• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

In Victory for Open-Education Movement, Blackboard Embraces Sharing

October 19, 2011, 12:01 am

Professors who use Blackboard’s software have long been forced to lock their course materials in an area effectively marked, “For Registered Students Only,” while using the system. Today the company announced plans to add a “Share” button that will let professors make those learning materials free and open online.

The move may be the biggest sign yet that the idea of “open educational materials” is going mainstream, nearly 10 years after the Massachusetts Institute of Technology first began giving away lecture notes online. Blackboard made the change after college officials complained that the company’s software, which more than half the colleges in the country use for their online-course materials, was holding them back from trying open-education projects.

The president of Blackboard’s learning division, Ray Henderson, plans to send an e-mail to customers today that effectively modifies the company’s contract with colleges. In the old contract, colleges could have been charged extra for every additional person who viewed course materials placed on the Blackboard software platform (because license fees were set based on the number of potential users). Now that has been “liberalized” so that any outsiders who are invited to look in will not bring extra charges to a college, says Mr. Henderson. “If it’s non-revenue for you, we understand it’s going to be non-revenue for us,” he says.

Mr. Henderson said that in the past 18 to 24 months he has heard increasing requests from colleges officials to allow sharing. He said that he wanted to make the change sooner, but that it is easier for him to win the argument now that the company, which was publicly held, has been sold to a private-equity firm, Providence Equity Partners.

“This is something that is easier to do as a private company more easily than as a public company because the risk of being misunderstood by investors is less,” says Mr. Henderson. “The investor community was skeptical about that and worried” about an open policy, he says, adding that in the new ownership model, “we had to tell three people about that at Providence, who immediately got it.”

One key to Blackboard’s new “Share” feature is a partnership with Creative Commons, which offers licenses for free content. When professors choose to make their courses free, they will be presented with options to easily attach a Creative Commons license, something they otherwise would have to do manually.

Cable Green, director of global learning for Creative Commons, says that incorporating a sharing option within Blackboard will have a significant impact on the number of professors who make their course materials free.

Mr. Green says he is in discussions with other companies that make course-management systems to persuade them to add similar features to their products. “My goal is to have this kind of option in every commercial learning-management system and also open-source ones,” he says.

This entry was posted in Company Watch, Educause 2011, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • hoodlib

    Sorry Jacques, but conservative Evangelicals no longer exist. They have either become nationalistic fundamentalists (and accept the rhetoric) or moderate to liberal Evangelicals (and get shouted down by the nationalistic fundamentalists) or retreated.

  • trendisnotdestiny

    Or some branding of fascists….

    What is most striking are following features:

    1) Mission to convert other(s): religious conversion, “Zig Ziglar — The Secret” sales culture, selective memory, reliance on guns for safety & celebration of ignorance and ambition…

    2) Hypocrisy of language: entitlement is word chosen when used for “others’ benefits” but when it applied to them: “it’s their medicare or their social security”…. (Two meanings for language; those laced with power mean one thing and those without mean another).

    Pat Robertson is another prime example holding himself to be a man of god, but also calling for the US to assassinate world leaders that do not agree with us (Chavez in Venezuela) When Power is introduced, the language is much clearer. This is also a critique of free market capitalism which sells open markets on the front end, but clearly works to weed out the the small players in favor of a few oligopolies in our top industries…

    3) The timing of dialogue speeds up or slows down (where the levers of introduction are hidden) almost like a preacher (yelling and whispering, speaking quickly and slogging along)… The tempo of evangelism and our corporate media are disconcertingly (eerily) similar….

    A) William Cronon – tying the union busting movement to a GOP think tank where they have been slinging bills to the legislature en masse for decades… Speed up the attack on teachers, firemen and public unions (to get leverage from which to shape opinion)…

    B) Nuclear Energy – calls for moving on from the debate about nuclear energy (see Diane Auer Jones) because now is not the time… Same thing was said about BP…

    C) Invading Libya – the call to war, but it is marketed differently…. Same process different spin where there is no real education being demonstrated (just dominion)….

    These reek of fascist mentalities

  • _perplexed_

    The Boston Globe reported that Rick Santorum stated that Kennedy’s stance caused “great damage.” I’m rather surprised that Santorum thinks that countries without such separation (think Iran, maybe) are superior to the US in this regard. If I were a conservative, I would invite him to move there.

  • pocvecem

    Brief responses:

    Gingrich: His ideas (As quoted by Berlinerblau) can be translated as “American culture should be influenced by religion.” Those comments did not look obnoxious until I clicked on the link and found him identifying a specific set of religions.

