e-Literate

Present is Prologue

Author: Michael Feldstein

  • SunGard Announces Support for IMS Learning Information Services

    There was some good news out of last week’s IMS meeting. I’ll have more to say about the meeting in general in a future post, but for now I just want to applaud SunGard for publicly committing to support the IMS Learning Information Services (LIS) specification in the upcoming 8.1 release of Banner Student (due out in the first quarter of next year, I think). Having the two biggest SIS vendors in the United States on board with the standard should drive adoption by LMSs (and other systems that need to know which people are in which courses).

    Expect more LIS-related announcements soon.

  • Blackboard's Response to Open Source: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt

    Blackboard has not been having a good time in the state of North Carolina. As I noted recently, the University of North Carolina (a Blackboard customer) reported highly favorable results of their pilot study of Sakai, with an outcome of further investigation into Sakai as a full replacement of Blackboard as their primary LMS. It turns out that this was following on the heels of a similar study done by the North Carolina Community College system favorably comparing Moodle to Blackboard. The details were different but some of the underlying dynamics were the same: the open source system in each case was found to be functionally equivalent to Blackboard for all practical purposes, the open source platforms did roughly as well as Blackboard (in the Moodle evaluation) or better than Blackboard (in the Sakai case) in usability evaluations, and Blackboard was deemed to be expensive relative to the alternatives.

    What’s interesting in the Moodle evaluation is that Blackboard wrote a response, which was published by the North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS). And the heart of the response is a swipe at open source with many claims that are…factually and logically questionable.

    Unfortunately, the PDF has some sort of copy protection on it that prevents copy/paste. (I thought Blackboard was on an openness kick….) So I have laboriously retyped the section of the response entitled “Top Five Risks to Consider When Evaluating Open Source” so that we can weigh the strengths of Blackboard’s arguments together. I apologize for any mistranscriptions.

    Here we go:

    (more…)

  • The Cost of the Blackboard Patent Suit (and Who Pays It)

    An e-Literate reader comments on my post about Blackboard owing Desire2Learn money:

    The amount [that Blackboard will have to pay Desire2Learn, including the original award plus interest] will probably be over $3.8M USD from my rough estimates which is higher than the expected writedown Blackboard took. This should result in additional expenses that will have to be recorded by BBBB.

    What’s also interesting is that Blackboard’s top execs made record bonuses before this writedown, at the same time they took away any salary increases and the 401K plans for the regular staff. I think that is the bigger story.

    Blackboard reported a $2.8 million net profit in 2008. The $3.3 million write down brings them to a $500,000 loss. An additional estimated write-down of another half a million would bring them to a $1 million loss for 2008. In the same year, Michael Chasen received $545,833 in salary, $663,039 in bonus, $1,833,560 in stock options, $80,466 in shares of restricted stock, and $14,911 in “other compensation”, for total compensation that was valued at $3,137,809. Matt Small received $370,833 in salary, $166,544 in bonus, $722,966 in stock options, $40,233 in shares of restricted stock, and $17,372 in “other compensation”, for a total compensation of $1,317,958. Coincidentally, if you add up the 2008 bonuses for the five Blackboard executives listed in the company’s proxy statement, the total is $1,074,127—almost exactly what the company’s final adjusted net loss for 2008 may turn out to be.

    Moving forward, Blackboard is apparently going to incur the additional expense of an attempt to appeal their failed patent suit to the Supreme Court, even though Matt Small is on record saying that it is highly unlikely they will succeed.

  • Blackboard Owes Desire2Learn Over Three Million Dollars

    IOU
    (cc) photo credit: zolierdos

    I’m a little late on this one, but late last week the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Blackboard’s rehearing petition. Their only recourse now would be to appeal to the United States Supreme Court and hope that the court miraculously decides to hear their case. As a result, Blackboard will have to return roughly $3.3 million to Desire2Learn, wiping out 100% of the company’s earnings for 2008.

    This does not mean that the litigation is over. Blackboard is still suing D2L in Canada for infringement of the original patent, and the company has been granted continuation patents (basically revised versions of the original patents) that they could assert.

