Tài liệu open source solutions in education potx

Trang 1

SOLUTIONS IN

EDUCATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE,

qysuAdOS _ -ønaui :

- E

` ‘Gas

J BURTON BROWNING, ED:

Trang 2

Open-Source

Trang 4

Open-Source

Solutions in Education: Theory and Practice

Edited by

J Burton Browning, Ed.D

Lộ

Trang 5

All rights reserved Permission to make digital or paper copy of part or all of these works for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies 1) bear this notice in full and 2) give the full citation on the first page Its permissible to abstract these ‘works so long as credit is given To copy in all other cases or to

republish or to post on a server or to redistribute to lists requires specific permission and payment of a fee Contact

publisher@InformingScience.org to request redistribution permission

ISBN: 1-932886-26 978 1-932886-26-9 Published by

Informing Science Press

Trang 7

Acknowledgements

This book has been made possible by the creative and dedicated efforts of both authors and peer reviewers and the kind help of Eli Cohen and Betty Boyd I can’t thank all of you enough for the work you have done Suffice to say we all can take satisfaction in the knowledge that

the work in this book will only help educators and technology profes sionals around the world The body of knowledge on open-source software use will not only benefit from this work, but hopefully wil serve as inspiration for other efforts, It has been an honor to work with such a talented group

Trang 8

Browning J Bunton (Ed) 2010)

Open Sanne Soinions in Eatin: Theory and Prati Santa Ross, Califosnia: lnformiing Science Pees

Open-Source Solutions in Education:

Preface: Section 1 Chapter 1: Chapter 2: Chapter 3: Chapter 4: Section 2 Chapter 5: Chapter 6:

Theory and Practice Contents

Theory and Considerations

hy Central IT’ Must Em! nS

‘John D Campbell, Tobias Kreid, and Douglas Pave 1

Open Source Software Impact on Educational Development of an I(ntelligent) E-Learning Framework

Alessandro Pagano and Agostino Maren nuns 21

‘Toward a Nation of Educoders: A Roadmap for

si leni ovi

Source Educational Software Dowglas Holton

A Lear rk Recommender Aj h for Palimpsestic User-Led Open Educational

Resources

Polfiana Mastaro, Edson Pinheiro, and Ismar Frango Silveira 63

Case Studies and Implementation

Online Learning Using Free Technologies: Lessons Learning about Selection and Use

Lisa Neal Gualien 85

Open-Source: Solution to the Information ‘Systems Capstone Course Dilemma?

Trang 9

Chapter 7:

Chapter 8:

Chapter 9:

‘Study of International Work Integrated Learning in Australia and Vi

Jennifer Martin and Damian Tan 133 Th for OpenOffice.org: Fri ver

Office Applications in a Computer Literacy Course

Eni Khing el SB

Creation of Online Li i [A Oper Source Software: A Case Study of Chikara

University

Jatinder Kumar Sanyal and Suman Sumi 7

Editor and Reviewers

Trang 10

Browning, J Buxton (Ed) 2010)

Open Sanne Solutions iv Eda: Theory and Pras Santa Ross, Califosnia: lnformiing Science Pees

Preface

A fundamental precept that educators strive to convey to theie students is one of problem solving and the problem solving process Indeed, a valuable, if not necessary skill for life is the ability to solve the my Of life's challenges and problems which are presented

In fact this book is a series of scholarly discussions and -based accounts of just that “problem solving” process ‘The common fact is that the chapter authors of this book are using creative solutions to an often challenging and certainly common problem, that of limited resources The situations and areas may change, but often the common theme of “limited resources” stands out

‘The level and degree of expertise that the chapter authors bring to this text should be valuable to any educator or cesearchec looking to expand their knowledge of open-source solutions As the topic is quite broad, this text focuses on situations that are more educational in nature, however there is something in this text for anyone desiring more general knowledge about open-source software implementation and integra

tion,

My parents instilled in me a desire to “leave things better than I found them” and “try to make a difference” in as many situations as T could As such, it is my most sincere hope that the reader will find something of value from this book, and pethaps make a difference with that knowledge Thank you Hugh and Betty for teaching me so many

things, I know the readers thank you as much as T do, J Burton Browning, EAD

‘Chair, Business, Engineering and Technology Brunswick Community College, Supply, N

National faculty member, Lesley University, Cambridge, MA

hitp:/ Awww bbrowning.com

Trang 12

Browning, J Buxton (Ed) 2010) Open Sanne Solutions in Eda: Theory and Pras

Santa Rosa, Califosnia lnfouning Science Peess (pp 1-20)

Chapter 1

Why Central IT Must Embrace Open Source

John D Campbell, Tobias Kreial, and Douglas Pace

Introduction

Nearly every higher education institution has a central information technology services organization Historically this group coalesced around campus networks and large mainframe infrastructures Today, the central TT organization is typically called upon to manage large enterprise systems such as the student information system, the course ‘management system, or other enterprise-wide mission-critical technot- gies that require a well-defined support structure and staff

