Powered by Twitter Tools

Powered by Twitter Tools

• One new friend request…from my professor? – Jenn DeLuca
• Friend request from your professor? This one hopes you accept – Rey Junco

Many people have their own opinion of what an e-learning platform should be (I spelled out some of my own broad criteria here), but that’s a debate in and of itself that we tried to dodge here. In doing so, we may have taken a number of things for granted–feel free to disagree in the comments. In the mode of keeping it simple, we reviewed Nixty by looking at the following areas:

1. Sign-Up and User Accounts
2. Creating a Course
3. Designing a Course
4. Participating in a Course
5. Conclusion

Sign-Up and Accounts

Signing up for Nixty is a straight forward process via new accounts or Facebook. We didn’t see an OpenID option. Users can populate a contacts list via invitations through Gmail and Yahoo! Mail. Any user can sign up as a learner in any public course, or create a new course and share it with the world.

Within a user’s Settings users can upload a photo or avatar of themselves. Noticeably absent is any field for users’ personal web sites, social network accounts, or Atom/RSS feeds.

Users each have a theme-able “Eportfolio” (see Seth’s at http://nixty.com/eportfolio/Sgur). As opposed to a portfolio that showcases a person’s work, Nixty’s Eportfolio is limited mainly to presenting text information via a resume/CV builder.

Users also have a basic “Blog” (see Jared’s at http://nixty.com/blog/read/jaredstein/). The Nixty Blog allows for rich text editing, but, once submitted, new posts can not be edited. The blogs are publicly visible with no option to make private, either to a single course or to other Nixty members.

Nixty has an internal “Mail” tool which allows messaging of any Nixty user (plain text only). We would have liked to see some sort of integration with external e-mail or social media accounts.

Creating a Course

We began our examination of the features and limitations of Nixty by creating new online courses. In short, creating a new course and adding content is easy. Nixty provides a Wizard, but the interface is simple enough that most users can build courses without it. In most cases Nixty uses AJAX to facilitate page changes without reloading the page.

Courses can be designated as “traditional” or “wiki” versions–the latter allows any Nixty user to edit, add to, or re-order course content. After some confusion, @nixty (via Twitter) let us know that “Tests” and the “Gradebook” features are currently only available in the traditional version.

Course settings allow users to choose a course image icon which appears next to the course in Nixty directories. It also allows the instructor to set learner pass requirements for the course, and even issue a certificate to users upon completion.

The core unit of a Nixty course is the “Lesson” folder. Lesson folders can have learner instructions, can be nested, and can contain a sequence of any number of “Content” materials, “Discussions”, or “Tests”. Content is typically embedded HTML, but can also be a document (e.g. PDF or DOC), a media file, etc. We saw no way to scrape content from a web page–blog, wiki, or other. Also, though labeled “wiki” the wiki version of a course offers few wiki-like features, such as easy creation of new pages, access to wiki mark-up, version histories, etc.

The usability of the Content embedder/editor varied over the two days we used Nixty. Sometimes a simply WYSIWYG editor popped right up; sometimes the editor window was too small to use; sometimes it failed altogether with no error message.

Nixty allows for media uploads, though they recommend use of YouTube for videos. This is surely done for space/bandwidth reasons, but to us it’s the sort of behavior that should be encouraged throughout the system: designers (and users) should host their own materials in the cloud (Flickr, YouTube, Wikibooks, etc), and simple embed that content into the system’s framework.

Reordering Lesson folders was a bit painful. Initial ordering forces the creator to assign a number to each item. However, new items are not automatically queued to the next number, but have to be manually numbered through Manage Course > Lessons > Order Folders.

In our testing the “Syllabus” builder appeared to simply be broken, but there are obvious work-arounds, e.g. syllabus as an external file, or embed it as Content in a Lesson folder.

“Tests” can be used for exams or quizzes, and allow for basic multiple choice, true/false, multiple answer, fill in the blank, ordering and essay questions. Tests showed no option for question categories, pools, or randomization. Remember: Tests are only available in “traditional” version courses.

