::fibreculture:: re: WebCT vs Open Source

[Julian Knowles]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your detailed post. It certainly  illuminates some 
interesting issues around network literacy and institutions.

On 30/08/2005, at 8:18 AM, Andrew Murphie wrote:

> As for me, I have used WebCT for years but only really the BBS. The 
> rest I've always done via basic web pages - and now with the addition 
> of blogs and wikis, which I have to confess are those that come with 
> OS X server, so I'm not that open source.

Sorry if I smile... but i but I guess your feelings of 'guilt' here is 
precisely the issue I was trying to shed some light on when I referred 
to the dominance of the open-source ideology... that you are somehow 
unclean if you do not go open source. Interesting!!!

> First, my main issue wasn't with WebCT per se (although I do have 
> issues with it), or even with the fact that it is a proprietary 
> system. It was with the way in which WebCT is promoted and indeed 
> enforced as the one shop solution for all learning needs (and I 
> suspect often joyfully embraced by senior administrators who didn't 
> really understand networks, etc - is that being unfair?).

No, I think that's actually quite accurate. It's  very much like the 
'Central A/V' services of your average university who usually assume 
that the use of 'A/V" in teaching consists of the presentation of 
Microsoft Powerpoint based lectures (without proper audio, of 
course...), the playback of instructional videos to classes, or the use 
of a lapel radio mic in a large lecture theatre. They are certainly not 
expecting you to set up 6 cameras and monitors in a cross-patched 
feedback loop network.

I do, however, take a slightly more generous view of the situation. In 
relation to things like WebCT, many institutions are trying to get 
academics to engage with the concept of online supported learning. The 
resistance is usually quite significant so many of these strategies are 
an attempt to 'make it easy' for non specialist academics to put up web 
materials. To this end, WebCT seems to have been quite successful in 
increasing the broad engagement of academics in the use of the Web as a 
learning space, so it is not all bad. When attending a briefing session 
recently, I was told our (rather small) university had more than 400 
WebCT subject sites. This was more than I had anticipated, seeing as so 
few of my creative arts academics use the web for teaching at all (it 
mainly seems to be me and the Design academics, who also run their own 
server).

The problem, as I see it, is when the centralised push to increase 
participation through these rather simple and somewhat restrictive 
tools impedes the work of academics who wish to deploy more 
sophisticated tools, as the e-learning/IT area have  driven their 
organisational/business model around the achievement of goals within 
this strategy. The outcome of such a situation is that you will see 
most of the support going to low end WebCT use and little or no support 
provided to academics trying to do more advanced things online. A worst 
case scenario is where you are blocked from doing more interesting 
things online as it is 'against IT policy' or 'unsupported'.  In my 
view, therefore, WebCT is not the culprit. It is the overall strategy 
of the area which is charged with e-learning and IT support. It is more 
useful, in my view, to critique the strategy than the in-favour 
software platform. It is a more 'win-able' argument from the outset.

The strategy needs to be a layered one... At the low end, you need 
simple, easy to learn tools, which are well supported. These are for 
non-specialist academics who want to make a start. By making these 
tools simple and offering good support, you will give beginners the 
best shot at making a decent start. Beyond this, you need a layer of 
higher level support for academics (and students) who wish to make use 
of more sophisticated tools. This support need is as critical as the 
low end support and the academics working in this space need to be seen 
as valuable to the institution. A more visionary e-learning area might 
even partner research projects with these academics, or convene an 
'experts group' which can share the results of the work to the  broader 
academic community.

A quick reality check tells you that academics who use networks 
creatively are but a small group of total users within a large 
institution, which is why their needs are often not met. Putting the 
work into a research paradigm might be one way to address this problem.

The worst examples of IT practice I found at my previous place of 
employment - at U W S. All the problems seemed to start after their 
massive restructure of 2000. The place seemed to be taken over by a 
band of what I like to call  'microsoft certified engineers...'  (I 
don't know whether they are or not..) The first thing that happened was 
the Unix servers were decommissioned and replaced by Microsoft (tm) 
servers. Everyone was then forced to change to a 'standard operating 
environment' which included a PC (Macs were no longer supported), 
Windows 2000, Outlook Express and Microsoft Office. All users were then 
given only limited access rights to their own computers - you;d be 
lucky to even open the preferences panel on your computer to change the 
screen resolution... and installing your own software??? forget it... 
you need to ring IT who will then determine whether that will be 
permissable. If they give you permission to install software, you 'log 
a helpdesk job' and someone will see you in the next 2 weeks. The same 
would apply to peripherals... (add new hardware? Sorry please type your 
admin password).  IT support retained all admin rights. The student 
records system was then changed over to Callista, which only runs under 
Windows. The Web publishing system was then all brought under the 
control of a rather broken Content Management System (which mostly only 
ran on windows) and there was no FTP access to folders on the corporate 
sever. To make matters worse, they were then wanting to make all 
software and documents served centrally, from a 'portal' on your 
'workstation',  so your own computer would essentially turn into a dumb 
terminal (ever feel like you were working in a bank?). You won't 
beleive this, but they even introduced some kind of pathetic net nanny 
system (which thankfully didn't work on a mac, so i never had to deal 
with it) which attempted to identify the viewing of 'inappropriate' 
material on 'workstations' and gave you a pop up warning to that 
effect. This was hilarious... if not a bit disturbing. No doubt the IT 
people were patting each other on the back for reining in the ferals 
and running a tight ship.

I defiantly ran a Mac laptop which I classified as a 'research 
machine', I reformatted the hard-drive to get rid of their stupid 
permissions, made myself an uber-admin, ran Virtual PC where I was 
blocked from things, set the machine to emulate Windows file sharing 
and generally tore my hair out. and swore a lot at Microsoft Certified 
Engineers. . I also had to agree to be 'unsupported' due to my 
apparently obscure choice of platform. Every time an IT person saw me 
working on the laptop, they would try to tell me that it wouldn't work 
and I'd then have to give them a lesson in operating systems other than 
windows. They were genuinely surprised.

You can imagine I was rather relieved when I changed employers to find 
that the new workplace was supportive of a multi-platform environment, 
and generally speaking has a more workable approach to IT services. I 
have found, at least, that people listen to why you might need 
something and do not treat their staff as potential 'cyber criminals'.


>  In short, I don't have an issue with people using WebCT but I do have 
> one with the "ecology" which often seems to surround it.

precisely.

And really the issue that needs to be addressed in the distinction 
between 'support' and 'control'. It seems that too much IT strategy has 
been lifted from corporate environments. The assumption is that the 
best way to support something is to first limit access to all but the 
most basic aspects of the environment on the assumption that word 
processing, web browsing and email are the only needs. If you need 
'specialist' software then this will be considered on a case by case 
basis. This is fine for battery hens in office cubicles, but has no 
right to be implemented in a place of learning.

cheers

julian