Photo by Cenk Batuhan Özaltun on Unsplash.
At the time of this writing, I am still working through through Chapters 4-7 of Dron & Anderson’s Teaching Crowds. It’s been an interesting read so far, particularly on the challenges of closed Learning Management Systems (LMSs) and the emergence of robust open source LMSs as viable competition. I do wonder what the future will hold for open source LMS development as we (hopefully) transition from SCORM to xAPI and cmi5. SCORM is such a limiting standard for learning analytics and, even though it’s over a decade old, xAPI still hasn’t gained the mainstream adoption that it deserves.
The readings by Garrison et. al., vanOOstveen et. al. and Veletsianos had me pondering the design of the MALAT program and LRNT 521. I recognize it’s still early in the program, but I think I see connections in the design of our program and some of the ideas presented in these readings (and many more evidence-based resources, I’m sure). From Garrison et. al.’s implementation template for digital Communities of Inquiry (COIs) to vanOostveen et. al’s movement of the teaching presence into the collaborative learning domain of the Fully Online Learning Community (FOLC) and Veletsiano’s perspectives on designing learning environments to create “transformative learning experiences”, it’s interesting to see both the evolution of digital learning environment concepts as well as variable implementation paths. I have much to learn, but from a metacognitive standpoint, it’s exciting to be experiencing the concepts we are learning and understanding how they affect our learning behaviour. It’s a strange recursion though, because I’m now pondering how my awareness of these learning concepts and constructs will affect how I engage with them.
I’m curious how I will feel about this perspective when I near the end of the program.
Finally, the Youtube video by Stewart et. al. was a wonderful call to action for participatory open education, but I fear that the issues noted in the video have only worsened since 2019. I’ve covered this briefly in my initial DIPD post, but I’m not confident that a pro-social web is viable in the current global conditions.
References
Dron, J, & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching Crowds. Athabasca University Press. (Note: free PDF available for download). Chapter 4 – 7.
Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in text based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
Stewart, B., Phipps, L., & Cormier, D. (2019, April 10). The Participatory open: Can we build a Pro-Social, Pro-Societal web? [Video]. You Tube.
vanOostveen, R., DiGiuseppe, M., Barber, W., Blayone, T., & Childs, E. (2016). Developing Learning Communities in Fully Online Spaces: Positioning the Fully Online Learning Community Model. Paper presented at the Higher Education in Transformation Symposium, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada.
Veletsianos, G. (2016). Digital learning environments. In N. Rushby & D. Surry (Eds), Handbook of Learning Technologies (pp. 242-260). UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Great post and reflection Chris! To answer where LMS development in the future will be, in my opinion, non-existent.. According to DOD Total Learning Architecture (TLA) in 2019, as learning ecosystems decompose into separate core services, the once monolithic LMS will no longer be relevant. Instead we are beginning to see the emergence of a learning experience portal (LXP) which will act as a central UI or portal which integrates all the services.
Thanks Allie, and I agree. With xAPI and cmi5, I can see the emergence of LXP or LRSs as the hub of the future. Interestingly though, there is a tremendous amount of legacy information tied up in existing LMSs so I expect there will be resistance to adopting any new technologies unless they are cost-neutral or generate savings.
It’s interesting how Rustici has partnered with the DoD on the CATAPULT project (https://xapi.com/cmi5/cmi5-project-catapult/) to foster the adoption of xAPI and cmi5 across the DoD. As they demonstrate viability and overcome technical and logistical hurdles, I expect we’ll see broader civilian uptake.
Good thoughts, Chris. Your comment about the Stewart (2019) video caused me to reflect on the reciprocal relationship between technology and society. Philosophers and sociologists have long argued about just how much new technologies determine the direction in which society develops, and I believe it is safe to say that that there is no easy answer. It is interesting to me that social media–once hailed as a force for unifying society–has become so divisive. Is this caused by the technology, the system designers, those who profit from the platforms, or something inherent in human societies?
This article does a nice job of walking through the various approaches to the considering the influence of technologies on society:
Hallström, J. (2020). Embodying the past, designing the future: Technological determinism reconsidered in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09600-2
Thanks Russ, that was a pretty dense read, and frankly, I will need to re-read it to grasp its arguments fully. However, a couple of concepts stood out to me. The idea that there is a balance between the technically possible and the societally desirable points to the growing divisiveness of social media. Though it’s not just the technical possibility that’s the issue, it’s the underlying incentives. It does remind me of Charlie Munger’s paraphrased quote “Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome”. Are social media technologies inherently divisive, or did design choices produce algorithms that achieve high levels of engagement through amplifying “PRIME” information – prestigious, in-group, moral and emotional? Maximizing shareholder value by letting the algorithms run unchecked (or in some cases, encouraged) turned a potentially pro-social technology upside down and produced some horrible externalities. Perhaps this was combined with the ” technological somnambulism” from Winner’s perspective. Were we not paying close enough attention and didn’t fully grasp the risks until it was too late?
The article spoke to the issue of system complexity and “black boxes” as a potential link to technological determinism. This is particularly concerning with advanced AI or AGI systems. I’m getting uncomfortable hearing about AIs spontaneously demonstrating unexpected behaviours and capacities without a clear understanding of how they were achieved alongside unchecked open-sourcing of AI models. AI is the only technology we’ve ever created that has the potential to improve its own substrate (compute) and composition (code) and there are examples where the designers aren’t sure what’s happening. This is where technological somnambulism could have much worse outcomes.
Burke, T. (2023, Aug 16). Social-media algorithms have hijacked “social learning”. KellogInsight. https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/social-media-algorithms-have-hijacked-social-learning