For decades these university central IT staff have followed a careful, and even comforting, software procurement process: (a) review glossy marketing material; (b) speak with sales representatives; (@) write or borrow a “Request for Proposals” and send it to a list of vendors; (d) select the top vendors who respond and invite them to campus for

demonstrations; (@) rate the responses, paying close attention to after- market secvice and a multitude of unwritten promises; (f) carefully (if you're diligent) review the written contract and negotiate the best terms possible For your university Whole books and professional conferences are dedicated to this model and, for a very long time, it was dogma that only a proprietary software product, with a “one throat-to-choke” port contract, could support mission-critical university IT servic

decision-

iakers began to find themselves using open-source altem as usually happens in higher education, central

proprietary software Often, with a little embarrassment—or perhaps bemusement, the head of IT would lear her organization actually began using open-source products back in the eaely days of bringing up web servers When these systems became mission critical it was sometimes surprising to see how well they ran, how quickly problems were

atives to

Trang 13

pen Souve Solitons in dau

solved, and how they were able to keep up with commercial offerings even as the web grew in prominence and importance

‘Today, nearly every central organization understands adopting Linus is a viable cost cutting strategy (King, 2008; Whitehurst, 2009) And a growing number of central IT staff use open-source tools to increase theic productivity In Fact, open source has made such significant in- roads in central TT that the old trope of “buy or build?” has now become “buy, build, or borrow?” In other words, resistance against open source is fading; when carefully and thoroughly exploring options for a software solution, open source is sometimes clearly recognized by the central IT organization as better than building the application from seratch or purchasing a solution from a vendor

Open Source Adoption

Commercial vendors began adopting open source at about the same time higher education central IT organizations adopted similar solutions in their operations Even before customers began beating the open standards drum and marketers began to see company acknowled- gement of open source as good public relations, vendors found the tools, emerging interoperability standards, and cost savings simply too compelling to ignore The combination of standards, rich pre-built environments, lack of royalty fees, and a level playing field led commercial vendors to first use, then integrate, and eventually champion open- source solutions It's a tricky game for proprietary software vendors: ‘They proclaim open source as a legitimate competitive strategy but they must then show there is no open-source product as good as their own proprietary product

In the past few years, new software marketing strategies have emerged in the for-profit sector À growing market segment packages, support and hosts open-source software they, as a company, don’t directly con=

trol These companies fill a much needed and reassuring consulting and support niche for colleges and universities considering open-source solutions for mission critical services Other companies, such as IBM, Apple, Oracle, Pentaho, and Alfresco, are experimenting with releasing software under an open-source license, while charging For extea support r features not available with the open-source version, Such strategies reassure customers and give the company an immediate advantage in consumer acceptance, Even the most hard-core, traditional software

Trang 14

Why Central TT Must Embrace Opay 32c

companies recognize they need open standards and interoperability with popular open-source products in order to survive Today, com- ‘mercial vendors are major open-source consumers and open-source contributors,

Microsoft and Open Source

Perhaps the vendor viewed as the least supportive of open source is Microsoft, Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO, famously told an interview- er, “Linu is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches That's the way that the license works” (Newbart, 2001) In fact, hard-core open-source advocates and Micro- soft have been at war over the GNU General Public License (GPL) since at least 2005 when Microsoft claimed Linux violated 235 patents and started making cross-license patent deals with large Linux installations as away around the GPL This led to GNU’s lawyer, Eben Mog len, closing the loop hole by creating a new version (GPLv2) of the license to disallow patent deals (Parloff, 2007)

Patenting software is a recent and controversial intellectual property innovation, In the not too distant past, courts refused software patents, regarding software as unpatentable mathematical algorithms But, as manufacturing and business processes began to rely more on comput- ers, the court softened its position on software patents (Tysver, 2008) Dusing the 1990s many companies began seeking software patents to build up a mutual defense arsenal, claiming they needed to have theic own patents so they could cross-license patents in case another company tried to sue them (Hilliard, 1994)

In July 2009, Microsoft stunned the open-source community by making: two large GPLv2 open-source code contributions: one for Linux and one for Moodle, Both submissions allow Microsoft products (HyperV and Live@edu) to interoperate better with these two popular open- source products (Krill, 2009b; Nagel, 2009) Sam Ramji, a Microsoft senior director, was quoted as saying, “Today's release would have been unheard of from Microsoft a few years ago but it’s a prime example that customer demand is a powerful catalyst for change” (Krill, 2009,

Trang 15

Blackboard and Open Source

Most computer scientists and nearly everyone in the open-source community believe software patents stifle innovation (Bolton, 2009, Knuth, 1994) Most software patent holders avoid controversy by hold- ing their patents as a non-aggressive defensive ploy Not so Blackboard Inc., a company whose primary customer base is higher education and who has a near monopoly on the learning management software mar-

kết

Blackboard has the distinction of being the only company ever cen- sored, in late 2006, by EDUCAUSE, an association of higher education information technology professionals (Hawkins, 2006) Not only were they awarded a very broad and questionable patent but they dida’t just hold it for defensive purposes: They used it to try to put their nearest competitor out of business The backlash was so stcong, especially fom higher education customers worried about the future of open-source Jearning- management systems, that Blackboard quickly released a non- assertion pledge in February 2007, making it impossible for them to use their patent against any open-source leaming-management system (Maurer, 2007) Meanwhile, the Software Freedom Law Center and others are battling to overturn Blackboard’s patent (Desite2Learn, 2009; Software Freedom Law Center, 2006) It is worthwhile to listen to the exchange between Eben Moglen and Blackboard’s lawyer, M:

thew Small, at the 2006 Sakai conference for an interesting and provoc- ive view of the two sides of the patent issue (Moglen & Small, 20106)

