That is a question that is seldom asked, even though it is a relevant question. If we learn about the history of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) it will be easier for us to understand some of the underlying reasons for the state of things. This will in turn make us better equipped to analyze problems and to understand why they are problems as well as to (hopefully) better understand how to address them. Many schools (or rather municipalities) are currently investing a lot of money in VLEs, and especially in a type of products that are often referred to as “learning platforms”. Those learning platforms are in reality often Learning Management Systems (LMSs), which are (in my world) a type of VLE.
So, what is problematic about that? Are there any problems at all? I would say that there are problems and that we need to be aware of them! However, before I start to problemize I will give you a retrospective view of the history of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) and VLEs. Beware of simplifications!
It all started (roughly) during the Second World War. There was an urgent need to train soldiers in a more efficient way and one appealing idea was to use technology - not computers at first though. Behaviorists like Skinner and Thorndike led this development and they were quite successful in their attempts to make training more efficient using technology. The training needs of the army were also well meet by behaviorist learning theories and the opportunities that the technology offered.
The development continued after the war and it eventually led to what we now know as instructional design (ID). ID had (and still has) a great impact on the development of TEL. As a result of the research and development of ID the concept of Programmed Instruction (PI) was introduced in the late fifties. In the bleeding edge of this development were theories and ideas such Skinners frames of instruction, ultimately to be realized by teaching machines. The underlying idea was quite simple and based on a “chunking and sequencing” approach that we can still recognize. Learning material was divided into smaller chunks (frames) that were sequenced together in a logical sequence that could be managed by the computers (and other machines) that were available at the time. The learning material was often based on a question-answer model or a fill-in-the-blanks approach, each unit ending with a small test. Eventually programmed instruction evolved into programmed learning (PL) and by that it also moved on into regular education (i.e. into the classroom). Both programmed instruction and programmed learning emphasized a type of learning that was self-paced and self-contained, managed by the learner. Those approaches were in fact similar to many of the approaches that are still in use.
In the eighties and nineties there was a trend towards specialized training software – or educational software as some prefer to call it. This was software developed for a specific learning purpose, but it turned out to be very expensive to produce. Eventually programmed learning evolved into computer-based training (CBT) and computer-based learning (CBL).
In the nineties there was a multimedia and CD-ROM revolution and most things turned into multimedia. Resulting in that people got used to flashy content with rich media and interactivity. Even though the multimedia era marked a significant change, many CD-ROM productions were actually just educational software in a sexier package.
Another significant technology that had its breakthrough during the eighties and the nineties were Hypertext. This was actually a significant development for TEL and we now know that Hypertext eventually led to a paradigm shift and it certainly became much simpler to produce digital learning content. In fact, some people even said that Hypertext and instructional design was the same things. Irrespective of that, Hypertext provided a relatively simple way for non-programmers to make their own representations of instructional designs (or pedagogical designs) and to produce instructional material - or learning content as I prefer to call it. Hypertext based tools like HyperCard and ToolBook became popular and changed the way in which learning content was developed.
In the mid-nineties it was time for the biggest breakthrough of them all: the breakthrough of the Internet and the Web! Computer-based (as in computer-based learning etc.) became web-based (as in web-based learning etc.). The breakthrough of the web actually turned things over quite a bit. Time and distances were no longer issues, and learning and education suddenly became a global affair. System borders that were previously perceived as clear suddenly became unclear, moved, or even disappeared.
A need to collaborate and exchange information and digital learning content suddenly appeared and standards and frameworks were developed, through initiatives such as ADL SCORM, IEEE LTSC, and the IMS Global Learning Consortium, in order to make easier for learning related systems to exchange data and information.
Experiences from previous production of educational software showed that it tended to become very expensive and that content must be reusable and relatively context independent in order to minimize costs and redundancy. This eventually resulted in the concept of learning objects. In short, learning objects is a modular concept for he delivery of digital learning content. The learning object concept has adopted many ideas from previous developments within the ID-movement. One of the fundamental ideas of learning objects is chunking and sequencing. In order to actually make learning objects (re)usable the representation of ID (basically representing how LOs are sequenced together) needed to be separated from the actual content and not hard-coded into the content, which was the case with earlier approaches. When digital learning content became movable and reusable (at least in theory 
there was an urgent need for somewhere to put it. Voila, the LMS was invented. Interesting to point out is that this development forced a separation of the content, the pedagogical context and the VLE. Previous approaches mixed them – with some exceptions. LMSs were from the beginning mainly an environment for administrating learning and learning content, with a strong administrative focus. This has changed over time, and many LMSs have extended their functionality with tools for collaboration, communication and a variety of other more learning specific tools.
However, suddenly, just when LMSs started to settle, Web 2.0 appears and there was immediately troubles in paradise. In fact there have been problems all the time, but now they were becoming compromising. Even though it appeared to be suddenly, Web 2.0 is not a revolution, but rather an evolution. If Web 2.0 exists at all? Technically there is not much new about Web 2.0, but it marks a change in how technology is perceived and used. New combinations and uses of technology occurs all the time under the Web 2.0 umbrella.
The picture below (from http://www.frepa.org/) illustrates the development of TEL.
So, what are the problems with the state of things as they have become?
In fact there are infrastructural problems as well as pedagogical problems that need to be discussed. Obviously they are interconnected in a complex web of dependencies. Some of the more notable problems that we are facing are for example:
- When everything else is becoming more and more horizontal the LMS represent another information silo.
- LMSs normally come with a predetermined set of functions that does not necessarily fulfill the pedagogical needs of schools. Many of the LMS ideas arose from needs within industry and school needs are often fundamentally different.
- Considering the pace of the technological development, there is no way that LMS vendors can keep up he pace. Many LMSs are becoming like Swiss army knifes: they are capable of doing a lot of different things, but only half bad and they are actually only good at a few things.
- Being an information silo makes it harder for LMSs to function together with other systems or services. This makes the LMS Web 2.0 incompatible. After all, one of the core underlying ideas of Web 2.0 is to free information from systems and to be able to connect different services on the web to create an added value in the shape of new services. Google maps is one example of this approach. Other services are using Google maps to create new services by combining their own services and information with Google maps. My hometown (Umeå) is one example of that. It exists in 3D on Google maps and the 3D models are now used as a planning tool. Do Google know about this? I don’t think so, but that is also the point.
- As LMSs usually comes with a fixed set of functions and a predetermined structure, they tend to limit the ways in which learning can be approached. There is an impending risk that LMSs add pedagogical restrictions and limitations rather than being a dynamic pedagogical tool, managed by teachers and students.
- As long as LMSs are unable to interact with things like blogs, Wikis, ePortfolios, and so on, the learning infrastructure will become more and more heterogeneous and splintered, which makes it harder to manage, which is not exactly what teachers need.
If I wanted to be provocative, and I obviously want to be that, I would say that LMSs (and the LMS concept) are Web 1.0 in their very essence.
The question is how those issues can be dealt with? There is a need to start discussing those issues and take them into account when planing learning infrastructure and implementing VLEs!
I do of course have the right answer :), but I don’t want to revile it quite yet…
Posts
