Deja Vu All Over Again – Blackboard Still Stuck in the Innovator’s Dilemma

July 24th, 2009 jonmott Comments

It’s been a week (or so) since BbWorld. I’ve had the chance now to ruminate about what I saw and heard there. I wanted to let things rattle around in my head a bit before passing judgment on Blackboard’s message this year because it was increasingly clear to me that my assessment of BbWorld 2009 would be virtually the same as my assessment from 2008–Blackboard is improving at the margins, but is not addressing the fundamental weaknesses of the CMS (I use this term generically, lumping Blackboard together with Moodle, Sakai, D2L, etc.).

Improvement at the Margins

Given that BbWorld was in Washington, D.C. this year, it seems appropriate to use a political analogy here. In 1990, George C. Edwards III published At the Margins: Presidential Leadership of Congress. In this now classic study of the president’s ability to lead Congress and enact significant policy change, Edwards concluded that the presidency is so hemmed in by countervailing pressures and influences (in the form of 535 members of Congress, cabinet members, bureaucrats, interest groups, voters, the media, etc.) that presidents should not be expected, save under dramatic and rare circumstances, to effect significant change. Rather, Edwards concludes, presidents have historically been most effective when they have sought to influence change “at the margins,” moving policy incrementally in their preferred direction.

Blackboard, much like the President of the United States, is hemmed in by a large client base (variously represented by university administrators, IT staff, faculty, and students), competing visions within the company, a board of directors and stockholders, etc. It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone, then, that Blackboard’s innovations and improvements are “at the margins.” It’s exceedingly rare for a company with Blackboard’s inertia to make dramatic, revolutionary changes in the products they offer.

BbWorld Announcements & Observations

So what kinds of innovations and improvements did Blackboard announce at BbWorld 2009? I catalogued and reacted to what I heard via Twitter during the conference. For what it’s worth, I begin with a selection of my tweets, first from the keynote (I’ve opted to keep these in reverse-chronological order, as is the convention for a Twitter feed):

Then from the Listening Session:

Deja vu All Over Again

While I’m very encouraged by Blackboard’s announcement (re-iteration) of it’s intent to fully support the Common Cartridge standard and to move toward opening up its database schema for administrators, I’m left wanting much, much more. All of the major announcements–the partnership with Echo360, the acquisition of Terribly Clever, the integration with Wimba (not really new news), the Kindle integration, the focus on closing tickets faster–had little to do with the core concerns about the CMS I have been blogging about for the last year. All of Blackboard’s announcements were about improvements at the margin.

As a checkpoint, I went back and re-read my post from one year ago, written just after BbWorld 2008. Forgive me for regurgitating large portions of it here, but it’s striking how similar my reactions to this year’s BbWorld are to those of last year:

As Clayton Christensen has famously observed, the producers of innovative products gradually lose their creative, innovative edge as they acquire and then seek to protect market share. When a company’s innovations result in significant profits, managers generally find themselves face to face with the innovator’s dilemma. To remain successful, Christensen argues that companies need to listen “responsively to their customers and [invest] aggressively in the technology, products, and manufacturing capabilities that [satisfy] their customers’ next-generation needs.” However, these very same behaviors can create blind spots for innovators. By simply providing incremental improvements to existing products, companies run the risk of missing major, paradigm-shifting innovations in their market spaces. Likewise, they’re in danger of focusing too much on their existing customer bases instead of new potential customers who currently don’t user their products (non-consumers). These twin dangers leave erstwhile market leaders susceptible to disruptive technologies, provided by firms who aren’t stuck in current paradigms or too narrowly focused on pre-defined customer segments.

Blackboard finds itself squarely in the midst of this classic problem. They have a large and fairly stable customer base. Incremental feature enhancements, improved customer service and product stability are likely to keep most of their customers satisfied for time being. But what of the disrupters in the market place? If one considers open source CMS alternatives like Sakai and Moodle to be the most-disruptive players in the market, Blackboard’s strategies appear to be on the right track.

Perhaps not surprisingly (I suppose I predicted this), Blackboard did this year exactly what they did last year and exactly what Christensen cites as the pattern of incumbent market leaders: they announced new feature enhancements and indicated continued attention to and investment in customer service and product stability. As I wrote one year ago:

While I applaud these innovations as good steps in the right direction, there remain fundamental flaws with Blackboard’s (and virtually every other CMS provider’s) underlying infrastructure. For all of the new window dressing, Blackboard remains first and foremost a semester-based, content-delivery oriented, course management system. The software is not (at least noticeably) evolving to become a student-centered learning management system. And while the addition of wikis and blogs inside the Blackboard system is as welcome improvement, there is still little or no integration between student learning tools “inside the moat” and outside of it “in the cloud.”

It is for these reasons that I don’t count Sakai, Moodle, D2L or Angel [which Bb acquired since BbWorld 2008] amongst the biggest, long-term threats to Blackboard. Disruption will, I believe, come from another direction.

From whence will disruption come? More from my post last year:

In Christensen’s newest book, Disrupting Class, he and his co-authors argue that the real disruption in educational technology will come (and is already coming) via learner-centered technologies and networking tools. A rapidly growing number of people are creating their own personal learning environments with tools freely available to them, without the benefit of a CMS. As Christensen would say, they have hired different technologies to do the job of a CMS for them. But the technologies they’re hiring are more flexible, accessible and learner-centered than today’s CMSs. This is not to say that CMSs are about to disappear. Students enrolled in institutions of higher learning will certainly continue to participate in CMS-delivered course sites, but since these do not generally persist over time, the really valuable learning technologies will increasily be in the cloud.

Open learning networks have the potential to bring together the world of the CMS (or better yet “institutional learning networks”) and the world of PLEs together. The next big challenge ahead of us is to figure out ways to create autonomous, institution-independent “learner spaces” that provide home bases for learners that can bridge the two worlds. In these spaces, learners would ideally aggregate relationships, artifacts, and content from ALL of their learning activities, be they digital or analog, online or offline, synchronous or asynchronous, from one institution or many.