Like many companies recognizing the growing influence of open- source, Blackboard appears to worship the two-faced god Janus, ‘Viewed from one perspective, Blackboard is an aggressive no-holds- barred competitor seeking to use every legal tool available to protect their intellectual property while aggressively trying to stifle competition Viewed another way, Blackboard has a paradoxically long history of contributing to and supporting Tearing management open-source projects and open standards Theie sales force has always been able to say customers should expect to have the best of both worlds: a stable commercial leaming environment capable of interfacing with leading- edge developments arising from the open-source community

Trang 16

Dancing with the Devil

Open source is a larger force in the software market than most people ize Having viable open-source options reassures customers in the face of otherwise monopolistic-looking markets In Blackboard’s case, many angue the only viable learning management competition left is two open-source altematives, which Blackboard may want to keep viable in order to avoid anti-competitive charges as they continue to acquire competing companies Even Microsoft finds it makes good business sense to contribute, very selectively, to some open-source efforts

‘To compete against open source, vendors often construct a carefully balanced story about the dangers of open source while teying hard not to appear in any way against the open-source movement “Open source,” they may say, “might be appropriate for some large research schools with plenty of programmers and a research mission demanding, they play a leadership role in ä narrow technical niche.” But, of course, that wouldn’t apply to the customer of the moment, “Or,” they might say, “you, the customer, don’t really want to mess with source code It can get you into trouble.” Vendors then redefine “open” to mean adhering to open standards, assuring the data belongs to the customer, and providing programming interfaces to allow the customer's technical staff to customize various product features or to build interfaces without getting Tost in the source code Another argument is that open source is riskier than commercial options because customers have no guarantee the product won't be abandoned in the free-wheeling, any- thing goes open-source world Vendors may even hint that boards and presidents ultimately won’t accept open source because the central TT office must sign support contracts as part of the standard methodology

for procuring critical software solutions In short, vendors rely on, and feed into, a lot of open-source myths

Myth Busting

For many, the idea of a gift economy is somehow anti-capitalistic (Goldman & Gabriel, 2005) Since some people find it hard to under stand why others would contribute hours, days, or months toa software development project and then release it to the public, often with ‘no monetary compensation, they come up with explanations and as- sumptions that grow into mythical status Others perpetuate myths

Trang 17

extolling open source as almost a magical panacea, greatly overselling the reality of open source to solve software management problems Here are some of the most common myths that need to be set aside before any useful campus dialogue about open source can occur

Myth #1: Open Source is Free

All software has a cost There are costs associated with every aspect of the software life-cycle: selection, implementation, operation, maintenance, and replacement There are also costs associated with training and customization to consider (Cook, 2008) However, there is another meaning, for the word “Free” that is especially important to the free software movement “Free” in their view is not the absence of costs, but rather the ability t0 use the product freely in any way that mee one’s needs (Stigge, 2007; Talend Open Data Solutions [Talend], 2008)

Myth #2: Open Source is a Bad Value Proposition

While not free of cost, studies show open source can reduce costs Open-source software can typically save between 54% and 96% of costs long-term (Talend, 2008) Furthermore, some open-source solu-

tions can be hosted on hardware that is less expensive to purchase and maintain than competing commercial products Replacing and relicens- ing software can be quite expensive and time-consuming, for commer- cai or in-house products (Jackson, 2005) Businesses have shown im- proved bottom lines by going with open source (King, 2008)

However, if you pay for software that does not do what you want it to, its value is zero Price alone is not enough: ‘The question should be, “What is the software worth to your organization?” Value is a function of many parameters, and cost is not always the main factor: One surv

found being less dependent on vendors ranked higher than cost (Com- puter Economics, 2005)

Myth #3: Open Source is Equivalent to Building it Yourself

Again, this is generally not true, especially for medium to large projects (Talend, 2008) Long-term maintenance costs build appreciably over time compared with an out-of-the-box open-source solution, If a primary in-house developer leaves, in-depth knowledge of the software can be permanently lost, which is not the case for open-source community supported software Further, an open source starting point has

Trang 18

Why Central TT Must Embrace Opay 32c already gained innovation, usability, and stability advantages over an in- house effort even if customizations are needed (Goldman & Gabriel,

2008),

Myth #4: Open Source Means No Support

Support for open-source software comes in many forms, but there is usually strong community-based support provided gratis from developers and other contributors Other sources include newsgroups, forums, books, and web sites A growing market segment includes vendors whose company mission is to support open-source products, Software backed by strong vendor support includes Linux, Java, Sakai, Moodle,

Kuali, OpenOffice, MySql, Alfresco, and many others,

‘Myth #5: Open Source Can't Work for Mission Critical Applications

In some mission criti cases, open source exceeds commercial options

in popularity The Apache web server, for example, has a 66% market share across the million busiest web sites (Netcraft Ltd., 2009), The Gartner Group found, from a survey conducted in September 2008,

52% of 274 companies worldwide use open-source products already and an additional 23% planned to employ some within 12 months

inux is used by 39% and an additional 22% expect to employ it within a year (King, 2008)

Some government agencies are strategically switching to open source where possible (Joch, 2004; Johnson, 2007) Many companies are re- thinking their internal software strategy; CFO Magazine found 55% of companies they surveyed plan to deploy a combination of internall developed and open-source software by 2010 (Krantz, 2009),

