Flexknowlogy - Jared Stein's ARCHIVED blog - update to jaredstein.org » lms

ANGEL: A Corpse for Blackboard's Corpulence

Jared Stein — Wed, 06 May 2009 21:36:37 +0000

Today Blackboard announced that it has acquired ANGEL Learning, Inc., producer of one of the most widely used course management system (CMS) in US higher education (according to ITC‘s March 2009 Distance Education survey, ANGEL was 2nd only to Blackboard+WebCT). In 2005 Blackboard acquired its primary rival WebCT, making it quite possibly the number one CMS provider to higher education institutions in the USA..

Blackboard now owns WebCT and ANGEL. 2008 higher education CMS usage table adapted from the March 2009 ITC Distance Education Survey

This most recent acquisition is a surprising but not unpredictable indicator of Blackboard’s lust to dominate the higher ed CMS market. In 2006 the US Patent Office awarded Blackboard a broad and hotly contested patent on learning management system features, which Blackboard immediately used to sue its next largest commercial rival, Desire2Learn. And though Blackboard was successful in its legal actions, twice since then the US Patent Office has rejected the original 44 patent claims, first in March of 2008 and again in April of this year.

Blackboard, however, presses on, appealing the rejections, fighting with Desire2Learn in the courts, suing the US Patent Office, and even filing more patents (including one detailing a 3D learning environment, and a set of claims in Canada[!]) on which they can base new lawsuits against D2L.

As ITC noted in its March 2009 survey, ANGEL had gained considerable market share in the US, putting it in the #2 slot against Blackboard+WebCT. What once looked like good news for Angel has become a nightmare for an CMS consumer market in need of diverse and innovative choices, and a looming shadow for other CMS producers, as Blackboard continues to thwart and denigrate healthy competition in the field of e-learning. At this point I’m continuing to put my faith in Moodle, the popular open source CMS, and wondering if US antitrust law contradicts Blackboard’s aggressive behavior.

Blackboard Vista Triggers Quirks Mode

Jared Stein — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:25:20 +0000

Ever been annoyed by Blackboard Vista’s (or Campus Edition 6+’s) rendering of your XHTML + CSS web pages? Yeah, me too–especially on Internet Explorer. This happens because Bb Vista triggers a browser’s quirks mode in spite of DOCTYPEs and validated markup.

More than just troublesome for pretty CSS-based pages, quirks mode, triggered on standards-compliant pages, can negatively affect the usability and functionality of the learning experience. For example, we use an inline quizzing Javascript that renders questions and answer choices and feedback based on standards mode CSS. In quirks mode this self-assessment tool is useless.

Blackboard Was Made For Quirks

Basically quirks mode means the browser thinks your web skills are not up to snuff, and the browser therefore renders your CSS in a non-standard fashion. Quirks mode is triggered when a DOCTYPE, e.g.:

…is missing, or invalid, or unknown, or not where it should be (i.e. the first line of the document).

javascript:alert(document.compatMode) pasted into the Internet Explorer address bar kindly informs us that this browser is rendering this page in quirks mode. Firefox will tell you if you go to Tools > Page Info. Advanced Box Model Test

But even if you’ve been careful to put a valid DOCTYPE into your web pages, once it’s loaded up into Bb Vista and linked to, either from a Folder or a Learning Module, the browser will go into quirks mode. Why does this happen? Simple: Bb Vista inserts XHTML and JavaScript at the beginning of all web pages onload. 140+ lines of it, to be exact. It’s an odious thing to do, but, what do you expect? It’s Blackboard.

It may (or may not) be important to note that this does not happen when viewing a page in the File Manager–only when a page is loaded from a link within the course.

What You Can Do

Not much. And yet this could be a big issue for Internet Explorer users (FireFox renders page in quirks mode [not "Almost Standards Mode" as I'd hoped], yet most standards-compliant XHTML and CSS still render well).

And though most users are still on IE 6 or 7 I had some hope for a way out with Internet Explorer 8. You see, Microsoft promised that “a page explicitly opts into standards mode” when it includes “a metatag in the page that specifies IE=8 or IE=EmulateIE8″. For example:

In practice, however, this META tag alone does not force IE8 into standards mode in Bb Vista–the misplaced XHTML is apparently too much for IE8 to ignore.