I heard virtually nothing at BbWorld this year which would suggest that Blackboard is actively engaged in adapting and evolving to address this challenge. Rather, they continue to innovate at the margins, maintaining their status quo, market-leading position.

What’s the Broken?

@z_rose recently blogged that the problem with the “one-stop-shop” Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) (another frequently-used term for the CMS) is that it is aimed at both learning administration and learning facilitation. These are not, she astutely notes, the same things and VLEs end up doing both poorly.

Both administration and pedagogy are necessary in schools. They are also completely different in what infrastructure they require. This (in my opinion) has been the great failing of VLEs – they all try to squeeze the round pedagogy peg into the square administration hole.

It hasn’t worked very well. Trying to coax collaboration in what is effectively an administrative environment, without the porous walls that social media thrives on, hasn’t worked. The ‘walled garden’ of the VLE is just not as fertile as the juicy jungle outside, and not enough seeds blow in on the wind.

That’s why I’m always cautious of the ‘one-stop-shop’ approach in education – administration and pedagogy are very, very different shops. It’s like having a fishmongers and a haberdashers sharing the same store – no discernible upsides, but a LOT of downsides (stinky fabric springs to mind).

Blackboard and every other CMS / VLE have become exceedingly efficient course content and course administrivia management tools. If data from BYU’s Blackboard usage surveys can be taken as a reasonable guide, most faculty members use Blackboard for administrative, not teaching and learing, purposes, i.e., content dissemination, announcements, e-mail, and gradebooking (70% plus use Bb for these purposes). Dramatically smaller portions (less than 30%) use the teaching and learning tools provided Blackboard (e.g., quizzes, discussion boards, groups, etc.). Increasingly, they’re going to the cloud to use tools that are far better and more flexible than those provided natively inside the CMS.

In 2004, George Siemens wrote, “The real issue is that LMS vendors are attempting to position their tools as the center-point for elearning – removing control from the system’s end-users: instructors and learners.” This is still all-t0o-true five years later. In most CMS implementations, it is exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) for teachers and especially individual learners to take control of the learning environment and shape it to their particular needs. For example, by default, students are generally not able to start their own discussion threads in CMS-delivered courses. Siemens elaborated on these end-user roadblocks, noting that LMSs roundly fail in three significant ways:

  • The rigidity and underlying design of the tool “drives/dictates the nature of interaction (instructors-learner, learner-learner, learner-content).”
  • The interface is too focused on “What do the designers/administrators want/need to do?” rather than on “What does the end user want/need to do?”
  • “Large, centralized, mono-culture tools limit options. Diversity in tools and choices are vital to learners and learning ecology.”

Notably, the absence of LMS-integrated synchronous conferencing and collaboration tools has been largely remedied within the various CMSs. But these other three substantial shortcomings have yet to be addressed. And I would add a critically important fourth weakness–today’s CMSs do not support continuous, cumulative learning throughout a student’s career at an institution, let alone throughout their life after they exit our institutions. As I have written previously, students are completely at the mercy of the institution when it comes to their “presence” and participation in a CMS. They are placed in arbitrarily organized sections of courses for 15-week periods and then “deleted,” as if they never existed in the system. As David Wiley has pondered, how many of us would use Facebook if Facebook deleted our friend connections and pictures every four months?

The fundamental dilemma with the CMS as we know it today is that it is largely a course-centric, lecture-model reinforcing technology with its center of gravity in institutional efficiency and convenience. As such, it is a technology that inclines instructors and students to “automate the past,” replicating previous practice using new, more efficient and more expensive tools instead of innovating around what really matters–authentic teaching, learning, and assessment behaviors.

Blackboard’s Opportunity?

Lest I come across as a Blackboard/CMS naysayer or doomsayer, I should note that, in their early days, Blackboard and other CMSs were the disruptive technology. They were the source of innovation and new thinking about how we organize to teach and learn. However, roughly a decade after the inception of the CMS, the academic community finds itself again ripe for disruption, not only of the technology we use to “manage courses” but in the very system itself. While many will continue to innovate at the margins, there are large crowds of non-consumers out there clamoring for something that meets their needs. At BYU, for example, 25% of our faculty members opt to use a blog, a wiki, or a custom-built course website instead of Blackboard or another CMS. These are the non-consumers Christensen reminds us that we need to figure out how to serve. The same goes for the “non-traditional” students who either aren’t wired to learn the way we’re organized to teach them (in course-sized chunks, bundled in units of time we call semesters) or who, for a variety of reasons, don’t have access to our institutions.

Blackboard still has the opportunity to facilitate discussion and innovation around these critical issues. The company took an important step in this direction by organizing the “Pipeline Matters” session the day before BbWorld, bringing together educational leaders from K12, community colleges, traditional “higher ed” instituitons, and edudcational associations. As a fortunate participation in this conversation, I recognize and appreciate Blackboard’s unique position (with its roughly 3000 client institutions) in the educational space to bring together a broad and diverse set of educational players to address issues such as the one we did last week–how can we improve our efforts to keep students in school and to help them easily re-enter and succeed when they, despite our best efforts, leak out of the “pipeline”?

These sorts of questions are critically important not only to educators, but also to Blackboard’s immediate future and direction because they can compel the company to get outside its comfort zone and rethink how it does what it does and why it does it.

Blackboard can still play a leading role in education. But it needs to think more about end-users and about non-consumers, not just about the universtity administrators who purchase and implement their products. That’s an admittedly tall order for a publicly-traded corporation to take on. But, as Christensen argues, they have to figure out a way to do so if they’re to remain relevant. That’s precisely the innovator’s dilemma.

As I conclude last year, if Blackboard doesn’t innovate, someone else will.

And it won’t be long.

From “Pipeline” to “Learning Cycle”

July 13th, 2009 jonmott Comments

I’m attending the Blackboard sponsored “Pipeline Matters Council” on improving K20 education.