Myth #6: Open Source is Riskier than Commercial Options

Worries over abandoned software abound but it can be easier to trans- Jate data from an open-source project to another one, if it comes down

to it (Gonzalez-Barahona, 2004) The learning curve can be just steep for commercial projects as open source (Broida, 2009) Concern- ing quality, some fear that much of open-source software is produced by hobbyists and unprofessional contributors In reality, over 45% of those assisting with open-source projects are experienced, professional programmers (Goldman & Gabriel, 2005) More experienced contribu-

Trang 19

tors typically replace less efficient code over time and an on-going ré- view process leads to constant checks and improvements Even if a project should be abandoned, with open source the source code remains available and the licensing remains intact When commercial ventures buy out competitors, it is not always the case the target company’s software will be licensed or supported for very long

The Emergence of Open Source

In the early days, most computer vendors delivered their source code part of the package customers purchased After all, it would only cun on their hardware and customers were extremely technical back then; they wanted to see how things worked When Richard Stallman, working at MIT, couldn't get source code ftom Xerox to fix his lab’s newly acquired laser printer, this future McArthur “genius award” winner

y realized something was not right,

famous

In response, Stallman began the GNU project and in 1985 published the GNU Manifesto, his codification of a software philosophy that would become known as the free software movement In the section “Why I Must Write GNU,” Stallman states,

L eansider that the golden rule requires that if T ike a program T must share it with other people who like it, Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, ‘making each user agree not to share with others refuse to break solidarity nith other users in this may T cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement oF «a softvare lense agreement (Stallman, 1985/1993, para 9)

Stallman’s goal was to write GNU, a Unis-like operating system, and to assure none of it was proprietary Ironically, to accomplish this, Stallman had to become very sophisticated in copyright and intellectual property law One of his inventions was the copyleft: a combination of a copyright and a license which states “that you have the freedoms we want you to have and that you can’t take these freedoms away from anyone else” (Tai, 2001, para 13) After a few early free licensing expe- iments, Stallman released the GNU General Public License (GPL) in

1988

Trang 20

Why Central TT Mat Embrace Open Source

software be public, but also available for use in the commercial sector In fact, during this time one of us argued against using the GPL for the open-source Gnuplot project to avoid imposing commercial use limits on the software, In short, not every contributor to open source shared Stallman’s fervor about software freedom and, consequently, a number of other licenses grew out of conversations about the space between GPL and proprietary licenses

Today, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a recognized non-profit organization dedicated to open-source community building and public advocacy It was founded, in part, to be less confrontational than Stall- man's Free Software Foundation Stallman’s Foundation is represented and tespected in its own right, but Stallman himself has no interest in promoting or supporting software that is not released under the GPL In his view, GPL software is software that will remain free from commercial interference while open-source software, uader non-GPL, licenses, might be appropriated by powerful commercial interests

History shows companies have used a variety of tactics to try to control their comer of the software market and lock out competitors, Without the work of Richard Stallman and the founders of the Open Source Initiative, the software world would likely be very different The work of these visionaries to recognize and champion the public good against private interests created the space necessary for open source, Without the open-source movement, the software world might have become a disjoint set of incompatible software (and hardware) incapable of supporting something as intertwined and dependent on cooperating standards as the Internet we know and depend on today

Understanding Open Source Licenses

‘The goals and philosophies of an open-source community are reflected in the open-source license they adopt Understanding the license helps to understand the community ‘The best place to review open-source

licenses is the OSI website (hitp://www.opensource.org/licenses) As

of this writing, the OST has approved over 60 licenses that comply with theie widely recognized definition of open source

While the GPL is the most famous open-source license, other licenses generally reflect a community's greater tolerance for commercial use ‘The original Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license, for example, was a simple copyright notice familiar to anyone in higher education

Trang 21

writing a paper funded by a federal grant It simply stated the work belonged to the UC Board of Regents, the copytight notice must remain with the software, and the software was released “as-is” with no implied warranty Its purpose was to release work into the public do- ‘main, give credit to the UC system, avoid using the UC name to en- dorse a product, and avoid any liability that might result Especially because Berkeley was funded by tax dollars, Berkeley could not restrict commercial use of the software MIT had a similar license

(Over time the BSD and MIT license templates evolved and derivatives, such as the Mozilla public license and the Apache license, became popular alternatives to the GPL During a particularly heated time in 1991, when the GPL vs proprietary debate was unsettled and the Open Source Initiative hadn't been formed, Larry Wall released his Perl language under two licenses: GPL and his “Artistic License.” The Artistic icense made it clear that Petl could be used to develop commercial products without running into the viral hysteria of some interpretations of GPL ‘The word “Artistic” may stem from how Larry closed his alternate license statement:

Justa personal note: I nant you to Rnow that I create nce things lke this Becase it pleases the Author of my si If this bothers you, then your notion of Authorship

needs some revision But you can nse per! anyny >) (Wall, 1991, p 4)

One Example of Central IT Open Source Adoption

Pat Masson (2007) notes there is often more open-source software running in the central IT organization than most on campus realize Table 1 shows open-source products in use by central TT at Northern Arizona University (NAU) The table grew out of the 2008 budget crisis that hit Arizona, As the campus reviewed IT purchase and procurement practice, this table was produced to show open source was already in place and understood by central IT as an acceptable cost- cutting option

‘The products are listed roughly by theie importance to the central IT mission and their ability to reduce costs Sakai and Moodle are listed low in the table because neither is the primary course management system for NAU The type of available support (fee based, commercia ‘non-profit, and community) is recorded along, with the types of licenses available for each product In the table, “non-profit organization support,” if listed, is shown as preferred over the more generic “communi-

