Some VLE thoughts Martin Weller

Outline The VLE choices Current state of play Tools and pedagogies Technology succession VLE 2.0

The VLE choices In-house development Commercial VLE Open Source Service oriented architecture

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

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.

A flexibility continuum Commercial VLE SOAOS Standards SAKAI

Moodle as reasonable compromise Gain: –Functionality –Time –Community –Profile –Flexibility –Technical consensus Lose: –Some flexibility –Some control

VLE as toolset Conferencing Content Tracking Assignment handling Assessment Synchronous tools Blogs Wikis Podcasting Social bookmarking Eportfolio

Trends Technologies are not developed for use within education There is a move towards socially focused tools and away from content-focused ones Technologies move from niche to mainstream in a short time frame The tools occupy a specific communication niche

Match to pedagogy 1.Community of Practice 2.Resource based learning 3.Peer learning 4.Content-led/Instructivist 5.Complex learning 6.Problem-based learning 7.Collaborative learning 8.Instructor-led 1.Conferencing 2.Content 3.Tracking 4.Assignment handling 5.Assessment 6.Synchronous tools 7.Blogs 8.Wikis 9.Podcasting 10.Social bookmarking 11.Eportfolio

Technology clusters Community of Practice Conferencing Blogs Wikis Synchronous tools Content : Range of resources Personal file store

Plant succession

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

Web 2.0 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” 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….

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

Question What would a VLE be like to ideally meet your needs?