9.01a - Structure (VLEs / MLEs)

An extended blog entry

An interesting presentation expressing several conceptal ideas, I've tried to encapsulate the notes in a mindmap converted into HTML at VLEs.

I think the description of the types of VLE (content &, Wrap, integrated) are quite useful in the short term and seem to well describe the way that VLEs have been implemented across universities at the moment. However one might question, with the amount of research on online learning, whether this model is too simplistic. I would argus that there needs to be added other dimensions to this model to be able to qualify. Firstly the move through the types represents a distinct increase of the use of online facilities to teach and learn, however this must also be viewed in terms of amount of interactivity or 'ownership' being passed to the student. I beleive it would be possible for an integrated model to be still very much controlled by the tutor. The 3d modelling of Online perspective diagram shows this reasonably well.

The work looking at elearning models e.g. Mayes & Freitas Review of e-learning theories,frameworks and models and Conole (e.g.Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design) is important in this area to help understand how 'online' learning fits and works within the curriculum. See also the summary An update on the Pedagogy strand of the JISC eLearning Programme which brings together the work in th estrand elearning and pedagogy.

Another useful way of viewing elearning is to look at it through a two dimensional model relating to level of learning products (e.g. curriculum, course, lesson, page, etc) and the category of tools to support the learning (create, offer, access). As expressed in the 'Elearning tools and technologies' book this has the ability to cut through the baggage associated with the words VLE and MLE.

Having undertaken a survey of VLE usage across the UK and a review of evaluations undertaken I concur with the problems of evaluation. I would however suggest that that VLEs by their functionality & tools break down into three areas:
- content and support (e.g. WebCT)
- Collaborative product) (e.g. Colloquia)
- MOO/MUD type structures (e.g. Bodington)

This means that most VLEs tend to stick with what they are good at and do not move into the wider requirements for a fulfilled learning environment. A clear point here is the issue associated with communication tools in VLEs - why are they there? Normally any institution will have existing communication tools not embeded within the VLE but which cannot communicate with the VLE - communication tools are wider than the VLE.

Moving onto MLEs I think there are fundemental issues on some of the approaches taken in the various studies e.g. the FERL website is really talking about VLEs and not MLEs. Important to this is that JISC have actually moved away from the idea of a standard MLE being provided through a single piece of software to one that looks at the MLE as a concept. The best web site for this is the jisc infokit - creating an MLE but see a series of quotes encapsulated in mlenotes.

Having said that if you compare the functionalities between the two they are extremely similar which is why some software companies e.g. Blackboard, WebCT are advertising their products as MLEs. However the one clear distinction is that the VLE is a component part of the MLE and not a substitute for it, the MLE requires an extensive and expansive range of tools and functions outwith the pure delivery of learning content. The MLE is more about the processes to support the business of the university. It therefore cannot be easily delivered through proprietary software. i.e. an MLE is independant of the underpinning systems in that it should be possible to have several VLEs operating simultaneously.

The most obvious way to achieve this is to firstly integrate the systems in the background either logically or physically and then present that informatrion and processes through a portalised approach. The portal provides the physical mean to deliver an MLE (see JISC and others e.g. WebCT see their Vista product sitting underneath a portal). This approach allows any amount of legacy systems to be integrated to gether consistently - while the portal is seen as a culprit most problems arise out of poor processes and data. An MLE is possible and I beleive we have showed that asects of it can be achieved quite cost-effecitvely - comparison with what is being delivered in the univeristies Portal and the JISC PORTAL survey show a good match.

Itf we take that Portals are now seen as the practical means to deliver an MLE which may have a VLE associated with it we have an interesting debate on whether you need a physical VLE (piece of software) to create an MLE. I would argue not if the MLE is there to support th eporcess of learning - elearning may exist outwith of a specific VLE e.g. eresources, HTML web pages etc.