The “Gradebook” only allows for a Pass/Fail point-value cutoff. A clear limitation for most conventional instructors. Again, the Gradebook is only available in “traditional” version courses.

“Discussions” use the term “thread” but are not actually reply-threaded as we expected.

Nixty has neither an import nor export option for courses or materials, making migration to or from laborious.

Despite Nixty’s apparent draw for opencourseware and open educational resource projects, Nixty provides no licensing feature for content. We expected to be able to list license properties for individual items similar to Flickr, educommons, or the Moodle OpenShare mod.

We can’t discuss the course creation/development process without mentioning the navigation on the web site. Navigation is inconsistent at best, and often laborious or confusing. The following video illustrates one example that’s sure frustrate instructors in number of clicks alone:

(Note: I am aware that this screencast is not scaling properly.)

Once finished, a creator can make a course public–this lists the course in the Nixty directory and allows other users to sign up for the course.

Designing a Course

We’ve looked at the nuts and bolts of Nixty in order to experience the possibilities, though actually designing a course is a different matter. Design of a successful informal or open course depends a lot on the limitations and affordances of a given system, the creativity of the designer, and the needs of the learners–an element apparently overlooked by Nixty (and most other LMS). We examined design considerations by looking at adapting my own online course, and examining a few of the spotlighted courses in Nixty.

The course I built in Nixty is based on my existing fully online 3-credit course, which aims to lay the groundwork for new web developers by introducing the basics of XHTML and CSS. The course design is a fairly traditional: primarily linear experience that connects heavily project-based instructional lessons with weekly discussions, journals, and learning quizzes.

(As with any conversion or migration, I had the bitter-sweet realization that my course had flaws scars that I was not quite ready to make public. This does, however, encourage me to make improvements under possible public scrutiny.)

In my course Because there is no built-in assignment tool designers have to rely on Discussions and Tests for activities. I did insert assignments into his Nixty course, and conforming to the nature of the informal, open educational experience I listed them as self-assessment only. And though I did provide a basic scoring criteria list, a better self-assessment feature would allow instructors to create rubrics, and users to score and track their work. Assignment-type activities would also be bolstered by a simple URL submission field, or even linking to artifacts in a learner’s Eportfolio (though the Eportfolio does not support objects/artifacts).

Use of essay-type questions in Tests could accommodate non-standard activities and assessments, but I think for such an option to thrive in an informal experience peer users would need to be able to access other learners’ quiz results for feedback and scoring. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

Alternatively, a Discussion could be used for project submission and peer feedback. Because file upload is not an option, learners would have to refer to files hosted elsewhere. This limitation may in fact encourage better practices in learners, as each would have to have their own space(s) on the web for publishing educational and professional artifacts (e.g. a blog, Flickr, Slideshare, etc). Unfortunately, the designer’s Discussion thread creation prompt does not provide anything more than a plain text editor, limiting the richness of instructions for the learners.

In my Nixty course, as in most courses, the structure is fairly limited and contained by the Lesson folders, which contain only linearly-sequenced Content, Discussions, etc. The following short video shows how OCW_Maven structured OCW-based courses by interspersing Content and Q&A Discussions:

(Note: I am aware that this screencast is not scaling properly.)

In our opinion a truly disruptive educational platform should encourage alternative structures, including recursive sequencing, e.g. learning branches or paths. That Nixty provides a “wiki” option for the course suggests a highly organic possibility, yet as mentioned several key wiki features are absent, especially dynamic, on-the-fly creation of new pages from links.

Participating in a Course

The idea behind a formally informal course experience is that a critical mass of users congregate around a learning hub in order to provide peer-to-peer or expert-to-peer feedback, direction, or mentoring. This requires a large number of users active on the site. It also requires a method of connecting users with the site’s activities when they are away from the course. Often this is done via e-mail, but the simple–yet surprisingly rare–method is with Atom or RSS feeds, for either content updates or discussion threads. Nixty provides neither feature, which may be the single largest weakness threatening the success of a project that apparently aims to be an open, informal learning hub.