So the most practical solutions I can think of are:

Write custom CSS for Blackboard that renders (or re-renders) the page according to the quirks mode box model. This could be done using Internet Explorer conditional comments, for example:
I haven’t yet considered what CSS rules would need to be written to accommodate this, but if it was possible this seem like the most robust and efficient solution.
Rewrite the page with Javascript. After Bb has loaded (or begun to load) the page, Javascript triggers a full rewrite of the page, either wiping out or rewriting the Bb XHTML and Javascript in a more appropriate location (e.g. in a targeted, ID’ed element). I’ve asked one of my developers to try this out today, but already fear the additional load time it might put on the Bb-hosted page.

Any other ideas?

If this were only about appearance I wouldn’t be raising a fuss, but this can and does affect the usability of certain e-learning tools, and forces developers to ask, “How will this work in Blackboard?” yet again.

Early Decisions on Reuse of OER: Copy or Link?

Jared Stein — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 04:13:42 +0000

In David Wiley‘s IPT 692r – Intro to Open Ed course students have fragmented into two small groups, each of which has chosen to research and catalog appropriate open resources that may be used to fulfill learning objectives for one of the secondary education core curricula for the state of Utah. As I have begun searching for, tagging, and sharing resources, I’ve begun to consider the long-enduring web question: link or copy?

I mean, of course, with respect to appropriately licensed (Creative Commons, Gnu Free Document License, etc) open educational resources specifically.

And though the question is not staggering, it may be taken for granted, even at the cost of the long-term success of the web project.

Linking

The link approach typically uses hyperlinks to the target source document, but may use iframes to embed the element within a locally-hosted web page.

Linking…

preserves integrity of the original source by maintaining all original qualities
respects original source by trajecting traffic to the host site
saves local hosting resources (storage & bandwith)
ensures that source updates are reflected in the current version
is, therefore, particularly well-suited for frequently updated or improved sources, like wikis
is much easier, particularly when numerous multimedia files are embedded, or multiple files are referenced
may provide learners with context and hyperlinks that lead to further, relevant exploration of the source site and the web
avoids problems with licenses or terms of use that restrict copying

Many of these arguments for linking presume that there is more to the information than the information itself, and that the source has some inherent value that may be passed on to the learners or should be maintained for its own sake.

Copying

The copy approach is similarly self-evident: a digital copy of the source file(s) is downloaded, then hosted on the local server.

Copying…

provides for adaptation or modification (if the license allows) of:
- content (cut, insert, remix, extend)
- presentation (e.g. surface design)
- interactions
supports localization
captures and preserves a version that may be discarded or replaced in the future
allows designers to produce seamless learning experiences that support learner focus
respects original source host’s resources (storage & bandwith)
ensures technical availability of the resource is within local control (no dead links)
allows contextual indexing for site (or public) search engines
may improve reach and increase circulation of source information
may thereby enlarge original author’s prominence and visibility
avoids problems with licenses or terms of use that restrict leech-linking

A couple notable obstacles to copying:

Server-generated content, markup, interactions, or hyperlinks may be difficult to acquire or reuse (e.g.
While CC By-ND allows reproduction of works, it may restrict modification of presentation or interactions in addition to the more clear prohibition on modification of content

Dynamic Scraping and Importing

There are other approaches that fall somewhere in between. For instance, web scraping of the source file(s) on the fly, followed by parsing and processing of the data on the local host. This sounds complex, but it’s not too bad; Google Docs & Spreadsheets has implemented this functionality into it’s data importing spreadsheet formulae:

=importHTML grabs the content of a TABLE or list (OL / UL [/DL?])
=importXML uses xPath expressions to target XML/XHTML elements
=importData takes structured data files, such as comma separated values (CSV)
=GoogleReader intakes the RSS or Atom of a target URL, such as a blog post

Often used for mash-ups, this approach can also be useful for replicating and formatting data. And, though Tony Hirst has found numerous exemplary applications for this feature using Google Spreadsheets, a Google Spreadsheet is not required; anyone with some significant Javascript experience could tackle this task, and there are a number of web scraping software apps that deliver varying results.

IPT 692R Notes: Thursday, March 19, 2009

Jared Stein — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:16:51 +0000

The UVU campus is nearly uninhabited today as we swing into spring break. There’s no spring break at BYU, though, so I took advantage of my lightened workload to make it up to David Wiley‘s IPT 692r – Intro to Open Ed course early, motivated in part by the fact that Russ Carlson, President of Blackboard, would be joining us in a discussion of the future of the learning management system (LMS) with respect to open education.

