Many people have their own opinion of what an e-learning platform should be (I spelled out some of my own broad criteria here), but that’s a debate in and of itself that we tried to dodge here. In doing so, we may have taken a number of things for granted–feel free to disagree in the comments. In the mode of keeping it simple, we reviewed Nixty by looking at the following areas:

1. Sign-Up and User Accounts
2. Creating a Course
3. Designing a Course
4. Participating in a Course
5. Conclusion

Sign-Up and Accounts

Signing up for Nixty is a straight forward process via new accounts or Facebook. We didn’t see an OpenID option. Users can populate a contacts list via invitations through Gmail and Yahoo! Mail. Any user can sign up as a learner in any public course, or create a new course and share it with the world.

Within a user’s Settings users can upload a photo or avatar of themselves. Noticeably absent is any field for users’ personal web sites, social network accounts, or Atom/RSS feeds.

Users each have a theme-able “Eportfolio” (see Seth’s at http://nixty.com/eportfolio/Sgur). As opposed to a portfolio that showcases a person’s work, Nixty’s Eportfolio is limited mainly to presenting text information via a resume/CV builder.

Users also have a basic “Blog” (see Jared’s at http://nixty.com/blog/read/jaredstein/). The Nixty Blog allows for rich text editing, but, once submitted, new posts can not be edited. The blogs are publicly visible with no option to make private, either to a single course or to other Nixty members.

Nixty has an internal “Mail” tool which allows messaging of any Nixty user (plain text only). We would have liked to see some sort of integration with external e-mail or social media accounts.

Creating a Course

We began our examination of the features and limitations of Nixty by creating new online courses. In short, creating a new course and adding content is easy. Nixty provides a Wizard, but the interface is simple enough that most users can build courses without it. In most cases Nixty uses AJAX to facilitate page changes without reloading the page.

Courses can be designated as “traditional” or “wiki” versions–the latter allows any Nixty user to edit, add to, or re-order course content. After some confusion, @nixty (via Twitter) let us know that “Tests” and the “Gradebook” features are currently only available in the traditional version.

Course settings allow users to choose a course image icon which appears next to the course in Nixty directories. It also allows the instructor to set learner pass requirements for the course, and even issue a certificate to users upon completion.

The core unit of a Nixty course is the “Lesson” folder. Lesson folders can have learner instructions, can be nested, and can contain a sequence of any number of “Content” materials, “Discussions”, or “Tests”. Content is typically embedded HTML, but can also be a document (e.g. PDF or DOC), a media file, etc. We saw no way to scrape content from a web page–blog, wiki, or other. Also, though labeled “wiki” the wiki version of a course offers few wiki-like features, such as easy creation of new pages, access to wiki mark-up, version histories, etc.

The usability of the Content embedder/editor varied over the two days we used Nixty. Sometimes a simply WYSIWYG editor popped right up; sometimes the editor window was too small to use; sometimes it failed altogether with no error message.

Nixty allows for media uploads, though they recommend use of YouTube for videos. This is surely done for space/bandwidth reasons, but to us it’s the sort of behavior that should be encouraged throughout the system: designers (and users) should host their own materials in the cloud (Flickr, YouTube, Wikibooks, etc), and simple embed that content into the system’s framework.

Reordering Lesson folders was a bit painful. Initial ordering forces the creator to assign a number to each item. However, new items are not automatically queued to the next number, but have to be manually numbered through Manage Course > Lessons > Order Folders.

In our testing the “Syllabus” builder appeared to simply be broken, but there are obvious work-arounds, e.g. syllabus as an external file, or embed it as Content in a Lesson folder.

“Tests” can be used for exams or quizzes, and allow for basic multiple choice, true/false, multiple answer, fill in the blank, ordering and essay questions. Tests showed no option for question categories, pools, or randomization. Remember: Tests are only available in “traditional” version courses.

The “Gradebook” only allows for a Pass/Fail point-value cutoff. A clear limitation for most conventional instructors. Again, the Gradebook is only available in “traditional” version courses.

“Discussions” use the term “thread” but are not actually reply-threaded as we expected.

Nixty has neither an import nor export option for courses or materials, making migration to or from laborious.

Despite Nixty’s apparent draw for opencourseware and open educational resource projects, Nixty provides no licensing feature for content. We expected to be able to list license properties for individual items similar to Flickr, educommons, or the Moodle OpenShare mod.

We can’t discuss the course creation/development process without mentioning the navigation on the web site. Navigation is inconsistent at best, and often laborious or confusing. The following video illustrates one example that’s sure frustrate instructors in number of clicks alone:

(Note: I am aware that this screencast is not scaling properly.)

Once finished, a creator can make a course public–this lists the course in the Nixty directory and allows other users to sign up for the course.

Designing a Course

We’ve looked at the nuts and bolts of Nixty in order to experience the possibilities, though actually designing a course is a different matter. Design of a successful informal or open course depends a lot on the limitations and affordances of a given system, the creativity of the designer, and the needs of the learners–an element apparently overlooked by Nixty (and most other LMS). We examined design considerations by looking at adapting my own online course, and examining a few of the spotlighted courses in Nixty.

The course I built in Nixty is based on my existing fully online 3-credit course, which aims to lay the groundwork for new web developers by introducing the basics of XHTML and CSS. The course design is a fairly traditional: primarily linear experience that connects heavily project-based instructional lessons with weekly discussions, journals, and learning quizzes.

(As with any conversion or migration, I had the bitter-sweet realization that my course had flaws scars that I was not quite ready to make public. This does, however, encourage me to make improvements under possible public scrutiny.)

In my course Because there is no built-in assignment tool designers have to rely on Discussions and Tests for activities. I did insert assignments into his Nixty course, and conforming to the nature of the informal, open educational experience I listed them as self-assessment only. And though I did provide a basic scoring criteria list, a better self-assessment feature would allow instructors to create rubrics, and users to score and track their work. Assignment-type activities would also be bolstered by a simple URL submission field, or even linking to artifacts in a learner’s Eportfolio (though the Eportfolio does not support objects/artifacts).

