1 / 15

Technology succession and open source VLEs

Technology succession and open source VLEs. Martin Weller. Outline. Technology uptake Current VLE usage Technology Succession Case studies OS as reasonable compromise VLE 2.0. Number of Adopters. Time. Technology uptake. Technology uptake.

necia
Download Presentation

Technology succession and open source VLEs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Technology succession and open source VLEs Martin Weller

  2. Outline • Technology uptake • Current VLE usage • Technology Succession • Case studies • OS as reasonable compromise • VLE 2.0

  3. Number of Adopters Time Technology uptake

  4. Technology uptake Lead users - flexibility, richness, and a strong theoretical underpinning Conventional users - robustness, ease of use and practicality

  5. What’s wrong with VLEs? • They are content focused • They have no strong pedagogy • They are based around a teacher-classroom model • They combine a number of average tools, but not the best ones • They do not feature a particular tool • They operate on a lowest common denominator approach • They do not meet the needs of different subject areas • It is difficult to exchange content between them, despite claims to interoperability

  6. Current state of play • OECD/OBHE 2004 survey in 13 countries • All had VLE • 37% have institution-wide VLE • 90% expect to have single VLE in next 5 years • 52% use commercial system • Rest use combination of in-house and open source • No institution had just OS • 31% had portal • 6.6% had CMS

  7. Changing times • Nearly all institutions had moved to an institution-wide system. • Few institutions operated an in-house solution. • The VLEs will be divided equally between commercial and open source solutions. • Specialization and localization will occur through the use of services.

  8. Plant succession

  9. Technology succession “technological environments are not merely passive containers of people but are active processes that reshape people and other technologies alike” (McLuhan 1962)

  10. Case studies • UKOU – had lots of components, opted for Moodle • SUNY – uPortal + LAMS • Deakin – many installations, WebCT • NZ – Moodle

  11. A flexibility continuum SAKAI Standards Commercial VLE OS SOA

  12. OS as reasonable compromise • Gain: • Functionality • Time • Community • Profile • Flexibility • Technical consensus • Lose: • Some flexibility • Some control Conventional users - sufficiently robust, not a research tool. Lead users - flexible, adaptable to the needs of any particular institution, Can act as the ‘backbone’ of a service oriented solution.

  13. Web 2.0 Users must be treated as co-developers, … The open source dictum, “release early and release often” in fact has morphed into an even more radical position, “the perpetual beta,” in which the product is developed in the open, with new features slipstreamed in on a monthly, weekly, or even daily basis…. • Both an approach and a set of technologies • Web as platform • Harnessing collective intelligence • Evolutionary development • Lightweight programming models This time, though, the clash isn't between a platform and an application, but between two platforms, each with a radically different business model: On the one side, a single software provider, whose massive installed base and tightly integrated operating system and APIs give control over the programming paradigm; on the other, a system without an owner, tied together by a set of protocols, open standards and agreements for cooperation “users add value and the technology or site needs to be set up so that it encourages participation”

  14. VLE 2.0 • How would a VLE 2.0 be constructed? • Service oriented • Tools tested and released • Standards based • Unique configurations • Incorporate external tools • Localized configurations • Personalised • What does web 2.0 education feel like? • Students as co-creators • Reuse • Less rigid boundaries • Social

  15. Contact • Email: m.j.weller@open.ac.uk • Blog: http://edtechie.net • Home page: http://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/m.j.weller • Book: Virtual Learning Environments, Routledge, Spring 2007

More Related