Trang 22

ty support” option, which

products generally available in some form for all

Most readers will be surprised at the number of products listed and the number that are unfamiliar Many of these are back-office tools reflect: ing the needs of system administrators, clevelopers, and web masters,

Table 1: Open-source products in use at NAU in 2009 ‘Open Source | Support Options

Software AJ 8) c) 0) | Licenses Red HatUnux [x x Propriety, GPL, BSD *

XenServer |x x x | Propriety, GPL Mysql x x x | GPL, Proprietary

Apache x ‘Apache

PHP Java x x | ope x |ep

Tomcat x Apache

uPortal x x 85D

cas x x aso

Shibboleth | x x ‘Apache Subversion | x x | esp

Perl x GPL or Artistic License

Sakai x x Educational Community License

Samba x x | on

cups Moodle x x | pL x Jor

Nagios: x x | apt

cacti x x | ope

Alfresco x x rt

Firefox x Moallla Public License Thunderbird x Moailla Public License

Openoffice x GPL

Putty x | mir

Audacity x fon

Kompozer x | MPUeeL

WinScP x | GPLand mir

TortiseSvN Pidgin x | op x_| ore A) Fee Based Support Avallable 8) Commercially Backed

)_ Non-profit Organization Support 0) Community Supported

* Redhat includes both propriety software as well as software from many different 03S projects using many different OSS licenses

Trang 23

The Central IT Open Source Future

Open source is as much a philosophy or a movement as a body of software made available under open licenses Goldman and Gabriel (2005) make a compelling case that open source provides adopters with options that can be more competitive than traditional commercial software, An open-source project, they argue, can bring outside innova

tion inside the organization Open source can assure interoperability by adhering honestly to open standards, can provide rapid community based support, can give customers unparalleled input into the product roadmap, can avoid disingenuous marketing hype, and can cut costs

For most central IT organizations, open source has already become part of the software mix, It plays a growing role in solving problems related to managing and hosting heterogeneous software applications in a cost-effective manner In the past decade, open source has, quite simply, become game changer It has come of age and influences not only the behind-the-scenes operations of the computer center, but whole market segments in the software industry Central 1’ knows this intuitively and implicitly, but it is still care to see it explicitly discussed as a campus software procurement strategy

‘The data center has adopted open source in the lowest levels of the software stack The network, the operating system, the web server, the database management system—each has a well-regarded and well- deployed open-source presence in most central IT organizations From these successful mission-critical deployments, a growing faith in open source options has evolved to the point where other, higher-level software applications are now being considered for the enterprise Man universities and colleges, for instance, run Moodle or Sakai as theit primary course management system (Willis, 2009) The Kuali Founda- tion is using a community-source software model to build and deploy a financial system “built for and by its own [higher education] customers” (Fuchs, 2008, p 151) One sign of changing times can be found in an Eidiause Review article where Administrative/ERD Information Sys- tems are listed as the number two issue on the minds of central IT chief information technology officers ‘The authors pose six sets of questions cridcal to considering ERP procurement, including the following:

Is an apen-soune solution appropriate? Have the advantages and disadvantages of cam open-source solution been clearly presented to all interest groups on campus?

(Agee, et al, 2009, p 50)

Trang 24

‘This suggestion stands out as a provocative and forward-thinking con- sideration for ERP systems As a contributor to The Impact of Open Source Software on Education (Odas, 2009), Pat Masson makes the following observation:

CHOY see these applications [ERP sstems nithin the realm of the campus departments, and so do the Provosts, Deans, Directors of HR, Finance, Enroll ‘ment, Alurani, etc The now tired arguments that may have prompted technology falls to investigate open soure—code quality, security, integration, customization, support, et: —simply may not be applicable, important or even understoad by those in other campus business units assessing their software needs against specific business operations, because these tools (and the values of OSS) operate behind the scenery

(Masson, 2007, para 10)

On a smaller scale, central IT’ organizations can often tell horror stories of a department or group installing open-source software without thinking through the evaluation, deployment, support, security, oF su tainabiity of their project In too many cases, these efforts die on the vine and a campus administrator looses a bit of faith in open-source solutions In some cases, a poor open-source application introduces a security breach on the campus network, requiring immediate inteeven- tion by the central IT organization In other cases, the sole person re~ sponsible for supporting the application leaves or moves on to another assignment and the department asks the central IT organization to rescue the service More than once, this has meant replacing the poorly selected product with a better equivalent and moving support to the central IT organization where more than one person is available to administer and manage the software

Further, there is an “old-guard” effect Remember, many years ago the only option was to build most of the software needed to run a university The need for more technology and the expectations for what the technology should do strategically for the institution eventually out- paced in-house developers’ capacity to deliver Administrators, inside or outside the central IT otganization, remember the “build versus buy” debate and the massive recalibration toward “buy” that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s Some of the old guard, bloodied by the failure of keeping up with in-house development projects, view open source just another variant of in-house development efforts, which they already know doesn’t work

Trang 25

However, as Masson (2007) points out, central TT may not be the barrier to open source adoption that it once might have been He argues that campus decision-makers outside the data center typically have no idea of the amount of open source in use on their campus While widely deployed in the data center, he notes it is the functional offices and not the central IT organization which are not considering open-source options The barrier he identifies is the mind-set that open source might work for geeks, but not for systems used by end