    Cain: That’s just appalling. I can’t think of a context where that statement would be appropriate.

    Santorum: I disagree with Perplexed’s interpretation that Santorum was expressing support eliminating all church-state separation like what exists in Iran. There are shades of gray. Whether even a shade of gray is appropriate is another question entirely. If Santorum had said “I believe that people’s deepest beliefs and values should shape their behavior in office,” few people would raise an eyebrow even though the religious part would be implied by that statement.

    And Berlinerblau wrote:

    I regret to say that this might indeed be true. But I have not lost hope that there are Conservative Evangelicals in Iowa and elsewhere who will be brave enough to challenge this type of rhetoric.

    I don’t think it’s the conservatives or evangelicals who matter here. Even as far back as Tocqueville (I think I have the correct writer), religion was used in this country to signify an individual’s trustworthiness. Today, vast swaths of the population are sympathetic to the kind of view Gingrich and Santorum expressed, even if they don’t attend religious services.

  • jacquesberlinerblau

    Hi all

    Interesting comments. Hoodlib, not sure I agree on the disappearance of Conservative Evangelicals. Povocem, true about establishing one’s trustworthiness by appeals to one’s religiosity. Though it is the INVIDIOUS comparison that startles here. It’s not just, “I am a godly person,” but “I am a godly person because I malign those other people over there.” Not necessarily new in the history of American Faith and Values campaigning, but clearly on the upswing of late, regrettably.

  • suomynona

    It’s understandable for politicians to speak to constituents about a desire for some basic, shared values, some of which might have grown out of the various religious orientations of our European forbears. But it’s actually shocking to hear the disdain with which some politicians speak about having a secular society. Certainly secularism is not incompatible with having some shared values that come from religious traditions; and as I see it, having anything other than a secular society would be a direct contradiction of all that America is founded upon.

    Even more shocking is the fact that American politicians, especially conservatives, have long identified what they call the incompatibility of Islam with modernity. I take pocvecum’s point that there are degrees of difference between a Saudi Arabia and the American Christian right; but, though I don’t think the Christian right has any stonings or Biblical legislation on the back burner, their opposition to the idea of America as a secular society is indeed a fundamentalist position in the 21st century. When Christian or Jewish minorities are persecuted in Islamic countries, we say these backward places need to get with the program. So do we really want to call ourselves a Christian country, and make it official? Do we really want to eschew secularism (which, incidentally for Dr Gingrich, is not the same as atheism)?

  • _perplexed_

    But apparently, the “gray” of contemporary America is insufficiently dark for Santorum, else why the “great damage” claim?

    And I would be fine with “I believe that people’s deepest beliefs and values should shape their behavior in office” granting that some elected officials would be guided by their religious values (as seems to be presently the case). That kind of statment does not deny the validity of secular values. If we take Santorum seriously, is he not saying secular values cause “great damage”?

  • http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

    The provocative inconsistent position of Gingrich is more about emotions and provocation than about anything that is remotely reasonable. That’s the point: http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/03/anger-hate-demonization-villains-and-politics/

  • http://twitter.com/Blackboard Blackboard

    Blackboard embraces open education resources, sharing via @jryoung

  • http://twitter.com/readmeray Ray Henderson

    Thanks for the piece, Jeff.  I’d like to make a few small clarifications about my remarks.  

    The last paragraph notes that we’re in dialog across the industry.  My intended reference there was about the IMS Common Cartridge, the industry standard format for digital course import/export.  As part of our effort to help drive adoption of these standards, we’re encouraging all learning platforms to both import–and even more important–EXPORT content authored in their systems in the Common Cartridge format.  Thus far there’s been good progress on the import side, but significantly less on export.  We’ll keep nudging that along.

    I have not yet spoken to other providers specifically about adding the Creative Commons licensing, or being forward compatible with the LRMI initiative for discovering OER courseware.  But like adopting Common Cartridge for export, I think it would benefit educators if they did so.  I’m sure Cable Green at Creative Commons will help catalyze that dialog and we’ll add our voice in support.

    Finally, regarding the opening reference about adding a share button.  Metaphorically, that’s correct.  But the actual mechanism is a bit different, which we’ll be laying out beginning today.  Visit coursesites.com for more info.

    Ray Henderson
    President, Blackboard Learn
    ray@blackboard.com

  • http://twitter.com/jryoung Jeff

    Thanks for weighing in. The last paragraph, though, is a quote by Cable Green about Creating Commons being in dialogue across the industry, so that wasn’t attempting to describe what Blackboard is doing. 