Use of essay-type questions in Tests could accommodate non-standard activities and assessments, but I think for such an option to thrive in an informal experience peer users would need to be able to access other learners’ quiz results for feedback and scoring. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

Alternatively, a Discussion could be used for project submission and peer feedback. Because file upload is not an option, learners would have to refer to files hosted elsewhere. This limitation may in fact encourage better practices in learners, as each would have to have their own space(s) on the web for publishing educational and professional artifacts (e.g. a blog, Flickr, Slideshare, etc). Unfortunately, the designer’s Discussion thread creation prompt does not provide anything more than a plain text editor, limiting the richness of instructions for the learners.

In my Nixty course, as in most courses, the structure is fairly limited and contained by the Lesson folders, which contain only linearly-sequenced Content, Discussions, etc. The following short video shows how OCW_Maven (aka Sarina Canelake of MIT) structured OCW-based courses by interspersing Content and Q&A Discussions:

(Note: I am aware that this screencast is not scaling properly.)

In our opinion a truly disruptive educational platform should encourage alternative structures, including recursive sequencing, e.g. learning branches or paths. That Nixty provides a “wiki” option for the course suggests a highly organic possibility, yet as mentioned several key wiki features are absent, especially dynamic, on-the-fly creation of new pages from links.

Participating in a Course

The idea behind a formally informal course experience is that a critical mass of users congregate around a learning hub in order to provide peer-to-peer or expert-to-peer feedback, direction, or mentoring. This requires a large number of users active on the site. It also requires a method of connecting users with the site’s activities when they are away from the course. Often this is done via e-mail, but the simple–yet surprisingly rare–method is with Atom or RSS feeds, for either content updates or discussion threads. Nixty provides neither feature, which may be the single largest weakness threatening the success of a project that apparently aims to be an open, informal learning hub.

Tests aside, “completion” of a Lesson, Discussion, or piece of content is based primarily on the user clicking “Mark this item complete”. This is fine for monitoring simple progress through a sequence of activities, but provides no real feedback to users on more substantive levels of progress. We suggested previously that a self-assessment rubric and tracking feature would be ideal for projects and assignments. Further, a reflective journaling field could be employed to help users track their thoughts as they progress through the materials.

Discussion responses can be voted “up” or “down”, but we thought that a better user feedback feature would provide additional, aggregable feedback to users in cases where the Discussion is used for sharing of work and solicitation of critiques. Users replying to a thread can use a GUI editor to compose their responses, but can not attach files. Again, this is not necessary with a PLE/PLN-informed perspective on digital identities and self-publishing, but many instructors–and learners–will look for this.

A plus for anyone planning to try Nixty is the fact that their representatives are very active on the support forums as well as on Twitter, and are more than willing to engage the community, answer questions, and offer advice.

Conclusion

As a simple e-learning platform Nixty is fairly satisfying. It’s willingness to provide a home for discussing and organizing content is laudable, and its aim to provide an alternative, open platform for informal learning is something we’ve been talking about for years.

The version of Nixty reviewed here is somewhat promising for informal learning scenarios, and the lightweight nature of the LMS can, at times, feel like a breath of fresh air over heavier LMS. The shifted paradigm of the system and its inherent limitations may encourage designers and educators to think about informal and independent learning in alternate ways.

However, broken or absent features make it difficult to recommend as a serious e-learning platform or an LMS. Indeed, existing Web 2.0 systems–either independently or in tandem–offer better core functionality (e.g. WordPress, MediaWiki), and we can think of other specifically educational platforms that would probably serve as well or better. For instance, the commercial LMS provider Instructure offers free individual course accounts to instructors as well as a public course option for informal open courses. Instructure Canvas is a more mature and feature-rich LMS platform that should not be ignored by open educators and educational theorists. And, of course, open source-minded folks would can just host their own instance Moodle or Sakai. (It’s somewhat surprising that Nixty didn’t build itself on either of these platforms, which are also full-featured and more mature.)

The fact that Nixty is new forces something of a catch-22: many self-directed learners and open educators won’t want to invest the time in using it until a critical mass of users can support those experiences; yet not critical mass is possible without users committing the system.

Despite its weaknesses Nixty is an interesting project, and we’ll be watching as its development progresses in the coming months and years. At this stage at least, Nixty is missing too many features, exhibits too many bugs, and offers little new affordances for us to encourage its adoption at this stage for anything except experimental open educational experiences.

Now like the iPhone/Touch the iPad can use thousands of “apps”– miniature applications developed solely for use on iPhone/iTouch/iPad, and sold through the Apple store. What’s always been disconcerting about the app development process is that Apple controls not only the specifications for apps, but also restricts what apps are made available for use on their product, censors content, and even denies what technologies can be used to produce such apps.

Apple has the right to do all this, of course–it’s their device. Even though the approach out-M$s Microsoft, Apple’s restrictions on production and content of the apps is only one side of a larger problem. What really concerns me is how Apple’s app model will impact digital content on the open web, and I’m not talking about Flash.

The Web as an App

We’ve seen already a number of apps that replicate core functionality of web sites. We’re starting to see more apps produced by content providers as a supplement to their existing web-based content (e.g. Wired, NPR, WSJ). But how long until this supplement supplants the web-based stream? How long until consumers are hooked into fee-based access to this content under the illusion that it’s only available through the app?
I believe Apple has been rather insidious, if clever, in their iPhone/iPad app model, wherein the closed nature of their system requires a kind of fake innovation in the development of “new” apps that do little more than their web-based cousins; certainly little more than what’s already possible with a web browser and a little creative use of standards-based web languages. Instead, these appear to be little more than an opportunity for approved providers to elicit fees in new ways from end-users.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for businesses finding new ways to make money by improving service or a product, but is that what we are getting here? The drive to develop web-based products as apps seems entirely backwards, for we already have the one tool we need to facilitate mobility of both content and services: the standards-compliant web browser. What technologies do we need? Not C, C++, or even Flash, but how about HTML, CSS, Javascript, XML, and PHP? How about the open web standards that have facilitated the information access revolution we are experiencing?

Now a “special” path to mobile device development is nothing new; even the W3 tried to sell us on HDML rather than alternative CSS and minimalistic but semantically correct XHTML. But I think time has proven that this is wasted effort in the face of a broadly-accepted, dually-purposed web site constructed on sound principles of web design and utilizing creative applications of open technologies. Even NPR seems to prove this point by the fact that it has not only released it’s own iPad app, it’s also reworked it’s web site to be “iPad-friendly” for those who don’t want to download the (free) app. And at first glance it looks like the web site provides the same essential features.