I have been critical about aspects of LMSs in the past. I’ve been critical of Blackboard in particular–primarily because of my complaints about the functionality of the Vista LMS, the “must use standard LMS for everything” attitude of some university CIOs, and Blackboard’s past behavior with respect to patent claims. And while one professor encouraged me to wear my “Supporting Innovation, Not Suing It” t-shirt to class, and while I at some point last night woke up saying, “If we tell you all our ideas, will you patent them and sell them to us later?”, I wanted to open my mind to the potentials of the discussion and not be obtuse as a matter of course.

(The following notes identify ideas by speaker, but please note that the words are only verbatim if I use quotes.)

Dr. Wiley began by directing us to consider the history of the LMS, it’s purpose as manifest through functionality and initial usage experiences. A common conclusion was the LMS attempted to replicate what happens in the classroom online: requiring little faculty tech expertise, providing quizzes, assigns, grades, content delivery (paper reduct), discussions [JMS: yes and no. online discussions are both similar and dramatically dissimilar], admin and teaching functions, and integration with campus academic and student information systems.

In response to our growing list, Russ responded, “This is just a collection of things… but there is new capability, and by tying the corporation together we enable new processes. Technology enabled a transformation.”

(JMS: Agreed as a potential. Technology is nothing without appropriate training and inspiration on proper educational application. Through the LMS we quickly accomplished teaching with technology, but not technology-enhanced teaching. But if we ask, how can we leverage technology to make teaching and learning better and easier? We must examine our educational goals, audience, and environment. We must problem-solve, creatively using applications of the available tools.

(Also, there are some ways in which the technology itself has changed the way we teach, albeit slowly:)

Quizzes become more reasonable as self-assessments and formative learning activities when done online
Discussions become fully participatory, time-liberated dialogs that allow participants to branch and focus on strands that are personally relevant.
Digital content is searchable – discussions, texts, etc. This provides different, easier, faster access to materials and ideas that support a participant’s focused interest

We began speaking of the cultural shift associated with (or accompanied by) Web 2.0, and how that may impact education.

Justin makes the good point, if LMs is adaptation of teaching, it also seems this idea of PLE/PLN is just a 2nd generation adaptation of the LMS, i.e., teachers consider, How can I do X, Y, Z — which I did in the LMS easily — without the LMS?

JMS: Some who look at the PLE see it as something constructed by new media, connectivism, not as a substitute for the LMS. Those folks admit they don’t know what a PLE looks like and are uncertain if learning outcomes are similarly measurable. Those most comfortable with the idea of a PLE have some confidence in the organic conditions of it as a learning environment, despite it’s fuzziness.

Granted, some do see the PLE simply as an escape from the LMS, and even though they might be trying to simply recreate what they did in the LMS, they can gain some advantages just by being open: Openness, adaptable, personalized, ownership, persistence, authenticity.

I caught something of Justin saying that the open source (OSS) community is ignoring hard problems… OSS technology fails to provide sophisticated learning features like adaptive release, adaptive testing… The OSS community not taking it on…

(JMS: I accept that specific example as an inadequacy of available open PLE/PLN or Web 2.0 tools. There aren’t currently automatic gatekeeping (pre-programmed or “smart”) tools for PLE/PLN tools and media. Siemens and others might say teachers are naturally the gatekeepers. Users are the gatekeepers (though perhaps this is inadequate). Or maybe we don’t need those gatekeepers at all, that is, we can encourage the fundamentals of information fluency by directing students to assess and re-direct themselves.)

JMS: OS community is not taking on education in general. Why would they? Education is still a niche. Adaptive release is a very education-centered feature. OSS e-learning, like Moodle, include or plan to include it.

David Wiley: “Data. Through the LMS I can capture and use data in a way I never could before.” Also, liberty of users to control consumption of content. E.g. playing course media at 2x speed.

Justin Johansen: Teachers can teach to a style, users can adapt to their preferences (disruptive).

Sara Joy challenges, suggested/asked if LMS can be a “disruptive technology”.

David: At USU an instructor with no budget for “clickers” went to the dollar store and bought $1 laser pointers to accomplish the same thing. Throw up a slide, students with laser pointers indicate choices anonymously on screen. It’s personalized (and probably more fun).

Russ: “Isn’t one of the fundamental issues also location independence?”

Justin: “Definitely, esp. when gas prices were $4/gallon.”