Open-source procurement

Given the important role open source now plays in the software industry, it is reasonable to assume efforts to adopt or consider open-source options will become more common Open-source adoption efforts are not helped, however, when the normal due diligence effort spent on procuring commercial software is not matched with an equal effort when selecting open-source software

In many ways, selecting and evaluating an open-source option is actually harder than working with a vendor, This is especially true if there is a trusted vendor with a good track record of providing service and support fo solve an enterprise software need On the other hand, a suxpris ing number of proprietary software solutions are less than ideal Fea-

tures don’t work as promised; bugs are more prevalent than expected and take a long time to fix (leaving in-house support staff helplessly waiting for the vendor to find a solution); tracking, and escalating, trouble tickets can absorb an inordinate amount of staff resources; costs escalate as vendors pressure customers to buy new add-ons of, as contracts are renegotiated, problems with invoices may suspend license keys ot deny access to support services; license restrictions may block a new innovative use of the product; and costly upgrades may be dictated by the vendor's time line rather than the institution’s Good open- source software can avoid all of the above problems Bad open-source software can make the above problems seem trivial by comparison

Many of the familiar best-practices in place for selecting commercial software translate to procuring open-source software: such as developing a feature map and deciding on the importance of these features, calling and researching other sites using the product, narrowing down

the options, and deciding which products to evaluate in a pilot project

Trang 26

Why Central TT Mat Embrace Open Source

Generally, procurement also involves researching a company’s stability, reputation, market share, financial health, and, sadly, the likelihood of being purchased by a bigger company The analogy for open source is to investigate the size and quality of the open-source community including governance model, market penetration, software reputation, type of open-source license, standards compliance, quality of the offi- cial web site, quality and timeliness of bug fixes, speed in posting an- swers to user questions, and the availability of thied-party for-profit support organizations Mature open-source products do well in all of the above metrics; immature open-source software projects ate ob- viously deficient in one or more areas

Modem software should follow good universal design practices and be as accessible as possible for people with various disabilities In the United States, higher education organizations generally must comply with sections 503, 504, and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Most mature open- source communities align themselves with universal access design principles because developers recognize these principles make the product better overall Some mature open-source products are supported by companies, like Red Hat, who fill in the U.S General Services Adminis- tration “Voluntary Product Accessibility” template (VPAT; see

hutp://buyaccessiblegov), The VPAT is a good starting point to eva- uate software accessibility

‘One procurement step that should not be skipped is working with the central IT’ organization Most central organizations appreciate a chance to run through a formal or informal checklist to assure the software being considered is appropriate for the campus and things like security, sustainability, capacity, bandwidth, etc are being addressed Further, there may be local enterprise issues or conditions specific to the university that need to be considered

Conclusion

Central TT must embrace open source because itis either already deeply a part of the organization’s software mix or it will be in the near future, Central IT must also embrace open source because it has begun to deeply impact the software industey Open-source community devel- ‘opment is the fastest way to market for many startups Open standards, ‘a requirement to compete in today’s market, are often strongly tied to

Trang 27

ben Sumnr fldinm in Bdtion

open-source reference implementations The ability to interface and interact with, o¢ even contribute to, open-source software has become a necessary part of every software company’s strategic plan—even Mi- crosoft,

Faculty and staff proposing open-source software should find the central IT onganization receptive if they do their homework Trends sug- gest campus conversations about open source will occur with greater frequency and involve a broader group of stakeholders than in the past: Conversations with central IT will be greatly aided if participants have a grasp of open-source licenses, understand open-source support options, appreciate the community aspect of open source, anticipate enterprise deployment concems, and participate seriously in the due diligence efforts necessary to evaluate open-source software solutions

References

Agee, A S., Yang, C., Buehler, J., Dutcher, J M., Dziuban, C D.,

Emest, D J et al (2009) Top-ten IT issues, 2009 Educanse Review, 44(4), 45-56 Retrieved August 3, 2009 from

suwy cducausc.cdu, USE+tReview/EDUCAUSER

-viewMagazine Volumed4/Top Tent Fissues2009/174191

Bolton, D (2009) Why softnare patents are bad! Retrieved January 5, 2010 from

hutp://eplus m/od /thebusinessofso fiware/a/patents him Broida, R (2009) Gig 1x gu9: The real price of qpen-soure softnure, Retrieved

August 24, 2009 from

hittp:/ /blogs.bnet,com/businesstips /2p=3061

‘Computer Economics (2005, May) Key advantage of open source isnot cost stings Retrieved August 24, 2009 from Tae eee nie l.cfimzid=1043

Cook, R (2008) 14 misconceptions about open source software: Don’t let myths cand misundertandings cloud your CRM deion Retrieved August 24,

2009 from http: / /www.insidecem,com /features/10

misconceptions-()12:

Desire2Leam (2009) Desine2Lzarn patentinformation blog, Retrieved August 23, 2009 from htip:/ /wwww.desire2learn.com/Patentinto/ Fuchs, 1 (2008) Challenges and opportunities of open source in higher

education In R.N Katz (Ed), The foner and the cloud (pp 150-137), Washington, D.C.: Educause Retrieved August 30,

Iutp:/ /www.educause.cdu/thetowerandthed

Trang 28

Why Central TT Must Embrace Open Source

Goldman, R., & Gabriel, R P (2005) Innovation happens elenere: Open source as business strateg San Peancisco: Morgan Kaufmann

Retrieved August 24, 2009 from http:/ Awww dreamsongs.com/IHE,

Gonzalez-Barahona, J M (2004) Impact of open souree in the total cst of oumerp Reteieved August 24, 2009 from