Enter Blackboard

As expected, in an attempt to capitalize on the iPad buzz and finally make good on years of broken promises for mobile accessibility, Blackboard has unveiled its iPad app, which

recreates the course experience of Blackboard Learn™ … and lets students check grades and assignments, add discussion board comments and blog posts, email instructors and classmates

How stunningly innovative! I surely couldn’t do any of that on a mobile web browser?

I probably rehash this example too often, but I remember sitting in a session at a WebCT conference 5 years ago that was supposed to reveal WebCT’s innovations in mobile delivery of content. Turned out the WebCT rep had nothing to share, but hoped to take ideas from the audience. Disappointed, I turned to my Palm Treo phone and did some grading through Blazer on Moodle. Though the HTML, CSS, and Javascript of Moodle was still disappointingly primitive at the time, it was just good enough that the weak Blazer browser could handle it, and demonstrated the power of using open web standards.

Michael Feldstein suggests that this sort of “innovation” will promote the iPad itself, saying, “if I were a student or faculty member heavily using Blackboard and thinking about buying an iPad, I might find this app to be an additional motivator to buy one”. I bet Bb is hoping the reverse of this will be true: that by providing all their students with an iPad colleges like Seton Hill and George Fox will create a scenario that fits just right with their particular e-learning solution, which is “the industry leader” with full support for “mobile devices”.

This restrictive piping of information that we currently take for granted on the open web is of greatest concern to educators, perhaps, because it has the potential to retard the development of new models of learning. I don’t mean “learning by doing”, though iPad’s failure to support creative production is notable (Jeff Jarvis writes, “It turns us back into an audience again”); I mean particularly developing models that encourage increased learner self-regulation and networked direction along variable learning paths. Such models require access–both broad and deep–to information and depend upon content aggregation, parsing, and re-dissemination. These capabilities have only recently begun to be realized through the open web, thanks in large part to web standards. What schism might the apps model cause in this new standard of information accessibility? What locks and limitations may now encrust upon the ideals of the open web?

However, dP is not without its flaws; indeed, I became so frustrated that late last week I asked my lead developer Ken Woodward to send me some examples of competitive systems that did not include BaseCamp. While BaseCamp is a great system, and probably amongst the top few project management tools out there, it’s not cheap, and we have a lot of projects running simultaneously. Plus, I am a constant advocate of OSS solutions, and in this situation, where many of my staff are student developers, having a locally-owned OSS platform that can be modified by my staff as they learn their trade is very attractive.

Let me note that I always feel guilty critiquing an OSS project, especially when I myself haven’t made any significant contributions to the code. At the same time, with increasing competition in OSS solutions, one has more liberty to leave behind that which doesn’t suit one’s needs. Further, reasonable explication of the features and failures of any system is valuable to developers who are committed to building and maintaining a quality system. So here’s a quick review of dotProject with some particular attention to the broken bits. My next post will introduce the alternatives that we are considering.

Here’s a list of dP’s strengths or notable features:

• user-based and password protected
• email integrated
• distinction between projects and tasks (you’d be surprised how many “project management” tools omit this!)
• robust data at the project level, with good hierarchical layout of tasks
• project tasks may be imported into other projects, thus “templates”
• calendaring
• task dependency
• good, flexible task logging and time tracking
• decent gant charts
• written in PHP
• themes

Now, a list of complaints:

No RSS. For my unit, RSS or Atom feeds are taken for granted. If I can’t put my task list on my Google home page, I’m not happy. RSS is easy to script, however, so we could add this feature to our To Do list.

Inconsistent task/to do list. I haven’t quite figured this out, but one’s “tasks” list is different from the “to do” list that dP presents. This appears to just be a bug, as the To Do list–which is actually harder to get to–is more accurate.

Some weird PHP scripting. For instance, project categories: one can create categories for projects, like “in planning” or “in progress” or “pilot” or “complete”. The problem seems to be that dP attaches a simple numeric id to each of these category names. It attaches the same numeric id to the projects in the category. Makes sense, right? Wrong. The category ids correspond to the order in which they appear as tabs in the dP interface; if you change the order, the numeric ids of the categories change, and thus no longer match the project categories. I’ve actually found several examples of similarly breakable scripting in the system (including a stubborn “masking” of certain projects related to this) but this was the most frustrating one.

Calendar/date entry is inadequate. In order to set a task due date to, say, December 2010, you can’t type 12/01/2010, you have to open the calendar GUI, then click, click, click, click through the months until you get to December 2010.

Little data available outside of gant charts. And the gant charts fail to react intelligently to clearly “inactive” projects, instead extending them perpetually as if someone were still working on it (even though no hours were logged). But really the main complaint here is that there is no simple, easy way to access data on staff or projects. For example, I can’t click a user’s name and determine how many hours they logged in dP this week. I can’t look at all projects of a type and get an average of hours spent to completion. I can get clear, individual project data from individual projects

Not embeddable, widgetizeable. Several project management systems have scripts, or embeddable widgets, or even desktop apps that help you monitor your tasks. dP does not yet. If they only had RSS, we’d be able to get somewhere. XML RPC? That’d be cool.

Average GUI. The graphical user interface in dP is average at best. It’s not horrible; it’s not elegant. It could be adjusted with a new CSS, but my experimentation with theming in dP is that too much can go wrong, and I’ve tried several themes that actually break basic features of the system! OK, so maybe I just need to spend more time on this, but compared to theming in Drupal or WordPress, dP theming is no fun.

Small community support. Though the quality of people involved in dP is great, the number of people developing, contributing, and using the system is a lot smaller than I’d hoped for. The last date of a major upgrade or bug fix was July 2008. I really want to add some of my staff to that community, but right now may not be the best time in the history of our organization.

So, we’re looking at other options–and I’ll review some of those next time–but I recognize that in the end we may stick with dP. If we do, it will have to be with a greater commitment to participate in the dP community, because several of these complaints I’ve listed simply can’t be allowed to stand, and its true we haven’t given much back.