Dr. Wiley whips out slides of 6 changes:

analog –> digital
tethered –> mobile
consume –> create
generic –> personalized
isolated –> connected
closed –> open

Jon Mott: There’s a book about organizations being like spiders, which can regrow a leg, or starfish, which have legs that, if severed, can grow into a new starfish. Are we like spiders or starfish? Best organizations are hybrids. Starfish-like activities. eBay features of a spider.

JMS: Some in education want that severed starfish leg to turn into a bird. But education’s history doesn’t show that we’re evolutionary–there’s no dramatic mutation between generations that changes the species. Education is certainly not, historically, subject to revolution either! It’s adaptation at best. It’s incremental change.

Aaron Johnson: Web 2.0 can be transformative in, for instance, using a blog publishes homework online, for the world to see–maximal exposure.

Dr. Wiley points out that several class blog posts have been picked up by Stephen Downes, which impacts the community, impacts the class, impacts the writer.

Justin: In the old system publishing homework was your mom putting your assignment on the fridge with a magnet.

Aaron: It’s also transformative in a way that democratizes access. But how are things changing in how people behave and interact? Do I get more out of that?

(JMS: We’ve seen that young people’s sense of privacy may be changing, and also that online exposure can bite us in the rear.)

Justin: I haven’t had a transformative e-learning experience in the classroom discussion forum. It’s usually, “do this boring thing for class or else”.

JMS: I have. (That’s what put me in e-learning over a decade ago, and I have them with some regularity now)

Jon: I learn something everyday on Twitter. I follow about 150 people, all of the ed tech related. My network has expanded, and for the better.

JMS: And learn to filter junk out, hopefully!

Russ: Yes, adding people, one by one… “adding diversity, accumulating collected knowledge… but at some point you reach a threshold.”

JMS: At first there’s a lot of noise, but you learn to filter that out, or cut it out. I follow around 60 people, but that changes from week to week. I’ll follow a lot of people who I will later un-follow, not because I don’t like them, but because their use of Twitter may not contribute to or match my own personal way of valuing Twitter. (JMS: I’ve talked too much. Time to listen more.)

Aaron: A lot of us still use the web for adaptations of normal life. Despite my tech-savvy nature, I hear about Web 2.0 stuff and I think do I really need that? Is the real transformation in the things that we do, or in helping people understand what they can do now, with this ability to use technoloy?

Jon: Novelty of technology is not enough. You have to be evaluative. How is using this going to help me? I user twitter not to be social, but to be professional.

JMS: The beauty of these tools is the personalization. The beauty of the PLE is the personalization.

Jon: I’ve used delicious for my own purposes, but have finally found a use for it in collaborative environment.

Justin: (To his group) Why aren’t we using delicious on our OER project?

(JMS: Note to self, we might put our group’s open ed project links list on a wiki instead of a Google Spreadsheet. Then reach out to community and get additional links for free.)

We somehow manage to move the conversation back to the future of the LMS.

JMS: I see the future of the LMS being not a replication of these open, existing tools, but a way to structure, organize, and adaptively control or smart-sequence these. As Justin pointed it, adaptive releasing, setting and resetting paths, etc.

Justin: Would we, by using the LMS as a place to integrate Web 2.0, personalized tools, push folks away from using those tools?

(JMS: Is Justin talking about the creepy treehouse-ness? I don’t get a chance to ask…)

Russ: “Is it not a false choice to give proprietary vs open source? … Is it not a distinction without a difference?”

(JMS: There are potential advantages in both that we should not lightly dismiss, e.g. proprietary may have quality advances, resource advantages, corporate attention, collaborative integration and first-choice with publishers; openness may have adaptability, customization, lower cost, ownership. [To me the subscription model is so painful, I personally want the ability to keep and maintain code perpetually, for example, stay at WebCT CE 4.1 for a decade if we wished.])

Russ: For a while technology was pulling the practice, but now (as we talk about web 2.0 tools) but now it seems we’ve flipped that.

Wiley: “Forget open code source for a minute. Forget APIs. Look at YouTube, Flickr, GoogleMaps. They all have a common language: RSS. APIs are great if you like that. But these tools are bleeding syndication, and they don’t punish you for mashing it up.”

John Hilton: Free access vs. open source vs. paid license.

Jon: “Once upon a time there was a Blackboard.com where you could create your own course for free.”

Russ: “It’s back.”

So we are talking about interoperability of the learning object (LTI)?

Wiley: “But LTI is so complex. RSS is sooo easy. Some clever folks, like Tony Hirst, will use Pipes or APIs. There’s technical accessibility, then there’s an expertise-less accessibility.