Hawkins, B L (2006, October 9) EDUCAUSE open letter to Mr Michael Chasen Retcieved August 23, 2009 from

hittp:/ /net.educause edu /it/library/pdf/ EPOOTLL pdf

Hilliard, R (1994, January 28) Mutual defonse against software patents, Retrieved 8/23/2009, 2009, from

h feee.org/Patents /muual-def html

Jackson, J (2005, June 29) The ceal cost of open-source software Goverment Computer Nens, Rettieved August 24, 2009 from

software aspx

Joch, A (2004, November 21) The eal cost of open source, Federal th, Week, Retrieved August 24, 2009 from

Johnson, T (2007) Department of the Navy qpen source software guidance Retrieved August 24, 2009 from hrip:/ /oss-

King, R (2008, December 1) Cost-conscious companies turn to open- source software [Special report] Business Week Retrieved August 24, 2009 from

h vw.husinessweek chnol 0081130 069698 him

Knuth, D E, (1994) Letter to the patent office from Professor Donald Kauth, Retrieved January 5, 2010 from

/nov: 2

Krantz, M 2009, January) An open secret: Open-source software is quietly gaining, ground well beyond the data center CFO Magacgne Retrieved from

ic 2835: 2833

Krill, P (20094, ‘ly 20) Uplate: ‘Microsoft releases code for Linux rivers ifoworld Retrieved August 24, 2009 from

hitp:/ Awww infoworld,com/d/open-source/update-microsofi-

Trang 29

ben Sumnr fldinm in Bdtion

Krill, P (2009b, July 22) Red Hat lands, oticises Microsoft's Linas efarts, Retrieved August 21, 2009 from

wwnw.ci 1e/49794 Aierosoft s Linux Iifforts

AMasson, P (2001) Barriers to the adaption of open source: Peronal and ‘profesional oberatons Retrieved August 29, 2009 from

Mauret, Me (2007), Blackboard puters Retrieved! August 23,2009 From Ce Ề AMoglen, E., &c Small, M (2006, Decemiber) Lzwcl/2we đhansiow múi,

Eben Moglen and Matthew Small (Audio recording] Session recorded at the 6 annual conference of the Sakai Foundation, Atlanta, GA Retrieved August 3, 2009 from

hp:

Dạctesotvid:† Ebert Magen tand? A lathew! Seal

Nagel, D (2009) Moodie kinks mith Lire@edu Retrieved July 21, 2009 from

hitp:/ /campustechnology.com /articles/2009/07/21/moodle- links-with-live-eduaspx

Netcraft Ltd (2009, August) Argus 2009 neb server survey Retrieved August 30, 2009 from

hittp://news.neteraft.com /archives/2009 /08/31/august 2009 we b server survey html

Newbart, D (2001, June 1), Microsoft CEO takes launch break with the Sun-Times Chicago Sun-Times, Retrieved August 24, 2009 from hp: chive-org/web,/20010615205548/httpz/ /sundmex m/output/tech/cst-fin-microl Lhtml

Parloff, R (2007, May 14) Mictosoft takes on the free world Fortine ‘Magazine, Retrieved August 22, 2009 from

hitp://money.cnn.com/magazines /fortune /fortune_archive/2007 £05/28/ 1000133867 /index, htm

Software Freedom Law Center (2006, November 30) Patent office avked to review ard revoke Blackboard patent: Software Freedom Law Center files re-examination request on behalf of clents, Rettieved August 23, 2009

from

vsoft non 2 v/3I

d-patent-reexam-filed,

Stallman, R (1993) The GNU manffto Original work published 1983)

Retrieved September 3, 2009 from

hup:/Avww.gnu.org/manifesto.html

Trang 30

Why Corral ET Mast Bebra Open Soure

Stigge, R (2007) 24 common misconceptions about open source software

Retrieved Ags 24, 2009 from

“Tạ, Lí Cheng, 2001), The fy ofthe GNU sera een

Retrieved September 3, 2009 from http://www fre softorg/epl history

Talend Open Data Solutions (2008) The return om investment of apen source data integration Rettieved August 3, 2009 from ernie é “Talend ROL Oper

Datalntegeation.pdf

Tysver, D, (2008) History of software patents, from Benson and Diehe to State Street and Bilski BitLan: Retrieved August 23, 2009 from Udas, K (2009, March 30) The impact of pen source softmare on education

Retrieved August 30, 2009 from the Connexions Web site: http://em.org/content/col10431/ 1,7

Wall, L (1991) Perl README (Version 4.0) [Computer software] Retrieved September 1, 2009 from

;/ history perlorg/PerlTimelis

Whitehurst, J (2009) Open source: Narrowing the divide between eclucation, business, and community Eduause Review, 44(1)

Retrieved January 2, 2010 from

haps cause.cdu/i f/ERM09

Willis, N (2009) A class om open source øznenara Ñetrleved August 30, 2009 from hutp://linus.com/news/ software /applications /17742-

lass-on-open-source-courseware

Author Information

John D Campbell, Ed.D JDCampbell@nau so

John worked as a programmer for a company Siicon Valley in the 1980s tha eleased source code to customers He has degrees in math and systems engineering as well as a doctorate in educational leadership In the 1990s John enjoyed working with the Gnuplot open source community For the past 24 years, John has been a part of the evolving central Information Technology organization at Northern Arizona Univer- sity where he is currently the Digector of Academic Computing,

