Quick Thoughts on Pearson's New Free OpenClass LMS

We have known for a few years that the LMS market "is shifting". Thanks to the excellent work done by groups like Delta Initiative and the Campus Computing Project, our collective eyes have been lifted up beyond our own campus to see what is happening around us.

Today, articles in the Chronicle (here) and Inside Higher Ed (here) relayed information about OpenClass, a free cloud-based LMS service (currently in beta) from Pearson in partnership with Google.

As of the writing of this post, no information is yet available via Pearson. My knowledge of the product is limited to coverage in the previously mentioned articles and my participation in a private demo of Pearson's precursor "Project Berlin" a few months ago.

(Updates: Adrian Sannier tweeted a link to a "teaser site" for OpenClass: http://www.joinopenclass.com/open/view/t1. Also, Campus Technology reveals many features of OpenClass in an interview with Pearson's Katy Kappler.)

Regarding OpenClass, I found a few interesting aspects to this new product:

Social networking & modern interfaces
Obviously any new learning platform must leverage social networking features and modern communication vehicles such as robust messaging, in addition to an improved modern interface (a strength of Instructure's Canvas LMS). Traditional LMS products are playing catch-up in these areas. OpenClass seems to place a high priority on activity streams and communication notifications. OpenClass also has some integration points with Google Apps (Calendar, Docs, and later, widgets).

Pearson's "Learning Exchange"
During the "Project Berlin" demo, Pearson reps discussed LMS integration with their forthcoming "Learning Exchange", Pearson's digital content marketplace. Learning Exchange was demonstrated as a separate system where instructors can share curriculum, content and communications while discovering other resources (cost and no-cost). Pearson also mentioned that they were talking with Merlot and other OER providers as a way of providing more learning content directly to students at no cost.

The extent to which faculty will a) find useful and relevant resources, as well as b) share out their materials and ideas certainly remains to be seen.

Leadership of Adrian Sannier at Pearson
Adrian Sannier, VP of Product at Pearson, brings a wealth of academic experience as former University Technology Officer at Arizona State (where he led the first massive higher ed conversion to Gmail) and previously as a member of the faculty at Iowa State. I will be very interested to monitor the acceleration of Pearson in the non-profit higher education market and also Pearson's LMS trajectory.

Emergence of another "instructor-choice" option
Will universities' LMS landscape evolve into a hybrid model that might include a primary centrally managed/supported LMS, secondary "niche" LMS's for specific disciplines or programs, and now instructor-choice options like OpenClass and Blackboard's free CourseSites? It is likely that instructors will increasingly be tempted to adopt learning environments provided by the publishers of their course textbooks. How will this diverse LMS landscape impact students and their desire for convenience? Where will expectations be set for university support staff?

Today's news from Pearson is just one more tremor in the current landscape shift that is occurring.

What do you think is most significant about this news from Pearson and Google? I'm quite curious to hear your thoughts and questions.

I am excited for students and instructors that their experiences with learning environments are improving -- even if that means difficult work for those of us leading and supporting the change.

Jon Mott: Bridging the Gap Between the PLE and the LMS

Back in August 2009, Jon Mott gave this presentation at OpenEd 2009. He reports on their work at BYU to create a new learning environment based on PLE principles.

I strongly encourage anyone interested in the future of the CMS/LMS to watch this presentation. I took away the following points:

1. PLE values (student-centric, openness) more closely match the values of the institution than do the values of the CMS

2. Lack of continuity for the learners from semester to semester exists in the current CMS. We typically turn off access to course sites at the end of the course. It’s the “chief demerit of the course management system” Mott says.

3. Stand-alone gradebook. This is a highly important progression in the future of the course management system. Integration with various systems will be key, but de-coupling this critical tool is the first step.

4. Get rid of the dropbox? He says that instructors can now tell students, “Don’t upload your paper, just give me the URL for where your paper lives on the web”. Furthermore, he says, "Maybe one of the requirements for being digitally literate in 2009 is being able to publish a web viewable document”. Bingo. How many institutions offer easy ways for students to publish on the web? However, I do know that many instructors value the ability to zip and download all the submitted papers for an assignment in order to more efficiently read and grade (likely after printing!) — something the digital dropbox currently offers.

Good stuff! I’ll be following Jon Mott and his work at BYU more closely these days. Some of my colleagues saw him speak at ELI 2010 recently and posted their summary and comments here.

Choose a new LMS using integrated multi-criteria decision making approach

Imagine you're tasked with selecting a new course/learning management system for your institution. Obviously you will want to involve the various stakeholders (a group that is growing in diversity each year, by the way) and identify a laundry list of criteria. But how do you develop an objective method for evaluating various systems?

I just came across the following paper that describes "an integrated multiple criteria decision making approach, which combines the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and quality function deployment (QFD), to evaluate and select the best system. The evaluating criteria are derived from the requirements of those who use the system."

Measuring performance of virtual learning environment system in higher education
William Ho, Helen E. Higson, Prasanta K. Dey, Xiaowei Xu, Rami Bahsoon
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 17 No. 1, 2009 pp. 6-29

Article URL for subscribers:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/09684880910929908

I admit that I had no idea what AHP meant. (According to the QFD Institute: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a mathematically rigorous, proven process for prioritization and decision-making. By reducing complex decisions to a series of pair-wise comparisons, then synthesizing the results, decision-makers arrive at the best decision with a clear rationale for that decision.) OK...that sounds useful and relevant to the process of selecting a C/LMS in my mind.

Oh, "QFD is a comprehensive quality system that systematically links the needs of the customer with various business functions and organizational processes", according to the QFD Institute.

The article elaborates on this analytical process. Skimming to the conclusion, I find that the authors explain the value in this approach for institutions with existing VLEs:

"...the proposed approach can support the decision makers of universities in reviewing their existing VLE systems and determining whether it is necessary to replace the existing systems by a better one...[T]he proposed approach can [also] support the VLE system developers in analyzing their strengths and weaknesses, and also identifying the opportunities and threats against the competing systems."

Unfortunately, I don't have time now to dive deeper into this topic or mentally apply it to my own institution's environment. (It does make me wonder what analytical process was used 6+ years ago when UW switched from WebCT to Desire2Learn.)

I will, however, be saving this article for future reference.