Home > Teaching & Learning Technology > Open Learning Networks

Open Learning Networks

July 1st, 2008 jonmott Leave a comment Go to comments

In the mid 1990s, instructors needed an easy way to create websites for their courses. With the advent of the web, the possibility of online syllabi, course notes and even online discussion boards had become a reality. But only the most tech savvy faculty members could create such sites without technical assistance. Course management systems (CMSs) were born to meet this need. When an institution installed WebCT or Blackboard and made it available to faculty, they could quickly and easily create their own course sites. Over time, CMSs have become more robust and feature-rich. They have also become more “enterprise” in their nature. On most campuses, CMSs are integrated with Student Information Systems (SISs) and are considered part of the institution’s enterprise technology portfolio.

While these developments have generally contributed to the stability and reliability of CMSs, they have also tended to make them less flexible and adaptable. Given their enterprise status, it is complicated and expensive to perform upgrades and customize functionality (via open APIs or otherwise). In response, faculty members and students have increasingly gravitated to Web 2.0 social networking tools that provide almost a much greater range of options and flexibility. The choice appears to be a centralized, enterprise “networked learning environment” on one hand and open, customizable “personal learning environments” on the other.

As we look to the future, it is worth considering the possibility of bringing these two worlds together in what we might call “open learning networks” (OLNs). In an OLN, faculty, students and support staff would reap the benefits of enterprise, networked software for authentication, identity management, integration with SISs, etc. Additionally, they would be able to use a vast range of Web 2.0 apps, integrated into the OLN via web services and other sorts of integrations.

What exactly might this look like? The picture is still coming into focus in my mind (and I’m anxious to hear others’ thoughts and comments), but I think it would look something like this:

1. A core of institutional authentication, identify management and data integration services to bring learners and teachers together in a secure institutional environment. Once “inside” a local, institutional OLN, learners and instructors would be linked together in groups based on course enrollments, majors, clubs and other groupings recorded in various university systems. They would also be linked to content related to past and future learning experiences, projects and assignments. A key component of this aspect of the OLN would be a persistent, sharable learner profile that would serve as a hub for the learner’s various connections to other learners, content and learning applications.

2. An OLN would also provide connections / integration points with a variety of open education resource repositories, institutional content collections, and user created content tools, including various self-publishing sites like YouTube, Google Docs and blogs. The OLN would facilitate “registration” of personal learning environment tools and social networking tools so that they are trustably associated with learner profiles. For example, once inside the OLN, users would be able to see the blogs, Facebook profiles, personal content collections and other tools and resources associated with other users (based, of course, on permissions and rights to see such information).

3. The OLN would also need to be integrated with robust online assessment tools (e.g. for formative and summative quizzing and testing), a “harvesting gradebook” capable of aggregating data from a variety of learning applications, and an eportfolio tool which students could use to archive and document their learning experiences and activities.

Admittedly, this is a vague vision. But it seems to capture the best of the rigid, centralized CMS paradigm and the open, free-form world of personal learning environments.

We are beginning a conversation at BYU to explore the feasibility of creating an OLN, what it might look like at our institution and how we might go about building it. One of our first matters of business is to consider the development of an open, web services enabled university gradebook. Having such a tool in place would be an important first step toward creating a viable OLN. More to come . . .

Categories: Teaching & Learning Technology Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
  • Rob Krupicka
    I think this is right on. I'd add that courses and teaching could move beyond just academics. A true open learning platform would connect anybody with something to teach with anybody with something to learn.
  • I presented on this topic at OpenEd 2008. You can access my slides
  • Al--

    Great questions / observations. First, I don't envision any need for compulsion or duplication in the OLN world. A student wouldn't have to "leave perfectly acceptable solutions" behind--if you built the OLN right, they'd bring them with them. The secure university environment would be maintained for private or proprietary information (class schedules & rosters, grades, licensed content, etc.). The "open" aspect of the OLN would allow for a wide variety of other tools (e.g. Blogger, LinkedIn) to be "integrated" with these closed / secure resources. One possible way this might work is for students & faculty members to have profiles in the OLN which include links to their blogs, Flickr albums, Facebook profiles, etc. Of course a student who doesn't have a blog might be required to create one if instructors create blog-based assignments. But there shouldn't be a requirement for them to use any particular blogging tool.

    As for continued commitment to CMSs, there's a balance we have to strike. In the short term, there are two driving influences: (1) a very large and active user base and (2) the economics of supporting multiple CMSs across campus (e.g. hosting, system integration, training, support, etc.). Over time, we need to figure out how to open things up so students and faculty members can use the best tools for the tasks they're trying to accomplish. How we get from here to there is exactly the conversation I'm trying to start on campus. My vision / hope is that we can build an OLN which is flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of applications, services and tools with the same level of reliability and scalability we've become accustomed to.

    JM
  • Al Merkley
    Jon
    As I read the responses of others, I may be redundant in these questions. If so, I apologize.

    This is an intriguing concept. I have a couple of questions. First, what is the incentive for the "students" who are already involved in Facebook, blogging, etc. (the other Web 2.0 apps) to migrate to the more rigidly constrained enterprise OLN? I know what a pain it is for us to persuade people to leave perfectly acceptable solutions in favor of the "bigger better deal." Unless there is something coercive about it, like the usual "course requirement" or "security" excuses, I have difficulty understanding why someone would leave something that is working for them and go to something else - which by itself might be duplicative. Why would I have two Facebook accounts - one for the BYU environment and one for those who aren't "eligible" for inclusion in my BYU community? What is the incentive?

