June 18, 2008
The Battle Between Web 2.0 and the Classroom
The collaborative nature of Web 2.0 tools and the structure of higher education seem to be in conflict, says Martin Weller, a professor of educational technology at the Open University, in Britain, in a recent blog post on e-Literate.
Weller, who in 1998 launched the Open University’s first major e-learning course, said that although “most students want the structure, the support and the filter that higher education provides,” a project launched by his institution is showing that online learners tend to organize themselves in groups according to their learning interests and help each other in their learning process.
Weller says new Web tools (such as wikis and video-capture technology) put power in the hands of students, but traditional learning-management systems (such as Moodle and Blackboard) emphasize central control by the learning institutions, so he predicts that “monolithic LMSs will be deserted, digital tumbleweed blowing down their forums. Students will abandon this in favor of their tools.” —Maria José Viñas
Posted on Wednesday June 18, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Vendor of Educational Materials to Expand E-Book Offerings
Next: College Accountability Dashboard Debuts
Students will abandon monolithic LMSs? Yes, in spirit they will, but as long as institutions are granting the credits and degrees, students [as always] will have to go with the flow.
— Kate Jun 18, 05:18 PM #
Yes, ve must alvays control dese studenten, zey will do wat we say because ve have zis power dat de accredditing bodies hav given us, so zat we need not listen.
— Jeff McNeill Jun 18, 05:41 PM #
@Kate – that comment makes me sad.
We will lose them in spirit . . . but that doesn’t matter. We still control the body.
Is that what it has come to?
— Kevin Prentiss Jun 18, 05:52 PM #
LMS’ remains a relevant platform as ong as they constantly adapt to the learning styles of all students.
I am a big fan of Web 2.0 technologies and have found they have a place in the classroom. However there currently is not a Web 2.0 technology that “puts it all together” for students and delivers the structure required for University learning.
Despite Weller’s assertion, their are LMS’ (Blackboard being one)that are adding Web 2.0 functionality to their suite. the larger question remainig is how do you leverage and integrate the technology available to enable better learning.
— Matt D. Jun 18, 06:13 PM #
Why should we, #4, “adapt to the learning styles of all the students”? Some “learning styles” are not very conducive nor adaptive to learning some kinds of things, concepts, skills, and ideas. Medical and Law Schools do not “adapt to the learning styles” of all the students. And the Courts those law students will have to practice in will certainly not so adapt.
Of course, if the job of most undergraduate colleges, especially Liberal Arts, and the like, is to warehouse late teens and young adults for four to six years, then we have to make them happy so as to promote “retention”. But some how, I dont think Wal-Mart or MacDonalds are going to “adapt to their learning styles” any more than the Courts are.
— Joseph F Foster Jun 18, 09:25 PM #
LMSs could remain in vogue if they become the Learner’s Management System, not their fathers’ LMS. Weller’s prediction seems safe, since things do change, even monolithic LMSs. The question may be whether it’s before or after the learners abandon their fathers’ LMSs.
— VK Jun 18, 09:36 PM #
In response to point 1.
Does anyone know of any research into why students decide to undertake formal v informal education and what percentage would still do the courses if they didn’t receive a qualification at the end of it?
— Nigel Jun 18, 10:40 PM #
Nigel’s (#7) implied point is spot on.
The conflict between the educating and credentialing functions of schools and colleges has always existed to some extent, but is brought to the fore by emerging technologies. Any person with access to the Internet could potentially become self-educated to a very high level. What schools offer is the expertise of teachers and the opportunity to earn a credential, which they obviously can’t afford to give away.
Blackboard and other LSMs attempt to package and control access to faculty expertise so that universities can be paid by students. Ultimately, this strikes me as having the same inherent problems that publishers and record companies are faced with in a world of PDFs and MP3s. I think the technology is pushing our culture toward finding new ways to organize information sharing, and will have profound effects on the organization of higher education.
— Bob P Jun 19, 06:53 AM #
I don’t see it as an “either-o” or “zero sum” choice between a CMS/LMS vs. Web 2.0. Rather, I see a mash-up between the two. Why can’t you still use ANGEL, e.g., and also use one or more of the numberous (over 2500) Web 2.0 applications, too?
— John Thompson Jun 19, 07:13 AM #
I agree with John Thompson — it is not LMS vs Web2.0 that is the central issue. Unlike Matt (#4) who apparently sees the value of an LMS as something that “puts it all together”, I think the days of the cookie-cutter, monolithic LMS are limited. Why should we rely on, or wait for, a company like Blackboard to decide what functionality or tools to build in to their “product”.