Tests aside, “completion” of a Lesson, Discussion, or piece of content is based primarily on the user clicking “Mark this item complete”. This is fine for monitoring simple progress through a sequence of activities, but provides no real feedback to users on more substantive levels of progress. We suggested previously that a self-assessment rubric and tracking feature would be ideal for projects and assignments. Further, a reflective journaling field could be employed to help users track their thoughts as they progress through the materials.

Discussion responses can be voted “up” or “down”, but we thought that a better user feedback feature would provide additional, aggregable feedback to users in cases where the Discussion is used for sharing of work and solicitation of critiques. Users replying to a thread can use a GUI editor to compose their responses, but can not attach files. Again, this is not necessary with a PLE/PLN-informed perspective on digital identities and self-publishing, but many instructors–and learners–will look for this.

A plus for anyone planning to try Nixty is the fact that their representatives are very active on the support forums as well as on Twitter, and are more than willing to engage the community, answer questions, and offer advice.

Conclusion

As a simple e-learning platform Nixty is fairly satisfying. It’s willingness to provide a home for discussing and organizing content is laudable, and its aim to provide an alternative, open platform for informal learning is something we’ve been talking about for years.

The version of Nixty reviewed here is somewhat promising for informal learning scenarios, and the lightweight nature of the LMS can, at times, feel like a breath of fresh air over heavier LMS. The shifted paradigm of the system and its inherent limitations may encourage designers and educators to think about informal and independent learning in alternate ways.

However, broken or absent features make it difficult to recommend as a serious e-learning platform or an LMS. Indeed, existing Web 2.0 systems–either independently or in tandem–offer better core functionality (e.g. WordPress, MediaWiki), and we can think of other specifically educational platforms that would probably serve as well or better. For instance, the commercial LMS provider Instructure offers free individual course accounts to instructors as well as a public course option for informal open courses. Instructure Canvas is a more mature and feature-rich LMS platform that should not be ignored by open educators and educational theorists. And, of course, open source-minded folks would can just host their own instance Moodle or Sakai. (It’s somewhat surprising that Nixty didn’t build itself on either of these platforms, which are also full-featured and more mature.)

The fact that Nixty is new forces something of a catch-22: many self-directed learners and open educators won’t want to invest the time in using it until a critical mass of users can support those experiences; yet not critical mass is possible without users committing the system.

Despite its weaknesses Nixty is an interesting project, and we’ll be watching as its development progresses in the coming months and years. At this stage at least, Nixty is missing too many features, exhibits too many bugs, and offers little new affordances for us to encourage its adoption at this stage for anything except experimental open educational experiences.

You might think that Apple holds both [the open web and the App Store] in equal esteem, but
its release of Safari 5 shows that Apple has less regard for publishers on the Web than it does for publishers (and developers) it wants to entice to come to the App Store.

And the App Store is becoming its own little mirror-reflection of the Web. You’ve got content from news providers, you’ve got social networking, you’ve got games, RSS readers—the list goes on and on. You’ve also got, courtesy of Apple, a 100 percent Apple-owned, Apple-powered advertising platform called iAds.

…

in the end we’re left with a) an open platform [Safari] where Apple is willing to toy with Web publishers, modify their content presentation, and suppress their ads, and b) Apple’s curated, closed platform, where everything is done by Apple’s rules or it’s not done at all.

Fisher is honing in on Safari’s new Reader feature, a space Arc90 has been treading for some time. So it’s somewhat synchronistic that Arc90 echoes the original frustration with Apple’s anti-open web model (though not it’s Reader) in the blog post, “Why We Built Readability” comments,

…publishing finds itself looking elsewhere to solve the puzzle of distributing and monetizing. Magazines like Time, Wired and Popular Science have decided to invest in delivering purchasable “packages” of their content that work on Apple’s iPad.

…

For us, the Web is the right bet. The notion of tethering content delivery to a particular proprietary platform or hardware device is admitting defeat.