On Thursday I shared an hour with Terri Rowenhorst of NROC introducing folks at WCET 2009 to open education and some of the ideas and directions orbiting around it. Mine was just a half-hour pres, and didn’t get into some of the meatier bits that interest me; nonetheless the slides and video may be of interest:

• “Openness as a Catalyst for Education” slides on SlideShare
• “Openness as a Catalyst for Education” video on ustream

You may have already heard some of the Twitter buzz about Chris Lott’s presentation, “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis”, so here are links to his slides, video, and wiki:

• “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis” video on ustream
• “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis” slides on SlideShare
• “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis” wiki with matrix

Chris let me moderate this session, and it was exciting to monitor the backchannels on Twitter and ustream for questions, ideas, or challenges that I could interrupt him with. As always, Chris did a fabulous job presenting a continual stream of rich ideas on technology and learning. I must admit I may have underestimated both Chris and the WCET audience prior to the session; both seemed quite comfortable with complex and provocative notions embedded in our connected culture and interplaying with Ong’s concept of a “secondary orality”.

It was a gorgeously sweet-smelling rainy day, but I managed to bring
myself into the confines of a BYU classroom to attend David
Wiley's IPT 692R: Intro to Open Education. Today we're looking
at how an institution, BYU in particular, might approach institutional
policy and practice supportive of open licensing of teaching materials
and research publications. The conversation was shaped by
the context of MIT's model for both OCW and
open access.

Besides institutional pressure, what are incentives for faculty to opt
in (open licensing of teaching materials)?

• For BYU, incentive may be scriptural/doctrinal imperative to share
• Tap into the motivation to Do Good (Is it true that BYU fac/staff
  make _less_ than other institutions? To me, BYU seems so
  well-funded, and in some instances over-funded.)
• dissemination, reputation

Technology and Support Issues

Technology

• what system
• who pays
• who manages/hosts?

Support

• Who trains faculty, staff?
• Depositing where?
• Who pays?

• Source
  

• Who?

Concluding Thoughts and Questions

Justin: We need a raison d'etre. we do this as an
institutional community because…

Aaron: Do we anticipate a change in structure to facilitate and
support openness?

Dr. Wiley: We need to fully consider existing systems and see how they
might pipe in. Syllabus Builder, Learning Outcomes wiki

Dr. W: Should we require open syllabi? Institutional IP policy says
faculty own it; but institution would step in and claim nonexclusive
right to redistribute.

John: Sounds harsh. If you require me to, that strips away my agency.

JMS: That's agreed, but from a student-centered focus argument for
it wins.

Dr. W: We should argue that open is good because of pragmatic reasons,
not openness for the sake of openness. We'll have recommendations
for teaching practice (e.g. cost of textbooks, availability of open
resources)

Aaron: What are conflicts of interest?

Dr. W: Can't require students to adopt your textbook unless
you're selling more copies off-campus than on-campus.

Justin: For pragmatic reasons it makes sense to model our policies on
the successful approaches of other institutions, for example, MIT. No
need to be different just to be different.

Dr. W: Use our repository OR go your own way.

I mean, of course, with respect to appropriately licensed (Creative Commons, Gnu Free Document License, etc) open educational resources specifically.

And though the question is not staggering, it may be taken for granted, even at the cost of the long-term success of the web project.

Linking

The link approach typically uses hyperlinks to the target source document, but may use iframes to embed the element within a locally-hosted web page.

Linking…

1. preserves integrity of the original source by maintaining all original qualities
2. respects original source by trajecting traffic to the host site
3. saves local hosting resources (storage & bandwith)
4. ensures that source updates are reflected in the current version
5. is, therefore, particularly well-suited for frequently updated or improved sources, like wikis
6. is much easier, particularly when numerous multimedia files are embedded, or multiple files are referenced
7. may provide learners with context and hyperlinks that lead to further, relevant exploration of the source site and the web
8. avoids problems with licenses or terms of use that restrict copying

Many of these arguments for linking presume that there is more to the information than the information itself, and that the source has some inherent value that may be passed on to the learners or should be maintained for its own sake.

Copying

The copy approach is similarly self-evident: a digital copy of the source file(s) is downloaded, then hosted on the local server.

Copying…

1. provides for adaptation or modification (if the license allows) of:
   • content (cut, insert, remix, extend)
   • presentation (e.g. surface design)
   • interactions
2. supports localization
3. captures and preserves a version that may be discarded or replaced in the future
4. allows designers to produce seamless learning experiences that support learner focus
5. respects original source host’s resources (storage & bandwith)
6. ensures technical availability of the resource is within local control (no dead links)
7. allows contextual indexing for site (or public) search engines
8. may improve reach and increase circulation of source information
9. may thereby enlarge original author’s prominence and visibility
10. avoids problems with licenses or terms of use that restrict leech-linking

A couple notable obstacles to copying:

• Server-generated content, markup, interactions, or hyperlinks may be difficult to acquire or reuse (e.g.
• While CC By-ND allows reproduction of works, it may restrict modification of presentation or interactions in addition to the more clear prohibition on modification of content

Dynamic Scraping and Importing

There are other approaches that fall somewhere in between. For instance, web scraping of the source file(s) on the fly, followed by parsing and processing of the data on the local host. This sounds complex, but it’s not too bad; Google Docs & Spreadsheets has implemented this functionality into it’s data importing spreadsheet formulae:

• =importHTML grabs the content of a TABLE or list (OL / UL [/DL?])
• =importXML uses xPath expressions to target XML/XHTML elements
• =importData takes structured data files, such as comma separated values (CSV)
• =GoogleReader intakes the RSS or Atom of a target URL, such as a blog post

Often used for mash-ups, this approach can also be useful for replicating and formatting data. And, though Tony Hirst has found numerous exemplary applications for this feature using Google Spreadsheets, a Google Spreadsheet is not required; anyone with some significant Javascript experience could tackle this task, and there are a number of web scraping software apps that deliver varying results.

