·:[ frepa.blog ]:·
• • • • •

På Skolverket/KKS/MSU mötet om digital kompetens, förra veckan, hade de bjudit in ett antal "inspirationsföredragshållare". En av dessa var Roger Säljö. Han sa en sak som var ganska rolig, även om jag tror att jag var ganska ensam om att tycka att det var roligt. Ur ett IT-historiskt perspektiv listade han ett par ansatser till teknikanvändning i skolan. Där fanns bland annat Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) , och som sista ansats listade han Learning Management System (LMS) och tillade i en bisats att: "…med det är det ju ingen som pratar om längre…" (man bör inte underskatta betydelsen av en bisats).

Detta konstaterande är roligt eftersom det (tyvärr) är helt felaktigt: LMS är det enda man talar om i många kommuner. Det jag tror (hoppas) att han egentligen menade är att "…med det är det ju ingen som borde prata om längre…". Han har givetvis rätt i att LMS inte är en framkomlig väg för skolan. Det är dock inte LMS-systemens funktioner som är det huvudsakliga problemet, även om många LMS påtvingar föråldrade arbetssätt och är pedagogiskt begränsande. Det stora problemet har istället att göra med hur dessa funktioner är paketerade i  "produkter". Problemet handlar egentligen om infrastruktur. Istället för att bygga en modulär virtuell lärmiljö (VLE) där funktionalitet kan läggas till, tas bort eller förändras (det vill säga en dynamisk och anpassningsbar VLE), så byggs ytterligare en "informationssilo", i form av ett LMS, där lärare och elever tvingas in i pedagogiska scenarion som passar den, ofta ganska rudimentära, funktionalitet som finns i just det LMS som används. Ett problem med många LMS:er är att de är omoderna direkt när de släpps. Utvecklingen går så snabbt att det inte längre går att bygga system som "kan allt" och istället så blir resultatet ett system som kan många saker ganska dåligt och där många av de funktioner som mer framsynta lärare vill ha "kommer i nästa version". Motsatsen till detta är den modulära ansatsen där nya funktioner läggs till successivt i form av nya "tjänster".

Många universitet har redan vänt sina LMS ryggen, medan andra just har börjat tänka i andra banor - ofta i termer av modulära lärmiljöer. En viktig orsak till att det blivit möjligt att ta steget från LMS och mot modulära lärmiljöer är att universiteten satsat på att bygga infrastruktur i form av kataloger, identitets-federering, single sign-on, och andra grundläggande komponenter. Det gör att det på olika sätt blir möjligt att (löst) koppla samman de olika funktionerna i en modulär VLE.

Frågan är hur länge tar det innan skolan kommer ikapp och varför de envisas med att ta omvägen via LMS?

Några av mina tidigare, LMS-relaterade inlägg:

• Nobody ever got fire for buying LMS
• Norsk utredning om LMS i skolan
• Are we at the end of the LMS era?
• Time to discard the LMS!

It is probably true, and that is a pity. However, the reflections by Teemu Leinonen at the FLOSSE Posse blog are quite nice, and rather entertaining as well

My article, titled " A Service Oriented Architecture-framework for modularized Virtual Learning Environments ", was accepted for presentation at the m-ICTE2006 conference. Read the abstract here .

At Norwegian eStandard they also write about approaching end of the LMS era ( "II LMS-æraen er snart slutt?" - only in Norwegian), but from a slightly different angle than my analysis .

Read it all at http://www.estandard.no/stories.php?story=05/11/25/3128954 (only in Norwegian)

So do Teach and Learn online at http://teachandlearnonline.blogspot.com/2005/11/die-lms-die-you-too-ple.html, using the rather catchy title "Die LMS die! You too PLE!". I do however feel that Leigh sees LMS and VLE as being equals. For me, the VLE is at a higher level in the taxonomy and basically a name for anything that is a virtual (online) environment for Learning. It is sometimes claimed that LMS is an American expression while VLE is a European expression. I do however prefer to regard the LMS a kind of VLE

A beta version of the PLEX: Personal Learning Environment Client has just been released. Although this is an interesting approach I would rather have seen a slightly different approach - which we will probably see in the near future. PLEX implements the concept of the Personal Learning Environment . I would rather see PLE as a subset of the overall virtual learning environment. Hence, it does not come as a separate application. Especially not as a client. PLEX are making extensive use of "Web 2.0" technology - but without the web as it looks from my first impresion… I would like it much better to see an application that provides transparent pedagogical services based on the same sphere of technologies, with PLE in mind, but not isolated to PLE.

