Wikis, Widgets, and Webtops(The Future of IMS for Higher Ed)

Lesley BlickerRSP/ITEACH Conference

February 27, 2009 http://lesleyblicker.efoliomn2.com/

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

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)

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

Current State of the Large Commercial Enterprise IMSs

In the 3rd 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

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

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

So Why?

Wikis

Widgets

Webtops

Wikis – why?

Two-way sendStudents 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

Widgets, Gadgets – Why?

Examples of software chock full of widget integration

iPhoneWikis (WetPaint)BlogsFacebook

Easy integration with YouTube, Flickr, Google maps, etc.

http://lblicker.wordpress.com/

Webtops – Why?

Quick Definition Webtop

A virtual desktop on the web, running in a web browser

Examples: NetVibes, PageFlakes, iGooglehttp://www.google.com/ig

The Webtop Phenomenon to Create a Personal Learning Environment

A Portal to Media Literacy, M. Weschhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4yApagnr0s – min 28

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