1. Wikis, Widgets, and Webtops (The Future of IMS for Higher Ed) Lesley Blicker RSP/ITEACH Conference February 27, 2009 http://lesleyblicker.efoliomn2.com/

2. Keeping Me Honest By now you certainly have heard of Web 2.0. Why are the three W's of this session's title key to understanding the functionality of IMS (Instructional Management System) 2.0? Come get a glimpse of the future of IMSs and how they are likely to be the same or different five years from now.

3. Instructional Technologies – Predictions through 2013  Continued development of Web 2.0 tools and “apps”  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 and sharing of 3D objects  Ivestigative use of Webtops for education (PageFlakes, NetVibes, iGoogle)  Repurposing of the IMS* as we know it  Emergence of startups with radically different IMS concept, not enterprise-ready  ~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  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  Increasing use of Open Source IMSs  Increasing of “computing in the clouds” * Instructional Management System © Lesley Blicker

4. Current State of the Current IMS Products Categories of IMS for higher education: 1.Large enterprise systems which all have the same basic tools (assessment, discussion, quizzes/exams, gradebook, etc) and which scale and integrate with key administrative systems (email, ISRS)  Proprietary (e.g., D2L, eCollege, Blackboard)  Open Source (e.g., Sakai, Moodle) 2.Small to mid-size traditional IMS products – same tools, maybe little more flexible, scalability unknown, untested (Web Study, CourseCruiser) 3.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 (UDUTU, LearnHub)

5. Current IMS (CMS) – What’s the Beef? IMS 1.0: Unilateral publication formats Labeled as false start; replicated existing classrooms Assumes more passive consumer of information – one-way send 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 – 35 http://www.edtechpost.ca/gems/TheFutureCMS3.htm http://www.edtechpost.ca/gems/TheFutureCMS3.htm

6. Current State of the Large Commercial Enterprise IMSs In the 3 rd Phase of Add-Ons and Bundling  Adding more tools in general as well as limited and sometimes their own Web 2.0-like tools  Reliable, scalable, and able to be integrated with core administrative systems (SIS, LDAP, email)  Going some measure towards integration with other software or increasing interoperability via open APIs, but very slowly  Lack sufficient agility for early adopters who think the current IMS format is too limiting

7. Current State of the Current IMS Products Reliable, scalable, enterprise systems, integrate or interface with key administrative applications, flexibility and customization quite limited without additional work order; 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, community of developers building and sharing customizations; also need programmers Reliability, integrations Agility, act more like social systems, allowing student created content

8. Characteristics of Innovative IMSs Newcomers are starting to emerge with radically different IMS designs: Built-in Web 2.0 (widget) 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

9. So Why? Wikis Widgets Webtops

10. Wikis – why? Two-way send Students populate their own content in web pages Has ability to change assignments from paper submission or discussion posting to interactive multi-media web pages Social software – profile aspect

11. Widgets, Gadgets – Why? Examples of software chock full of widget integration iPhone Wikis (WetPaint) Blogs Facebook Easy integration with YouTube, Flickr, Google maps, etc. http://lblicker.wordpress.com/

12. Webtops – Why?

13. Quick Definition Webtop A virtual desktop on the web, running in a web browser Examples: NetVibes, PageFlakes, iGoogle http://www.google.com/ig

14. The Webtop Phenomenon to Create a Personal Learning Environment A Portal to Media Literacy, M. Wesch http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=J4yApagnr0shttp://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=J4yApagnr0s – min 28

15. My Predictions for the Future IMS Nothing too innovative anytime soon The enterprise application - a mix of systems for tracking learning experiences:  Running 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, others using Wikis)  Receding 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)  Greater adoption of Open Source IMSs as the mid-ground