Learning

Learning

Schooling, deschooling or unschooling?

by

There seems to be a growing chorus questioning our Western school system. The conversation has been strong amongst bloggers, voices like Brian Alger or Robert Paterson on the value of homework or Chris Corrigan on unschooling. A number of our friends in Sackville have posted on Rob’s homework-related posts. Now the cry against homework has been picked up by the mainstream media such as Time Magazine and The National Post.

It’s not just homework, but the fact that a one size fits all approach to learning just does not work in a ubiquitously connected and pervasively proximate world. As Ivan Illich said in Deschooling Society in 1973, “We permit the state to ascertain the universal educational deficiencies of its citizens and establish one specialized agency to treat them.” That agency is cracking.

The lack of confidence in our education system is similar to the search for better training and e-learning methods, as evidenced by the interest in our Informl Learning Unworkshops. People realise that the old ways of instructional systems design take too long for most training programs. Furthermore, slapping on a training course cannot address the majority of human performance issues faced by organisations today. Also, many are discovering that learning on the Web is more about who you know than what you know, because if you know many knowledgeable people, you can usually find a solution to your problem. The “connectors” are becoming critical to any organisation.

As students go back to school, it is up to the rest of us to ask what are they really doing there and if there is a better way. We owe it to our children.

[Note: there are more learning links to explore on this one post than our boys may get in a day of classroom instruction]

My PKM System

by

Note: Latest version: PKM in a Nutshell (2010).

In response to a post I made on Personal Knowledge Management (PKM), Tony Karrer recommended that I look at his post on Personal Learning for Learning Professionals. This had me review my posts on PKM and reflect on how I go through my process of triage. As a result, I created this picture.

pkm.jpg
I’m starting to use some other web tools but this is pretty well how I move from “interesting stuff” to “this is what I think”. For me, PKM is more about attitude than any given tools. My system works for me because I’m curious and because I have got into the habit of writing down my thoughts in a public forum. This develops into some interesting conversations about things that matter to me at the intersection of learning work and technology. Having a defined field of interest helps stop this blog from spreading too far and wide and keeps my PKM manageable.

Update: The diagram was slightly changed in response to Loretta’s suggestion (see comments). I would also encourage a look at Dave Pollard’s graphic on the same subject.

LMS circa 1999

by

clt-logo.gif

I was digging through some old files on CD and came across a report that I did when I worked at the now defunct Centre for Learning Technologies at Mount Allison University. It was called The Design, Development and Delivery of Internet Based Training and Education, dated March 28, 2000. I had worked on that report during the Fall of 1999. Part of the report examined what I described as “Asynchronous Group Learning Capable Environments”. This report was the second evaluation that we had completed at the CLT, but I can’t find a copy of the earlier one from 1998/1999.

From the report’s introduction:

The landscape of web-based learning environments has become more complex over the past few years, and this is further complicated by mergers, acquisitions, new versions of existing products and new products on the market. No one knows exactly how many learning environments exist, but the 40 that we evaluated provide a good view of the spectrum currently available. The Centre for Learning Technologies (CLT) examined these environments as part of a collaborative project effort by the BC Standing Committee on Educational Technology, the Centre for Curriculum, Transfer and Technology, the Office of LearningTechnologies, and TeleEducation New Brunswick.

The environments were evaluated from the perspective of functionality only.

Each environment, or LMS, was examined against a number of functions, as follows:

N= Not applicable
0= No support
1= Some support, but not a strength of the product
2= Adequate support, a secondary feature of the product
3= Full support, a primary feature of the product

I’ve picked a few of the functions out of the tables to highlight how many other commercially available systems were on the market at the time. These had all been in production and on the market for several years. You will note that many had functions that Blackboard claims were unique to its system in 2000. Note that Blackboard was known as CourseInfo at the time.

I’m posting this to show that Blackboard’s claims of patenting a unique “course-based system for providing to an educational community of users access to a plurality of online courses”, do not reflect the online learning technology marketplace at the time.

