After a very long (I know, I'm a slacker) hiatus, I've launched a new blog at http://jonmott.com. I'm calling it "The End in Mind," given my goal-based approach to academic technology. I'll keep my claim on this blog here because . . . well, why not? Maybe I'll do something more with it some day. For now, it's my inactive-blogging-home-away-from-my-real-blog-home (IBHAFMRBH).
JM
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Friday, March 03, 2006
Bb World 2006
I just attended the “Bb World” (Blackboard’s users conference) in San Diego. A few random observations:
- The Blackboard “merger” with WebCT was approved by the Justice Department a week or two ago and Blackboard announced that it’s now officially complete. However, Michael Chasen used (for the first time in my memory) the word “acquisition,” confirming suspicions that this was never a true “merger of equals.” I find it interesting that he didn’t use that word until it was a done deal. In his keynote, Chasen emphasized the size of the new company—Blackboard now has 3700 higher ed institutions as clients. The short-term strategy is to develop new functionality and “add-ons” so they’ll work on both platforms. Along the way, they’ll start developing a common code base, eventually launching a new “next-generation” CMS. And it’s pretty clear the new product will be called Blackboard, not WebCT.
- Blackboard’s roots have always been very deep in course management, as in stand-alone, independent courses. The system has allowed instructors to easily create online “sites” for their courses, but these sites have been virtually invisible to each other. It has been impossible and remains difficult to co-mingle data or content across courses. But Blackboard’s announcement of the release of Caliper signals a possible end to this locked-down model. Instead of course management, Blackboard and Caliper offer higher ed the first ever enterprise application for curriculum management. Caliper is still vaporware, but it’s an intriguing development to watch. Will Blackboard’s competitors follow suit? Will other vendors launch Caliper-like tools?
- Microsoft’s presence at this conference was much more high profile than it has been in the past. Blackboard and Microsoft appear to be much cozier and strategically linked to each other than they have been in the past. This is a double-edged sword. If it means that Office applications are going to be more naturally integrated with Blackboard, that’s good for end-users. If it means that backend systems have to meet particular “standards,” e.g. using Microsoft server and database software, to take advantage of these features, that’s not so good (because it ties the hands of sys admins and institutions).
- I saw a very interesting prototype of the much-hyped “Origami” device. It’s essentially a small Tablet PC device (7” screen, 40 GB hard drive, 8-hour battery life). It runs a special version of the Windows Tablet Edition OS. Instead of using a magnetic stylus, the screen is “fingerable.” The target price point is less than $500. In some ways, it’s a big fat iPod. Since it runs Windows, it will play music and video files, but it will also have built-in wireless so it can handle e-mail and web browsing. The prototype I saw had a 1 Ghz processors, so it can handle pretty sophisticated gaming too—add a Bluetooth controller or keyboard and you’ve opened up a new world of possibilities. You had to know Microsoft wouldn’t sit back and let Apple dominate this space forever. As a side note, Microsoft will not actually manufacture the device, but is instead working with vendors who will produce it. Their strategy is obviously to make money off the OS and other software. Maybe an X-Box lesson learned?
- Chris Thomas, Intel’s chief strategist, talked about how new, unusual technologies become “normal.” The PC was a novelty, now it’s normal. The Internet was a novelty, now it’s normal. Broadband was a novelty, now it’s normal. Wireless was a novelty and it’s rapidly becoming normal. What’s the next “normal”? He suggests that the next big thing will be mobilized content & applications:
- Hardware and software that are optimized for “always” availability and network transparency (smart applications & hardware that know how to switch from one network to the next)
- Webapp mobilizers (like Agilix)
- Dual core processors (here’s the shameless Intel plug) that let users perform local tasks without being interrupted by background network tasks.