I have been critical about aspects of LMSs in the past. I’ve been critical of Blackboard in particular–primarily because of my complaints about the functionality of the Vista LMS, the “must use standard LMS for everything” attitude of some university CIOs, and Blackboard’s past behavior with respect to patent claims. And while one professor encouraged me to wear my “Supporting Innovation, Not Suing It” t-shirt to class, and while I at some point last night woke up saying, “If we tell you all our ideas, will you patent them and sell them to us later?”, I wanted to open my mind to the potentials of the discussion and not be obtuse as a matter of course.

(The following notes identify ideas by speaker, but please note that the words are only verbatim if I use quotes.)

Dr. Wiley began by directing us to consider the history of the LMS, it’s purpose as manifest through functionality and initial usage experiences. A common conclusion was the LMS attempted to replicate what happens in the classroom online: requiring little faculty tech expertise, providing quizzes, assigns, grades, content delivery (paper reduct), discussions [JMS: yes and no. online discussions are both similar and dramatically dissimilar], admin and teaching functions, and integration with campus academic and student information systems.

In response to our growing list, Russ responded, “This is just a collection of things… but there is new capability, and by tying the corporation together we enable new processes. Technology enabled a transformation.”

(JMS: Agreed as a potential. Technology is nothing without appropriate training and inspiration on proper educational application. Through the LMS we quickly accomplished teaching with technology, but not technology-enhanced teaching. But if we ask, how can we leverage technology to make teaching and learning better and easier? We must examine our educational goals, audience, and environment. We must problem-solve, creatively using applications of the available tools.

(Also, there are some ways in which the technology itself has changed the way we teach, albeit slowly:)

1. Quizzes become more reasonable as self-assessments and formative learning activities when done online
2. Discussions become fully participatory, time-liberated dialogs that allow participants to branch and focus on strands that are personally relevant.
3. Digital content is searchable – discussions, texts, etc. This provides different, easier, faster access to materials and ideas that support a participant’s focused interest

We began speaking of the cultural shift associated with (or accompanied by) Web 2.0, and how that may impact education.

Justin makes the good point, if LMs is adaptation of teaching, it also seems this idea of PLE/PLN is just a 2nd generation adaptation of the LMS, i.e., teachers consider, How can I do X, Y, Z — which I did in the LMS easily — without the LMS?

JMS: Some who look at the PLE see it as something constructed by new media, connectivism, not as a substitute for the LMS. Those folks admit they don’t know what a PLE looks like and are uncertain if learning outcomes are similarly measurable. Those most comfortable with the idea of a PLE have some confidence in the organic conditions of it as a learning environment, despite it’s fuzziness.

Granted, some do see the PLE simply as an escape from the LMS, and even though they might be trying to simply recreate what they did in the LMS, they can gain some advantages just by being open: Openness, adaptable, personalized, ownership, persistence, authenticity.

I caught something of Justin saying that the open source (OSS) community is ignoring hard problems… OSS technology fails to provide sophisticated learning features like adaptive release, adaptive testing… The OSS community not taking it on…

(JMS: I accept that specific example as an inadequacy of available open PLE/PLN or Web 2.0 tools. There aren’t currently automatic gatekeeping (pre-programmed or “smart”) tools for PLE/PLN tools and media. Siemens and others might say teachers are naturally the gatekeepers. Users are the gatekeepers (though perhaps this is inadequate). Or maybe we don’t need those gatekeepers at all, that is, we can encourage the fundamentals of information fluency by directing students to assess and re-direct themselves.)

JMS: OS community is not taking on education in general. Why would they? Education is still a niche. Adaptive release is a very education-centered feature. OSS e-learning, like Moodle, include or plan to include it.

David Wiley: “Data. Through the LMS I can capture and use data in a way I never could before.” Also, liberty of users to control consumption of content. E.g. playing course media at 2x speed.

Justin Johansen: Teachers can teach to a style, users can adapt to their preferences (disruptive).

Sara Joy challenges, suggested/asked if LMS can be a “disruptive technology”.

David: At USU an instructor with no budget for “clickers” went to the dollar store and bought $1 laser pointers to accomplish the same thing. Throw up a slide, students with laser pointers indicate choices anonymously on screen. It’s personalized (and probably more fun).

Russ: “Isn’t one of the fundamental issues also location independence?”

Justin: “Definitely, esp. when gas prices were $4/gallon.”

Dr. Wiley whips out slides of 6 changes:

• analog –> digital
• tethered –> mobile
• consume –> create
• generic –> personalized
• isolated –> connected
• closed –> open

Jon Mott: There’s a book about organizations being like spiders, which can regrow a leg, or starfish, which have legs that, if severed, can grow into a new starfish. Are we like spiders or starfish? Best organizations are hybrids. Starfish-like activities. eBay features of a spider.

JMS: Some in education want that severed starfish leg to turn into a bird. But education’s history doesn’t show that we’re evolutionary–there’s no dramatic mutation between generations that changes the species. Education is certainly not, historically, subject to revolution either! It’s adaptation at best. It’s incremental change.

Aaron Johnson: Web 2.0 can be transformative in, for instance, using a blog publishes homework online, for the world to see–maximal exposure.

Dr. Wiley points out that several class blog posts have been picked up by Stephen Downes, which impacts the community, impacts the class, impacts the writer.

Justin: In the old system publishing homework was your mom putting your assignment on the fridge with a magnet.

Aaron: It’s also transformative in a way that democratizes access. But how are things changing in how people behave and interact? Do I get more out of that?

(JMS: We’ve seen that young people’s sense of privacy may be changing, and also that online exposure can bite us in the rear.)

Justin: I haven’t had a transformative e-learning experience in the classroom discussion forum. It’s usually, “do this boring thing for class or else”.

JMS: I have. (That’s what put me in e-learning over a decade ago, and I have them with some regularity now)

Jon: I learn something everyday on Twitter. I follow about 150 people, all of the ed tech related. My network has expanded, and for the better.

JMS: And learn to filter junk out, hopefully!

Russ: Yes, adding people, one by one… “adding diversity, accumulating collected knowledge… but at some point you reach a threshold.”

JMS: At first there’s a lot of noise, but you learn to filter that out, or cut it out. I follow around 60 people, but that changes from week to week. I’ll follow a lot of people who I will later un-follow, not because I don’t like them, but because their use of Twitter may not contribute to or match my own personal way of valuing Twitter. (JMS: I’ve talked too much. Time to listen more.)