We started off with a “pipeline” model that was limited in three significant ways:

  1. It was too linear, implying one ideal sequence through which students should progress.
  2. It didn’t adequately account for the multiplicity of entry and exit points in the learning cycle as students “churn” or “swirl” in and out of formal education.
  3. It wasn’t clearly focused on the ultimate endgame, i.e., workforce / life productivity.

The new model is much more dynamic and reflective of reality.

Learning Life Cycle Visualization

Click to Enlarge

We’re still working on the model, but the big question now is this: If this is the real (ideal) model, what about the status quo do we need to jettison and what new ideas, technologies, and modalities do we need to introduce to get better results?

Here are some of the group’s brainstormed ideas about what the ideal system would look like.

  • Make curriculum dynamic rather than static
  • Allow learning practice to shape policy, not policy shaping practice
  • Flexible, individualized learning
  • Adjust for societal, cultural differences
  • Support multiple entry & (successful) exit points
  • Modular & competency based
  • Realigned incentives that emphasize authentic learning (aligned with career / job market requirements)

The bottom line is that we need to turn the current equation on its head. The status quo is satisfactory to the elites who created, run, and benefit from it, but not necessarily for the students. As @UrbanEducation pondered the other day, “How would education change, if kids had their very own well paid lobbyists?” How do we change the equation, focusing more on what value we add to our students lives and how we add it?

Categories: General Tags:

Rethinking Failure, Learning, and Achievement

Failure is a fact of life.

Some of the most important lessons I’ve learned in my life have come as the result of my most painful failures.

If we don’t take risks, we can’t achieve greatness. We’re also likely to avoid spectacular, conspicuous failure; but, that’s what taking risks and learning are all about. We strive, we fail sometimes, we learn from our mistakes, we adjust our performance, and ultimately achieve our goals. Just ask anyone who has learned to play a musical instrument or to speak a new language how many mistakes they made before they achieved competence. Or ask anyone who has played a video game, “dying” hundreds of times before finally winning the game. Or ask Michael Jordan:
Jordan understands that failure is a fact of life when you take risks, when you strive for greatness: “I’ve failed over, and over, and over again in my life. And that is why . . . I succeed.”

The Failure Stigma in Higher Ed

I’ve long been perplexed by the higher ed culture that discourages (punishes) failure and shies away from introspective admission and discussion of our failures and what we’ve learned from them. Christopher Blake has summed up our irrational avoidance of the reality of failure in the learning process:

Rarely do we tell students that we do not know how much they will learn, that we cannot even be sure of the outcomes, that they will have to participate communally before they will learn, that learning may confront their status quo in an uncomfortable fashion or, even more important, that we all fail sometimes and so will they. Indeed, we do our best to exclude such shocking realities from our sanitized curricula and learning environments. . . . Any learning worth its name is troubling, engaging, shared, interdependent, and uncertain: It can be destabilizing to our present selves, individually and collectively.

Blake argues that we’ve abandoned legitimate opportunities for learning greatness because we’ve embraced (at least the perception of) safety and security afforded by nice and tidy summative assessments of student ability and performance. Instead, we should make our institutions “dangerous, risk-laden, and discomforting places for mental exploration, where we don’t have to be stellar individuals to justify our presence. Let’s cut the safety net from below our students but help them back on their feet when they fall. We might then begin to make the academy a more secure place for dangerous learning.” In other words, places where there’s lots and lots of formative assessment, consistently guiding and re-guiding learners as they fail, over and over again, iterating toward achievement.

Blake’s underlying premise is that we cannot learn without failure. Pretending otherwise is foolish and short-sighted. James Joyce observed that, “Mistakes are the portals of discovery.” Failure is a fact of life. It’s going to happen whether we like it or not. I’ve failed multiple times today. I haven’t kept track of all of my failures today (too many to count), but I just “failed” typing the word “haven’t” at the beginning of this sentence and had to backspace to correct my error. The backspace key is my indispensable friend. I’m constantly making mistakes while typing. But I keep typing because I get better and better the more I do it. The key is that I have a mechanism (the backspace key) for low-cost do overs. My typing behavior is what the folks at Slow Leadership call “conscious incompetence“:

Conscious Incompetence is the action of doing something that you know that you cannot do properly, competently, or at all, for the purpose of learning or practicing how to do it better. It’s consciously and deliberately going out of your depth to learn how to swim well. In the process, you also let go of your pride and allow yourself to appear awkward, foolish, and sometimes stupid.

Supportive Learning Environments

To help our students achieve great things, to do things that have never done before, we have to encourage and reward risk. We can’t punish all of the little errors along the way that novices are bound to make. We shouldn’t expect mastery the first time we ask a learner to perform a complicated task. We should instead encourage experimentation, learning through trial and error.

Honda seems to have figured this out. Failure is always one possible outcome when you try anything. If you’re not failing on a regular basis, you’re not striving for greatness:

Sarah Joy recently blogged that the problem isn’t so much that we fail, but how we fail and how we think about failure.

It seems to me that failure is inherent to dealing with any problem worth solving. That no effort, no matter how carefully planned, how painstakingly executed, will come off without hitches, without un-intended consequences. That we will probably (realistically…objectively) fail more than we succeed.

But, it also seems to me that failure is not a reason to stop striving. I’m not willing to throw up my hands and turn my back because I didn’t stop the spread of AIDS in Africa (or the gang activity in the middle school down the street) with my first attempt…or my fiftieth. But I would be equally foolish not to learn from those failures. If I am continually failing differently, those failures will become stepping stones, and eventually I will succeed.

Earlier this year, Business Week reminded corporate trainers and coaches that removing the consequences of mistakes and failure from employees is counterproductive:

Learning is accelerated when employees are taught to solve their own problems with instruction, direction, and demonstration and then allowed to practice until they learn to perform with excellence.

As we move into a new era of authentic assessment, driven largely by external accreditation requirements, we need to be careful not to leave behind the power of failure in the learning process.

