Jon Mott and David Wiley have posted their paper on Open learning. Well done, nicely argued, with good supporting references. Bravo! Their basic point is traditional Content Management Systems — i.e. Sakai, Blackboard — reinforce the the management side of teaching to the detriment to the innovative, student-centered, learning side of the equation. And while I agree with much of their argument, I’ve come to realize that this approach also misses some important points:
- First there is a crucial different between informal learning — like watching openMIT course — and actually paying for classes at MIT. The crucial difference is MIT teaches their students but also certifies that they’ve met certain educational standards. And this certification requires meeting standards defined by accreditation bodies. In order to meet these requirements defined standards must be measured. These measures happen at a per-class, per-semester basis. Ideal? No. But convenient and efficient from the accreditation measurement requirement? Yes.
- Second. OK, so course management systems are mostly used by faculty to facilitate classroom management — distributing course materials, grading, announcements, emails. But maybe the use of technology to handle these frees up the faculty member to be more creative in class. Let’s remember that innovative teaching doesn’t NEED to utilize technology — there is still room for creativity with person-to-person, faculty-to-student transmission.
- Third, many faculty are already utilizing new technologies outside of the CMS. Facebook, twitter, blogging — all have found places inside better classrooms as a faculty member finds meet their educational objectives. Why not let faculty members take advantage of whatever extra-university technologies best meet their needs. If we formalize those resources, do we risk taking out the spontaneity? And why assume just because the CMS doesn’t look innovative, that the classroom experience isn’t?
- There is also a bit of a conflict between a current student’s learning experiences, and the learning for those who come after them. For instance last spring I attended a systems thinking workshop where the class did the beer game. If before the class we’d read a former student’s experiences, and learned the tricks of the game, the experience of participating in it would have been ruined. Working in education is both fun and frustrating because we watch each new group of students make the same mistakes and discoveries over and over again. The fact that current CMS’ lock out and even delete past learning experiences might actually be a good thing. And this activity doesn’t negate the learning that has occurred, it just removed the digital record that it occurred.
Mott and Wiley make many excellent points, and the paper is well worth reading. But the reality of the complex environment that education inhabits is that there are no easy answers. Conflicting forces pull in many directions. But regular discussion and the questioning of current, accepted practices is one of the best ways to advance our profession.
Open for Learning: The CMS and the Open Learning Network | in education
The course management system (CMS) reinforces the status quo and hinders substantial teaching and learning innovation in higher education. It does so by imposing artificial time limits on learner access to course content and other learners, privileging the role of the instructor at the expense of the learner, and limiting the power of the network effect in the learning process.
Related Posts