medida.info

Slashdot – hallowed ground for die-hard techies – is again tackling the question of experiences with online education. The general tone is negative – too much reading in online courses, discussions are too shallow, not enough time “doing”, too expensive, and so on. Most of the complaints (other than those relating to costs) are not a function of learning online, but rather of the course design. A well designed online course can be an excellent learning experience. General loathing of higher education also makes it’s way into the forum. This hatred of higher education is starting to frustrate me. Education is an equalizing system – the only one that addresses the inequalities generated by other systems. Some of those who are most vocal in their opposition to education (and schooling in general) will be the ones who would lose the most if the system did actually disappear. Take away the ideals, the underpinning of democracy, and you end up with a utilitarian system that serves only to prepare people for employment.

Last year, I suggested we need a Technologically Externalized Knowledge and Learning device – i.e. a “learnometer” that tracks our interactions with content, information, technology, and people. Everything is recorded. Everything is analyzed. Everything is geared to extended and personalizing learning. Today, I encountered a device that mimics a bit of this: Hitachi’s Life Microscope. It’s focused on fitness activities, but it indicates the direction of devices monitoring what we do…the next extension is to integrate it with our learning habits/eportfolios.

This is just a variation of the question that was discussed at length (without much conclusion) about the web and social media – Are iPads/Mobiles changing the way we think?: “Today’s technology may be determining not just how we spend our time: It actually may be “rewiring” the way we think, how we experience the world around us.”

The question is too vague to be useful. Technology is changing our social habits. It is changing how we find and interact with information. In this regard, it is also changing our capacity to “be intelligent in networks”. If that’s what the author means by “changing the way we think”, then, yes, absolutely it is. If the author is referring to biological changes in the brain, it could (and has been) argued that our experiences in life change our brain structure. However, changes to the deep structures of thought – for example logic – are speculative at best. It seems to me that technology is messing around with the periphery of the human brain in how we interact with the world and phenomena in general…but changes to deep structures of the brain are far less conclusive.

A month ago or so, I was contacted by Xyleme voices to do a podcast on social learning networks: from theory to practice. The podcast is now available (runs 19 min).

In a related post, Dawn Polous asks is there a better to social learning?

Huge congrats to George Veletsianos on the release of his text Emerging Technologies in Distance Education with AU Press. The text includes contributions from many of the leaders in the use of technologies in various educational settings. The text consists of four sections: foundations of emerging technologies in DE, learning designs for emerging tech, social, organizational, contextual factors in implementation, and interaction/communication with emerging tech.

(on a related note, you may find the handbook of emerging technologies for learning (.pdf) that I did with Peter Tittenberger to be of interest as well)

Carrying on with the discussion of web 3.0 and web eXtended, I’ve posted a few thoughts on the xWeb: “xWeb is the utilization of smart, structured data drawn from our physical and virtual interactions and identities to extend our capacity to be known by others and by systems.”

I’m delivering a presentation in a few weeks to a “large technology company that everyone knows but I can’t name because of onerous procedures for clearing name use” on Connectivism in the Enterprise: .doc file and Google docs version.

The paper doesn’t really include anything new…but is an attempt to explore connectivist learning models in business settings.

Steve Wheeler shares a presentation Web 3.0: The way forward?. Steve takes a three-fold view of web development: 1.0=linking, 2.0=participation, 3.0=existing data reconnected for smarter uses. Stephen Downes responds “let me be the first to name the new web: Web eXtended (or just Web X)…idea of Web X is that it combines web 2.0 (social web) and web 3.0 (semantic web) to create what I have called, in the past, the semantic social web. But it’s more than just that, because it takes these and moves them off the web and into your hand. And more than just that, because it’s the web of data, the geoweb, augmented media, the 3D web, and more. The eXtended web – the web, extended from the internet, into your life.”

The development of the semantic web, linked data, and open data, coupled with location-awareness, recommender systems, augmented reality, data overlays, and similar developments is having a dramatic impact on how people interact with information and each other. Steve and Stephen have attempted to quantify the nature of that change and to name it. My own interest is more focused on how to use these developments to improve learning. This is coming together somewhat in the emerging field of learning analytics (conference announcement on that some time in the next few weeks!). Regardless of name/focus, the inclusion of smart(er) data in mobiles and learning will open new (and exciting) doors for education and learning in general.