Jon: Having APIs and web services is critical. Maybe we need more than single sign-on.

Russ: “To Dave’s point about the data, if you want to use the data you have to have that captured in an environment.”

(JMS: Data can be made accessible through APIs, no?)

Jon: Livetext does program assessment and portfolios. You can build and expose your portfolio. Creators can easily export.

Dave: Yes, let’s just get data out of the end. Because even with standards everyone speaks their own dialect.

Aaron: Searchable.

John: By Google?

Aaron: Internally? Or… What do we mean by LMS for open ed?

Wiley: “Simplest example–and OCW is 1.0 simple–I built my course in Bb. How do I publish as OER? I probably need 30hrs to do it.” (JMS: Push-button public publishing?) Content publishing, content importing.

Justin: A lot of our Bb courses are full of PDFs, PPTs, DOCs, maybe HTML…

Aaron: What does Bb add in terms of content ability? It sounds like you’re talking about the same thing, replicating a course structure. Or how do you get the content out without having it trapped in the LMS’s structure?

JMS: You could do it both ways:

JMS: You have a “repository”, though I dislike that word. It’s a plain web server, or a wiki, or WP, or even an LMS repository. It contains the content–PDFs, PPTs, DOCs, HTML. You can share those straight off of the repository as disagreggated pieces. OR you can link to them directly from your individual LMS course structure. This eliminates course-to-course redundancy. OR you can link to them directly from your opencourseware platform. AND/OR your LMS has a way to select which pieces of the individual course to “open”, and then publishes an open version of your course with some parts hidden.

Wiley mentions OpenShare mod.

JMS: OpenShare does part of this for Moodle: lets you incrementally tag license metadata for resources and activities, and then mark those resources and activities as open or closed. Public can view those open items; registered students can view all the items.

Review: OER from MIT and Carnegie Mellon's OLI

Jared Stein — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 05:32:56 +0000

In David Wiley’s Intro to Open Education course students were asked to randomly choose and then examine 5 MIT OpenCourseWare (MIT OCW) courses, and 5 Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative (OLI) courses. I’ve done random examinations of OCW/OER in the past, so I changed this up a bit to fit my own inclinations: first, I made my choices semi-randomly: the first 2 courses I chose because they had an approximate counterpart on the two sites (French 1 and Logic 1). The other courses I chose based on my own interest as a means of (subjectively) gauging my own user satisfaction (e.g. if I don’t care about the topic I’m not likely to be disappointed or delighted by the course). Second, I only reviewed 3 courses from each project. This is not out of laziness; it is for the sake of efficiency (you’ll soon see why).

Having some experience examining both projects prior to this review, I brought in the following generalized opinions:

MIT: broad, but shallow -many courses with marginal amount of content and activities
OLI: deep, but narrow – few courses with significant content and activities constructed for learning

The motivation for these directions seems clear: MIT OCW seeks to reinforce itself by providing semi-useful, translucent access to content from each and every existing course. OLI seeks to define itself as a provider of in-depth, quality, online learning experiences. UNESCO’s OER Wiki describes the two projects as follows:

OLI “adds instructional design grounded in cognitive theory, formative evaluation for students and faculty, and iterative course improvement based on empirical evidence”
MIT’s OCWs “convey the parameters of the course’s subject matter and pedagogy, ideally representing a substantially complete set of all the materials used in the course”

MIT’s French 1

French 1 from MIT OCW is comprised primarily of a syllabus, calendar, readings list, and assignments list based on the textbook Parallèles–a textbook that the syllabus almost fails to mention. the navigation is find and click, but simple enough to learn and use.

The syllabus reflects the fact that this is an existing course that has been “photocopied” for the MIT OCW project–instructions and expectations are restricted to registered students. For instance, it references the MIT Language Learning and Resource Center — a resource unavailable to distance students.

The course site provides PDFs of instructions for in-class activities. Otherwise assignments simply walk learner through textbook activities. Online resources are tacked on to the end almost decontextualized from real learning patterns.

As I opened separate pages for the materials, I wondered, why not combine assignments with readings into calendar as one big course guide? There seems to be no usability rationale for current architecture, except that it fits a single MIT OCW template.

You can download (presumably all) course materials; each index page of PDFs or other content features the CC By-NC-SA license.