Here is a sampling:

“Analysing and tracking tools include facilities for statistical analysis of student-related data and the facility to display the progress of individual students in the course structure”
3: eAdministrator, Generation21, KOTrain, LearningSpace, VCampus
2: CourseInfo, and several others
1: WebCT, and several others

“Authorisation tools that assign access and other privileges to specific users or user groups.”
3: WebCT, eAdministrator, FirstClass, Generation21, Knowledge Planet, KOTrain, LearningSpace
2: CourseInfo, and several others

“Course monitoring includes facilities that provide information about the usage of course resources by individual students and groups of students.”
3: WebCT, VCampus, Pathware, KnowledgePlanet, Generation21, KOTrain, eAdministrator
2: CourseInfo, and several others

Course customising includes the facility to change the structure of the course and its assignments, exams, etc. This may include guides, templates, and related product support and training.”
3: WebCT, CourseInfo, Knowledge Planet, Generation21, LearningSpace, Pathware, Quest, Trainsoft, VCampus

“Managing records includes facilities for organising and keeping track of course-related information.”
3: WebCT, WCB, Virtual U, QuestionMark, LearningSpace, KnowledgePlanet, Generation21, eAdministrator, CourseInfo

“Progress tracking includes some facility for the student to check marks on assignments and tests.”
3: WebCT, Pathlore, Norton Connect, VCampus, Pathware, Mentorware, Learningspace, KnowledgePlanet, eAdministrator
2: CourseInfo, Serf, TrainSoft, WCB

At the time, this was a public report, available on the TeleEducation New Brunswick site (now defunct, too). I do have a copy, though.

Elgg and the LMS Patent

by

Alfred Essa asked this question on my post, Blackboard Sues D2L over LMS Patent:

I am not sure where Jarche gets the notion that Elgg Learning Landscape is not affected by the current Blackboard LMS patent suit. As I noted in a recent posting, Blackboard’s “invention” describes a generic learning system and a corresponding set of methods. The 44 claims cover any system which supports students interacting with instructors in an online course setting. Interaction simply means the manipulation (read, write) and exchange (asynchronous, synchronous) of data files. It’s that simple. It’s also frighteningly comprehensive because it can be interpreted to cover not only learning management systems but standalone tools such as blogs, wikis and online chat when used in the context of a course. The patent could also be interpreted by the courts to cover any other elements (e.g. e-commerce engine, card systems, ERP connectors) that integrate with the basic system.

Please explain why you think Elgg is not covered.

I think that the Blackboard patent filing is a load of crap, based on significant prior art, but here is my understanding of this patent in relation to Elgg’s design. Essa may have a point that the patent could be given wider application by the courts, but I’m not a patent lawyer or a judge. I still disagree with the principle of Blackboard’s patent and feel that it may lead to further patent infringement litigation.

A reasonable person could not interpret the following 44 points as applying to the Elgg Learning Landscape. Elgg uses a completely different model than most online learning systems. It does not use content (e.g. course) as the basic building block, but rather the individual person.

As I mentioned in my initial post on this patent, my view is that Blackboard’s patent is for an “education” system, not a learning system. Elgg is a learning system.

Anyone in the Elgg community should feel free to correct me if I’ve made any wrong assumptions.

1. A course-based system for providing to an educational community of users access to a plurality of online courses, comprising: a) a plurality of user computers, with each user computer being associated with a user of the system and with each user being capable of having predefined characteristics indicative of multiple predetermined roles in the system, each role providing a level of access to a plurality of data files associated with a particular course and a level of control over the data files associated with the course with the multiple predetermined user roles comprising at least two user’s predetermined roles selected from the group consisting of a student role in one or more course associated with a student user, an instructor role in one or more courses associated with an instructor user and an administrator role associated with an administrator user, and b) a server computer in communication with each of the user computers over a network, the server computer comprising: means for storing a plurality of data files associated with a course, means for assigning a level of access to and control of each data file based on a user of the system’s predetermined role in a course; means for determining whether access to a data file associated with the course is authorized; means for allowing access to and control of the data file associated with the course if authorization is granted based on the access level of the user of the system.