Dual-coding theory suggests that learning can be actually be enhanced when cognitive load is increased in a specific way, such that both auditory and visual coding is activated simultaneous, and in concert. This is only true, dual-coding warns, when the information does not compete. This is where the distinction between verbal and non-verbal becomes important. Two forms of verbal information–visual verbal and auditory verbal–is likely to compete, even if one is spoken and one is heard. Another example of competing information would be visual non-verbal and visual verbal information, but not visual non-verbal and auditory verbal. Though I haven’t seen any studies of it, I daresay because we can easily discern lyrics from a song, non-verbal auditory and verbal auditory do not compete.

As I tried to understand why certain combinations of information compete and others don’t–and indeed are complementary–I turned to a book I’d read earlier this year, Stanislas Dehane’s “Reading in the Brain”. Dehane begins by explains that reading takes advantage of massive parallel processing (I love the daemons/pandemonium metaphor). He then explains the dual-route theory, which postulates that reading proceeds predominantly along one of two routes: phonological (or graphophonological) (visual–>auditory–>lexical) or orthographic (or lexicosemantic) (visual –> lexical), depending on the word being read:

All writing systems oscillate between an accurate representation of sound and the fast transmission of meaning. … Two information processing pathways coexist and supplement each other while we read. When words are very regular, rare, or novel we preferentially process them using a “phonological route”, in which we decipher the letter string, then convert it into pronunciation, and finally attempt to access the meaning of the sound patter (if any). Conversely, when we are confronted with words that are frequent or whose pronunciation is exceptional, our reading takes a direct route that first recovers the identity and meaning of the word and then uses the lexical information to recover it’s pronunciation.
(Dehane 38-39)

Research beginning and the late 80s and proceeding to today have supported this theory. Historic brain imaging experiments in 1989 from Petersen et al showed that different regions of the brain were used when listening to words (superior temporal region) vs. silently reading words (left occipito-temporal region, aka the brain’s letterbox–different from areas of brain which code broader visual stimuli). Some silent reading tasks then transmit to the superior temporal region for coding. (67-74)

Initial input pathway differs depending on whether we hear or read a word, but cortical activitiy later converges onto the same set of language areas.” And appears to extend out (and back, and out again) from there, apparently activating more areas of the brain than seems “necessary” to understand, well beyond the actual recognition of the word. (103-104)

That doesn’t mean we only use auditory areas when listening to words; we also may use them as the phonological route suggested by dual-route theory. This is described by later fMRI-based brain imaging experiments that found…

“Common words, as well as words whose spelling is irregular, head straight for the lexical areas of the middle temporal lobe… Other words, whether they are regular, rare, or unknown, are first pronounced mentally using auditory areas of the superior temporal lobe before a meaning is attached to them.” (116)

In terms of speed, it looks like the direct lexical route is faster (words we know; ~200 milliseconds) that the auditory first route (words we have to sound out; ~400 milliseconds).

Because either may be used, and because the route is largely based on the reader’s prior knowledge, it seems important not to interfere–not even risk interference with whichever route is taken. This supports dual-coding’s rule against competing information (verbal and verbal). It doesn’t complete the picture, however, or, if it does I haven’t quite discerned the layout. One (of many) questions I have: what is the impact on activation time of these two routes if the task is burdened with auditory stimuli, such as narration (either conflicting or coinciding)? I would guess that in instances where the the word is first “pronounced mentally” would be more subject to interference or delay from auditory stimuli or narration.