Learning is About Possibility, Not Perfection

One final lesson about failure and learning comes in the unlikely form of a young man named D.J. Gregory who, despite his cerebral palsy, has embraced the game of golf. Readily admitting that his game isn’t perfect, he keeps playing, striving not for perfection for for “the possible,” being the best he can be. “If you have a dream,” he challenges us, “go after it. Don’t let anybody tell you you can’t do something.”

The video below chronicles his walking journey through every PGA event this past season, walking more than 900 miles to accomplish a goal he set for himself for the simple purpose of achieving something he wanted to achieve, something others thought was impossible for him to do. Along the way, he fell more than two dozen times. He kept track of each fall, got up and kept going. “If I fall, I fall. It’s just another challenge. I’m gonna fall. It’s just the way it is. I’m gonna do it. So you know what? You get back up and you learn from your mistakes and you don’t do it again.”

“I’m not embarrassed for who I am or what I’ve been through. I’m very determined and I will never give up on anything. I’ll never let anybody tell me ‘No.’”D.J. reminds us that sometimes learning is painful. Sometimes we fall. Sometimes we “fail.” But the only real failure would be to quit trying, to quit striving, to quit learning from our mistakes.

Please Share

I’ve shared here some of the most powerful examples of learning through failure I’ve been able to find. If you know of others, or if you have a story to share, please post here and I’ll compile what you share into a “learning by failure” page.

Reliability, Validity and Loosely-Coupled Assessment

June 25th, 2009 jonmott Comments

Last week Jeremy Brown wrote a thoughtful response to my post about “PLNs, Portfolios, and a Loosely-Coupled Gradebook.” Jeremy expressed concern that my notion of “loosely-coupled” assessment doesn’t adequately address the issues of validity and reliability. He also issued a “warning” about the “assessment minefield into which” I am marching.

While fully appreciating Jeremy’s evaluation bona fides, my working definitions of “reliability” and “validity” are slightly more straightforward (and conventional?) than those he uses. Simply put, I take validity to mean the accuracy with which I am measuring a variable. In layman’s terms, I ask, “Am I actually measuring what I think I’m measuring?” Reliability, on the other hand, refers to the consistency of those measurements: “Am I measuring the same variable consistently over time (at various points of observation) and across multiple subjects?” The old bathroom scale example has always helped me keep these two concepts straight. If a person weighs 200 pounds and the bathroom scale says they weigh 200 pounds, then the measurement is valid. However, if the scale indicates different weights each time a person steps on it (even though their weight hasn’t changed), the measurement isn’t reliable. On the other hand, if the scale consistently indicates that a 200 pound person weighs only 150 pounds every time they weigh themselves, the measure is reliable (consistent) but not valid (accurate).

It’s important to be clear about what we mean by validity and reliability because Jeremy’s central concern seems to be that greater student ownership of and responsibility for portfolios will degrade the “reliability of the judgments passed” on individual student work. He posits two reasons that this would be the case:

  1. The “degree of difficulty” versus “relative facility” of the work completed and submitted via a portfolio.
  2. Selection of artifacts-A student might inadvertently include artifacts which under-represent her or his actual expertise or skill level.

I concur that the variability in student facility with various digital technologies might result in unreliable measures of student ability and skill. While part of being digitally literate in 2009 means being able to create and publish content online at some minimum level of professional acceptability, evaluators should be careful not conflate portfolio design prowess with content area expertise. The same is true when evaluators read papers-students are expected to write at a basic minimum level of professional acceptability, but eloquent prose is not the same as subject matter achievement. Consequently, it is critically important that those who require portfolios to be abundantly clear about the purposes of the portfolio “assignment” and how the portfolio will be assessed. Portfolios should then be assessed accordingly.

When thinking about the purposes of portfolios, administrators and faculty members should be careful to distinguish between the various goals they might have for student portfolio creation and evaluation. On the one hand, portfolios might be encouraged or assigned to help students reflect on their learning, to engage with others about what they’ve learned and how they’ve learned it, to present their work to various audiences, and to develop essential digital literacy and communication skills. When pursuing such goals, validity and reliability concerns are secondary to the process of creating and maintaining a portfolio, so highly student-centric, student-owned and operated portfolios are desirable.

On the other hand, if the purpose of a portfolio is to provide a consistent, aggregated view of a students’ performance through their time at an institution or in an academic program, reliability and validity are central concerns and the cautions Jeremy offers are more immediately relevant. It is my belief, however, that we should strenuously avoid assigning portfolios for purely institutional or program assessment purposes. If our programs aren’t designed in such a way that examples of student work (whether compiled into portfolios or not) is assessed (and possibly collected and aggregated) along the way, then it seems appropriate to redesign the programs instead of bolting an artificial evidence gathering requirement on at the back end.

Once again, we need to begin with the end in mind. What is it we want our students to  become? What experiences do they need to become such? What artifacts are the natural result of (or natural extensions) of these experiences? How will we consistently evaluate these artifacts to give individual students feedback about their performance and growth? How will we aggregate these evaluations to determine our institutional or program level performance? These are the questions that should drive our portfolio and assessment strategies-not external accreditation requirements. If we focus on these student-centric questions, meeting even the most stringent accreditation requirements will be a relatively simple afterthought.

PLNs, Portfolios, and a Loosely-Coupled Gradebook

June 16th, 2009 jonmott Comments

Note: In this post, I reference articles from the Winter 2009 edition of Peer Review, the theme of which was “Assessing Learning Outcomes.” I highly recommend the entire issue if you’re interested in student learning assessment and portfolios. I recently provided an overview of BYU’s loosely-coupled gradebook strategy at TTIX 2009. (We are currently building a standalone gradebook in partnership with Orem, Utah based startup Agilix.) As part of my presentation at TTIX, I also described our plans to leverage the same technology we’re building into the gradebook to implement a loosely-coupled portfolio assessment tool.

The driving purpose behind these efforts is to bridge the gap between our institutional network and the cloud, between the predominant “course management system” (CMS) paradigm and the emerging model of personal learning networks (PLNs), between student-centered and institution-centered portfolios, etc. I maintain that bridging this gap is a necessary condition for the significant transformation of learning via technology. Until learning tools and content become more malleable (i.e. open, modular, and interoperable) we will not realize the full potential of an interconnected, networked world in education.