Don’t get me wrong though, I like much of what they are doing in the (still quite small:) PLE community - including PLEX. I just would like to broaden the technical and infrastructural context.

At Norwegian eStandard they write about the approach of the end of the LMS era -  "II LMS-æraen er snart slutt?" (Norwegian only), but from a slightly different angle than my analysis.

Read it all at http://www.estandard.no/stories.php?story=05/11/25/3128954 (unfortunately only in Norwegian)

So do Teach and Learn online at: http://teachandlearnonline.blogspot.com/2005/11/die-lms-die-you-too-ple.html, using the rather catchy title "Die LMS die! You too PLE!". I do however feel that Leigh sees LMS and VLE as being equals. For me, the VLE is at a higher level in the taxonomy; basically a name for anything that is a virtual (online) environment for Learning. It is sometimes claimed that LMS is an American expression while VLE is a European expression. I do however prefer to regard the LMS a kind of VLE.

A slightly modified version of our paper for the ProLearn/iClass thematic workshop on Learning Objects in Context,  "VWE: a framework for modularized Virtual Learning Environments - Applying the Learning Object Concept to the VLE", will be published in a special issue of the IJEL- International Journal on E-Learning.

The paper describes the Learning Object taxonomy that constitutes the basis for the Virtual Workspace Environment (yes, we deeply regret the badly chosen name, but the project started back in 1997, and well…;). The VWE Learning Object texonomy is based on Wileys’s idea of the Atomic Learning Object [.doc]. We have addes a new type of object: the Resource Object.

The Resource Object has one task and that is to support digital content objects (such as Simple (Fundamental) Learning Objects or Simple (Fundamental) Data Objects) to be rendered, used or interacted with. Hence, Resource Objects provides the application logics needed in Grouped Learning Objects. By separating application logics (one layer) from presentation (another layer) and data (a third layer) we can say goodbye to the type of Learning Objects that makes a mishmash of presentation, logics and data.

Resource Objects can be of two types: the Helper Resource Objects, which works as described above - much like a "plug-in" or "reader" for content - and the Creator Resource Objects, which adds functionality (application logics) which doesn’t need to be directly related to any content. Hence, it can add arbritrary functionality to the VLE!

This approach makes it possible to assemble a VLE from general modules, in the same fashion as we assemble content from "traditional" Learning Objects. Hence, we get a modularized VLE that is as flexible as our modularized content!

To support this component/object model for a VLE, we developed (it later turned out:) a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). Exposing common functionality as services proved to be the best way to support this kind of modularity. However, back in 1997, when we started to develop VWE, Web Services where more or less unheard of. Instead we used CORBA and RMI to accomplish our mission: to build the first (at least to my knowledge) Service Oriented Architecture for Learning. Later, in 2001 we released a second prototype-framework based on Web Service technology (e.g. SOAP. WDSL etc.)

Assembling a VLE with the VWE-framework is quite similar to working with the LAMS system (We are currently looking in to IMS Learning Design for VWE). A teacher (or a student) chooses which components (content and functionality) they want to use in order to construct their new Learning Space (or as it is also refered to: Workspace). Parts of the Learning Space become personal and, other parts are shared with other users for collaboration and interaction. The process is handled with wizard-like Learning Space editors.

We basically wanted to put teachers and learners in control of the VLE by making the VLE  adapt to different learning contexts as well as to different user preferences, methods for learning and pedagogical theories!

The figure below outlines the VWE Learning Object Taxonomy 

I am currently working on two more VWE papers so expect more to come… in the meantime: read the ProLearn/iClass paper