Trust No LMS (2006)


Published on

Jared Stein describes how education should shape the face of the "learning management system" in the future.

Published in: Technology, Design
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Love talking with folks like Scott and John Highly energized Sense of combibility, as if on the cusp of an explosion, in many ways a revolution Scott gave the what and I think I’ll give the why
  • My perspective on a phenomenon that I’ve observed in 10+ years of building online courses Before we really had LMS we had a grouping of individualized tools, Web server for discuss, Web server for content, FTP server for student uploads, servers for email, Micrograde for grades, survey monkey
  • Monolithic, centralized, not necessarily comparable quality, but 1 stop shopping is benefit
  • Now we are seeing opensource LMSs which mimick the feature set of commercial LMSs but also provide advantages of openness Lightweight, moodle built on php, any student web programmer can do this No corporate overhead or slowdown, anyone with an idea can contribute and make modules LMS is fully customizable if you have someone to do the coding Not just for development, but also for support, best value of WebCT was WebCT community Community pushes it to colleagues, grows it,
  • What are we seeing now? New tools are driven by Web 2.0 ideals; OLE VLE PLE
  • Talked about Web 2.0 Highlight some of the features. Is this who your learners are?
  • is this reality is this true and if so why?
  • Here are some answers to the question of why people are using tools external to LMS Unsubstantiated pedagogical value Incompatible with constraints of LMS
  • Why these are used, but now ask why should these be used pedagogically? Here are the most objectively positive features I see of Web 2.0 tools Tools provide learning experiences that are dynamic, authentic, permeable, integrated Who are our learners?
  • classroom communities (more artificial, may lack meaningful diversity, still focused on student to content) cohort communities (slightly less artificial, more diversity, two-way learning) field communities (more authentic, less accessible?, may be more chaotic [though such ill-structured scenarios may present more complex learning opportunities) Community projects Design studio Inquiry (e.g., action research) Cases for study & exploration Group support for exams Discussions of readings Writer’s workshop
  • What’s this? Second Life 3D virtual world Users build, create, design, work, buy, and sell – how about Learning? Blur socialness of school with online Integrated, Permeable
  • SLoodle creative educational experiment that merges Moodle with Second Life. One thing reduced in the online experience is the affective element of pleasure Recall fond educational experiences, often involved pleasurable social interactions with peers Second Life puts more pleasure back into community, it’s fun to dress up an avatar and move him/her into a meeting space, where one can see and in a game-like fashion interact with peers
  • These learners have all been our students What about learners who aren’t students? Do we have an responsibility as educators to consider learners outside of our classrooms? WHAT IS Opencourseware UK Open University moved to Moodle, and are making ed materials available freely to the public AND are adding in features for community building and discussion UK Open University’s OpenLearn LabSpace Learners engage in a self-motivated learning experience as part of a free-formed community
  • If you delve into opencourseware, I think it behooves you to consider the breadth of your potential audience, and how will learners access the content One laptop per child is an effort to design a $100 laptop that is suitable for 3 rd world conditions, granting learning media and engagement opportunities to students who might otherwise never have such access
  • Webct discussion vs Moodle Metacourse Wiki content vs LMS-bound content WOuldn’t it be great to have collaboratively created content with collaboratively matched assessments and activities?
  • Semantic web
  • Prepare learners to enter the profession Simulate the real environment before learners enter it Ensure quality independent practice
  • Trust No LMS (2006)

    1. 1. Trust No LMS Jared Stein, Utah Valley State
    2. 2. Discussion Forum Surveys Grades FTP server Web Server E-mail, listservs
    3. 3. Centralized Commerical LMS <ul><li>Course content </li></ul><ul><li>Assessments </li></ul><ul><li>Assignments </li></ul><ul><li>Dropbox </li></ul><ul><li>Forums </li></ul><ul><li>Mail </li></ul><ul><li>Grades </li></ul>
    4. 4. Centralized Opensource LMS <ul><li>Lightweight </li></ul><ul><li>Agile development </li></ul><ul><li>Customizable </li></ul><ul><li>Community-driven </li></ul>
    5. 5. Decentralized Learner-Orchestrated Blog(s) Wiki(s) Course content Assessments Assignments Interactions Course content Assessments Assignments Interactions
    6. 6. Web 2.0 Buzz Time Bar - Jürgen Schiller García
    7. 7. The huge cloud lens bubble map web2.0 - Markus Angermeier
    8. 8. Decentralized Learner-Orchestrated OLE Blog(s) Wiki(s) Course content Assessments Assignments Interactions Course content Assessments Assignments Interactions
    9. 9. Why? <ul><li>LMSs haven’t caught up </li></ul><ul><li>Part of students’ lives </li></ul><ul><li>Unsubstantiated value </li></ul><ul><li>Incompatible with LMS </li></ul><ul><li>Blackboard owns all the patents </li></ul>
    10. 10. Decentralized Learner-Orchestrated OLE Blog(s) Wiki(s) dynamic authentic permeable Integrated Course content Assessments Assignments Interactions Course content Assessments Assignments Interactions
    11. 11. Authentic Communities <ul><li>Classroom communities </li></ul><ul><li>Cohort communities </li></ul><ul><li>Field communities </li></ul>
    12. 12.
    13. 13.
    14. 14. http:// OpenLearn LabSpace
    15. 15. one laptop per child
    16. 16. Dynamic Resources <ul><li>Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Content </li></ul><ul><li>Activities </li></ul>Assessment Items Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
    17. 17. <ul><li>Topics </li></ul><ul><li>Criteria </li></ul>Activities Valid code Elegant code Aesthetics Usability Accessibility Code readability Semantic code Write basic Web page Create Commercial Web Site Develop “Shopping Cart” XHTML Basics Web Design Web Forms w/ PHP & mySQL Objectives Objectives Objectives
    18. 18. <ul><li>Metadata </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reusability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interoperability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Machine-readable </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Authentic Experiences <ul><li>Prepare to enter the profession </li></ul><ul><li>Simulate the real environment </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure quality independent practice </li></ul>