Student Learning Portfolios & Institutional Assessment

Portfolios are increasingly at the nexus of student learning, institutional assessment, PLNs, CMSs, and assorted other aspects of the higher ed milieu. Student learning portfolios are essential in the movement toward more valid and authentic assessment in higher education. However, the focus on institutional and program assessment has, at least in some instances, diverted our attention from our primary objective of improving student learning. As Trent Batson observed in 2007, that the initial effort to enhance student learning with portfolios has been “hijacked by the need for accountability” to boards of education and accrediting bodies.

This trend is worrisome. If the focus on portfolios shifts primarily to institutional and program assessment, we will have missed out on the essential value of portfolios. Portfolios have the potential to galvanize and enhance student learning. As Miller and Morgaine have observed: “E-portfolios provide a rich resource for both students and faculty to learn about achievement of important outcomes over time, make connections among disparate parts of the curriculum, gain insights leading to improvement, and develop identities as learners or as facilitators of learning.”

Given the potential benefits of portfolios, I believe that student learning portfolios should, first and foremost, belong to and be maintained by individual learners. Gary Brown supports this view, maintaining that portfolios should be student (and not institutionally) operated: “A real student-centered model would put the authority, or ownership, of [ePortfolios] in the hands of the students: They could share evidence of their learning for review with peers, and offer that evidence to instructors for grading and credentialing.” Such an approach increases student ownership and responsibility for learning. It also affords portability and longevity since students are not dependent upon a particular institution (or set of institutions) to provide them with portfolio technology and storage space.

Clark & Enyon have argued that have to get past this tension between student and institutional portfolios: “The e-portfolio movement must find ways to address [institutional assessment] needs without sacrificing its focus on student engagement, student ownership, and enriched student learning.”

Bridging the Gap

So exactly how can we bridge the gap between student-centered learning portfolios and institutional assessment needs? I propose that the loosely-coupled gradebook strategy we’re pursuing can be leveraged to provide a viable solution to this problem.

Here are the dimensions of a loosely-coupled portfolio assessment strategy:

  1. Institutions of higher learning should focus on what they do best and on what only they can do. Namely, they should admit and register students, manage course enrollments and  degree program rosters, and maintain secure records and communications tools for faculty and students engaged in the learning process.
  2. We can then leverage the best online, third-party applications for student publishing, networking, and portfolio creation. Individual institutions (or even institutions working together) would be hard pressed to produce applications comparable in quality and stability to Google Docs, YouTube, Blogger, Acrobat Online, MS Office Live, Wikispaces, and WordPress.
  3. Teachers and learners should embrace the power of the network to enhance, extend and improve learning. Even if institutions could develop and deploy better tools than those freely available online, it would be a bad idea to do so. The fundamental value proposition of these apps is that, since they live in the cloud, they’re accessible anytime, anywhere, by anyone. The openness this affords promotes greater transparency and expanded opportunities for collaboration.
  4. Students should be encouraged to be effective, technologically literate, digital citizens who are proficient using a variety of online tools. As they participate in the learning process, they should regularly save and aggregate their work, packaging and repackaging it for various audiences. One of these audiences might be those responsible for degree program review and assessment.
  5. Once students have assembled their collections of learning artifacts, metacognitive commentary, and portfolios, they might then be required to simply “register” the URLs of their portfolios and artifacts with their institution. Those conducting program and institutional assessment would then use a lightweight “overlay” tool to review and assess submitted student work.

The various aspects of this approach and the associated work flow might look something like this: Portfolio Assessment Diagram

The Power of a Loosely-Coupled Strategy

The “open learning network” (OLN) strategy I’ve written about from time to time is based on several value propositions. One is that institutions should do what they do best (manage student data, facilitate secure communication between teachers and learners) while leveraging third-party, cloud-based applications for such things as personal publishing and collaboration. The loosely-coupled gradebook strategy described in previous posts is a key component of this larger idea.

Another central value proposition of the OLN is the connectedness it facilitates between teachers and learners both within and without institutional boundaries. When learners not only consume online content, but also refine, improve, remix, mashup, and create new content themselves during the learning process, their learning is more authentic, meaningful, and enduring. And they build deeper, more profound connections between facts, concepts, and the other human beings they interact with. This notion of of connectedness is a fundamental aspect of what we consider education and literacy today.

George Siemens blogged today that:

“Not only are we socially connected in our learning, but the concepts that form our understanding of a subject also reveal network attributes. Understanding is a certain constellation (pattern) of connections between concepts. . . . being a literate person is not so much about what you know, but about how you know things are connected.”

I concur. As we continue to pursue the OLN vision, it is essential that we facilitate opennes in the learning process to promote greater interaction and connections with content, people, cultures, and places. It is with this end in mind that we ought to promote personal learning networks (PLNs), OLNs, and loosely-coupled gradebooks. We want our students to be literate, connected, and efficacious life-long learners who make their homes, their communities, their workplaces and the world better places than they found them.

Loosely Coupled Gradebook Presentation @ TTIX 2009

The slides for my presentation at TTIX 2009 about BYU’s loosely coupled gradebook project.

And a link to the UStream capture of the presentation.

I’ve Seen the Future and the Future is Us (Using Google)

The past couple of weeks have been full of new technology announcements. Three in particular are notable because of the splash they received as “pre-releases” and how different one of them is from the other. I’ll readily admit that in these observations I have a particular bias, or at least a very narrow focus–I’m looking at the potential of these new technologies to transform and dramatically improve learning. By my count, one of the releases has the potential to do so. The other two? Not so much.

