The Future IMS for Higher Ed (Instructional Management System) Lesley Blicker November 2008

Instructional Technologies – Predictions through 2013  Continued development of Web 2.0 tools  Continued exploration in immersive virtual worlds as learning environments  Growth in number of products which have 3D “engines” built in (e.g., Second Life, Lively, 3B, EON Reality)  More 3D modeling, robotics, holographic software used in education  Increase in use of Webtops (PageFlakes, NetVibes, iGoogle)  Repurposing of the IMS* as we know it  Emergence of startups with radically different IMS concept, but focused on single course, not enterprise or integration with SIS, LDAP  ~10-15% of faculty experimenting with tools outside of IMS to accomplish more student centered learning and digital content creation  Attempt to layer interactive tools on top of IMS  Move towards building and sharing 3D learning objects  No let up in plea for open APIs and interoperability  7-8 years – primary Web interface begins morphing to 3D; 2D lives alongside 3D or in it for a while  Increased use of Open Source products for enterprise applications * Instructional Management System © Lesley Blicker

Current State of the Current IMS Products Two primary categories for higher education: 1.Large enterprise systems that scale, integrate with key administrative systems such as SIS, LDAP,  Proprietary (e.g., D2L, eCollege, Blackboard  Open Source (e.g., Sakai, Moodle) 2.Small innovative IMSs, designed for individual course level, not likely to go enterprise, but are integrating with lots of social technologies, act and feel more like social technology

Current IMS (CMS) – What’s the Beef? Unilateral publication formats Labeled as false start; replicated existing classrooms Assumes more passive consumer of information Monolithic and they don’t play well with others (API’s not truly open) – lack of interoperability Scott Leslie’s Video: The Future CMS slide 34 –

Current State of the Enterprise IMSs In the 3 rd Phase of Add-Ons and Bundling  Adding more tools in general as well as limited Web 2.0-like tools or proprietary mashups  Going some measure towards integration with other software or increasing interoperability via open APIs  But may still lack sufficient agility for early adopters who think the current IMS format is too limiting  Tend to be reliable, scalable, and integrate with core administrative systems (SIS, LDAP, )

Current State of the Current IMS Products Reliable, scalable, enterprise systems, integrate or interface with key administrative applications, no programming allowed (D2L, BB, eCollege, Angel) Small innovative applications developed primarily for the course level, more open API. Do not expect to grow to enterprise systems or be able to integrate with administrative systems anytime soon or in the foreseeable 3-5 years Open Source systems, more open APIs, can develop custom applicational integrations but will need cadre of programmers to do so (Sakai, Moodle) Reliability, integrations Agility, act more like social systems, allowing student created content

Characteristics of Innovative IMSs Newcomers are starting to emerge with radically different IMS designs: Built-in Web 2.0 functionality Boundaries going well beyond the course space Integration with dozens if not hundreds of applications through pre-loaded and customizable widgets (open APIs) Social networking is matter-of-fact Multiple-way sends are matter-of-fact

My Predictions for the Future IMS We won’t see the innovative products turning into enterprise applications anytime soon for complex reasons The enterprise application will be part of a mix of systems for tracking learning experiences which will:  Run side-by-side with more flexible and interoperable approaches. Faculty will invent their own PLEs (personal leaning environment) I.e., g, M. Wesch using NetVibes)  Recede in importance as the primary unit of the virtual course site and will morph to an LMOS (Learning Management Operating System), maintaining administrative functions for enterprise systems (e.g., SIS integration, managing grades) and would provide the backbone for layering (instructional software living on top of the IMS)  Not likely do it all (incorporate enough open API/integration with other technologies and remain reliable and able to integrate with SIS, core technologies needed for student integration)

The iGoogle, Netvibes Phenomenon to Create a Personal Learning Environment A Portal to Media Literacy, M. Wesch h?v=J4yApagnr0shttp:// h?v=J4yApagnr0s – min 28 NetVibes iGoogle

Current Examples of Widget Integration Look to Wikis or Facebook as examples for adding widgets int.com/ om/apps/ om/apps/

Requirements of Future IMSs The Short List Interoperability and extensibility (open architecture) to allow for ease of integration with host of existing applications such as Web 2.0 apps, student-created content apps, live video conferencing, audio streams, etc. Better means of tracking learning outcomes to close the loop with accreditation reports Blending or integrating with 3D virtual worlds Good interface/viewability for portable content, via cell phones, PDAs Easy content migration in and out of system Integration with electronic reserves

Who Am I Watching? LearnHub (watch video) UDUTU.com