OLI’s Elementary French 1 Online

OLI’s French 1 course’s subtitle, “Open and Free: Jan – Jun 09″, immediately reinforces OLI’s assertion that these are full courses to be taught by instructors, or taken by students. The content confirms that this is a complete online learning experience: the structure provides enhanced linear navigation using a combination of tabs and in-page hyperlinks. I found the navigation is somewhat similar to Moodle‘s and I wondered if it may have been based on this LMS originally. Aside from a couple broken links, the content itself seems to be fully-fleshed out learning materials, richly media-enhanced with no textbook needed. The content pages include text, images, and video with inline Flash-based q&a activities for self-learning.

Like the MIT course, OLI’s French 1 included a number of external online learning resources, however these came in context at the beginning of the course, and thus I was more inclined to click on several to investigate how they might enhance what was to come.

There does not seem to be a way to easily download all course materials at once, though they are clearly marked CC By-NC-SA on each page. This brought me to a question re. the Flash files: if I download the SWFs and crack them, essentially converting them to FLAs, is that acceptable use under the applied CC By-NC-SA license? Presumably yes, as the source code is inseparable from the finished product.

MIT’s Logic 1

MIT OCW’s Logic 1 course utilizes a web site architecture that is very similar to French 1, ensuring that user learnability of the web system is high. In addition to the basics of syllabus, calendar, and readings this course provides PDFs of lecture notes, which provide surprisingly good, text-book like information and examples. Indeed, I read through several of these and got at least the “feel” for the course.

OLI’s Logic and Proofs

As a user trained to recognize shifts in my scent of information, the first thing I noticed in Logic and Proofs is that this course site’s navigation system was inconsistent with the French 1 navigation system. This is not to say that the alternative navigation is illogical, only that the change hurts my head.

This course features introductory movies that orient the learners to the subject, with a media-enhanced transcript for alternate learning styles. A note on my personal preference: for a subject like this, I prefer text with images over video.

The main content of the course is primarily text, but notably enhanced with relevant learning comprehension and self-assessment questions that open in new window (they didn’t in French) with a separate look. Because of this, Logic seems to be quilted together from 2 different systems.

I have to say that symbolic logic has always captivated me, and while the MIT OCW Logic course intrigued me, the completeness and linearity of the content in the OLI course kept me interested and engaged. As I was indulging in one activity I thought, “I should be getting college credit for this!” Upon investigating this impulse I found that not only does OLI provide instructions for instructors and learners, it provides a means by which students can use the OLI web site to receive credit through their home institution. Talk about mashing up your education. Brilliant!

MIT’s Paradox and Infinity

Similar structure to previous MIT OCW courses–enough so that I see a very predictable pattern here. Readings refer to a standard textbook and (usually “closed”–few available online) articles, as well as problem sets — PDF available for self-challenge (however, notably absent is any electronically mediated method of receiving feedback–automated, community-based, or otherwise).

Interestingly, the course site provides hyperlinks to (discounted) purchase via Amazon.com; does MIT get a cut as a way to offset production costs?

OLI’s Physics With the Andes Workbench

OLI Physics features similar navigation and structure to Logic 1, which is unfortunate as I believe OLI’s French 1 had the most modern and intuitive nav system so far. This OLI course is highly activity-based; lesson information (primarily text, but some video) is immediately taken up into “Learn by Doing” activities use Andes tutor software, available for download and installation on Windows (I couldn’t get it running on Ubuntu through WINE).

Again, I found elements of other OLI courses: complete content, linear construction, self-learning activities and assessments. I am not overstating my impression when for a fleeting moment I thought about quitting my job and returning to student life; I am envious of this and future generation of students who can make their own schedules with flexibility provided by the Internet, and I regret to admit I probably got away with a lot simply by exchanging seat time for credit. If personal responsibility is adhered to, the accountability and outcomes of online learning may be higher, and achieved more efficiently.

Aircraft Systems Engineering

MIT OCW’s Aircraft Systems Engineering course site follows the structural pattern of the other MIT OCW courses (syllabus, calendar, readings, etc), with one notable enhancement: video of class lectures. Listed under lecture notes, the video components make this the most compelling MIT OCW course reviewed so far. Fairly rough Real Media video of in-class guest lectures by experts in the field are provided with PDFs of lecture slides, and MP3s. On Ubuntu I couldn’t locate the RM codec I needed to view the video, but did give the audio files a listen, and these were high enough quality to download and bring on bus rides or road trips. Combined with the slides this makes an interesting, remixable OER.

