Platform, not panacea

I'm guessing that we all came away with the same impression from today's Bb NG session: underwhelmed, close but no cigar, etc. But I think we came away from our Moodle viewing with somewhat the same impression: some good and interesting ideas, but nothing that will rescue us from our challenges. At least, that's my initial take on this.

So it's instructive to have had close looks at Moodle and NG both within the same week. No magic bullet.

Given that, it strikes me that the real question for the gap analysis is not whether there's a application that will, by itself, take us there. Rather, which gives us a better platform, basis, or foundation for moving away from a course management system and towards a learning management system. We will always have to do back-end integration, we will always have to look for enhancements, etc, no matter which one we alight on.

So the bottom line questions for the gap analysis could be:

* which one, by itself, takes us closer to the goal of a learning management system;

* which one gives us a more robust foundation on which to add our enhancements, integration, etc?

Comments

[Joshua Kim]

I think this take on things is exactly right. I'll add to Malcolm's analysis by saying that it is increasingly clear that the platform will never be a substitute for the work of relationship building, workshops, building self-serve materials, etc. etc. that will facilitate and support a move towards social/active learning and away from a lecture/professor centric model. In other words, we need to be weary of looking at technical solutions for what are in reality social issues. A platform, or learning tool, may help (or hinder) changing behaviors - but the the tool alone cannot bring about or nurture that change.

My other takeaway is to realize that we (and maybe BB) draw the wrong (or incomplete) lessons from apps such as Facebook. It is not that we want a CMS to be Facebook - it is more that Facebook succeeds because the community of users organically "take over" the tool and use it for their own needs and benefits. Students did not need "Facebook" training - they could simply go on, make connections, start conversations, and add-value to the apps through the community. A goal for a CMS should be to provide a social place and tools for learning and collaboration - where students can initiate conversations, create the learning spaces, share the materials, and do whatever they need to do to succeed in the course(s) and engage in the educational material without the need for faculty (or IT) to "set something up".

[Barbara Knauff]

Good points by both Malcolm and Josh. I totally agree that we should look at our CMS as a launch pad and basis, rather than expect a be-all solution. So flexibilty and extensibility are key concerns. I also want to reiterate my firm belief that ease of use and speediness (time to accomplish a task) are crucial - if I have learned anything from the success of many Apple products (iPod, iTunes), it's that. That's why I am so excited about the extensive UI overhaul in NG. Even if it's just a quantitative change, not a "profound" change, it's big enough to make a qualitative difference.

Thinking about Facebook - I think it's important to keep an eye on the web spaces where our students spend time, because that's shaping their expectations of how their interactions with information and with other users should be structured... it forms their models. For me, the most interesting question in the Blackboard student focus group we did recently wasn't about Blackboard, but about other web applications - finding out what students like about them.