VLEs and the democratisation of e-learning
Martin Weller
Outline• Where are we?• How did we get here?• Where are we going?
Where are we?
What is a VLE?
The principal components of a VLE package include curriculum mapping (breaking curriculum into sections that can be assigned and assessed), student tracking, online support for both teacher and student, electronic communication (e-mail, threaded discussions, chat, Web publishing), and Internet links to outside
curriculum resources. “the components in which learners and tutors participate in "on-line" interactions of various kinds, including on-line learning
LMS = “a software application or Web-based technology used to plan, implement, and assess a specific learning process.”
MLE = The whole range of information systems and processes of an institution (including a VLE if appropriate) that contribute directly, or indirectly, to learning and the management of that learning
VLE as toolset• Conferencing• Content• Tracking• Assignment handling• Assessment• Synchronous tools
• Blogs• Wikis• Podcasting• Social bookmarking• Eportfolio
VLE as pervasive technology• 94 percent of American colleges and universities use
at least one type of electronic courseware for distance education and/or as a supplement to the traditional classroom
• Two–thirds of faculty members who initially use an LMS continue to do so for future courses
• 86% of respondents from UK HE institutions have VLE and 70% of UK FE colleges.
The VLE choices• In-house development• Commercial VLE• Open Source• Service oriented architecture
Current state of play• OECD/OBHE 2004 survey in 13 countries• All had VLE• 37% have institution-wide VLE• 90% expect to have single VLE in next 5 years• 52% use commercial system• Rest use combination of in-house and open source• No institution had just OS • 31% had portal• 6.6% had CMS
Expanding HE• 1900: 500,000 students globally 2000: 100,000,000• 1990s the number of worldwide students grew by around 3.9% a year• Rate of increase was markedly greater in the developing world than the developed
world.• In America, the numbers of students in higher education institutions who are over
24 years old has already overtaken the number which is between 18 and 24 • The global turnover, in financial terms, of Higher Education = $550 billion per year.• The UK government have committed themselves to a target of 50% by 2010. That
would imply an increase of around 250,000 students by that time.• The Chinese govt. aim for a 15% enrolment rate by 2010 implying around 16
million students.• HEFCE:2002 to 2010 there could be an increase in demand of between 180,000
and 250,000 students.
So…
= A lot of people using the same technology
And using technology for learning is different from other uses
VLE = a proxy for changes in higher education(?)
+
Democrats vs revolutionaries
staff development
aca
dem
ic s
taff
innovationtradition
critical mass
cottage industrymainstream
Robustness
Reliability
Ease of use
Flexibility
Excitement
Technological flair
Rigour
Usabilty
New tools
New approaches
Democrats Revolutionaries
Number of academics
Tradition Innovation
OS VLEs
Democrats Revolutionaries
Number of academics
Tradition Innovation
Previous OS VLEs
Democrats Revolutionaries
Number of academics
Tradition Innovation
Commercial VLEs
How did we get here?
Plant succession
Technology succession“technological environments are not merely passive containers of people but are active processes that reshape people and other technologies alike” (McLuhan 1962)
That Blackboard patent
Why software patents are dangerous•You have a system that is organized by courses. The system can be accessed by different users from different computers. Users can access multiple courses and can have different access privileges assigned to each course based on the roles of student, instructor, and/or administrator.•An instructor can create and edit pages in a course space.•Courses have an announcements page where announcements can be created and edited by the instructor. (Michael Feldstein)•Attempt to prevent succession…
Trends• Technologies are not developed for use within
education • There is a move towards socially focused tools and
away from content-focused ones • Technologies move from niche to mainstream in a short
time frame • The tools occupy a specific communication niche
Changing times• Nearly all institutions had moved to an institution-
wide system. • Few institutions operated an in-house solution. • The VLEs will be divided equally between
commercial and open source solutions. • Specialization and localization will occur through the
use of services.
Where are we going?• VLE research directions
Democratisation of the MLE space• Feature annexation
Democratisation of the MLE space 2• Feature annexation • Competitive systems
VLE
Content management system
Portal
Student record system
Library
Portal
VLE
Student record system
Library
Content management system
Democratisation of the MLE space 3• Feature annexation • Competitive systems• Different configurations
– E.g. Portal as central component
Democratisation of the MLE space 4• Feature annexation • Competitive systems• Different configurations – Portal as VLE• Appropriate metaphors
Web 2.0• Both an approach and a set of technologies• Web as platform • Harnessing collective intelligence • Evolutionary development• Lightweight programming models
This time, though, the clash isn't between a platform and an application, but between two platforms, each with a radically different business model: On the one side, a single software provider, whose massive installed base and tightly integrated operating system and APIs give control over the programming paradigm; on the other, a system without an owner, tied together by a set of protocols, open standards and agreements for cooperation
“users add value and the technology or site needs to be set up so that it encourages participation”
Users must be treated as co-developers, … The open source dictum, “release early and release often” in fact has morphed into an even more radical position, “the perpetual beta,” in which the product is developed in the open, with new features slipstreamed in on a monthly, weekly, or even daily basis….
VLE 2.0• How would a VLE 2.0 be
constructed? • Service oriented• Tools tested and released• Standards based• Unique configurations• Incorporate external tools• Localized configurations• Personalised
• What does web 2.0 education feel like?
• Students as co-creators• Reuse• Less rigid boundaries• Social
VLE 2.0
Lightweight programming
Continual updating
Students as co-creators
Harnessing collective intelligence
Social software
Open architecture
Reusable content and components
Personalised
Based around services
Scott Wilson
Personalization • A benefit of e-learning• Tools that promote it• Data mining• Creation of suitable content• PLEs• Privacy• Loss of common experience• Impact upon behaviour• Impact upon pedagogy
Reuse• Learning objects – creation, impact, success factors,
experience• Software components• Learning designs• Granularity of reuse• Open content
Education business models • Content as (free) commodity• Support models• Licensing content• Partnerships• Accreditation• Unbundling of university functions
E-learning pedagogy • Effectiveness, student experience• Influence of tools and technology • Costs • Learning design
Shifting boundaries• Classroom and external• Formal and informal• Tools and content• Between institutions
Affordances
Do we instinctively communicate differently with different technologies?
Can we capture all the affordances in a learning experience?
Develop a suite of tools that have different affordances
Known unknowns
Known knowns Creating content based courses
Use of forums
Pedagogy
Standard tool sets
Newer technologies
Known unknowns Impact of web 2.0
Impact of digital natives
Impact of open content
Globalisation
Unknown unknowns Technology