1. VLEs and the democratisation of e-learning Martin Weller

2. Outline Where are we? How did we get here? Where are we going?

3. Where are we?

4. What is a VLE? The principal components of a VLE package include curriculum mapping (breaking curriculum into sections that can be assigned and assessed), student tracking, online support for both teacher and student, electronic communication (e- mail, threaded discussions, chat, Web publishing), and Internet links to outside curriculum resources. “the components in which learners and tutors participate in "on-line" interactions of various kinds, including on-line learning LMS = “a software application or Web-based technology used to plan, implement, and assess a specific learning process.” MLE = The whole range of information systems and processes of an institution (including a VLE if appropriate) that contribute directly, or indirectly, to learning and the management of that learning

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

6. VLE as pervasive technology 94 percent of American colleges and universities use at least one type of electronic courseware for distance education and/or as a supplement to the traditional classroom Two–thirds of faculty members who initially use an LMS continue to do so for future courses 86% of respondents from UK HE institutions have VLE and 70% of UK FE colleges.

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

8. 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

9. Expanding HE 1900: 500,000 students globally 2000: 100,000,000 1990s the number of worldwide students grew by around 3.9% a year Rate of increase was markedly greater in the developing world than the developed world. In America, the numbers of students in higher education institutions who are over 24 years old has already overtaken the number which is between 18 and 24 The global turnover, in financial terms, of Higher Education = $550 billion per year. The UK government have committed themselves to a target of 50% by 2010. That would imply an increase of around 250,000 students by that time. The Chinese govt. aim for a 15% enrolment rate by 2010 implying around 16 million students. HEFCE:2002 to 2010 there could be an increase in demand of between 180,000 and 250,000 students.

10. So… = A lot of people using the same technology And using technology for learning is different from other uses VLE = a proxy for changes in higher education(?) +

11. Democrats vs revolutionaries staff development academic staff innovation tradition critical mass cottage industry mainstream Robustness Reliability Ease of use Flexibility Excitement Technological flair Rigour Usabilty New tools New approaches

12. OS VLEs Previous OS VLEs Commercial VLEs

13. How did we get here?

14. Plant succession

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

16. That Blackboard patent Why software patents are dangerous You have a system that is organized by courses. The system can be accessed by different users from different computers. Users can access multiple courses and can have different access privileges assigned to each course based on the roles of student, instructor, and/or administrator. An instructor can create and edit pages in a course space. Courses have an announcements page where announcements can be created and edited by the instructor. (Michael Feldstein) Attempt to prevent succession…

17. 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

18. 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.

19. Where are we going? VLE research directions

20. Democratisation of the MLE space Feature annexation

22. Democratisation of the MLE space 2 Feature annexation Competitive systems

24. Democratisation of the MLE space 3 Feature annexation Competitive systems Different configurations –E.g. Portal as central componentPortal as central component

25. Democratisation of the MLE space 4 Feature annexation Competitive systems Different configurations – Portal as VLEPortal as VLE Appropriate metaphors

27. 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….

28. 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

29. Scott Wilson

30. Personalization A benefit of e-learning Tools that promote it Data mining Creation of suitable content PLEs Privacy Loss of common experience Impact upon behaviour Impact upon pedagogy

31. Reuse Learning objects – creation, impact, success factors, experience Software components Learning designs Granularity of reuse Open content

32. Education business models Content as (free) commodity Support models Licensing content Partnerships Accreditation Unbundling of university functions

33. E-learning pedagogy Effectiveness, student experience Influence of tools and technology Costs Learning design

34. Shifting boundaries Classroom and external Formal and informal Tools and content Between institutions

35. Affordances Do we instinctively communicate differently with different technologies? Can we capture all the affordances in a learning experience? Develop a suite of tools that have different affordances

36. Known unknowns Known knownsCreating content based courses Use of forums Pedagogy Standard tool sets Newer technologies Known unknownsImpact of web 2.0 Impact of digital natives Impact of open content Globalisation Unknown unknownsTechnology