The NOSE

School 2.0

When I was at MIT working on .LRN and iLearn we received some very valuable feedback early on by an MIT physics undergraduate. Her comment has stayed with me all these years: "When you design e-learning systems, don't forget that we (students) learn as much from each other than we do from our instructors." What she was describing, of course, was the power of peer-to-peer learning.

I confess I still don't understand Web 2.0. David Warlick, however, has distilled for us the difference between School 1.0 and School 2.0.

School 1.0: "Teachers deliver content and skills, students are mirrors, reflecting content and skills back to the teacher (or government).  If the reflection is in the image of the teacher and the state’s standards, then success has been achieved — regardless of any continuing affects on the students abilities to prosper in a rapidly changing time.  (See diagram 1)"

School 2.0: "Students stop being mirrors, and instead become amplifiers. Their job is not merely to reflect what they encounter, but to add value to it. Content and skills are no longer the end product, but they become raw materials, with which students learn to work and play and share. (see diagram 2)"

The Technology Difference in Learning

Does technology make a difference in learning? If so, how?

In a concise and elegant monograph ("The Myth about No Significant Difference") in Educause Review, Diana Oblinger and Brian Hawkins suggest that we reframe the question.

Torrey Pines Reserve  by TheNose.

"Learning occurs as a result of motivation, opportunities, an active process, interaction with others, and the ability to transfer learning to a real-world situation." --Oblinger, Hawkins

As a result, Oblinger and Hawkins suggest that we reframe the "technology difference" question by asking how specific technologies advance each of these modalities of learning. They conclude by posing a set of strategic questions for the CIO and members of the executive team.

Evaluating LMSs

e-Literate (Michael Feldstein) posted recently on the need for creating a community and framework for evaluating both open source and proprietary LMSs. I hope something comes of it and am willing to lend my support to the effort, as long as it is in the tradition of open source. We need a shared and open methodology for comparing learning management systems.

Edutools provides a functionality comparison matrix but that's only one-dimension of the problem. How do we evaluate the scalability, performance or inter-operability claims of vendors or open source projects? What does the total cost of ownership for these systems look like? One can always hire consultants. But what do consultants know?

A neutral framework and objectively evaluated benchmarks would be very useful.

Google Mail Comes to Campus

Triangle Tower    Originally uploaded by thodue.

It was only a matter of time. Google is testing a new email service that offers branded email accounts for schools, business, and organizations. San Jose City College is one of the first out of the gate. Is it worthwhile for educational institutions to maintain their own email infrastructure? Not if there is a free or cost effective Software as a Service (SaaS). As Nicolas Carr observes, "Google is playing up the SaaS benefit: "Gmail for your domain is hosted by Google, so there's no hardware or software for you to install or maintain." It knows that maintaining an email system is a big hassle for many smaller organizations. It's not clear whether it's giving away this service or not, but if it is free, it could be a very attractive alternative to a lot of schools, nonprofits, and small companies."

UPDATE: I have since learned that Microsoft beat Google to the punch with a program called Windows Live @ edu, which "provides institutions of higher education with a set of free hosted communications services for students, alumni, and applications." I predict that within five years at least 50% of higher educational institutions will migrate their email infrastructures to either Google or Microsoft, especially if the service remains free.

Learning Management Operating System

The folks at SUNY Learning Network have proposed the concept of a "Learning Management Operating System".  One of the proponents is Michael Feldstein, who happens to be a good friend. I understand the motivation for LMOS --- the perennial itch for modularity and interoperability -- but haven't yet been able to put my arms around the concept. Also, isn't this what Sakai is supposed to be all about? Stephen Downes has weighed in and thinks that an LMOS is hopelessly over-engineered.