Education, like news, journalism, and marketing, is undergoing a substantial shift. Essentially, the individual formerly known as “student” now has far greater control over information, conversation, and access to experts outside of the classroom. Broadcast lectures are giving way to interaction and learner control. A great example of a similar shift can be seen in what marks an important point in marketing and PR: the Old Spice campaign. Basically, the campaign blends traditional media with social and real time media. The actor in the commercials has been responding via short videos (15-35 seconds each) to questions on Twitter, Facebook, Digg, and other services. At last count, over 180 short videos had been posted – a wonderful, and amusing, way to waste time. Some have called it “the best use of social media yet” and that the campaign will “turn out to be the case study from how to turn advertising into content and how to use social media to activate mainstream coverage”. The making of the videos is a big shift from planned image control that most companies exhibit. Writing and production happens in real time without usual vetting/discussion, exhibiting strong trust between the company and the ad agencies.
Perhaps we should model an Old Spice educational campaign: real time learning driven by learners questions in various distributed tools, not the instructor’s pre-planned content in a classroom or LMS. But with shirts on.

I pay for apps on my mobile that I would not pay for in my browser. I’m not sure why. Convenience? Habit? The ease of purchasing an app on iTunes vs. entering credit card information for content in a browser? This past week, I encountered two articles that forecast the end of free content online and the closing of the digital frontier. Both articles start with the same (mis)quote of “information wants to be free”. The closing of the digital frontier then moves on to exploring the roots of the philosophy of free and openness, arguing that it is “an idea that we have largely taken for granted [that] is in fact the product of a very specific ideology.” Both articles explore the growth of paid-apps on mobiles. The CS Monitor article focuses more on content – TV programs, Youtube rentals, pay walls. Both, however, suggest that we are in the twilight of the free and open content movements. The open and free ideology is essentially labelled as one that has failed…a cover for a land grab – a Manifest Destiny of sorts. The “colonization and exploitation of the web was a foregone conclusion”.

An interesting debate is unfolding in the University of California. UC is striving to be “the nation’s first top-tier research institution to offer a bachelor’s degree over the Internet comparable in quality to its prestigious campus program”. But, not surprisingly, some faculty and students find the move to online education unsatisfying and beneath their lofty self-view: the “cyber campus to be just the beginning of a frightening trajectory that will undoubtedly end in the complete implosion of public higher education”. A faculty report (.pdf) is equally negative: “not only degraded education but centralized academic policy that undermines faculty control of academic standards and curriculum as well as campus autonomy…a picture emerges of undergraduates jammed through a mediocre education and ladder rank faculty substantially removed from both control over and involvement with undergraduate education”. The UC process is worth watching closely. It’s a potential jumping off point for many traditional educational institutions to begin focused adoption of online learning…

I’ve mentioned Athabasca University’s Landing previously. The Landing is a social network (based on Elgg) that we’ve deployed to increase social connectedness at Athabasca. I’ve posted a few thoughts on what needs to be done to move social networked learning forward.

While Blackboard is unable to write a press release that includes clear statements like “we have purchased these companies”, I have to give the company credit for the acquisition of Elluminate (and Wimba).

With increased competition and general maturity of the market, Blackboard made what is likely its most important acquisition to date. Here’s why.

The learning management system market has become somewhat of a commodity – Blackboard has attempted to hold high market share through acquisitions (notably WebCT and Angel). However, open source initiatives like Moodle offer reasonable alternatives. Desire2Learn – the object of a failed Blackboard lawsuit (new t-shirt slogan for BB “all I got from this lawsuit was this lousy reputation”) – continues to be an active player (a reasonable argument could be made that Blackboard is largely responsible for the rapid uptake of Moodle following the announcement of its lawsuit…has anyone done a market share analysis that traces adoption of Moodle in relation to the lawsuit? A bit ironic that BB is likely responsible for the unintended success of one of its largest competitors). A North American-centric market share diagram is available here. In Europe, Fronter is also a prominent LMS provider.

Take a step back to 2001/02: pre-YouTube, pre-Facebook pre-Twitter. During this period, online learning was a mess. No clear direction on standards. Web 2.0 was not yet a marketing term and conference paper buzzword. Most of the focus in online learning was on content creation tools and delivery systems (like the LMS). LMS providers were signing state/provincial and regional contracts, essentially locking in entire systems. Most administrators – and I think this is still true today – were unaware of e-pedagogy or teaching and learning with technology in general. Rather than being an enabler of new learning opportunities, technology was largely and extension of existing classrooms or distance learning models. Very little consideration was given to the strategic adoption of technology.