A. Elgg is not a course-based system. There is no mention of courses in the interface, nor ability to create a course.

2. The system of claim 1 wherein the instructor user is provided with an access level to enable the creation and editing of a plurality of files associated with a course.

B. Elgg does not have an instructor mode, nor use the term instructor.

3. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise an announcement file.

4. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a course information file.

C. Elgg does not use course as a metaphor, model or term.

5. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a staff information file posted to all registered in the course.

D. Elgg does not differentiate between staff and students.

6. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a course document file posted to all registered in the course.

7. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise an assignments file posted to all registered in the course.

8. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a dropbox file.

9. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise an asynchronous communication file.

10. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a synchronous communication file.

E. You cannot create courses in Elgg. See point A.

11. The system of claim 2 wherein the student user is provided with an access level to enable reading of a plurality of files associated with a course.

F. There are no students in Elgg, only Friends.

12. The system of claim 11 wherein the student user is provided with an access level to enable modification of a subset of the plurality of files associated with a course.

G. Access level is controlled by each individual and cannot be imposed by the system or some other user.

13. The system of claim 11 wherein the user is provided with an access level to enable creation of a student file associated with a file for which the student user is able to read.

14. The system of claim 13 in which the file that the student is able to read is an assessment file created by the instructor user, and the student file created by the student user is a response to the assessment file.

15. The system of claim 14 wherein the assessment file comprises a plurality of examination questions selected by the instructor user to assess the ability of the student user.

16. The system of claim 15 wherein the examination questions are selected by the instructor user from a predetermined pool of available examination questions.

17. The system of claim 15 wherein the examination questions are created by the instructor user substantially at the time of the creation of the assessment file.

18. The system of claim 15 wherein the student file is reviewed by the instructor user and assigned a grade.

19. The system of claim 18 wherein the grade is made available to the student user.

20. The system of claim 18 wherein the instructor user collates a plurality of grades obtained from reviewing a plurality of student files, and wherein the collated grades are made available to all student users associated with the course.

21. The system of claim 13 in which the file that the student is able to read is an assignment file created by the instructor user, and the student file created by the student user is a response to the assignment file.

H. There is no assessment file or grading application in Elgg.

22. The system of claim 8 wherein the dropbox file comprises a plurality of files transferred to the server computer from one or more student users associated with the course.

23. The system of claim 22 wherein the instructor user is provided with access to the files in the dropbox file, whereby the instructor user may download, edit and upload the files in the dropbox.

I. There are no assignment files or drop box files in Elgg. However, learners can upload files and make them available to selected groups, including someone who may be a teacher. This is not the same as a drop box.

24. The system of claim 1 wherein a user is required to enter a login sequence into a user computer in order to be provided with access to course files associated with that user.

25. The system of claim 24 wherein the user is provided with access to all courses with which the user is associated after entry of the logon sequence.

26. The system of claim 25 wherein the user is provided with a web page comprising a plurality of course hyperlinks, each of said course hyperlinks associated with each course that the user has enrolled in.

J. There are no “courses” in Elgg. There are communities, but the individual must decide to link to a community.

27. The system of claim 26 wherein selection of a course hyperlink will provide the user with a web page associated with the selected course, the web page comprising a plurality of content hyperlinks to various content areas associated with the course.

K. There are no courses in Elgg.

28. The system of claim 27 wherein said content hyperlinks comprise an announcement area hyperlink, a course information hyperlink, a staff information hyperlink, a course documents hyperlink, an assignments hyperlink, a communications hyperlink, and a student tools hyperlink.

29. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the announcement area hyperlink provides a web page comprising a group of course announcements.

30. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the course information hyperlink provides a web page comprising information regarding the associated course.

31. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the staff information hyperlink provides a web page comprising data regarding the instructors of the associated course.

32. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the course documents hyperlink provides a web page comprising a listing of documents associated with the course.

33. The system of claim 32 wherein the listing of course documents comprise active hyperlinks to the documents.

34. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the assignments hyperlink provides a web page comprising a group of course assignments.

35. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the communications hyperlink provides a web page comprising hyperlinks to a group of communication tools comprising an asynchronous communication tool and a synchronous communication tool.

L. No courses, no staff, no assignments, no students.

36. An method for providing online education method for a community of users in a network based system comprising the steps of: a. establishing that each user is capable of having redefined characteristics indicative of multiple predetermined roles in the system and each role providing a level of access to and control of a plurality of course files; b. establishing a course to be offered online, comprising i. generating a set of course files for use with teaching a course; ii. transferring the course files to a server computer for storage; and iii. allowing access to and control of the course files according to the established roles for the users according to step (a); c. providing a predetermined level of access and control over the network to the course files to users with an established role as a student user enrolled in the course; and d. providing a predetermined level of access and control over the network to the course files to users with an established role other than a student user enrolled in the course.

M. There are no predetermined roles in Elgg. The individual determines all connections with resources and with people. Access control is user determined.

37. The method of claim 36 wherein at least one of the course files comprises a course assignment, further comprising the steps of: e) the student user creating a student file in response to the course assignment; and f) the student user transferring the student file to the server computer.

38. The method of claim 37 further comprising the steps of: g) the instructor user accessing the student file from the server computer; h) the instructor user reviewing the student file to determine compliance with the course assignment; and i) the instructor user assigning a grade to the student file as a function of the determination of compliance with the course assignment.

N. There are no “student users” nor “instructor users”. Individuals do not send files to a separate place. Users allow access to their Files. The “instructor” in Elgg would have to be granted permission by the “student” to see a file in the “student’s” Files.

39. The method of claim 38 further comprising the step of the instructor user posting the grade to a file on the server computer accessible only to the student user with which the grade is associated.

O. There is no central grading repository in Elgg.

40. The method of claim 38 further comprising the steps of the instructor repeating the steps (g), (h), and (i) for a plurality of student users that are enrolled in the course.

41. The method of claim 40 further comprising the step of the instructor user performing a statistical analysis on the grades assigned to the plurality of student users.

42. The method of claim 41 further comprising the step of making results of the statistical analysis available to the student users enrolled in the course.

43. The method of claim 36 further comprising the step of providing an asynchronous communication tool accessible to student users enrolled in the course for enabling asynchronous communication amongst the student users.

44. The method of claim 36 further comprising the step of providing a synchronous communication tool accessible to student users enrolled in the course for enabling synchronous communication amongst the student users.

P. In summary, there are no predetermined roles in Elgg. Everyone is an individual and can allow their posts and files to be viewed by whatever groups or communities they wish. Each user can create a new group or community. Elgg is not about courses, instructors, students, tests or assignments. Elgg is about connecting people, most of whom are learners.

PKM and Informal Learning

by

In re-reading Dave Pollard’s post on personal knowledge management (PKM) I noticed some parallels with the field of online learning. Dave states that:

And although technology companies, by coopting the term Knowledge Management and making it synonymous with centralized content management, have played a role in tarnishing KM’s image, some technology companies are now developing simple, intuitive tools that will make each of the four components of PKM easier to implement.

I think that technology firms did the same with e-learning. They coopted the term to mean structured and managed courses online.

Dave’s experience showed that people were more interested in their own knowledge than in the organisation’s knowledge.

So my conclusion this time around was that the centralized stuff we spent so much time and money maintaining was simply not very useful to most practitioners. The practitioners I talked to about PPI [Personal Productivity Improvement] said they would love to participate in PPI coaching, provided it was focused on the content on their own desktops and hard drives, and not the stuff in the central repositories.

E-learning, for many, has come to mean courses online, delivered via learning management systems. One problem with this model is that learners (the key participants) don’t care about how learning is managed. Another problem is that the course and class models don’t work very well online.

