Learning

Learning

Informal Learning for a Flat World

by

A flattened world is one where skilled workers compete with each other, no matter where they live. With the opening of China, India and Russia to the world economy, the world is becoming flatter. Thomas Friedman, in The World is Flat says that there are four categories of workers who will prosper in a flattened global economy – special workers, specialized workers, anchored workers and really adaptable workers. Learning how to learn will be the critical skill for this last group; who in my opinion will be the largest. In 1998 I noted in my thesis that learning how to learn would be the critical job skill for the future. It’s now becoming reality.

Given the huge diversity of learning needs for these adaptable workers, we need to move away from a one size fits all educational approach. One of the answers is informal learning (see Jay Cross), which can be likened to mass customisation. It allows the learner to co-design the learning process.

This means that informal learning environments have to be loose structures that can accommodate as many different learning needs as possible. Instructional systems design (ISD) was developed to train soldiers for war so that everyone would have the same skills. In a global, networked world the last thing you want are the same skills as everyone else, as you will then be an interchangeable commodity.

Therefore in an economy that needs adaptable learners, the type of learning environment that they will demand will be an adaptable one as well. A single course, with established learning objectives that all students must achieve, just won’t cut it.

The Web for learning – from stock to flow

by

Will Richardson talks about the changing needs of learners in a networked world:

For instance, now that we have access to people and knowledge, learning is “network creation” and that we can learn through “collaborative meaning making.” And the idea the we no longer need to learn everything in “advance of need” resonates strongly with Brown and Hagel’s idea of push vs. pull learning, that we can pull information from a source when we need it, not have it pushed upon us in case we need it.

I have always felt that the Web was an environment more suited to just-in-time learning (e.g. performance support) than for the more pervasive course model. Learning on the web is moving from stock to flow. It also seems that in true McLuhanesque fashion the medium of the Web is having measurable effects on those who use the technology, specifically  – obsolescing, enhancing, retrieving and reversing. For instance:

  • Courses are being obsolesced on the connected Web.
  • Access to knowledge is enhanced.
  • Storytelling is being retrieved, especially through podcasting.
  • Learning on the Web may also reverse into mere grazing, instead of in-depth learning.

Now that the Web is becoming ubiquitous, we are moving away from a horseless carriage type of metaphor and using the medium for what it can really do. I see a rapid decline in online course development as better models of collaboration and just-in-time knowledge are developed. We also will need more metaphors, models & technologies to facilitate 24/7/365 learning in a connected world.

The BlackWeb Opportunity

by

Ben Watson has posted an industry analyst’s report on the Blackboard-WebCT merger in his comment on the Learning Circuits blog. The analyst’s perspective may be correct, but I see another opportunity. According to this report, there are about 562 current WebCT clients who do not use the enterprise version. These institutions have opted for the cheaper flavour of WebCT and may be willing to try out an open source platform instead of upgrading to "BlackWeb" enterprise.
Now is the time for the OS user/developer/services community, such as Moodle.com, to get the word out about open source learning platforms. For starters, here is the Edutools feature comparison of the soon to be defunct WebCT Campus (the non-enterprise version) compared with .LRN, Moodle and ATutor. And don’t forget about ELGG :-)

Provinent now “Vitesse Learning”

by

After having recently merged with Fredericton’s LearnStream, Provinent (of Toronto, with offices in Fredericton & Charlottetown) is now merged with US-based Vitesse Learning. This consolidates the e-learning content development field even more. We’ll see if bigger is better in the next months and whether the new company hires more people or jettisons extra staff. The merger means that at this time only one major e-learning content developer, Innovatia, has its head office in New Brunswick. Other companies with learning content production facilities in Fredericton include Ireland’s PulseLearning, US-based SkillSoft and local EngageInteractive.
Addendum: after re-reading this post I’d like to note that Provinent’s head office never was in Fredericton. The point I was trying to make is that New Brunswick has a number of production facilities but few head offices and I’m not sure if this is best for the long-term sustainability of the local learning industry.

“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.

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

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.

Learning Landscape

by

Jay Cross uses a landscape analogy to describe informal learning:

Courses end; learnscapes persist. Organizations and their members are living things, and the landscape/learnscape analogy invites us to consider nature, symbiosis, interconnections, genetic make-up, adaptation, the change of seasons, and life cycles. People are not plants, so the analogy doesn’t stretch into self-expression, thinking, identity, personality, and collaboration.

This got me thinking about how useful I’m finding ELGG, the learner-centric environment, which has the tagline “learning landscape”.

Elgg lets you set up a personal presence online and then use it to interact with others!

Create your own weblog, journal, store of files like photos and Word documents, communities, social networks.

Use Elgg to enhance reflective thought, your development, your resource base.

Share them with your friends, teachers, instructors and other Elgg users. YOU decide who can see what!

Unfortunately, since no one can pronounce or understand the name ELGG (I’m told it’s a Swiss deer), I suggest a petition to change the name to “learning landscape” or something like that. It looks like ELGG is making very exciting progress and it will be a heck of a lot easier for me to convince my clients to use it if they can pronounce it ;-)