My University and the Web: Present
Last week, I attended an IT strategy council meeting, which included among the topics of discussion an update on the forthcoming university website redesign, and another on the place of open source software at the university. I was at this meeting primarily for the latter discussion, after having been recently asking a simple question, and not hearing an entirely satisfactory answer:
What is the role of open source software and open standards at this institution?I was prompted to ask this question as a result of a confluence of three quite concrete frustrations that boiled over last term.
First, I (belatedly) heard of Miami’s move to a fully proprietary calendaring and email stack (MS Exchange). Despite all the obvious marketing hype surrounding buzzwords like “unified communications” and such, I knew this move really meant one thing: the institution was hitching its communications fate to a solution that would only work as promised for those users who—whether by choice or some compulsion—used Microsoft products. So without going into all the details, let’s just say I voted with my virtual feet: I effectively boycotted the new system, and now forward all my mail to GMail, which has a (much) better web client, and better IMAP support. Likewise, with its support of CalDav, Google’s calendar application has much better standard’s compliance than Microsoft’s. In short, then, Google’s standards-based solution works better for me than Microsoft’s closed one.
Second, my students and I became increasingly and painfully aware of just how bad our Learning Management System (LMS)—Blackboard—is. One immediate issue was online quizzes, which I had been using as a weekly way of assessment for students. But because of how poorly Blackboard is designed, transferring quizzes and tests across course semesters is both a) really awkward, and b) buggy. For this reason, I had to delay rolling out these quizzes in my large-enrollment class for roughly a month. And this was despite the fact that Blackboard had known of this bug for months.
So this semester, I’ve ditched the quizzes, and I’ve continued off-loading as much of my web content as possible outside of Blackboard. My syllabus is a separate XHTML file, that in turn links to other XHTML files for weekly assignments. My slides are all available online as well (though currently authenticated), again as XHTML files. In short, virtually everything is online, but the only thing I use Blackboard for is the gradebook, and course announcements.
Another issue presented itself in another lower-level class. This course is called Global Change, is team-taught, and focuses on learning about the breadth of geography through analysis of contemporary issues: climate change, urbanization, water, etc. My colleague and I had been frustrated with the consistency and quality of participation we were getting from students that were coming from increasingly diverse disciplinary backgrounds. So, we decided, let’s shift towards a group learning approach where the students drive much more of the content, and can collaborate on learning. The students, for example, gathered the majority of the topical readings for each module. But how to do facilitate this in Blackboard? Our awkward answer was to use the very awkward Blackboard blogging module. While we all saw great promise in the approach, we also felt held back by the limitations of the LMS.
So Blackboard sucks and I’m asking myself, why are we continuing to invest in this software?
The third issue that contributed to my pushing on this issue is my taking over as the director of graduate studies for my department. One of my jobs is to recruit good students. The most important way students find out about our program is through our departmental website. But our departmental web presence sucks because it’s too difficult for people to update content. What content should we be keeping up to date? Well, everything we do: the classes we teach, the works we publish and present, the research projects we’re working on, the students we work with. Ideally, we could easily keep this content updated, and it could in turn filter to the wider university. For example, if we publish information about a talk in our department, other people elsewhere in the university that might be interested in it should be able to be automatically notified.
There’s really no simple way to make this happen at my university. But thankfully the IT people here are reasonable, and so agreed to set up Drupal for us. I had them install some additional plugins such as for bibliographic management. I ultimately want something like this site, which isn’t really that hard to do with Drupal (notwithstanding that I’m really not a fan of PHP).
On the other hand, we have no real infrastructure on campus to make this easy. For example. there are no (good) university themes for Drupal. Instead, every new installation has to either hire some contractor to create one, or do the work themselves (as I am). This is really not good. It’s just too hard to create a decent web presence for an individual department or program. Yes, the IT people are very helpful, but they’re also overextended. Someone needs to give them the resources they need to make it easier on all of us, and so to promote the university’s mission better, and save money while doing it.
But, this issue goes back to the website redesign. Long story short: it seems a fait acompli the university will adopt a proprietary CMS. While I can imagine such a platform may well work for university level marketing and such, I have a really hard time envisioning how it would enable what we need at the department level. I also find is really hard to imagine how such a CMS will integrate in anything but very awkward ways with the learning that happens in classrooms and laboratories around campus.
So this is where things stand now, and I’m not terribly optimistic. My university has already made an expensive and multi-year investment in a proprietary email and calendaring system, and is about to make a similar investment in a proprietary CMS. These kinds of decisions will limit our flexibility going forward.
But the conversations will be ongoing, and there’s enough interest among forward-thinking people here to imagine that there may be room for exploration. I’ve got some ideas on this that I may explore in a future post.
Creative Commons License
Well I dont have to tell you about open source LMS, right (Moodle, OLAT, Sakai, Claroline etc.)? You seem to know this but are stuck with the Universities decision. But when it comes to creating your content you are free to use whatever you want. Here at the University of Zurich we developed something called eLML, the eLesson Markup Language. This might be an option for the Syllabus you write about? With eLML you can created structured eLearning content and transform it into XHTML (as you are using now…) but you can also create SCORM and IMS Content Packages which could be imported into Blackboard.
Good luck anyway
@Joël: no, you don’t have to tell me about open source LMSs. My more recent post addresses this.
As for eLML, thanks for the tip. That does look interesting.
However, two issues:
First, the schema is rather inaccessible. Rather than having to download some large archive with a bunch of other stuff (in confusingly-named directories ;-)) that I may not care about, is it not just available directly, via some URI? Would be nice, too, if you had a RNG version too. I use emacs nxml mode, which doesn’t support XSD.
Second, the OOo plugin yields an error when installed on 3.0. Is this a known problem?
Oddly enough, I actually wrote a little schema for courses for my own use. But more recently I’ve just been using something much simpler: markdown.
Hi Bruce -
In fact I find that MS exchange has a better IMAP server than gmail. And gmail is a closed system in its own way.
Not that I don’t support pushing universities to use free software! But I wonder if this is not a place where the FSF’s notion of the importance of using free software, whether or not that software is technologically better, may be a better tactic that pushing for the technological superiority of open source. The universities should be a the forefront of pushing for free software in the same way they are pushing for open access. A lot of IT depts have a huge love of MS software and don’t seem to want to deal with unix. I am not sure if you could ever get them to agree that an open source IMAP/calendaring suite was a better choice technologically; but you might convince university administration that in terms of the university’s values and long-term technical infrastructure, that they would be better of using free, standards-based systems.
That’s an interesting point, Erik. Someone in the meeting did actually make that argument in a pretty compelling, and subtle, way that linked these issues of openness and quality and mission together. He also argued that the way the requirements-RFP-selection process works probably systematically blinds the institution to free alternatives. But it’s going to take some work to change things, I think.
Meanwhile, I’m working on a new department website based on … Drupal
Yes, unfortunately as it is right now you are not going to (generally) get free software responding to an RFP process: there needs to be people pushing for a free alternative from within the institution.
Good luck with the new site!
[...] without going through the whole history and background behind where I want to go (partly covered here), let’s just imagine [...]