Thursday, June 22, 2006
Independence, Balkanization, or Going Along with the Crowd
Terry Calhoun writes an interesting opinion piece about the problem of monoculture in higher education, especially in IT. He points specifically to Blackboard. In a discussion he followed on the issue of Blackboard, he cites Skip Knox as saying:
I have always advocated using whatever technology fits your particular pedagogical approach and so, many people create their own web sites or use blogs or wikis or use the chalkboard. We are a small enough place where I think we can still advocate this approach. However, as more and more people want to use technology outside of Blackboard, our resources become strained. There is one of me and I can't possibly train everyone in html. I've put up a blog site, but someone still has to maintain it and develop it. It takes time and energy to research what to use, to set it up and figure out how it works and then to teach others how to use it. We're considering alternative systems to Blackboard, but that, too, can cause a pull on resources. Who's going to install and maintain it? Will it be so different from Blackboard that we'll need to develop separate documentation? How will we get students enrolled into courses? We depend on faculty's self-sufficiency in these situations, that they are smart, enterprising people who can figure this stuff out and who know best how to use the technology in their classes.
But . . . when I feel pulled in too many different directions and when the persons wanting to use the technology are not willing to learn anything on their own, I have to suggest going along with the crowd. There's a support system in place for those who use Blackboard. There are 5 or 6 people on campus who know the system well. Swarthmore handles the server administration. It's backed up and it's fairly reliable.
And still, I'm supportive of those who show independence and venture beyond the "approved" system because I don't believe in forcing one way of approaching technology on people. Education to me is individual and not cookie cutter. Though it may be more difficult to support, working together I think it's possible to allow different systems to live in parallel. If we advocate diversity in other areas, why not technology?
It's not just that Blackboard (to give name to the devil) is a corporate vendor; it's that any LMS represents a particular pedagogical approach. No one seems to have questioned the wisdom of imposing one pedagogy across the entire curriculum.Of course, we here at Bryn Mawr are a Blackboard campus. In fact, we share our Blackboard installation with Haverford and Swarthmore. Are we risking monoculture in doing so? Actually, I don't think so. While Blackboard is our only course management system option, we make no requirements for using it. In fact, plenty of people don't. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'd guess that only about half of the faculty on campus are using Blackboard. Of those that are using Blackboard, I'd say only half are using it as a Learning Management System. The other half are using it to store documents and no more.
I have always advocated using whatever technology fits your particular pedagogical approach and so, many people create their own web sites or use blogs or wikis or use the chalkboard. We are a small enough place where I think we can still advocate this approach. However, as more and more people want to use technology outside of Blackboard, our resources become strained. There is one of me and I can't possibly train everyone in html. I've put up a blog site, but someone still has to maintain it and develop it. It takes time and energy to research what to use, to set it up and figure out how it works and then to teach others how to use it. We're considering alternative systems to Blackboard, but that, too, can cause a pull on resources. Who's going to install and maintain it? Will it be so different from Blackboard that we'll need to develop separate documentation? How will we get students enrolled into courses? We depend on faculty's self-sufficiency in these situations, that they are smart, enterprising people who can figure this stuff out and who know best how to use the technology in their classes.
But . . . when I feel pulled in too many different directions and when the persons wanting to use the technology are not willing to learn anything on their own, I have to suggest going along with the crowd. There's a support system in place for those who use Blackboard. There are 5 or 6 people on campus who know the system well. Swarthmore handles the server administration. It's backed up and it's fairly reliable.
And still, I'm supportive of those who show independence and venture beyond the "approved" system because I don't believe in forcing one way of approaching technology on people. Education to me is individual and not cookie cutter. Though it may be more difficult to support, working together I think it's possible to allow different systems to live in parallel. If we advocate diversity in other areas, why not technology?
Comments:
<< Home
My defense of Blackboard is stronger than Laura's. With each successive update, Blackboard becomes more and more flexible, so it doesn't impose a monolithic approach to teaching. In fact, I've found in my own classes that it allows for a great deal of creativity. Content areas can be customized for each course, while still providing easy integration of multimedia resources and assignment components. I've looked at a number of web pages for various language courses at Bryn Mawr, and I've yet to find any site that couldn't be duplicated on Blackboard with no loss in functionality and with added benefits in ease of use for students and faculty alike.
Thanks for posting this link and your excellent assessment.
Just as you mentioned, there are a couple things I would take issue with concerning Skip Knox's assertions.
The first and most important is the notion that a course management system imposes a pedagogical approach. The primary role of most course management systems is to provide a place for instructors to put course materials so that they may be accessed both inside and outside the classroom, and inside and outside the library. This is how CMS's are most commonly used, probably because it is very useful. If freely providing access to course materials to students impinges on an instructor's pedagogical approach, there are bigger issues.
Secondly, I would hesiate to call Blackboard, or most any other online system often used at colleges and universities, an LMS, a learning management system. The only systems that start to move in the direction of allowing one to manage one's learning would be blogs, wikis, and bookmarking tools. These are not explicitly learning management systems and that is perhaps what makes them so well suited for the task. They encourage exploration and reflection. I would hate to see a curriculum not geared toward some sort of exploration and reflection.
Post a Comment
Just as you mentioned, there are a couple things I would take issue with concerning Skip Knox's assertions.
The first and most important is the notion that a course management system imposes a pedagogical approach. The primary role of most course management systems is to provide a place for instructors to put course materials so that they may be accessed both inside and outside the classroom, and inside and outside the library. This is how CMS's are most commonly used, probably because it is very useful. If freely providing access to course materials to students impinges on an instructor's pedagogical approach, there are bigger issues.
Secondly, I would hesiate to call Blackboard, or most any other online system often used at colleges and universities, an LMS, a learning management system. The only systems that start to move in the direction of allowing one to manage one's learning would be blogs, wikis, and bookmarking tools. These are not explicitly learning management systems and that is perhaps what makes them so well suited for the task. They encourage exploration and reflection. I would hate to see a curriculum not geared toward some sort of exploration and reflection.
<< Home