I think that face-to-face classes have worked fairly well historically because good teachers and students could always make up for the inherently poor design. Looks could be passed between students, conversations could take place between class, and trusting relationships could develop over time together in the classroom. However, in an online environment the design flaws stand out, because people can’t easily communicate outside the course-in-a-box.

As the horseless carriage was the outdated metaphor for the automobile, so the course is the outdated metaphor for learning online.

The Internet is the most powerful communication environment that humans have ever built. The Internet is about communication, not content. Therefore, learning online needs to focus on communicating and connecting. If it doesn’t, it will be irrelevant to those who actually live and work online.

Small pieces, loosely joined in an informal and unstructured way, is a better model for online learning. It leverages the inherent nature of the medium. Virtual classrooms and online courses constrain communication and learner control. We need to build better models and methods to create personally meaningful online learning. Using the lens of informal learning is a start.

NRC abandons e-learning

by

I know that this is old news, but I’m sure that there are many people outside the local area who don’t know that Canada’s National Research Council has given up on e-learning as an area of focus (even though it’s still listed on their website).

I was involved in some of the early round table discussions that brought about the creation of the IIT (Institute for Information Technology) with its satellite e-learning office in Moncton. Only a few years ago there was much hoopla about e-learning and how this research centre would be an asset to the local learning industry. Now it has just died a slow death. I was reminded of this while reading Dave Tosh’s recent interview with Stephen Downes:

In addition, since the NRC has disbanded the e-learning research group (I have been reassigned to ‘Internet Logic’) and moving away from e-learning per se (I have been asked to work in other areas, such as human-computer interaction) the production of OLDaily (and of e-learning in general) is becoming less and less a part of my professional work and more of (as it was originally) a hobby.

Sir Ken Robinson on TED Talks

by

Spend fifteen minutes and listen to Sir Ken Robinson speaking about education and creativity at this year’s Technology, Entertainment, Design Talks. Here are some snippets from his hilarious, but at the same time serious, presentation:

it’s education that’s meant to take us into this future that we can’t grasp

creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status

if you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original

we are educating people out of their creative capacities

suddenly degrees aren’t worth anything

our education system has mined our minds in the way that we have strip-mined the earth for a particular commodity

Blackboard Sues D2L over LMS Patent

by

Well I guess the rumours are true. Not only did Blackboard receive a comprehensive patent (US and other countries) on LMS technology, but they have filed a suit against Canadian company Desire2Learn – their main competitor in the academic market. The Inquirer has posted a PDF of the suit, filed on 26 July 2006, which states:

“… including but not limited to all D2L products based on the D2L learning system or platform, such as the D2L eLearning Technology Suite, which includes the D2L eLearning Environment, Learning Repository and Live Room, and all services supporting these D2L products, such as hosting services, training services, help desk support services, implementation and customization professional services, and content services.”

Personally, I don’t really care if one corporation sues another, as that seems to be in their nature. I’ve also noted in my last post that the course online model may have reached the end of its natural life anyway. However, there is still cause for concern. If Blackboard wins the suit, then some open source communities, such as Moodle, may be next in line.

It will depend on how generous the courts are in determining the extent of Blackboard’s patent. Blackboard’s claim is extensive, comprising 44 claims with the US Patent Office:

1. A course-based system for providing to an educational community of users access to a plurality of online courses, comprising: a) a plurality of user computers, with each user computer being associated with a user of the system and with each user being capable of having predefined characteristics indicative of multiple predetermined roles in the system, each role providing a level of access to a plurality of data files associated with a particular course and a level of control over the data files associated with the course with the multiple predetermined user roles comprising at least two user’s predetermined roles selected from the group consisting of a student role in one or more course associated with a student user, an instructor role in one or more courses associated with an instructor user and an administrator role associated with an administrator user, and b) a server computer in communication with each of the user computers over a network, the server computer comprising: means for storing a plurality of data files associated with a course, means for assigning a level of access to and control of each data file based on a user of the system’s predetermined role in a course; means for determining whether access to a data file associated with the course is authorized; means for allowing access to and control of the data file associated with the course if authorization is granted based on the access level of the user of the system.