Over the last eight years, the market has experience enormous change (web 2.0, virtual worlds, social media, networked learning). But many things have settled in the process. Some universities are beginning to focus on a big-picture view of technology: making learning resources available in multimedia, integrating technology from design to delivery, using mobile technologies, and increased focus on network pedagogy. Blackboard (and LMS’ in general) have been able to present the message that “you need an LMS to do blended and online learning”.

To counter this view, the edupunk/DIY approach to learning has produced an emphasis on personal learning environments and networks. To date, this movement has generated a following from a small passionate group of educators, but has not really made much of an impact on traditional education. I don’t suspect it will until, sadly, it can be commoditized and scaled to fit into existing systemic models of education. Perhaps Downes’ Plearn research project, or OU’s SocialLearn project will prove me wrong (I really hope they do!!). For the purposes of this post, however, the brave new world of online learning will be dominated by LMS like Moodle, Blackboard, Desire2Learn, and regional players like Fronter.

Synchronous teaching, learning, and collaboration tools have matured significantly during this time period. In academia, Wimba and Elluminate are the dominant players. Adobe Connect has somewhat of an academic presence, but it has seen far more success in corporate settings, similar to WebEx and GoToMeeting. Synchronous tools represent the fastest growing technology segment in education, and the one with the greatest prospect for future growth. Over the last few years, I’ve been a community partner with Elluminate (an arrangement that expires (is up for renewal?) on July 19). Together with people like Stephen Downes, Dave Cormier, Tony Karrer, Jay Cross, and others, I’ve run courses and conferences with tens of thousands of participants. Elluminate was an integral part of these activities. Consistently, the technology of the course/conference that received the most compliments was Elluminate. Budget cuts and constraints in education will continue drive the appeal of synchronous tools.

Blackboard’s purchase marks an important shift in trajectory – even maturation – for the LMS marketplace. Integration, not the platform itself, is now the critical focus. LMS companies have for years formed partnerships with content producers and with synchronous tools – I believe both BB and Desire2Learn had partnerships with Elluminate and Wimba. To be effective in the long term, large LMS companies will need to pull more and more of the education experience under their umbrella. Why? Well, technology is getting complex. Very complex. Which means that decisions makers are motivated (partly out of fear of appearing ill-informed, partly out of not wanting to take risks) to adopt approaches that integrate fairly seamlessly across the education spectrum. Why buy an LMS when you can buy the educational process?

This puts companies like Desire2Learn in a bind. I’ve met John Baker – CEO of Desire2Learn – numerous times. He’s an extremely informed and capable person. I suspect he has a good sense of the shift from LMS-as-platform to LMS-as-integration. And, in a small field like ours, the Elluminate/Wimba acquisition was probably signaled to insiders. But what does D2L do now that it has a competitor that has pulled a key market segment under its umbrella?

The most obvious response is to look for similar companies to purchase. But who is left? Blackboard did not buy into the synchronous education market with the Elluminate and Wimba purchase – they bought the market. Sure, there are open source initiatives, but every conference where I have presented using a tool other than Elluminate or Connect has had technical problems. The open source market for synchronous tools is not well developed. The best option at this stage is for D2L to announce funding and development support for an open source tool like Big Blue Button. Better yet, initiate (fund) a consortium of educational institutions that will provide funds and development support for the tool. I’m sure there are many individuals who would be pleased to assist in moving things forward (I know I would).

In the mean time, well played, Blackboard! Your acquisition will have a far greater long term impact in educational technology than most people realize…

I just received an email saying that Blackboard, Wimba, and Elluminate were forming some type of union. The message is practically useless – did BB buy Elluminate? Did they just decide to work on integration? If you’re going to announce something, speak in the language of your readers not your company. I don’t care if you want to be friends as a company. I don’t care how pleased or happy you are. But as a very active Elluminate user, I care *greatly* when I read this in an announcement from Blackboard “As excited as we are about the longer term promise of working together in this way, we realize that as clients of Elluminate and Wimba you will naturally be concerned about the short-term impacts of this news” – I get quite worried (as would any user of a company that has just been purchased by Blackboard – WebCT, Angel). From the press release, it really looks like Elluminate has been purchased (I’m less interested in what it looks like for Wimba – I haven’t used their products for years).

