Webtops, Wikis, and Widgets (Feb. 2009)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Webtops, Wikis, and Widgets (Feb. 2009)



The future of learning technologies in higher education, including instructional or learning management systems.

The future of learning technologies in higher education, including instructional or learning management systems.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 2

http://community.acphs.edu 1
http://community.acphs.edu 1


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Webtops, Wikis, and Widgets (Feb. 2009) Webtops, Wikis, and Widgets (Feb. 2009) Presentation Transcript

    • Wikis, Widgets, and Webtops(The Future of IMS for Higher Ed) Lesley BlickerRSP/ITEACH ConferenceFebruary 27, 2009http://lesleyblicker.efoliomn2.com/
    • Instructional Technologies – Predictions through 2013
      • Continued development of Web 2.0 tools and “apps”
      • Continued exploration in immersive virtual worlds as learning environments
      • Growth in number of products which have 3D “engines” built in (e.g., Second Life, Lively, 3B, EON Reality)
      • More 3D modeling, robotics, holographic software used in education and sharing of 3D objects
      • Ivestigative use of Webtops for education (PageFlakes, NetVibes, iGoogle)
      • Repurposing of the IMS* as we know it
      • Emergence of startups with radically different IMS concept, not enterprise-ready
      • ~10-15% of faculty experimenting with tools outside of IMS to accomplish more student centered learning and digital content creation
      • Attempt to layer interactive tools on top of IMS
      • No let up in plea for open APIs and interoperability
      • 7-8 years – primary Web interface begins morphing to 3D; 2D lives alongside 3D or in it for a while
      • Increasing use of Open Source IMSs
      • Increasing of “computing in the clouds”
      * Instructional Management System © Lesley Blicker
    • Current State of the Current IMS Products
      Categories of IMS for higher education:
      Large enterprise systems which all have the same basic tools (assessment, discussion, quizzes/exams, gradebook, etc) and which scale and integrate with key administrative systems (email, ISRS)
      • Proprietary (e.g., D2L, eCollege, Blackboard)
      • Open Source (e.g., Sakai, Moodle)
      Small to mid-size traditional IMS products – same tools, maybe little more flexible, scalability unknown, untested (Web Study, CourseCruiser)
      Small innovative IMSs, designed for individual course level, not likely to go enterprise, but are integrating with lots of social technologies, act and feel more like social technology (UDUTU, LearnHub)
    • Current IMS (CMS) – What’s the Beef?
      IMS 1.0: Unilateral publication formats
      Labeled as false start; replicated existing classrooms
      Assumes more passive consumer of information – one-way send
      Monolithic and they don’t play well with others (API’s not truly open) – lack of interoperability
      Scott Leslie’s Video: The Future CMS slide 34 – 35 http://www.edtechpost.ca/gems/TheFutureCMS3.htm
    • Current State of the Large Commercial Enterprise IMSs
      In the 3rd Phase of Add-Ons and Bundling
      Adding more tools in general as well as limited and sometimes their own Web 2.0-like tools
      Reliable, scalable, and able to be integrated with core administrative systems (SIS, LDAP, email)
      Going some measure towards integration with other software or increasing interoperability via open APIs, but very slowly
      Lack sufficient agility for early adopters who think the current IMS format is too limiting
    • Current State of the Current IMS Products
      Agility, act more like social systems, allowing student created content
      Reliability, integrations
      Small innovative applications developed primarily for the course level, more open API. Do not expect to grow to enterprise systems or be able to integrate with administrative systems anytime soon or in the foreseeable 3-5 years
      Reliable, scalable, enterprise systems, integrate or interface with key administrative applications, flexibility and customization quite limited without additional work order; no programming allowed (D2L, BB, eCollege, Angel)
      Open Source systems, more open APIs, community of developers building and sharing customizations; also need programmers
    • Characteristics of Innovative IMSs
      Newcomers are starting to emerge with radically different IMS designs:
      • Built-in Web 2.0 (widget) functionality
      • Boundaries going well beyond the course space
      • Integration with dozens if not hundreds of applications through pre-loaded and customizable widgets (open APIs)
      • Social networking is matter-of-fact
      • Multiple-way sends are matter-of-fact
    • So Why?
    • Wikis – why?
      Two-way send
      Students populate their own content in web pages
      Has ability to change assignments from paper submission or discussion posting to interactive multi-media web pages
      Social software – profile aspect
    • Widgets, Gadgets – Why?
      Examples of software chock full of widget integration
      Wikis (WetPaint)
      Easy integration with YouTube, Flickr, Google maps, etc.
    • Webtops – Why?
    • Quick Definition Webtop
      A virtual desktop on the web, running in a web browser
      Examples: NetVibes, PageFlakes, iGoogle
    • The Webtop Phenomenon to Create a Personal Learning Environment
      A Portal to Media Literacy, M. Wesch
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4yApagnr0s – min 28
    • My Predictions for the Future IMS
      Nothing too innovative anytime soon
      The enterprise application - a mix of systems for tracking learning experiences:
      Running side-by-side with more flexible and interoperable approaches. Faculty will invent their own PLEs (personal leaning environment) I.e., g, M. Wesch using NetVibes, others using Wikis)
      Receding in importance as the primary unit of the virtual course site and will morph to an LMOS (Learning Management Operating System), maintaining administrative functions for enterprise systems (e.g., SIS integration, managing grades) and would provide the backbone for layering (instructional software living on top of the IMS)
      Not likely do it all (incorporate enough open API/integration with other technologies and remain reliable and able to integrate with SIS, core technologies needed for student integration)
      Greater adoption of Open Source IMSs as the mid-ground