Overall perspective on the conference? Blackboard seems to continue to head in the right direction, but they're moving slowly and methodically. The challenge for colleges and universities is to decide if they want to stay with Blackboard for the long-haul because they're confident in Blackboard's direction or, alternatively, to go with another platform (e.g. Sakai or Angel) that might be cheaper (at least in the short run) or more flexible (again, in the short run). Obviously, switching to a new CMS comes with very high transaction costs. An institution that switches ought to be very confident that switching will buy both short-term gains AND keep the instituiton on the right trajectory. Meanwhile, third-party vendors are rapidly filling Blackboard's most nagging functionality gaps (e.g. grade booking, robust assessment).
From what I saw at Bb World, there's enough innovation and promise of progress to keep most of Blackboard's customers where they are . . .
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
ELI Part II
A panel of "instructional technologists" discussed a "sea-change" in the field, a shift from Instructional Design to e-Learning Design. The basic premise is that learning (& therefore teaching) in higher ed is fundamentally different (or it needs to BECOME different). How so?
The panel members' assertion is that the "social compact" of higher ed learning is changing, because students needs & expectations are different. It seems like much of this is wishful thinking. Isn't it possible that folks like us WANT a sea-change, but that there really isn't one going on? The authors in Declining by Degrees argue that the problems in higher ed are deeply ingrained and, therefore, will be difficult to change. The collusion of teachers pretending to teach & students pretending to learn will not be easily undone.
There are, undoubtedly, bright spots here & there. But when the vast majority of faculty members are rewarded for minimizing the amount of time spent on teaching (and students reciprocate by minimizing the time they spend on learning) we need paradigm-busting leadership.
To avoid being a naysayer only, let me suggest a solution (or at least the beginning of one). I think most of our ID engagements are ad hoc & tactical, i.e. w/ individual faculty in individual courses. Change (a "sea-change"?) might begin by focusing time, attention and resources at the department and college level. In this way we can focus on broader curricular issues, maintaining the momentum of accreditation beyond a narrow 1-2 year burst of energy. When academic leaders (deans, chairs, curriculum committees) take ownership of learning improvement, more significant (systemic) change becomes possible.
The panel members' assertion is that the "social compact" of higher ed learning is changing, because students needs & expectations are different. It seems like much of this is wishful thinking. Isn't it possible that folks like us WANT a sea-change, but that there really isn't one going on? The authors in Declining by Degrees argue that the problems in higher ed are deeply ingrained and, therefore, will be difficult to change. The collusion of teachers pretending to teach & students pretending to learn will not be easily undone.
There are, undoubtedly, bright spots here & there. But when the vast majority of faculty members are rewarded for minimizing the amount of time spent on teaching (and students reciprocate by minimizing the time they spend on learning) we need paradigm-busting leadership.
To avoid being a naysayer only, let me suggest a solution (or at least the beginning of one). I think most of our ID engagements are ad hoc & tactical, i.e. w/ individual faculty in individual courses. Change (a "sea-change"?) might begin by focusing time, attention and resources at the department and college level. In this way we can focus on broader curricular issues, maintaining the momentum of accreditation beyond a narrow 1-2 year burst of energy. When academic leaders (deans, chairs, curriculum committees) take ownership of learning improvement, more significant (systemic) change becomes possible.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Observations from the 2006 Educause Learning Initiative Meeting
The inaugural Educause Learning Initiative (formerly NLII) is meeting this week in San Diego (which is nice because I’m from Utah and it’s 65 degrees here).
Without attempting to provide a comprehensive summary of the conference, I want to share a few “a-ha” ideas about learning.
Monday Keynote: Marc Prensky
Prensky argued (convincingly) that today’s kids (in high school today, in our higher ed classrooms tomorrow) are increasingly sophisticated digital natives. They are hyper-connected to each other and to the vast world of information available online. Not only are they engaged, they’re engaged and connected almost all of the time. They play interactive games, they IM, the chat, they use their cell phones (almost constantly), etc.
The exception to this astounding level of engagement and connectivity is when they go to school. Students report having to “power down” or “slow down” in the classroom. They are also chagrinned that their teachers don’t know more about the rapidly evolving digital world they live in.