Augmented reality, not surprisingly, blends the virtual and the physical world (throw in the internet of things and suddenly the physical world becomes a canvas for digital graffiti). Foursquare has launched a new layers service that would allow organizations to add an interpretive layer to buildings and locations. Consider a history student visiting Fort Edmonton and being able to see a data overlay that reflects the experience of missionaries, fur traders, and indigenous peoples – what a potentially valuable and multi-faceted learning experiences. Or, for something more controversial, what about digital copyright infringement where existing copyright protected images/logos are given a more, um, opinionated slant.

Disclaimer: I am an Elluminate Community Partner. Which means that I may be slightly biased .

On Friday, Jenny, Roy, and John presented their research paper on the Ideals and Reality of Participating in a Massively Open Online Course (.pdf). The paper was delivered at the Networked Learning Conference in May. The recording of the Elluminate session is available here (a few audio problems in the first few minutes). It was a great session – both the presentation and the discussion.

Following the event, Jenny posted a few thoughts on the difference between presenting in Elluminate vs. presenting at a traditional conference:

It’s ironic that I spent over £1000 of my own money getting myself to the Networked Learning Conference where we had just 20 minutes to present our paper, were allowed time for only one question, where the session was attended by less than half the people in yesterday’s Elluminate session and where there was no follow up discussion ….. and yet yesterday for the Elluminate session, I could sit in the comfort of my own home, with a cup of coffee, seated in a comfortable chair, incurring no additional expense and discuss our research with 40 people!

Information in networks often reflects the silo structure of hierarchies. In theory , networks are conducive to information flow. In reality, social networks are often bounded by the views, opinions, and beliefs of the network. Which means that information will flow well through the nodes within a particular small world, information that challenges the views held by individuals within the bounded network will often not flow. Bounded networks – such as Daily Kos or Instapundit – have limited meaningful exchange with each other. Networks like Twitter allow for network formation through followers and lists, but the main twitter trending topic and hashtags can’t be bounded as readily as the follower networks. Viegas and Wattenberg have an excellent talk on how Google suggested search and Twitter hashtags provide insight into themes produced by searchers and comments.

Toward the end of the short presentation, they discuss how Twitter hashtags are used to reach across clustered networks – i.e. how Republicans and Democrats tag posts to engage (taunt) each other. This might seem like a fairly simple concept, but it’s a powerful illustration of the need for networks to incorporate opportunities for exchange between different clusters of thoughts/views/beliefs. That’s the technical solution to better information flow.

The social solution rests in the work of educators. Assisting learners in recognizing the need for engagement outside of structured networks is a key challenge. Partly, this resembles information literacy – what’s the source? what’s the evidence? what is the bias?, etc. But rather than only evaluating the nature of information being encountered, consideration needs to be given to the breadth and nature of that information. When learning in networks, it’s important for learners to pursue intentional diversity.

The Open University in UK has hit 20 million downloads on iTunes. Impressive. But what has been the impact? Has iTunes been “good” for OU? How could that question even be answered? For individual learners, I assume iTunes lectures/resources have been helpful for learning. But who are these learners? Are they enrolled at OU? Or are they taking the courses for personal learning? Or as support resources for courses they are taking with other institutions? What about the lecturers? Have open lectures provided reach and recognition similar to publishing an article in a peer-review journal? Does OU see a return on its investment in creating and sharing resources via iTunes? Or is that investment best seen as the university serving its public role? Obviously, there are many questions and insights behind the “20 million downloaded” statement…

Open invitation:
I’ve managed to convince Jenny, John, and Roy to present a paper on their experience in the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge course online:
When: On Friday, July 2, at 11:00 am EST (Time zone conversations)
Where: Here in Elluminate

Topic: The Ideals and Reality of Participating in a Massive Open Online Course

This was a paper presented to the Networked Learning Conference 2010. The three authors, Jenny Mackness, Sui Fai John Mak and Roy Williams attended and met on the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge open online course in 2008, which came to be known as CCK08. The result of our meeting and learning, was a collaborative research project in which we explored learners’ experiences on the course and the implications of autonomy, diversity, openness and connectedness (the principles of connectivism) for learning and course design.
In this presentation we look forward to sharing this research and discussing emerging issues.

The paper is available here.

The physical and virtual worlds are blurring. The popularity of geo-location tools is an early indication of what the future holds for digital/physical integration. Currently, this integration exists mainly to communicate your location with your physical network or splash a bit of digital graffiti on a business or organization. Sites like historypin seem like a logical extension of basic location-based social networks and offer exciting learning opportunities through historical or multi-perspective data overlay on existing physical spaces.