Aaron: A lot of us still use the web for adaptations of normal life. Despite my tech-savvy nature, I hear about Web 2.0 stuff and I think do I really need that? Is the real transformation in the things that we do, or in helping people understand what they can do now, with this ability to use technoloy?

Jon: Novelty of technology is not enough. You have to be evaluative. How is using this going to help me? I user twitter not to be social, but to be professional.

JMS: The beauty of these tools is the personalization. The beauty of the PLE is the personalization.

Jon: I’ve used delicious for my own purposes, but have finally found a use for it in collaborative environment.

Justin: (To his group) Why aren’t we using delicious on our OER project?

(JMS: Note to self, we might put our group’s open ed project links list on a wiki instead of a Google Spreadsheet. Then reach out to community and get additional links for free.)

We somehow manage to move the conversation back to the future of the LMS.

JMS: I see the future of the LMS being not a replication of these open, existing tools, but a way to structure, organize, and adaptively control or smart-sequence these. As Justin pointed it, adaptive releasing, setting and resetting paths, etc.

Justin: Would we, by using the LMS as a place to integrate Web 2.0, personalized tools, push folks away from using those tools?

(JMS: Is Justin talking about the creepy treehouse-ness? I don’t get a chance to ask…)

Russ: “Is it not a false choice to give proprietary vs open source? … Is it not a distinction without a difference?”

(JMS: There are potential advantages in both that we should not lightly dismiss, e.g. proprietary may have quality advances, resource advantages, corporate attention, collaborative integration and first-choice with publishers; openness may have adaptability, customization, lower cost, ownership. [To me the subscription model is so painful, I personally want the ability to keep and maintain code perpetually, for example, stay at WebCT CE 4.1 for a decade if we wished.])

Russ: For a while technology was pulling the practice, but now (as we talk about web 2.0 tools) but now it seems we’ve flipped that.

Wiley: “Forget open code source for a minute. Forget APIs. Look at YouTube, Flickr, GoogleMaps. They all have a common language: RSS. APIs are great if you like that. But these tools are bleeding syndication, and they don’t punish you for mashing it up.”

John Hilton: Free access vs. open source vs. paid license.

Jon: “Once upon a time there was a Blackboard.com where you could create your own course for free.”

Russ: “It’s back.”

So we are talking about interoperability of the learning object (LTI)?

Wiley: “But LTI is so complex. RSS is sooo easy. Some clever folks, like Tony Hirst, will use Pipes or APIs. There’s technical accessibility, then there’s an expertise-less accessibility.

Jon: Having APIs and web services is critical. Maybe we need more than single sign-on.

Russ: “To Dave’s point about the data, if you want to use the data you have to have that captured in an environment.”

(JMS: Data can be made accessible through APIs, no?)

Jon: Livetext does program assessment and portfolios. You can build and expose your portfolio. Creators can easily export.

Dave: Yes, let’s just get data out of the end. Because even with standards everyone speaks their own dialect.

Aaron: Searchable.

John: By Google?

Aaron: Internally? Or… What do we mean by LMS for open ed?

Wiley: “Simplest example–and OCW is 1.0 simple–I built my course in Bb. How do I publish as OER? I probably need 30hrs to do it.” (JMS: Push-button public publishing?) Content publishing, content importing.

Justin: A lot of our Bb courses are full of PDFs, PPTs, DOCs, maybe HTML…

Aaron: What does Bb add in terms of content ability? It sounds like you’re talking about the same thing, replicating a course structure. Or how do you get the content out without having it trapped in the LMS’s structure?

JMS: You could do it both ways:

JMS: You have a “repository”, though I dislike that word. It’s a plain web server, or a wiki, or WP, or even an LMS repository. It contains the content–PDFs, PPTs, DOCs, HTML. You can share those straight off of the repository as disagreggated pieces. OR you can link to them directly from your individual LMS course structure. This eliminates course-to-course redundancy. OR you can link to them directly from your opencourseware platform. AND/OR your LMS has a way to select which pieces of the individual course to “open”, and then publishes an open version of your course with some parts hidden.

Wiley mentions OpenShare mod.

JMS: OpenShare does part of this for Moodle: lets you incrementally tag license metadata for resources and activities, and then mark those resources and activities as open or closed. Public can view those open items; registered students can view all the items.

• ABC Interview: Shai Reshef, University of the People

Begins by showing course project which requires students to write/revise an actual article on Wikipedia. Many questions about how the process worked. Good comment/question about opportunities, and leveraging this opportunity in foreign languages.

Brian discusses AP photo of Obama which describes an audience using cameras, phones, and even a laptop(!) to capture their participation in the moment (photo-taking as a social [or personal/individual] act). Flickr was able to track incoming camera phone uploads from this moment.

(JMS: If openness permeates professional fields like we want it to, will this defeat the so-called rise of the amateur? Does this diminish the evolution of a “participatory culture”? If so, do we care?)

Brian telling us how awful OCW has been for MIT: reputation is in the gutter, enrollments have plummeted, content has been sucked into fly-by-night engineering degree mills, faculty have revolted. It takes a while for the audience to get it and start to laugh.

Faculty using simple HTML flat files. Posts everything online. Has been doing it for years. This is DIY openness. “The most important thing is he didn’t need support to do this. He didn’t need a project. He didn’t need a process.”

Evangelizing the benefits of openness. “[Openness] is a show of respect to the students… and a show of respect to the public.”

Creative Commons short explanation. Surprisingly, about half the room didn’t know what CC is.

“I took that AP photo without asking. Poor AP! Poor AP… I’ll buy a copy of USA Today later to make up for it.” Brian can deliver strong opinions with humor, which really works on this audience.

Openness and Creative Commons means “you don’t have to steal intellectual property anymore”. Shows Creative Commons license search on Flickr.

Wikeducator uses an open format for its open content, bypassing the inherent restriction of “open” media but closed technology. MIT uses a lot of PDFs, Berkeley uses live Real Media, which requires an internet connection (sounds familiar!)

Gardner Campbell mentioned with respect to his downloadable MP3 podcasts (thanks for mentioning my MP3 legality blog post). Nancy White being recorded, Creative Commons licensed, and she benefits through reputation, distribution of her “voice”.