First, WolframAlpha launched amid buzz that it was the “Google killer.” It promised to revolutionize search by beginning to deliver on the much awaited “semantic web.” In their own worlds, Wolfram’s objective is to “to make all systematic knowledge immediately computable and accessible to everyone.” This ambitious vision is intended to make better sense of the data accessible via the web to help us answer questions, solve problems, and make decisions more effectively. In the end, though, the tool is in reality “a variation on the Semantic Web vision . . . more like a giant closed database than a distributed Web of data.” It’s still early to be drawing final conclusions, but Google is not dead. Life goes on much the same as it did before. And, most importantly from my perspective, it does not appear that learning will be dramatically transformed, improved, or even impacted by the release of WolframAlpha. (BTW, I loved @courosa’s observation that “the Wolfram launch was like that group that claimed they were going to reveal evidence of UFOs a few yrs back.” After the hoopla died down, there wasn’t all that much “there” there.)

The second big product announcement, and the month’s next contestant for “Google Killer” status, was Microsoft’s Bing, Redmond’s latest attempt to reclaim its Web relevance. Microsoft is spinning Bing as a “decision engine,” also aimed at dramatically improving search. Beginning with the assertion that “nearly half of all searches don’t result in the answer that people are seeking,” the Bing team promises to deliver a tool that will yield “knowledge that leads to action” and help you “make smarter, faster decisions.” (By the way, is it still 2009? A product release website with text embedded in SilverLight that I can’t copy & paste? Really?) Again, it’s early–Bing isn’t even publicly available yet–but even if MS delivers on its lofty claims, this sort of technology doesn’t seem poised to transform learning.

Maybe I’m missing something, but better search doesn’t seem to be our biggest barrier to dramatically improved learning. And both WolframAlpha and Bing are coming at the problem of data overload with better search algorithms, better data processing tools, and intelligent data sorting / presentation tools. I think all of this is great. But neither of these approaches touches the fundamental, core activity of learning–making sense out the world’s complexities in communities of learners. In my “Post-LMS Manifesto” earlier this month, I observed:

Technology alone cannot save us or help us solve our most daunting societal problems. Only we, as human beings working together, can do that. And while many still long for the emergence of the virtual Aristotle, I do not. For I believe that learning is a fundamentally human endeavor that requires personal interaction and communication, person to person. We can extend, expand, enhance, magnify, and amplify the reach and effectiveness of human interaction with technology and communication tools, but the underlying reality is that real people must converse with each other in the process of “becoming.”

Having seen WolframAlpha and Bing, I’m even more firm in this belief. Advanced, improved, more sophisticated search and data sorting technology is much needed and wanted. I’ll be the first in line to use the search engine that proves itself more effective than Google Search. But, as the MLIS students at UBC understand, “without the person, the information is just data.”

A People Problem, Not a Data Problem

Enter Google Wave. In striking contrast to the Wolfram & MS attempts to surpass Google’s search predominance, Google itself announced that it had reinvented e-mail. It’s no coincidence that the reigning king of search hasn’t been spending all of its time and resources on reinventing search (although I don’t doubt that the Google brain trust is spending at least a few cycles doing that). Google has instead focused substantial energy on improving the tools we use to collaborate and communication around data and content.

In it’s Bing press release, MS notes that there are 4.5 new websites created every second. Two years ago, Michael Wesch noted that the world was on pace to create 40 exabytes (40 billion gigabytes) of new data. And the rate of data creation is only accelerating. More recently, Andreas Weigand contends that “in 2009, more data will be generated by individuals than in the entire history of mankind through 2008.”

On the surface, this might seem less substantive than improved data search and analysis tools and, therefore, less relevant to the business or learning. But dealing with data overload and making sense out of it all is a fundamentally human problem. Again, we can extend, expand, enhance, magnify, and amplify the reach and effectiveness of our access to and analysis of data, but making sense out of it all requires individuals, groups and crowds to have conversations about the origins, interpretations and meanings of that data. That is essence of being human. We can outsource our memories to Google, but we cannot (should not!) outsource our judgment, critical analysis, and interpretive capacities to any mechanical system.

The Future of Learning and Learning Technology

<melodrama>I’ve seen the future. And the future is us.</mellodrama>. As we use–and even more importantly appropriate, adapt, and repurpose–tools like Google Wave, we can leverage technology to preserve and enhance that which is most fundamentally human about ourselves. I appreciated Luke’s reminder that teachers and learners should “take ownership of online teaching and learning tools” and, accordingly, “not be shy about reminding our users of their responsibilities, and our users shouldn’t be shy about asking for help, clarification, or if something is possible.” This is precisely what many users of Twitter have done. My startling realization about my Twitter activity is that it has become an indispensable component of my daily learning routine. It’s become a social learning tool for me, giving me access to people and content in a way I never imagined.

Based on an hour and 20 minute long video, Google Wave appears poised to dramatically improve on the Twitter model. Accordingly, the possibilities for enhanced interactions between learners are encouraging. And the ripples of the Wave (sorry, couldn’t resist) have profound implications. With Wave, entire learning conversations are captured and shared with dynamic communities of learners. Lars Rasmussen (co-creator of Wave) noted: “We think of the entire conversation object as being a shared object hosted on a server somewhere” (starting at about 6:22 into the presentation). The ability for late-joining participants to “playback” the conversation and get caught up is particularly intriguing. Elsewhere:

  • Jim Groom asserts that Google Wave will make the LMS “all but irrelevant by re-imagining email and integrating just about every functionality you could possibly need to communicate and manage a series of course conversations through an application as familiar and intimate as email.”
  • David Wiley wonders if Wave might “completely transform the way we teach and learn.”
  • Tim O’Reilly observes that the emergence of Wave has created a “kind of DOS/Windows divide in the era of cloud applications. Suddenly, familiar applications look as old-fashioned as DOS applications looked as the GUI era took flight. Now that the web is the platform, it’s time to take another look at every application we use today.”

All of this continues to point to the demise of the LMS as we know it. However, I agree with Joshua Kim’s observation that the LMS’s “future needs to be different from its past.” As he notes, he’s anxious to use Wave for group projects, but he wants his course rosters pre-loaded and otherwise integrated with institutional systems. This is, as I have previously noted, the most likely evolutionary path for learning technology environments–a hybrid between open, flexible cloud-based tools like Wave and institutionally managed systems that provide student data integration and keep assessment data secure. And this is bound to looking something a lot more like an open learning network than a traditional course management system.