Prior to embarking on this particular task I had generalized these two OCW projects as being about shallow breadth (MIT OCW) or narrow depth (OLI). My reviews supported this earlier generalization if the primary quality objective is prêt-à-porter OER. With respect to learner value I considered an additional analogy: these 3 MIT OCW are like Polaroid snapshots of authentic MIT courses, scanned in and uploaded to bear the MIT brand; these 3 Carnegie Mellon OLI are more akin to planned, staged, shot, enhanced, and sequenced for online learning, and specifically created to define the OLI project (not the other way around).

Dropping Lowest 2 (or More) Scores in Blackboard or Moodle

Jared Stein — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:06:34 +0000

WebCT was infamous for it’s calculated column formula textarea that you couldn’t type in. When John Krutsch developed a clever Javascript hack for it (just one of several cool IE-only hacks packaged as WebCT PowerTools), crafting unusual formulas was suddenly more viable, and we began dropping not just the lowest score, but several low scores.

An hour after trying to work around various bugs in the awful 1.9 Moodle gradebook I found myself in need of this formula again, and the only place I could find it was in my own post on the old WebCT forums. I’m posting it here for my future reference only, but maybe it will be useful to other Bb Vista or Moodle users:

Drop the Lowest Score of a Series

For this example we need to know the labels (Bb/WebCT) or ids (Moodle) of the columns to be included. Here I use A1, A2, A3.

In this example we want to drop the lowest assignment score for our total, first in Blackboard Visa and then in Moodle:

Blackboard/WebCT Vista/CE:


SUM{[A1],[A2],[A3]}-MIN{[A1],[A2],[A3]}

Moodle:


=(sum([[A1]],[[A2]],[[A3]]))-(min([[A1]],[[A2]],[[A3]]))

This calculates the sum total of of the 3 assignments then subtracts the minimum score of the same series.

Drop the Lowest Two Scores of a Series

In this example we want to drop the lowest 2 assignment scores from our total. I’m using 5 assignments to illustrate this in practice.This can get pretty hairy, but once you’ve studied this example it should make sense:

Blackboard/WebCT Vista/CE:


SUM{[A1],[A2],[A3],[A4],[A5]}-MIN{([A1]+[A2]),([A1]+[A3]),([A1]+[A4]),([A1]+[A5]),([A2]+[A3]),([A2]+[A4]),([A2],A5]),([A3]+[A4]),([A3]+[A5]),([A4]+[A5])}

Moodle:


=(sum([[A1]],[[A2]],[[A3]],[[A4]],[[A5]]))-(MIN(([[A1]]+[[A2]]),([[A1]]+[[A3]]),([[A1]]+[[A4]]),([[A1]]+[[A5]]),([[A2]]+[[A3]]),([[A2]]+[[A4]]),([[A2]],[[A5]]),([[A3]]+[[A4]]),([[A3]]+[[A5]]),([[A4]]+[[A5]])))

This calculates the sum total of of the 5 assignments then subtracts the lowest possible combination of two scores found in the same series.

The aforementioned example will work for dropping lowest 3 and more using the same principles, but obviously it gets exponentially longer.

Video: Intro to OpenShare for Moodle

Jared Stein — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:31:31 +0000

Mike Caufield asked that I put up a screencast on the OpenShare mod for Moodle. Here’s one that comes in just under 8 minutes–shorter even than my hatcheted and curtailed preso at MoodleMoot ’08 SFO!

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/vOvQ55MxF1Y" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Here’s a higher quality flv version:

Intro to OpenShare for Moodle 1.9 (flv)

OpenShare (v0.5) for Moodle Released

Jared Stein — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 04:09:37 +0000

The OpenShare block in Moodle

Tonight I’ve released the first all-new version of the OpenShare modification for Moodle 1.9, which I demonstrated last week at OpenEd 2008.

You may view OpenShare documentation or simply download the OpenShare mod now.

Overview of OpenShare

OpenShare turns Moodle into a veritable open educational resources (OER) or opencourseware (OCW) platform by allowing instructors or designers to mark all or part of their Moodle courses as open (public) or closed (enrolled students and teachers only). The open/closed status of any module applies to Moodle’s anonymous Guest role, but OpenShare goes further, adding an Open Learner role that can actually interact and complete open activities such as quizzes. This feature provides a means by which a fully online distance education or independent study course in Moodle can be released as a self-directed informal-social learning environment for the general public, something not provided by typical opencourseware.