SELF-DEFINED.

“I am a recovering Learning Object developer.” Martin Weller referenced.

Brian laments not doing a Twitter shout-out since Bryan didn’t do it yesterday.

Sharing doesn’t cost much any more.

Jim Groom referenced. Fake web garbage. Let’s use this spam blog tool and use it to aggregate student blogs. Turn evil into good. UMW is the best WordPress instance Brian has ever seen. (JMS: I love it too.Documentation is incredible. On an loosely related note, this example demonstrates to me the importance of the individual, of individual genius, focus, and dedication over lethargia of [some] communities.)

Findability of open resources is important. Brian shows Zaid in Malasia’s web page cataloging all open resource sites. You can make a Google custom search engine. Scott Leslie puts list into a wiki page, uses a Google custom search engine to ref wiki page links. Freelearning.ca. To bring a project like this into being so quickly “The secret ingredient is openness.” Brian mentions “a guy from England” but I miss the name. It’s gotta be Tony Hirst.

“I want to see if I can teach and interact with students on mobile devices.” Case study: accessing WebCT on phone. 5 minutes of pain results in finally getting to discussion screen, but still unusable.

(JMS: Brian may be cutting WebCT too much slack. I would rip their dessicated zombie heads off.)
Brian concedes that WebCT’s product was not developed for mobile devices. (JMS: True, but WebCT customers have been asking for mobile support for years, and the CE 4.1 example he is using actually functions in a mobile device, but all newer versions of WebCT/Blackboard do not.)

Everyday a newspaper goes under. “There’s a crisis in every cultural industry.” PirateBay, bittorrent site, has a section for textbooks.

Universities are not popular with the public. Perception of overpaid, underworked, radicals. Quoting a (neighbor?), “Taxpayers are only willing to substitute universities to the extent that they contribute to the national wealth.” Openness might alleviate that intercultural tension.

Nice job, Brian. Hope I captured some of the coherence and insight that you delivered this morning.

<!–

I undertook this task as Rogue Quest 1 for David Wiley’s Intro to Open Ed course. The Rogue character class that I’ve adopted focuses on content production with an emphasis on finding and releasing or untrapping “open” content to allow for reuse and remix. I have only theoretical experience with remixing OER, and so it is fitting that I begin at experience level 1.

–>

Reuse/Remix Estimates

As I purview each of seven different OER projects I will give each collection a reuse/remix value rating based on my initial impressions and observations. These estimates may change as I move forward to release, reuse, or remix some of these OER.

My reuse/remix rating is a scale of 1 – 5, where “1″ is extremely difficult or low value, and “5″ is extremely easy or high value, referring to the act of taking CC content and reusing or remixing it on a separate server. To produce these ratings I consider:

• technical openness of media (e.g. Java applet vs Javascript)
• quality of source
• variety of media sources
• semantic/standard structure (e.g. HTML tables vs semantically-correct XHTML; IMS)
• CC license compatibility
• hosted tools and support for remix

I expect to address the why of reuse and remix of OER in another post and catalogue some of the key benefits.

UK Open University’s OpenLearn

Though constructed in Moodle LMS, the UK Open University’s OpenLearn is less like a “walled garden” for OER and more like a playground. It takes advatange of some of Moodle’s learning tools and features and customizability, and content is of immediate to use to anyone else using Moodle.

The project’s LabSpace site is specifically design to encourage educators to “collaborate with others and publish new versions of [UK Open University] learning materials to share with the world.” I was nearly distracted by the ability to “join this unit”–identifying myself as willing to engage in a self-organizing learning community.

I began by checking out Start Writing Fiction. I’ve had the bad fortune of reading some particularly bad fiction this holiday season, and recognized how freeing this OER might benefit all mankind. In each OER the “Versions” block includes “Upload this unit” and “Make a copy for revising”–presumably on the LabSpace web site. Is this custom block’s source code available?

Another useful custom block is “Alternative Formats”, which provides versions of the entier OER including print (HTML), XML, RSS, OU XML, IMS, Common Cartridge, Plain Zip, Moodle Backup. I looked at Print and saw the whole unit in one file. I grabbed the URL (http://labspace.open.ac.uk/file.php/2861/formats/print.htm) so I could test this with Send To Wiki later. I also grabbed an IMS package so I could to try fitting it into other “IMS-compatible” systems, such as the the foppish Bb Vista.

Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative

OLI is like a museum: you can get in and see some fabulous artifacts, but don’t plan on taking any out as a souvenir … without some serious pre-planning.

I recently reviewed OLI’s project on this web site, so let’s cut to the chase:

OLI’s OER content is a mix of non-semantic HTML and media, usually SWFs. The HTML pages are all generated from what looks to be a Java Servlet using Javascript to set cookies and carry the “context”, or unique identifier. This will prevent any normal “spider” software from loading all the pages automatically (they would ignore the passed variables and just re-download the same “page” over and over), inhibiting the download of an entire “course” as a single collection. The passed context appears to be arbitrary; at any rate, it’s not predictive, so if we want to automatically download the content we will have to do so based on spidered links, and will have to rename links and files as we go (Nate Snapp suggested I just use a PERL script in cURL. It seems obvious to me to use the [non-semantic] context IDs as the file name, so page?context=b487c83c80020c69016e6ce63813c727 simply becomes page_b487c83c80020c69016e6ce63813c727.html)

Because there are currently no ways to download an entire package for remix, I intend to ask the OLI warden when the OERs are up for parole, if ever. Of course I’ll phrase it more nicely.

MIT OpenCourseWare

I knew I was not the first to traverse this part of town, so I needed to make sure my target was something of a challenge. Thanks to a list of audio/video-enhanced MIT ocw I was able to find a worthy mark. Linear Algebra contains video lectures and interactive Java applets, presumably already of the lowest usable granularity. Anytime I see the TM Java I want to call it a day. But it will be worth investigating how these applets might be found and extracted for localized reuse, if at all.

Looking a little deeper into the course I found several paths to other course media, and was pleased that videos were available as MP4–most of the early MIT OCW media I’ve seen is in RM format.

Though the media and formats in MIT OCW may vary from course to course, the OCW structure of each is reliable and learnable, making traversing the resources as potential remix “maps” feasible.