    The second question is one that you've probably debated endlessly. What are the reasons that would prevent us from taking advantage of open source CMSs like Sakai or similar programs? Several years ago, Carnegie Mellon coined the phrase "security through obscurity" in reference to their wireless solutions (or so I'm told). In any event, the question arises "How much do we pay in financial, emotional and opportunity costs for the incremental gains in security and functionality that we achieve with Blackboard and similar CMS solutions with their locked/out locked/in approach? This is particularly important when, by your own prediction, ("which I think will be an antiquated concept in 5-10 years)" this kind of solution has a relatively short shelf life - even at BYU. I wonder if we aren't victims of the 80/20 rule. 80% of the cost is giving us that last little bit of 20% functionality. Further, our direction now seems to be toward increasing our commitments to CMS programs even when we know that they will be gone in the relatively near future. Assuming that these systems will soon be gone, it seems that we ought to consider being part of the front runners rather that always coming along to play catch up. We do have the skills already at BYU to be able to think this through and execute this. The END!! Sorry for the meanderings of a deluded mind.

  • Great thoughts. I appreciate your reminder to stay focused on the learner. I try to keep my eyes on that prize, but it's easy to get distracted by "tool talk" and forget the real purpose. I agree completely that we need to figure out how to facilitate & promote greater ownership of learning by learners.
  • Although I understand the thinking behind your OLN, my concern with hosting it through a CMS at a university is that it really violates the spirit of a personal learning environment/network in that PLEs are meant to start with the learner, not the institution. In a world where we all have to be life-long learners, teaching people that these kinds of systems are linked to a particular institution doesn't show them the full power and possibilities of a PLE, nor does it empower them to be self-directed and to own their own PLEs once they leave an institution. These are seen as tools to use to get through their college experience rather than as part of a larger and life--long learning strategy.

    The other issue with an "open" learning network would be that it should be open. I may be reading you wrong, but it sounds like you're seeing the use of Web 2.0 tools as supplementing the closed network of the university and that people would be using them to connect within the walled garden of BYU. But the real value of social media and social networking lies in its power to connect you to a world-wide community of learners. It seems like this might be missed in your vision for the OLN.

    This isn't to say that it's not a step in the right direction--but it still feels very institution-centric to me.
  • Good rejoinder. I share your desire for openness and life-long, flexible access to content and learning opportunities. The reality is, though, that institutions will continue to play a central roll in the learning process for the foreseeable future. Students will still come to BYU and other institutions to pursue degrees. I'm trying to conceive of a world in which we can provide them with a robust learning environment while they're here, but not one that's "walled off" from the online worlds they create and live in before and after matriculation.

    That's why I'm still calling it a "vague vision." We need to figure out a way to bridge the closed world of the CMS (which I think will be an antiquated concept in 5-10 years) and the open world of the PLE. Instead of choosing one or the other, I'm suggesting we work toward a new model that includes the best aspects of both.

    JM
  • Jon, maybe part of the issue is in how these tools are presented to students while they're in the institution. If they are positioned as being learner-centric with connections to the university, then that communicates a sense of learner control and might help people see that this is something for the long haul. My concerns, though, are that most people when presented with institutional solutions to personal issues tend to see those solutions as being owned by the institution, particularly when it comes to schooling. A portfolio, for example, is often viewed as something that I must maintain for a grade in a class as opposed to a tool that I could use for the rest of my life. Same thing with participating in an LMS/CMS--I see it as a vehicle for delivering class content rather than as a tool I use for ongoing learning.

    I agree that your vision is definitely a step in the right direction. As I'm increasingly finding with these tools, however, the issues we have to deal with come as much from things like process and positioning as they do from the actual tools. I think we need to be much more explicit in our thinking and working with learners about how tools may unconsciously drive particular ways of thinking about learning.

  • I think this tension between the institution and the individual is key. I'm with you Jon in that I don't think it is an either/or scenario, but a both/and scenario. However, getting at it so both the institution is happy and the individual is happy is going to be challenging. We think providing solutions for both might be one way that that is accomplished.
  • I totally agree with you. Our needs in learning resources, planning management and user interaction are a lot more than what VLE/CMS platforms can give us. VLE will never respond to all the needs and tastes that different teachers, students and different learning contexts require. Luckily, the potential that new web 2.0 technologies can give us is higher. In short, we can improve if we manage to fit and guide the gradual introduction of these technologies according to our needs.

    This is not about leaving institutional services like VLE platforms, but it is about integrating them with external services by means of open APIs, so any application can talk to each other. Although this choice takes into account not only institutional tools but also external tools, it is important to select the institutional environment as the place where the tools are assembled and configured. That is why the evolution to more personal environments such as OLN or PLE (Personal Learning Environment) seems appropriate.

    In this sense, I think that what you call a "a vague vision" could be something real in the mid-term. Start pages, widgets and open APIs are the bricks for building that vision. Start pages provide a unique interface where institutional and external services can be embedded using widgets. Widgets could and should also be used to connect institutional and external services allowing automatic data flow between them.



  • I'm interested in this idea of "start pages." Have you written about them elsewhere or do you have a reference or two you can share?
  • Thanks!
blog comments powered by Disqus