ROI of eLearning II

In November 2006, I posted the first section on ROI of eLearning, and posted some questions on why getting financial quantifications on gains that can be attributed to the investment on eLearning especially in Higher Education.
Recently, a JISC funded initiative continued to define and enumerate “tangible benefits” of eLearning that could be used as an indicative measure of ROI. The benefits are in a report entitled: Exploring Tangible Benefits of e-Learning: Does Investment yield interest . Among the tangible benefits identified in the report are:

• Effect on learning (e.g. context, style, insight and reflective practice)
• Effect on exam results
• Effect on student personal development (e.g. skills, employability, confidence)
• Student satisfaction with e-learning (e.g. effect on motivation, attendance and enjoyment, as shown in national survey, institutional survey, module evaluation, focus groups, or other)
• Innovation in teaching, learning and assessment (e.g. stimulus to creative approaches)
• Influence on educational research
• Staff satisfaction with e-learning
• Effect on staff personal development (e.g. skills, employability, confidence)
• Influence on recruitment (students or staff; e.g. through greater accessibility; opening up new markets)
• Influence on retention (e.g. students or staff)
• Influence on policy (e.g. institutional, faculty/school, departmental, or other extra- institutional body)
• Effect on resources (e.g. effect on cost of delivery, time, applying full economic costing to teaching and learning)
• Modifications to learning spaces (e.g. libraries, wireless networks, informal learning spaces)
• Effect on management of learning assets (e.g. institutional IP, repositories)
• Effect on a social justice agenda (e.g. widening participation, provision of space for consideration of differing or challenging perspectives).

I am yet to read the whole report but as I do, more questions that I asked in 2006 still linger. How for instance do you tell the difference in effects on learning that are as a result of eLearning? And not, say, as a result of student’s personal initiative, extrinsic motivation (e.g. having to get a job promotion after completion of a course), what is the effects of learners’ innovativeness when it comes to using technology tools that can be attributed to effects on learning? Can we measure and ascertain that good grades in an exam can be attributed to the use of eLearning only? Hopefully, I will get insights or partial answers or convincing arguments on this and more questions as I read the the report.

Questions Asked When Deploying Linux and Other Free and Open Source Software

A colleague approached me to find out what are the main issues in deploying Open Source solutions (and Linux in particular) in an organization. Here are the questions he asked and the answers that I provided.

Thank you very much for agreeing to help us out on this, alright here are these questions:

Not a problem! It is always good to know I can be of help to someone. Please note that some of these questions are too technical and the few sentences given as answers are oversimplifications of what actually is or happens.

When is open source free and when is it required to pay a fee?

Free in open source is a matter of freedom not fees. What this freedom means is that you get the source code together with the software (or you can access the source code without limitations). The freedom hence mean you can take the source code study, change, and improve its design and redistribute it to others. In addition, you can use it for any purpose. You may be required to pay for the software (if its not available for download) or pay for its customization to your requirements if you do not have the in-house capability of doing it.

With other operating systems, particularly Windows XP, they tend
to be very vulnerable to viruses, How is it that Linux is immune to
viruses?

What makes windows more vulnerable to viruses is its design especially on permissions management. Most users (including programs) can install software and also take control of the running of some software. In Linux, security and permission is king and installation of programs take a process and need change of rights. The implicit requirement to set user rights on Linux makes it less vulnerable to viruses. To some extent Linux might be vulnerable to malicious software, but since most of the control is on the user then the system administrator can control what specific users do on an installation.

How does one choose between the likes of Mandriva, Fedora, Ubuntu,
etc, when planning for deployment?

All this are blends. The rule of the thumb in choosing between them is closeness to support of a wider community using it. In case you need help or when you need to improve or do something extra with them. I use fedora because I like one or two things in it.

What are some of the utility programs available on Linux?

Utilities for? I don't understand.
But most of the blends or distros of Linux come with most of the basic software: Office Suite (open office), Email client (Evolution, Thunderbird etc), Package management (Yast, RPM,etc), Web servers (Apache). Depending on your installation choice/type, you can easily add on most of the applications that you need.

Threats to system security come not only from outside the computer
system but also from inside the community of systems users as
well. What are security measures that are taken by Linux on
unauthorised access to sensitive data by unauthorized users?

First, physical security is as important as software security. Linux-based system have the best user and user rights management system (Access Control Lists) that I know in an operating system. You can manage users to the point of what file the user (or group of users) can see, execute, or write. In short, the user access-level security is as good as you can set it to be as the administrative user.

How does Linux support kernel threads?

Much better than most of the other operating systems. Please see http://tldp.org/FAQ/Threads-FAQ/index.html for more information.

What are the most common problems that are experienced by Linux
users, or open source in general?

Mainly its a question of attitude and resistance to change. Otherwise, most of the people who have changed to using Linux and open source software have developed the right attitude towards them and get to know how to go about most of the things. Support for the users is therefore very important during the change (or introduction) phases of the software.

People are very much used to the windows environment, to make the
transition easier, what are the Linux basics that users must
familiarize themselves with?