  • UNC's Sakai Evaluation Results

    The University of North Carolina, a current Blackboard customer that is evaluating Sakai, just published a very interesting report of their findings so far. Among other things, it’s a good model for schools that want to do a thorough evaluation of a platform and have the resources (i.e., staff and time) to do it right. Here’s the excerpt of it that UNC chose to publish in their blog post announcing its release:

    The findings of the pilot are positive, leading the Sakai Action Group to recommend ITS continue to fund Sakai for the 2009-2010 academic year, implement student information system (SIS) integration, when possible, expand the number of participants using Sakai, and research a possible future migration path.

    The whole report is worth reading, but here are some of the highlights from my perspective:

    • There are relatively few comments from faculty or students about functionality gaps in one direction or the other. To the contrary, the platforms were seen by many as being functionally equivalent. LMS’s have reached that “good enough” stage where they are starting to commoditize.
    • There were two exceptions to the “equivalent functionality” rule. First, a number of users seemed to appreciate Sakai’s more flexible permissions structure. I have written about the under-appreciated importance of groups and permissions on many occasions. The second was the ability to use Sakai for non-course work groups, projects, communities, etc. Blackboard has this capability, but you have to pay extra and license it separately. Frankly, I don’t know how they get away with it. No other LMS that I know of charges you twice for what is 95% the same functionality.
    • There were lots of comments on usability, and almost all of them broke in Sakai’s favor. First of all, this confirms the point that I’ve made a few times here that usability is often more important than functionality. From UNC’s data, it looks like faculty and students were able to do more with Sakai while making fewer calls to the help desk. Which brings me to the other part of this. Three years ago, Sakai’s usability was bad to the point of being embarrassing. But it absolutely kicked Blackboard’s butt in UNC’s review. This is strong affirmation of the huge strides the Sakai community has made in usability.

    Good stuff.

  • Moodle, Wave, and Widgets (Oh my!)

    Scott Wilson , Paul Sharples, Dai Griffiths and Kris Popat have an article up on their work embedding Wave-enabled widgets into Moodle using Wookie. (Try saying that ten times fast.) What they envision is very similar in a lot of ways to what my former SUNY colleagues and I were thinking about when we proposed a Learning Management Operating System. Of course, that was 2005, so we were thinking about portlets rather than widgets. The lower barrier to entry and client-side nature of widgets are game changers.

    Anyway, it’s a very good piece, well worth reading. A couple of points jumped out at me. First:

    Rather than just being a like-for-like replacement, the Widgets update in real-time without any page refresh, and this affects user behavior. Rather than clicking links to launch tools or to view content, the Widgets encourage more of a “monitoring” mode of operation, with users navigating to a course page, then leaving it open in the background, occasionally bringing it into focus to see if any new conversations were happening in the chat widget, or the voting results had changed.

    If this finding bears out with further research, it could be a fairly big deal. For one thing, it has the potential of making the learning environment a lot stickier and more Facebook-like (in a good way). At the same time, it should force some pretty substantial refactoring of core LMS tools, which simply aren’t designed for monitoring. The two models are likely to clash.

    Here’s another interesting—and problematic—bit:

    Another consequence of Widgets is that far less tracking information is available at a micro-level, as interactions with Widgets are not made available to the VLE. This implies that a new model for tracking will need to be developed for such systems; this may be a useful opportunity to reconsider tracking in more sophisticated terms than page views and hits. For example, it may be useful to separate out measures of attention, using something like APML[12], and measures of user effort, using something like User Labor Markup Language (ULML[13]).

    The thing is, we’re  just now beginning to develop models where we can identify at-risk students and, more importantly, help them self-identify and self-remediate based on the data from the learning environment. The fact that this trend is in direct tension with the whole Web-2.0-in-the-learning-environment trend is underappreciated. We need to solve this problem.

  • List of LMS Evaluation Projects

    Mark Smithers has a post up listing all the public LMS evaluation projects by universities he knows of. This is a great service to the community; if you know of any others, please let Mark know.