2. The system of claim 1 wherein the instructor user is provided with an access level to enable the creation and editing of a plurality of files associated with a course.

3. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise an announcement file.

4. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a course information file.

5. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a staff information file posted to all registered in the course.

6. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a course document file posted to all registered in the course.

7. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise an assignments file posted to all registered in the course.

8. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a dropbox file.

9. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise an asynchronous communication file.

10. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a synchronous communication file.

11. The system of claim 2 wherein the student user is provided with an access level to enable reading of a plurality of files associated with a course.

12. The system of claim 11 wherein the student user is provided with an access level to enable modification of a subset of the plurality of files associated with a course.

13. The system of claim 11 wherein the user is provided with an access level to enable creation of a student file associated with a file for which the student user is able to read.

14. The system of claim 13 in which the file that the student is able to read is an assessment file created by the instructor user, and the student file created by the student user is a response to the assessment file.

15. The system of claim 14 wherein the assessment file comprises a plurality of examination questions selected by the instructor user to assess the ability of the student user.

16. The system of claim 15 wherein the examination questions are selected by the instructor user from a predetermined pool of available examination questions.

17. The system of claim 15 wherein the examination questions are created by the instructor user substantially at the time of the creation of the assessment file.

18. The system of claim 15 wherein the student file is reviewed by the instructor user and assigned a grade.

19. The system of claim 18 wherein the grade is made available to the student user.

20. The system of claim 18 wherein the instructor user collates a plurality of grades obtained from reviewing a plurality of student files, and wherein the collated grades are made available to all student users associated with the course.

21. The system of claim 13 in which the file that the student is able to read is an assignment file created by the instructor user, and the student file created by the student user is a response to the assignment file.

22. The system of claim 8 wherein the dropbox file comprises a plurality of files transferred to the server computer from one or more student users associated with the course.

23. The system of claim 22 wherein the instructor user is provided with access to the files in the dropbox file, whereby the instructor user may download, edit and upload the files in the dropbox.

24. The system of claim 1 wherein a user is required to enter a login sequence into a user computer in order to be provided with access to course files associated with that user.

25. The system of claim 24 wherein the user is provided with access to all courses with which the user is associated after entry of the logon sequence.

26. The system of claim 25 wherein the user is provided with a web page comprising a plurality of course hyperlinks, each of said course hyperlinks associated with each course that the user has enrolled in.

27. The system of claim 26 wherein selection of a course hyperlink will provide the user with a web page associated with the selected course, the web page comprising a plurality of content hyperlinks to various content areas associated with the course.

28. The system of claim 27 wherein said content hyperlinks comprise an announcement area hyperlink, a course information hyperlink, a staff information hyperlink, a course documents hyperlink, an assignments hyperlink, a communications hyperlink, and a student tools hyperlink.

29. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the announcement area hyperlink provides a web page comprising a group of course announcements.

30. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the course information hyperlink provides a web page comprising information regarding the associated course.

31. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the staff information hyperlink provides a web page comprising data regarding the instructors of the associated course.

32. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the course documents hyperlink provides a web page comprising a listing of documents associated with the course.

33. The system of claim 32 wherein the listing of course documents comprise active hyperlinks to the documents.

34. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the assignments hyperlink provides a web page comprising a group of course assignments.

35. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the communications hyperlink provides a web page comprising hyperlinks to a group of communication tools comprising an asynchronous communication tool and a synchronous communication tool.

36. An method for providing online education method for a community of users in a network based system comprising the steps of: a. establishing that each user is capable of having redefined characteristics indicative of multiple predetermined roles in the system and each role providing a level of access to and control of a plurality of course files; b. establishing a course to be offered online, comprising i. generating a set of course files for use with teaching a course; ii. transferring the course files to a server computer for storage; and iii. allowing access to and control of the course files according to the established roles for the users according to step (a); c. providing a predetermined level of access and control over the network to the course files to users with an established role as a student user enrolled in the course; and d. providing a predetermined level of access and control over the network to the course files to users with an established role other than a student user enrolled in the course.

