Some VLE thoughts

Martin Weller

Outline• The VLE choices• Current state of play• Tools and pedagogies• Technology succession• VLE 2.0

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

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

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.

A flexibility continuum

Commercial VLE

SOAOS

Standards SAKAI

Moodle as reasonable compromise• Gain:

– Functionality– Time– Community– Profile– Flexibility– Technical consensus

• Lose:– Some flexibility– Some control

VLE as toolset• Conferencing• Content• Tracking• Assignment handling• Assessment• Synchronous tools

• Blogs• Wikis• Podcasting• Social bookmarking• Eportfolio

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

Match to pedagogy1. Community of Practice

2. Resource based learning

3. Peer learning

4. Content-led/Instructivist

5. Complex learning

6. Problem-based learning

7. Collaborative learning

8. Instructor-led

1. Conferencing

2. Content

3. Tracking

4. Assignment handling

5. Assessment

6. Synchronous tools

7. Blogs

8. Wikis

9. Podcasting

10. Social bookmarking

11. Eportfolio

Technology clusters

Community of Practice

Conferencing

Blogs

Wikis

Synchronous tools

Content:Range of resources

Personal file store

Plant succession

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

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….

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

Question• What would a VLE be like to ideally meet your

needs?