• Assess or track student learning so as to provide formative or summative feedback (e.g. gradebooks, learner analytics, quizzes)
• Share and sequence learning materials–both locally-produced and external content (e.g. wiki pages, documents, multimedia, web pages)
• Facilitate learning communities, both their formation and persistence (e.g. learner identity profiles, discussions, chat rooms, blog aggregation)
• Communicate with learners in order to explore topics, negotiate meaning, and provide feedback, whether those interactions are expert-to-learner, peer-to-peer, content-to-learner, self-reflective (e.g. e-mail, discussion, scoring rubrics, voice/video messaging)
• Aggregate or publish learners’ academic work, either within a “walled-garden” or to the public (e.g. portfolios, blogs, wikis, document sharing)

In order to put cognitive load theory into practice I think a clear distinction between both verbal and non-verbal as well as visual and non-visual is important. The following diagram is my first attempt to clarify these fairly simple distinctions:

Distance Education Clearinghouse, University of Wisconsin- Extension:
List of Certificate Programs
http://www.uwex.edu/disted/certificates.cfm
Includes University of Wisconsin Madison, University of Wisconsin Stout, University of West Georgia, Appalachian State, California State Hayward, University of Illinois Springfield, Indiana University, Learning Resources Network, Manakau Institute of Technology, Nova Southeastern University, Pace University, Penn State, Portland State, St. Lawrence College, Simon Fraser, Texas A&M, Touro University, University of British Columbia, University of Calgary, University of Colorado Denver, University of Maryland, University of Washington
- Sheryl Hansen, Director, Professional Development Programs, Ohio Learning Network

Stephen F. Austin State University, Texas:
http://www.oit.sfasu.edu/facdev/certprogs.html
Online Instructor Certification Series: This set of three workshop series is designed for faculty who are developing or delivering complete web- based courses. After successfully completing the three series, faculty will be certified by the Office of Instructional Technology as an Online Instructor.
- Lauren Scharff, Ph.D., Director for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, United States Air Force Academy

New Mexico State University: http://extended.nmsu.edu/academics/otl/index.html
Graduate Certificate in On- line Teaching and Learning (OTL): for professionals in business, government, education, or other settings who want to develop their knowledge and skills in online teaching and learning. OTL utilizes technology- based environments to actively engage students in designing formal educational projects that meet professional objectives. The five 3- credit course sequence provides an intense immersion in a dynamic online environment and culminates in an online teaching practicum.
- Eugenia D. Conway, Associate Director, The Teaching Academy

University of West Florida:
Peer review for on- line courses: Quality Matters process, http://uwf.edu/atc/QM/
Training: Offered by UWF Academic Technology Center, Sloan- C, and Quality Matters.
Quality Matters (QM) is a faculty- centered, peer review process designed to certify the quality of online courses and online components. Sponsored by MarylandOnline, Inc. Quality Matters has generated widespread interest and received national recognition for its peer- based approach to quality assurance and continuous improvement in online education.
- Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D., Director, Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment; Associate Professor, Psychology

DePaul University: http://www.idd.depaul.edu/dots/index.html
DOTS: DePaul Online Teaching Series: DePaul Online Teaching Series
(DOTS) is a faculty development program that trains and assists faculty to become successful facilitators of online learning. The program builds online readiness among faculty through an immersive, hands- on experience. 36 Hours; includes hardware, software, support, stipend, and certificate.
- Todd Diemer, Teaching Commons Program Manager

Illinois Online Network (ION):
http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/courses/students/mot.asp
Master Online Teacher (MOT) certificate: part of the Making the Virtual Classroom a Reality series. The MOT is a non- credit award earned after successfully completing 6 courses in the MVCR series; there are three required courses, a core option, an elective, and a capstone practicum course. Over 400 people from around the world have earned their MOTs since the first recipients in 2001.
- Scott B. Johnson, Program Coordinator, Illinois Online Network