37. The method of claim 36 wherein at least one of the course files comprises a course assignment, further comprising the steps of: e) the student user creating a student file in response to the course assignment; and f) the student user transferring the student file to the server computer.

38. The method of claim 37 further comprising the steps of: g) the instructor user accessing the student file from the server computer; h) the instructor user reviewing the student file to determine compliance with the course assignment; and i) the instructor user assigning a grade to the student file as a function of the determination of compliance with the course assignment.

39. The method of claim 38 further comprising the step of the instructor user posting the grade to a file on the server computer accessible only to the student user with which the grade is associated.

40. The method of claim 38 further comprising the steps of the instructor repeating the steps (g), (h), and (i) for a plurality of student users that are enrolled in the course.

41. The method of claim 40 further comprising the step of the instructor user performing a statistical analysis on the grades assigned to the plurality of student users.

42. The method of claim 41 further comprising the step of making results of the statistical analysis available to the student users enrolled in the course.

43. The method of claim 36 further comprising the step of providing an asynchronous communication tool accessible to student users enrolled in the course for enabling asynchronous communication amongst the student users.

44. The method of claim 36 further comprising the step of providing a synchronous communication tool accessible to student users enrolled in the course for enabling synchronous communication amongst the student users.

Sorry about the long blockquote, but I think that it’s important to consider that these kinds of functions can be found not just in LMS but also LCMS and even some non-traditional online learning systems. Is there an online learning system, proprietary or open source, that does not include ANY of these functions?

Update: On reviewing these 44 items, I would say that Elgg Learning Landscape does not use any of these. So, I guess that makes your decision easy. Choose Elgg if you want a lawsuit-free learning system ;-)

Blackboard patents the LMS, but does it matter?

by

Via Stephen Downes, is this post by Michael Feldstein that Blackboard (aka BlackWeb) has been granted a US patent on the learning management system (LMS). My initial reaction was indignation that a greedy corporation was once again trying to stifle innovation in education. Then I read Brent Schlenker’s reaction to my post on the lack of open source learning applications, and Brent correctly noted that there are a lot of learning applications, just not that many “educational” ones;

My point is that we don’t need any specific open source learning applications. That would be just another thing that people need to learn…another interface to learn…another login id and password to remember. We are at our best when we evaluate the existing technologies and leverage them for the purpose of learning. We are at our worst when we try to create our own little system and call it the Learning thingy.

The Blackboard patent may become a defining moment for learning technologies. Let’s use this as an opportunity to cast off the classroom and course metaphors:

In yet another aspect of the invention, provided is a method for providing online education, which includes the steps of establishing a course to be offered online, offering the course to be taken online to a group of student users; and providing access over the network to the course files to a student user who has enrolled in the course. The establishment of the course includes an instructor user generating a set of course files for use with teaching the course, then transferring the course files to a server computer for storage thereat, and then making access to the course files available to a predefined community of student users having access to the server computer over a network.

Let’s use all those wonderful Web 2.0 tools for learning, not schooling. Blackboard spent a lot of time and money filing for this patent and they can have it, because it has no value. It’s no longer about online courses, it’s about learning and performing.

LMS? We don’t need no stinking LMS!

Informl Learning Unworkshop 3

by

Our next informl learning unworkshop, hosted by Jay Cross, with Judy Brown and myself, starts next week. We’re pretty close to full but there is room for a few more people. If you’re interested, check it out now, as the first session is on Tuesday August 1st.

This will be slower-paced than the last unworkshop, as it will be spread over almost two months, until September 19th.

Learning with Blogs, Wikis, and Web 2.0 Tools
An unworkshop for trainers, instructional designers, and learning managers