the proprietary vendors. Platforms like ePresence, "a content capturing, archiving, and webcasting system that delivers video and presentation media over the internet using multiple streaming formats for multiple platforms", are surfacing every day on the web. I don’t see much for the learner or the client in this merger other than some minor savings on an already pricey platform.

Canada Best for Starting a New Business

by

Via Dane, is the World Bank Group’s Doing Business analysis of where in the world is best for private enterprise. Canada ranks first for ease in starting a new business.
So what are you waiting for? Come on over and start a new business. Maybe here in downtown Sackville, population 5,000, complete with a university and only 20 minutes from an airport, with direct flights to Toronto & Montreal and next year to New York. I just need a few more people to help me start a work commons :-)

Another Bubble?

by

On no, is there an OS tech bubble looming around the corner, ready to burst on some unsuspecting souls? Maybe P.T. Barnum was right.

Shades of 1999! I met a venture capitalist who told me lovingly about his "early round of financing" for a company that had a nice-sounding idea behind it but didn’t yet have either a domain name or working code. Then I met another VC with a similar story. And another. And I saw business cards exchanged to the tune of buzzwords I thought had died in the dot-com crash, plus a bunch of new ones that have popped up since then.

I thought giddily for a minute that I should run to the Office Depot across the street from the Argent Hotel (where the conference is being held) and grab some blank CDs. I could then come back to my room and make a slide presentation for a business that would develop a VoIP-based multimedia wiki that would track disintermediated community-generated podcast blog reviews. It would be based on open source software, of course. And cross-platform. And extensible and highly scalable.The above quote is from NewsForge reporting on the current Web 2.0 conference. I somehow thought that open source was going to be a little bit different, but we seem to be rapidly climbing the hype curve. I also thought that 2006 would be the year that OS goes mainstream, but it’s getting a lot of press now.

As much as I may be an open source evangelist, I promise not to get caught up in the hype. Open source to me means not only good, cheap software for the masses but is a foundation that enables smaller businesses to compete and survive against the multinationals. OS is not the answer to all of our problems, nor is it the best way to get rich quick, though there are people making money on it. Let’s just use some common sense when we talk about open source.