As far as extracting the OER from the host, this should be no problem: the course provides a zip file which contains all the course except audio and video files. If I recall, this is even in an IMS package of some flavor. The question will be, once the ZIP is free, what will it contain? And how can it be reused?

webcast.berkeley

Webcast.berkeley is UC Berkeley’s multimedia forray into OER. Strangely, at the bottom of the page I saw Copyright 2002-2009, Regents of the University of California. All Rights Reserved but maybe that’s just for the web page design, which I admit is striking.

Courses are navigated through semester; I chose History 4A – The Ancient Mediterranean World, which contained MP3s of nearly all Isabelle Pafford’s lectures from Fall 2007. I noticed a podcast RSS feed, which I grabbed: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/rss/course-archive.php?seriesid=1906978476 — opening this in a podcast-ready media player, like iTunes, is one rapid method of extracting all the media files for reuse.

There is some video on the site (e.g. ASTRO C10), some of it SWF, some of it streaming RealMedia, which I still haven’t found a suitable codec for on Ubuntu (comment if YOU have). As far as the streaming video goes it is possible, of course, to capture this onto your hard drive with desktop software. However…

I was nagged by the fact that the only licensing info directly on this page was still © All Rights Reserved, so I took a detour and go to the bottom of things. A quarter of a way down the page under Policies we find the actual licensing details:

Beginning in 2007, the default license attached to media recordings for distribution is Creative Commons – non-commercial, attribution, no derivatives (CC2.5 license).

This showed that the Ancient Mediterranean course that I had begun looking at was still ©. Also, the ND was unexpected and puts an entirely different spin on things, eliminating the option of remixing altogether, and thereby reducing my Reuse/Remix rating by a full point. Ben Hubbard of the webcast.berkeley project noted in the comments that the CC license info on all OER published after 2007 is featured prominently at the top of the page, and h.264 video is available via RSS feeds.

Stanford Engineering Everywhere

Stanford School of Engineering’s CC By license was the first thing I noticed, and offers just a bit more freedom for remix/reuse.

I’d never been to the SEE site before, and I chose from a list of SEE’s more “popular” courses: Oussama Khatib’s Artificial Intelligence | Introduction to Robotics. Scrolling through the first page I found a link to “Download Zipped Course Materials”. The ZIP file did not have an IMS manifest, which is a minor disappointment, but it was a self-contained web site with hyperlinks back to media files served only on the SEE web site.

I took a look at the media files found under Lectures, provided as streaming video as well as the following formats: YouTube, iTunes, Vyew (which actually facilitates compiling and downloading the videos), WMV Torrent, and MP4 Torrent.

Note that many of these videos aren’t actually stored on the SEE web site, and yet they haven’t sacrificed reuse/remix by not making MP4/WMV formats available. Instead they made a brilliant choice: Torrent to facilitate and distribute the server load of these videos. (Based on the speed of delivery of the YouTube version I highly recommend downloading the files, which facilitates localized reuse and remix.)

Open Yale Courses

Reuse/Remix Estimate: 3.5 – Easy. Fair captured content, delivered for reuse, easy to extract as a package, but some remix limitations from license.
License: CC By-NC-SA
Media Types: HTML, XML, MP3, FLV, MOV, PDF, (IMS ZIP)
Though I’d visited Open Yale Courses before I hadn’t deeply investigated the media or packages. My impression was that this project’s results are very much like MIT OCW–a “Polaroid” version of the on-ground class. I checked out a couple of courses before settling on the featured course and favorite author ENGL 220 Milton.

Milton, like the other Open Yale Courses I checked out, is primarily a collection of media files with some PDF notes. Though no feeds are available, all media files are listed under Downloads, making it simple to grab all the MP3s or MOVs at once with a Firefox add-on like FlashGot or Down Them All. The rest of the course is available as a downloadable ZIP files featuring HTML and media structured by an IMS manifest. Hyperlinks to audio files point to the Yale server, but I expect some search and replace can link them to the local copy I just finished downloading.

Rice Connexions

This OER project’s site is similar in many ways to the UK Open University’s LabSpace, providing not only packaged content but also resources and tools to facilitate reuse, remixing, and republishing of OER. “Feel free,” the candy store clerk says, “to help yourself. Take some for your friends. Do you want to help me make taffy?”

I first stumbled on Places in Egypt, but became moderately uneasy when I was whisked away to a separate, domained web site called Travelers in the Middle East Archive. This was not quite what I’d expected, but I explored and discovered CC-licensed photos, illustrations, and enhanced images, as well as several e-texts, for instance The Nile : notes for travellers in Egypt in both HTML and XML. Connexions is far deeper than I had fathomed.

Going back to Connexions I next browsed by subjects, into Arts, and found Musical Travels for Children, which used an e-text with images of sheet music and MIDIs(!) within the Connexions standard framework. Musical Travels also presented the text as a PDF and as a ZIP “multimedia” package–very useful for local reuse/remix.

I took a moment to learn about Connexion’s homegrown XML schema, CNXML, a semantic markup language “for education” parsed (probably on the backend) to produce content, similar, I’m hypothesizing, to the way the UK Open University’s OpenLearn project is stored and generated. Connexions provides several tutorials on writing and using CNXML, though it’s not immediately clear how this is useful to the general-use public. (is CNXML usage required for user contributed uploads?)

As I headed back to check a third OER on Connexions, I noticed a hyperlink to the metadata for each resource, which cued me into their unique search system. I used that search system this time, and came across a number of interesting “modules”–short, tutorial- or lecture-like OERs that are typically HTML or PDF with hyperlinks to other subjects on connexions. In some instances I could not immediately determine where one module began and another ended. One can add modules to a “lens”, but it’s not apparent whether or not one can then download a “package” based on lenses.

Intrigued by the Connexions search engine’s options, I next searched based on popularity, and found music OER at the top of the list, though I could not immediately determine how that metadata was stored, or if there was public access to any of it.

Though the media use may vary from OER to OER, and the diverse organizational structures and interfaces may inhibit reuse for novices, the markup and accessibility of the content allow for great potential reuses, and the Connexions system is bolstered by the potential impact of the fostered user input and folksonomies that may result.