License, Open, or Close Resources & Activities

Though based on our old Open Mod for OER, I have renamed this version and reset the numbering because the scripting is 100% new and based on new logic. I owe a lot of thanks to Mike Franks, Jovca, and Eric Bollens of UCLA for explaining their own Public/Private modification to me, and setting me in the right direction with respect to Groupings.

Further, this version of the mod is a Moodle block that requires no modification of core Moodle code. I do, however, have two add-ons to the block that provide advanced usability of the mod. These will be available soon on the OpenShare page.

An optional modification allows for OpenShare changes on the fly.

There are several exciting applications of the OpenShare mod:

open all or part of live Moodle courses during the semester(s) they are offered; students do not mingle with public unless you so desire
duplicate complete or self-contained Moodle courses and open them up for public self-enrollment
duplicate a live Moodle server with courses intact and serve those courses with self-enrollment

One of the most significant advantages of this mod is that it provides an alternative to redundant OER/OCW publishing platforms, and diminishes the need for dedicated OER/OCW staff by putting the power to control the license and release of resources and activities in the hands of the course creators.

From informal conversations and feedback I recognize that the next step is to tackle the problem of getting OER out of Moodle so it is interoperable.

For more info see my OpenShare documentation & download page.

Re. Blackboard Customers Consider Alternatives

Jared Stein — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:28:43 +0000

Our Chief Information Office, Ray Walker sent me an article in The Chronicle: Blackboard Customers Consider Alternatives. It’s a great read to gauge the current state of the corporate LMS leviathan.

One passage in particular percolated my sense of irony. In addressing the idea that institutions may have more flexibility to innovate with open source solutions, Michael Chasen…

…argued that there are benefits to the corporate model of software publishing, too. “I have 300 people on my development team working full time on our products and services,” he said. “I don’t know if there are 300 full-time people currently working on Sakai. Maybe there are. I have a multimillion-dollar hardware-testing lab just to test scalability.”

“At a minimum,” he said, “we are at least just as innovative as open source.”

At least as innovative as open source! With millions in expenditures on hardware and developers Bb is proud of the fact that they are at least as innovative as open source, which runs on the power of volunteers and sheer passion? Chasen’s statement can be read both ways, confirming what I’ve believed for the past two years: that free, oss platforms such as Moodle etc. are now on par with Bb and the other Big Boys, and thus a monumentally better deal for educational institutions. Instead of investing money in licensing, invest that money in people, and shape the direction of the LMS in ways that are best-suited to your institution’s needs.

Chasen poo-poo’s the evidence that institutions are leaving Bb for Moodle, yet his self-assured statement on the matter reveals a flaw in his logic: “There’s not more people leaving now than there were yesterday.” If I have 10 people on Bb on Monday and 1 person leaves, I have 9 on Tuesday. If 1 person then leaves (same count of attrition), that’s down to 8 I have on Wednesday. There may not be an increase in the number of people leaving now than there were yesterday, but the conversion rate is still being whittled away. To exacerbate this fact, I don’t see herds of institutions stampeding towards adopting Bb for the first time (Q4 2009 call reports new higher ed customer increase at about 5%).

Blackboard insists that it’s patent claims will not be asserted against open source software LMS development, but if they really are as shark-like as the Chronicle suggests, what other plans might Chasen et al have to deal with the growing “threat” of Moodle and other oss platforms to their marketshare? The recent Bb partnership with Sakai to develop an open source integration tool may provide some insight. Michael Feldstein highlighted this excerpt from the August 6, 2008 Bb earnings conference call wherein Chasen reported,

our learning system will be able to load other course management system courses through our interface. …a lot of campuses have standardized on the Blackboard system… but there maybe an individual teacher or a very small department that is using either a home-grown system or maybe an open-source solution…

It sounds to me as if a developing Bb strategy is to partner with or leverage open source projects to produce integration or transmogrification tools in order to sweep dissident teachers and courses into Bb.

Thinking about Bb’s modus operandi, the patent debacle, and of course the cost of licenses has already conjured some new, bitter slogans to post on John Krutsch’s >Blackboard Customer-ized Mug Maker. It looks like a great place to vent for disgruntled Bb users; let’s just hope he doesn’t receive his own cease and desist notification.

Moodle Demo for LMS Showcase

Jared Stein — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:03:03 +0000

UEN and USHE are hosting a showcase of current learning management systems tomorrow, August 14th, at the Marriott library in Salt Lake City. I get to present Moodle at 9:30am, so here’s a quick link to my Moodle Demo presentation page, which includes an overview document and a backchannel for chat.