Ball State University:
Certification for Online Instruction (COI):
This certification is not required to teach online, but a few departments are leaning that way, and the associate provost is encouraging more departments to consider it.
COI is 6- week course based in Blackboard that includes modules on the following topics: Introduction to online teaching (theory/pedagogy); Content delivery; Communications; Assessment of student learning; Local resources Each of those modules is built around the same structure: Reflections on the teacher’s current face- to- face teaching practices in that area; Readings or videos; Asynchronous discussion board activity (with standard post/reply/summarize cycle); Individual assignment (Planning Document).
We think the strongest part of the class is this Planning Document.
After each module, participants are prompted to apply their learning and reflection to their planned online course. They actually plan out what they will do in the course (e.g., how they will deliver content- readings, lecture videos, interviews, virtual field trips, student- generated content, etc.), and what they need to do/learn to make that happen. By the end of the course, each participant has a concrete plan for their online course- very applied.
We have only been doing this for about a year and a half now (and are off this fall as we revise the course to match our Blackboard 9 upgrade), but we have gotten very good responses from everyone who finishes the class (obviously, a few drop out each semester when they realize the time commitment). The only down side to the program is that it takes a big time commitment for us to teach, and administrators didn’t factor that into our load when they asked me to create/teach the course.
- Greg Siering, Ph.D., Faculty Development Coordinator, Office of Teaching and Learning Advancement

Dear CLIENT,

Today, we’ve announced that Elluminate, Wimba, and Blackboard will join forces to bring together the leading technology products for synchronous learning and collaboration – and the minds that created them – in what we hope will be a major step forward to pursue new innovation.

We’ve heard directly from you, our clients, that these products are rapidly growing in importance as formal and informal collaboration – in a variety of settings within and beyond the delivery of online courses – becomes increasingly fundamental to the learning process. But you’ve also told us much more is needed to realize the full potential of these solutions for impacting education.

Our combination is a union of like-minded, education-focused organizations to invest in and pursue this greater potential. Working together to form a new and independent Blackboard Collaborate platform group, we believe we can accelerate innovation in technology for collaboration within and across educational institutions, as well as add great value to the interactions between these systems and asynchronous learning platforms. And we can do so at a rate faster, and to an end much more impactful for educators, than any of our organizations could have achieved alone. The new platform group will operate under the strategic guidance of Ray Henderson, who oversees Blackboard’s overall teaching and learning strategy, and will be led by Elluminate’s Maurice Heiblum, who will assume the role of President, Blackboard Collaborate.

As excited as we are about the longer term promise of working together in this way, we realize that as clients of Elluminate and Wimba you will naturally be concerned about the short-term impacts of this news. Our pledge to you is to make our first focus sustaining the positive experience that both of these communities currently enjoy. Further, we will also sustain the goal of improving collaboration broadly, rather than exclusively for those using Blackboard learning management products. In that regard, we will continue current Elluminate and Wimba integration work for open source products, and it is our strategy to sustain those bridges with other commercial LMS providers as well.

Once we’ve ensured that a smooth transition is underway, we’ll begin the work of shaping a combined vision for Collaborate by working in combination with members of both client communities. In the meantime, we’re actively seeking to learn about specific questions or concerns you may have and hear any early ideas for how we can improve your current experience with our products or better integrate them with whatever learning management technology your institution prefers.

Please feel free to channel your thoughts directly to our executive team at collaborateleadership@blackboard.com. We’ve also established an information resource with anticipated FAQs that we’ll update with your input. We’re very optimistic about the benefit that our collective investment in, and passion for, education collaboration can produce for clients. We’re looking forward to digging in together.

Yours Sincerely,

Michael L. Chasen                     Nashir Samanani
President & CEO                       CEO & Founder
Blackboard Inc.                        Elluminate Inc.  

Carol Vallone                             Ray Henderson
CEO & Chairman of the Board       President
Wimba Inc.                               Blackboard Learn

Blackboard’s cautiously crafted language suggests this is a “strategic partnership” rather than a merger or buy-out. There’s a little additional info to be found on the Blackboard web site, but not much.

UPDATE: The Wimba web site confirms that this is another planned Blackboard acquisition, “for a total of approximately $116 million in cash” (more Bb-polished details here).

Though Bb claims, “we will continue current Elluminate and Wimba integration work for open source products” one has to wonder how much the leading commercial LMS provider will do to support it’s greatest marketshare competitor, the open source Moodle. Note also the careful use of “current”, suggesting that after Elluminate and Wimba are combined into Bb Collaborate, this integration work may cease.