This is striking because (from a learning perspective), we often fail to achieve the first “event of instruction” (http://ide.ed.psu.edu/idde/9events.htm) –gaining attention or engaging learners. If we fail to engage learners, promoting learning (the goal of teaching) is an uphill battle every step of the way. On the other hand, if learners are engaged, it’s almost impossible to keep them from learning. Our lectures and books can be bland and dense—if learners and engaged and motivated to learn, they will learn. Of course, stimulating lectures and textbooks are often the keys to provoking engagement. But the salient point seems to be that higher education is not adequately engaging the current generation of students who are used to being engaged all of the time, except when they go to class.
This has to change. Academics, professors, instructional designers and instructional technology support staff have to refocus their energy and resources. There’s far to much time and attention given to content presentation and distribution. But if learners aren’t engaged, no amount of presentation and content will make them learn.
Without attempting to provide a comprehensive summary of the conference, I want to share a few “a-ha” ideas about learning.
Monday Keynote: Marc Prensky
Prensky argued (convincingly) that today’s kids (in high school today, in our higher ed classrooms tomorrow) are increasingly sophisticated digital natives. They are hyper-connected to each other and to the vast world of information available online. Not only are they engaged, they’re engaged and connected almost all of the time. They play interactive games, they IM, the chat, they use their cell phones (almost constantly), etc.
The exception to this astounding level of engagement and connectivity is when they go to school. Students report having to “power down” or “slow down” in the classroom. They are also chagrinned that their teachers don’t know more about the rapidly evolving digital world they live in.
This is striking because (from a learning perspective), we often fail to achieve the first “event of instruction” (http://ide.ed.psu.edu/idde/9events.htm) –gaining attention or engaging learners. If we fail to engage learners, promoting learning (the goal of teaching) is an uphill battle every step of the way. On the other hand, if learners are engaged, it’s almost impossible to keep them from learning. Our lectures and books can be bland and dense—if learners and engaged and motivated to learn, they will learn. Of course, stimulating lectures and textbooks are often the keys to provoking engagement. But the salient point seems to be that higher education is not adequately engaging the current generation of students who are used to being engaged all of the time, except when they go to class.
This has to change. Academics, professors, instructional designers and instructional technology support staff have to refocus their energy and resources. There’s far to much time and attention given to content presentation and distribution. But if learners aren’t engaged, no amount of presentation and content will make them learn.
Learning about Learning
Faculty members, administrators and instructional support folks in higher education need to get serious about learning about learning. I do not profess to have all of the answers, or even to know all of the questions. This blog is my attempt to chronicle my attempts to learn about learning and to (I hope) provide some interesting insights and observations about the future of teaching and learning in higher education.
I purposely have not included "teaching" in the title of this blog because I think we need a paradigm shift in higher education. We need to think much more about learning. Instead of asking "How am I doing as a teacher (or instructional designer)?" we ought to ask "What's going on in our students' brains? How will they be different because they "bumped into us" for awhile, be it in a course, a one-on-one consultation, a mentored research project, whatever? I'm purposely forcing myself to take this perspective in hopes that it will help me break out of the traditional didactic, sage-on-the-stage model and instead focus on the most important goals of post-secondary education--preparing students to be productive citizens, parents, neighbors and (oh yeah) participants in the global economy.
I welcome your input, criticism, responses, whatever. Afterall, my attempt here is to learn about learning and I'd love to learn from you.
I purposely have not included "teaching" in the title of this blog because I think we need a paradigm shift in higher education. We need to think much more about learning. Instead of asking "How am I doing as a teacher (or instructional designer)?" we ought to ask "What's going on in our students' brains? How will they be different because they "bumped into us" for awhile, be it in a course, a one-on-one consultation, a mentored research project, whatever? I'm purposely forcing myself to take this perspective in hopes that it will help me break out of the traditional didactic, sage-on-the-stage model and instead focus on the most important goals of post-secondary education--preparing students to be productive citizens, parents, neighbors and (oh yeah) participants in the global economy.
I welcome your input, criticism, responses, whatever. Afterall, my attempt here is to learn about learning and I'd love to learn from you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