Most of the desktop Linux distros now come with a graphical interface. Gnome and KDE remain the widely used desktop interfaces for Linux. To switch from an Ms Windows environment to a say Gnome environment, one just need to have the right attitude and perceptions and to learn the new terminologies.

How does Linux handle scheduling?

Linux scheduling does not differentiate between a task and a process e.i. Linux in its implementation does not differentiate between a thread and a task. All threads are implemented as processes that share resources among themselves based on time slices. Please check http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/linuxkernel/chapter/ch10.html for more information.

How does Linux support Ethernet, WAN & LAN through routers and
gateways?

There are a number of resources on getting information about networking in Linux and other Unix-based systems. For a quick start, please check "The Linux Documentation Project" http://tldp.org section on Networking: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/networking.html

Hope this answers all your questions. Do not hesitate to contact me when and if you need more clarification on the issues.

Crossroads, dilemmas and paradoxes

I take this opportunity to welcome back all my ardent readers and visitors. I did not want to come back in the New Year wearing the eLearning cap for the last years, but oh, I got that wrong. I am still in the old cap; probably what has changed is its look and color. It has definitely faded and the environmental breach has taken toll on it. All said and done, am still here trying to see what way to go for the New Year (don’t really think it is still new).
There are too many technological and pedagogical decisions to be made, and at times, even being an adviser in the same you are at the crossroads. The crossroads often leads to dilemmas that as a technology advisor, I have to take a stand and follow it through (standing on it, although deep down I have this feeling it might fail and portray negatively on my image). That said, there are no silver bullets, and there are no quick fixes especially on educational technology. There are tough pedagogical implications of any technology choice. And then there is the paradox, I am expected to advice and strongly advocated for the use of technology in teaching and learning, while at the same time be wary of their pedagogical shortcomings (that at times need not be known by the clients).
In short, I don’t envy being a salesman.
So, back to the New Year story. The prediction of the year, is in as much as we would want change in teaching and learning using technology, the only thing that will change considerably is the technological jargon, with little offer on the pedagogy. Before you shoot me, please read my prediction at least three times.

the myths of innovation: there is a method for innovation

In the last two days, I have posted a summary of the first and second chapters of Scott Berkun's book, the myths of innovation. In the third chapter, Scott shows that despite the conventional belief that there is a systematic approach to innovation, there is not such a thing, hence the myth: There is a method for innovation.

The myths stipulates that there is a methodological (or systematic) approach to innovating – more so that can be read in cookbooks or how-to manuals. Taken this way, there are myth posits that there are calculated risks and steps toward an innovation. Paradoxically, if there are known steps or risks toward an idea then it is not new and therefore not an innovation.

Innovators are driven by unsystematic desire, curiosity and dreams. These in themselves do not translate to an innovation until they are translated to a commitment – to hard work in a certain direction that might extend for years. However, there can be a direction change when new knowledge or an intended innovation arises. In the equation, there are personal interests and ambitions that drive people during the innovation process. In addition, a number of innovators are driven by the quest to make more money. Clearly, a mesh of factors contribute to the basic need to innovate, and with the different combinations, there cannot be a single methodology for innovation.

There are however common challenges that all innovators face including finding an idea (creating the initial curiosity); developing a solution to their idea; sponsorship and funding of the innovation process; reproduction of the solution so that it can be optimized for profit; reaching the potential customers; beating the competitors; proper timing on when to announce the innovation; and keeping the lights on. These challenges are further influenced exponentially by the unpredictability of the innovations, and the intended market or customer base.

However, there are paths that can make the innovation process easier or manageable: Self knowledge so that decisions are guided awareness of environments or challenges; passionate intensity toward success and willingness to look back and reconsider assumptions; starting it small and growing as new insights and ideas are realized; and honoring luck and the past – “acknowledging that you can do everything right and fail, and do many things wrong and succeed.” (Berkun, 2007, p. 51)

the myths of innovation: We understand the history of innovation

Yesterday, I posted a summary of the first chapter of Scott Berkun's book, the myths of innovation. As interesting as the first chapter is the second one. It rubbishes the idea that the history of innovation can be completely understood - or written.

What makes history? Who defines it? What defines a hero(ine) or heroism?
People and events are transformed to legends and legendaries as an effect of time – all the times. Their (people and events in history) are influenced by “circumstance, world politics and chance” (Berkun, 2007, p. 21) and the location the people are and the events take place.

Further history is written by people after events have shaped up meaning a) that what goes in the history books is not necessarily the truth b) that history is written as a means to a certain predefined end e.g profit for book sale, political advancement of an agenda c) that due to the diverse sources of information historians use, they are bound to impose their perspectives or opinions as facts d) there is a possibility that crucial facts about a historical event are overlooked and e) Oversimplification of historical events so that they can fit a certain timeline, that does not necessarily show any relationship between when the event in question happened and when it started.

When these shortcomings of history and its making are applied in the field of innovations, they lead to a number of assumptions or beliefs such as a) every innovation being adopted is an improvement in all spheres and contexts of the innovation it replaces b) representation of historical events as timelines while in essence there might be no direct progression (without detours or feedbacks) on the timeline.

From the foregoing discussion, it is illogical to assume or believe that we understand the history of innovation.