  • http://twitter.com/kbell14 kbell14

    Sounds like we are entering a new stage in the LMS world – congratulations to C-Commons (Cable!) and Bboard

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=693297679 Fernando Pernica

    Blackboard is late again. There are already a myriad of simpler, more user-friendly platforms which allow content-sharing available to universities and professors. iversity (http://www.iversity.org) is one of them. 

    Sharing and collaboration are its key strengths. Because of its bottom-up approach iversity allow its user to carry their course content from one institution to another. And membership is free-of-cost for everyone.
    Check out the sample course: http://www.iversity.org/profiles/11369/courses

  • johnfontaine

    Blackboard will have more details at the Bb corporate keynote at EDUCUASE http://bit.ly/nNSDBG Build and share your own OER resources with CourseSites by Blackboard https://www.coursesites.com/

  • pcookson

    What is of concern at my institution is who will have the authority to share or not to share one’s course with the world?  If the course utilizes course materials for which the university has paid the intellectual property owners licensing fees, it would seem problematic for the course instructor to release those materials to the world under a Creative Commons license.  What is the position of Blackboard about this potentially “sticky wicket”?

  • urspider

    About time “the gated community” opened. I’ve refused to use Bb, preferring my own code or now Google Apps, for this very reason. Guest access for visitors to my courses was thorny, and I’m in a field–composition–where we share resources.

    Welcome to the party, Bb…late but present!  Who knows? I might even give you a try again!

  • http://twitter.com/janeyoflanagan Janey Flanagan

    Blackboard goes open

  • ychumanities

    Well, that removes ONE of my objections to Blackboard.  Now if it only allowed instructors to easily customize the look and feel of their online class sites, eliminated frustrating layers of choose and click to find a particular option, gave students customizable sites to save and share their own work, eliminated the hierarchical, top-down structure of information sharing and allowed third-party developers of widgets and features, I’d consider going back.

  • http://twitter.com/natachakennedy Natacha Kennedy

    I’m not opening up ANY of my materials to non-students. Not because I don’t want to, but because a new private university has been stealing course materials (and even whole courses) from professors at my university and passing them off as their own.

  • John Cohen

    For the last 5 years I’ve put my graduate immunology course on a host site off-campus, not so much for “anybody” (though it gets a lot of hits from around the world), but because I do not think that taking my course should immunize them against the subject; au contraire, I want to infect my students so they stay interested in immunology, through the rest of school and, I hope, forever. I want them to come back to the site, which is being perpetually updated. Using Dreamweaver is a lot more fun than Blackboard, and once you learn it, quicker and, of course, prettier. If anyone wants to take a look: http://immu7630.cafescicolorado.org  The URL reflects that it’s a subsite on my Cafe Sci site, so it shares the $59. annual cost of hosting. To Natacha: Before the Web, my course note packets were sold in our bookstore. People bought them and used them as their own all over the country, some without attribution. Since there was nothing I could do about it, I decided to consider theft the sincerest form of flattery.

  • velmaellis

    Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence. NOW is the correct time to study contact your local University also check for an interesting article called “High Speed University” on web

  • http://twitter.com/teacherrogers Sandra A. Rogers

    The “share button” can also allow for quality assurance reviews or collaborative efforts in training/ mentoring of online curriculum and instructional design.

  • davric

    Whenever I read about Blackboard I’m just thankful we use Moodle! Bb is a clunky system in itself, but when you feed it in to a corporate IT-department world (like the one we have at my university and many another), you can almost guarantee that the clunkiness is going to be multiplied many times.

    Those few poor souls who have to use Blackboard at my place are faced first with an almost entirely incomprehensible interface (if you’re a newbie) and more or less no help (because Bb is so easy to use, isn’t it!). No wonder they’re migrating to Moodle.

  • ylwiz81

    This is a great development, it is good to see BB becoming more open with content while retaining the power that other LMS, like Moodle, simply cannot match.

  • renellin

    Once again, the overreaction which punishes all the wrong people. I don’t really see the connection–if you put the materials online, suddenly you have taken away the incentive to steal, since who is going to buy what is available free online. As for passing stuff off as their own, it happens now all over. Every time we read about another teacher fired after being caught stealing materials (who was that guy in Colorado?) we realize–the title isn’t as important as the content he spreads. We should all be vigilant about who we trust.

  • http://twitter.com/miichaelf Michael Flack

    A close second behind MIT was The Open University, which of course has been producing its own written materials for 40 years, seeing them ‘borrowed’ by lecturers elsewhere – http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/

  • troyhahn

    Apparently you have not tried or seen Instructure’s Canvas LMS.   I would suggest taking a gander at it.   They have a live demo you can check out here:  http://www.instructure.com