— Jim Jun 19, 08:41 AM #
I just added “Web 2.0” to the list of media-hyped terms I hate. Said list includes:
“Beatniks”
“Hippies”
“Yippies”
“Boomers”
“30-Somethings”
“Gen-Xers”
“Edu-tainment”
And, “Collaborative space.”
— Dr. Jimmy Jun 19, 10:46 AM #
Nigel and Bob P. (#7 & 8) are dancing around the central issue – the abundance of (often quite good) content on the web means that self directed learners don’t need institutions unless they need the credentials.
At the risk of sounding polly-annish, what’s a “student” any more, anyway?
Emerging tools mean that the time to catch impressionable minds is in K-12, and to show them how to effectively learn both within and outside of the traditional educational boundaries. Self directed education is already happening big time (always has), but the potential for collaborative learning is now taking off.
There will also be times when just about everyone will need to know how to work within and game the system. How do we help without soaking them?
— jrb@msu Jun 19, 01:06 PM #
Comparing traditional higher education and web 2.0 is like comparing apples and red. Some higher ed institutions are (at least partially) using 2.0 technologies, and there is much that is 2.0 that has nothing to do with education.
I think Weller hits the nail on the head when he mentions being able to learn about quantum physics or the world of Harry Potter. So… just like learning things through going to a physical library and reading books and meeting/collaborating with people face to face in informal settings. People have always been able to learn on their own, and 2.0 just makes it easier. People have also long been able to pay money for the value of the “filter”, not to mention the value of a degree in a world that measures marketability of people in large part by whether they hold the “piece of paper”.
Which means the real question that should be asked here is whether the new technologies will mean that a significant enough portion of the potential audience of higher education will value their self-education efforts more than a degree from an accredited institution – to the point that they would elect not to “go to college” – more than they valued that self-education compared to traditional education when they had less technology to help them accomplish it?
Also, in the last paragraph he mentions the ‘web 2.0 problem’. If you view web 2.0 as a bundled package (e.g. the decentralization goes unavoidably hand-in-hand with the tools and the other ideologies like the perpetual beta, collaboration, rich user experience, etc.) then for higher ed institutions that try to use it it is a problem. To quote the coiner of said term, “Like many important concepts, Web 2.0 doesn’t have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core.” Meaning that universities can use what’s useful to them as an accredited institution and not worry about what doesn’t help them reach their goals.
The real problem of ‘monolithic LMSs’ is that there are few enough options and the migration cost is so high that universities themselves get stuck. But that’s another issue entirely.
— Jon Jun 19, 01:59 PM #
To Matt’s point – yes there is; studentforce (http://www.salesforce.com/appexchange/detail_overview.jsp?NavCode__c=&id=a0330000000NfaMAAS). However, standard or other LMS must be a part of it. John W is correct – not either or rather, a combination of the two.
— Ed Jun 19, 02:44 PM #
There is a thread here about a conflict between learning and gaining credentials. Stephen Downes talks about these ideas in a post called Open Source Assessment where he explores how a community might ‘recognize’ the abilities of a member.
In the Center for Teaching Learning and Technology at WSU, we have been exploring how these ideas might be implemented in contexts where the learning is happening inside and outside the university. This has resulted in some thinking about how transforming the grade book could be transformative to the university. Our thinking is that the ePortfolio is the core learning system, not the LMS.
— Nils Peterson Jun 22, 09:38 AM #
I agree that the CMS (and maybe not the LMS) is on its way to obscurity. Whether or not we rely on vendor or open source products, we still need tools that create networked learning spaces for students.
The core institutional functionality that would tie various web 2.0 apps together to create a learning infrastructure for teachers and students are (at least in my mind) authentication, assessment, gradebooking and portfolios. Then learners and learning-facilitators can mix and match whatever tools and content they need to accomplish the larger goal—learning.
— Jon Mott Jun 25, 06:17 PM #
Jon Mott’s comment struck a chord with me. Indeed, the word ‘core’ leapt off the page for me. I have been musing over the community metaphor used for collaborative learning. The context is like any human settlement; core institutional buildings (place of worship, meeting hall, trading post, civic administration building, etc) surrounded by the homes people have built for themselves.
I see the LMS mediating those institutional functions but the members of the community having carte blanche with their own content and expression.
— James Durkan Jul 3, 11:53 AM #