As we adopt and adapt tools like Twitter and Google Wave to our purposes as learning technologists, we have to change the way we think about managing facilitating learning conversations. We can no longer be satisfied with creating easy to manage course websites that live inside moated castles. We have to open up the learning process and experience to leverage the vastness of the data available to us and the power of the crowd, all the while remembering that learning is fundamentally about individuals conversing with each other about the meaning and value of the data they encounter and create. Technologies like Google Wave are important, not in and of themselves, but precisely because they force us to remember this reality and realign our priorities and processes to match it.

I’ve seen the future of learning technology, and the future is us.

Where’s the Innovation?

I just read Kim Cofino’s absolutely fabulous post about the absence of real innovation in education. Much of her post is a summary of Tom Kelley’s talk at the Hong Kong Summit. But her summary and additional insights are great. I highly recommend that you read her entire post.

Kim asserts that innovation doesn’t “mean just adding more technology to the classroom [but] thinking differently about learning in its entirety.”

I concur with Kim–dramatic change and innovation will not (cannot) occur by incrementally improving our existing practices. We need to see differently and invent the future instead of constantly reinventing the past.

True to form, I believe this kind of innovation has to start with our goals (the end!) in mind. That is, we have to constantly ask ourselves what we really want learners at our institutions to know and, even more importantly, to be able to do? Are the educational experiences we’re providing for them enabling to do the things we really care about? If an outsider who had never seen an institution of higher education before dropped on to one of our campuses, what would they think was most important to us? I’m afraid they might conclude that test-taking and throughput were among our highest priorities.

Kim suggests that embracing project-based learning and student competency portfolios are good places to start, to get us unstuck and on the road to innovation. I agree. However, while adopting these and other new approaches, we must stay doggedly focused on why these things matter–they matter because they will help learners become what they really need and want to become.

So how do we get there? In Tom’s talk, he warned against the “Red Queen Effect” in Alice’s Adventures Through the Looking Glass and reminded us that, “if you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that.” This bias toward action was reaffirmed in a quote I came across this morning from Frank Tibolt: “We should be taught not to wait for inspiration to start a thing. Action always generates inspiration. Inspiration seldom generates action.”

Once again, I ask, “What are we waiting for?” Time to get to work!

A Post-LMS Manifesto

In the wake of the announcement of Blackboard’s acquisition of ANGEL, the blogosphere has been buzzing about Learning Management Systems (LMSs) and their future (or lack thereof). The timing of this announcement came at an interesting time for me. A BYU colleague and I (Mike Bush) recently published a piece in Educational Technology Magazine with the unassuming title “The Transformation of Learning with Technology.” (If you read this article, you’ll recognize that much of my thinking in this post is influenced by my work with Mike.) I’ve also been working on strategy document to guide our LMS and LMS-related decisions and resource allocations here at BYU.

These ongoing efforts and my thoughts over the last twenty-four hours about the Bb-ANGEL announcement have come together in the form of a “post-LMS manifesto” (if can dare use such a grandiose term for a blog post). In the press release about Blackboard’s acquisition of ANGEL, Michael Chasen asserted that the move would “accelerate the pace of innovation and interoperability in e-learning.” As a Blackboard client, I certainly hope that’s true. However, more product innovation and interoperability, while desirable, aren’t going to make Blackboard fundamentally different than it is today—a “learning management system” or “LMS.” And that worries me because I continue to have serious concerns about the future of the LMS-paradigm itself, a paradigm that I have critiqued extensively on this blog.

Learning and Human Improvement

Learning is fundamentally about human improvement. Students flock to colleges and university campuses because they want to become something they are not. That “something” they want to become ranges from the loftiest of intellectual ideals to the most practical and worldly goals of the marketplace. For those of us who work in academe, our duty and responsibility is to do right by those who invest their time, their energy, and their futures in us and our institutions. It is our job to help them become what they came to us to become—people who are demonstrably, qualitatively, and practically different than the individuals they were before.

Technology has and always will be an integral part of what we do to help our students “become.” But helping someone improve, to become a better, more skilled, more knowledgeable, more confident person is not fundamentally a technology problem. It’s a people problem. Or rather, it’s a people opportunity. Philosophers and scholars have wrestled with the challenge and even the paradox of education and learning for centuries. In ancient Greece, Plato formulated what we have come to call “Meno’s paradox” in an attempt to get at the underlying difficulties associated with teaching someone a truth they do not already know. The solution in that age was to pair each student with an informed tutor—as Alexander the Great was paired with Aristotle—to guide the learner through the stages of progressive enlightenment and understanding.

More than two millennia later, United States President James Garfield underscored the staying power of this one-to-one approach: “Give me a log hut, with only a simple bench, Mark Hopkins [a well-known educator and lecturer of the day] on one end and I on the other, and you may have all the buildings, apparatus, and libraries without him.” I suppose President Garfield, were he alive today, would include LMSs and other educational technology on the list of things he would give up in favor of a skilled, private tutor.

The problem with one-to-one instruction is that it simply doesn’t scale. Historically, there simply haven’t been enough tutors to go around if our goal is to educate the masses, to help every learner “become.” Another century later, Benjamin Bloom formalized this dilemma, dubbing it the “2 Sigma Problem.” Through experimental investigation, Bloom found that “the average student under tutoring was about two standard deviations above the average” of students who studied in a traditional classroom setting with 30 other students (“The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring,” Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16). Notwithstanding this enormous gap, Bloom was optimistic that continued focus on mastery learning would allow us to eventually narrow the distance between individually-tutored and group-instructed students.

Moving Beyond the LMS

There is, at its very core, a problem with the LMS paradigm. The “M” in “LMS” stands for “management.” This is not insignificant. The word heavily implies that the provider of the LMS, the educational institution, is “managing” student learning. Since the dawn of public education and the praiseworthy societal undertaking “educate the masses,” management has become an integral part of the learning. And this is exactly what we have designed and used LMSs to do—to manage the flow of students through traditional, semester-based courses more efficiently than ever before. The LMS has done exactly what we hired it to do: it has reinforced, facilitated, and perpetuated the traditional classroom model, the same model that Bloom found woefully less effective than one-on-one learning.

For decades, we’ve been told that technology is (or soon would be) capable of replicating the role of a private, individual tutor, of providing a “virtual Aristotle” for each individual learner. But after the billions of dollars we’ve spent on educational technology, we’re nowhere near such an achievement. In fact, we can’t even say that we’ve improved learning at all! (See Larry Cuban’s Oversold & Underused for an excellent, in-depth treatment of this subject). And our continued investment of billions of dollars in the LMS is unlikely to get us any closer to our learning improvement goals either. Because the LMS is primarily a traditional classroom support tool, it is ill-suited to bridge the 2-sigma gap between classroom instruction and personal tutoring.

We shouldn’t be terribly surprised or disappointed that LMSs—or any other technology for that matter—have not revolutionized learning. As Michael Wesch and his students have so sagely reminded us, technology alone cannot save us or help us solve our most daunting societal problems. Only we, as human beings working together, can do that. And while many still long for the emergence of the virtual Aristotle, I do not. For I believe that learning is a fundamentally human endeavor that requires personal interaction and communication, person to person. We can extend, expand, enhance, magnify, and amplify the reach and effectiveness of human interaction with technology and communication tools, but the underlying reality is that real people must converse with each other in the process of “becoming.”

Crowdsourcing the Tutor

If we are to close the 2-sigma gap, we must leave the LMS behind and the artificial walls it builds around arbitrary groups of learners who have enrolled in sections of a courses at our institutions. In the post-LMS world, we need to worry less about “managing” learners and focus more on helping them connect with other like-minded learners both inside and outside of our institutions. We need to foster in them greater personal accountability, responsibility and autonomy in their pursuit of learning in the broader community of learners. We need to use the communication tools available to us today and the tools that will be invented tomorrow to enable anytime, anywhere, any-scale learning conversations between our students and other learners. We need to enable teachers and learners to discover and use the right tools and content (and combinations, remixes and mashups thereof) to facilitate the kinds of interaction, communication and collaboration they need in the learning process. By doing so, we can begin to create the kinds of interconnections between content and individual learners that might actually approximate the personal, individualized “tutors.” However, instead of that tutor appearing in the form of an individual human being or in the form of a virtual AI tutor, the tutor will be the crowd.

While LMS providers are making laudable efforts to incrementally make their tools more social, open, modular, and interoperable, they remain embedded in the classroom paradigm. The paradigm—not the technology—is the problem. We need to build, bootstrap, cobble together, implement, support, and leverage something that is much more open and loosely structured such that learners can connect with other learners (sometimes called teachers) and content as they engage in the authentic behaviors, activities and work of learning.

Building a better, more feature-rich LMS won’t close the 2-sigma gap. We need to utilize technology to better connect people, content, and learning communities to facilitate authentic, personal, individualized learning. What are we waiting for?

A “Triggering” Opportunity?

April 16th, 2009 jonmott Comments

In 1997, Peter Ewell summarized “what we know” about institutional change:

  1. Change requires a fundamental shift of perspective. 
  2. Change must be systemic.  
  3. Change requires people to relearn their own roles.
  4. Change requires conscious and consistent leadership. 
  5. Change requires systematic ways to measure progress and guide improvement. 
  6. Change requires a visible “triggering” opportunity.

Of late I’ve spent a good deal of time wondering about how to bring about items 1-5. My thinking the past few days, however, has returned to my boss’s maxim regarding crises, wit and opportunities for significant improvement. For better or worse, we’re in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. We have a “triggering” opportunity the likes of which we may never see again in our lifetimes as educational technologists. How can we leverage our current situation to do things we might never have the opportunity to do again? A few suggestions, each paired with Ewell’s first five dimensions of institutional change:

  1. Current fiscal constraints and new accreditation requirements can be leveraged to force a fundamental shift in perspective. Our fundamental responsibility is to provide as much value as possible to our students with whatever resources we have. If our budgets are tight and we’re under-staffed, we have to be creative and figure out new ways to be even more effective than we have been in the past. Our perspective should change from a culture of entitlement to one of stewardship and accountability for student learning.
  2. Whatever our role in the academy, we can all identify and share effective practices being employed around the world to make learning more effective even in the face of resource constraints. Systemic change doesn’t have to be–an in most cases probably shouldn’t be–top-down. We can make systemic change by working together and sharing ideas with each other, both within and outside our institutions.
  3. As painful as it might be to work at an under-staffed institution, this can be a golden opportunity to rethink who does what and why in the learning process. Maybe we need an administrative assistant to support high-enrolling courses more than we need a full-time department secretary. That work might be more effectively passed on to students. And maybe we rethink how we use tools and technologies to build learning communities rather than to simply disseminate information. This list could go on. You get the idea.
  4. As implied in #2, leadership doesn’t always have to come from the top. We can all lead by example, by engaging others in thoughtful dialogue about our circumstances and challenges. But we should also take wise advantage of opportunities to engage in these discussions with academic leaders on our campuses. They are perhaps more open to these sorts of conversations than they ever have been or ever will be again. We need to find ways to help them solve their problems that also lead to the kinds of dramatic improvements in teaching and learning we’re all committed to.
  5. Finally, we have to be brutally self-honest, introspective and transparent about what we do, how we do it, why we do it (remember to begin with the end in mind!), and how we will measure success. If we propose a new approach or a new technology to address a teaching & learning challenge, we better be prepared to measure the impact of our innovation and be accountable for whether or not it worked. Some of what we try will be successful and some of what we try will not. We need to be explicit about this reality and its implications from beginning to middle to end.

We are in difficult times. It behooves us as would-be-agents of change to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime “triggering” opportunity to do some things that are truly innovative, revolutionary and transformational.

I don’t know about you, but I have work to do . . .