Trang 31

Open Source Sebtions in Baton

Tobias Kreidl, Ph.D Tobias.Kreidl@nau.cdu To- bias was raised in New York State and Missouri, and Jatet resided in Europe, where he received his Ph.D in astronomy from the University of Vienna, Aus:

tria, in 1979 After working in Germany for a year, he spent over a decade at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona as a research astronomer, computer systems administrator, and programmer After a short stint at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, he returned to Flagstaff in 1994 and has been part of the Academic Com- puting division of Information Technology Services at Northern Ari- zona University ever since His focus is divided among all aspects of

the educational computing environment, including managing a large number of application servers and resolving issues related to security,

authentication, and web-based content delivery,

Douglas Pace, BS Douglas Pace@nauedu Doug Jas holds a degree in computer science from North- een Arizona University After graduation he worked asa senior programmer in the Academic Computing, division of Information Technology Services at Northem Arizona University where he successfully introduced a number of open source initiatives to the central IT organization, He is currently a developer on the open source Kuali Coeus team at the University of Arizona Douglas co!

nues to champion and demonstrate open source products as alternatives to more expensive, and frequently less flexible, commercial solutions,

Trang 32

Browning, J Buxton (Ed) 2010)

Open Sanne Solutions iv Eda: They and Pras Santa Rosa, Caliosnia: lnfouning Science Press (pp 21-46)

Chapter 2

Open Source Software Impact on

Educational Business Models

Case of Study: Development of an \(ntelligent) E-Learning Framework

Alessandro Pagano and Agostino Marengo

Introduction

Nowadays the tools to deliver e-Learning courses can facilitate distance-leamning activities In the open source field, although the existing IMS (Leaming Management System) have all the features required t0 deliver on-line courses (registration of students, management of training contents, evaluation of the knowledge, etc), they don’t have a

tem of intelligent tutoring that can help both the teacher and the student in the development of dynamic courses, starting from a set of earning goals

The main topic is to analyze the features, the standards, and the structure to be used for the implementation of Web Intelligent Agent (LIS — Leaming Insight System) that can interact with the existing open sousce LMS, expanding their traditional features with the innovation of intelli gent rutoring,

‘The aim of this research project is to develop an innovative approach in the learning field and evaluate the impact on the leamers and teachers

‘This project started from the necessity to create a flexible and inte grated system, based on Open Source software, in which an Intelligent

t will be integrated to manage the Learning Objects repository and LCMS, The approach taken provides high scalability and ve tility for the system and streamlines the upgrading process It aims at meeting some changeable requirement in the field of distance learning

Trang 33

(yearly or even monthly innovation) The modular structure and flex ibility provided by the portal developed makes this project adaptable to any SCORM compatible LCMS Specifically, the OSEL’s repository is the integration between Learning repository software LeMill, with OSEL Taxonomy for the classification of Learning Objects (OSEL stands for Open Source E-Learning a research project of University of Ban)

Integration between software and learning structure will improve portal features and the teaching/leaming process The flesible and modular structure of our server and our Learning Environment based on Zope (Zope is a free and open-source, object-oriented web application serv- e0, Plone (Plone is a free and open source content management system built on top of the Zope application server), and Fle (Fle is a Web- based learning environment or vistual learning environment) with integration of LeMMill (Web community for finding, authoring and sharing, learning resources) repository, provide an environment suitable for Intelligent Web Agent applications With these technologies in mind, attificial intelligence could rewrite the rules of leaning online

An Open Source approach is not necessarily a no-cost solution, so what concems might a company have that would adopt/develop an ‘Open Source Framework like this, when considering its business model? What's factors should management analyze before choosing an Open Source solution?

‘This chapter describes the technological structure of OSEL LIS as the first step of our research framework Then the research team tries to analyze the open source business model that guided crucial choice in adoption /development of the same framework from the point of view

of a research-oriented company

The Project

‘There has been much debate recently about the use and benefits of vietual learning platforms; however, they generally fail to actively support users on an individual basis to actually help them leam at a pace that is appropriate to the learner and that can identify knowledge oF skill gaps and adress them dynamically

Trang 34

“On Suune Software Tnpat on Edatinal Business Model

earning outcomes (skills /knowledge gained by the student and new methodologies applied by the teacher)

‘The research framework proposed will include not only a methodologi- cal and theoretical research on an “intelligent” LCMS and LO reposito- ty, but also its technological project and its integration on an extended platform

‘The research framework started on January 2008 with the definition and implementation of the technological structure of the server, based ‘on Open Source software known as Zope, Plone and Fle It will move on this path having as target the implementation of the, so called OSEL LIS - Leatning Insight System that will be completely web-based and its innovative distinguishing marks will be

'* Automatic customization of each course of study based on the knowledge of the student and his learning likes (preferences, ways to leam );

+ Monitoring and automatic evaluation of student’s knowledge telated to acquited information and cognitive skills,

‘The modular structure and flexibility provided by LIS will make this system adaptable to any kind of educational and/or academic situation, allowing also the development to be in step with innovative and specific Web technologies:

Updating ability and flexibility towards the necessity of implementing innovation into technology as well as educational and meta-cognitive methodologies were the basic criteria for choosing software, which was used to develop the framework:

Trang 35

UG RE)

7š Framework Structure

One of the most important topics in Open Source development, today, is the integration of already developed components The critical topic 1s to choose the software (or pieces of software) to integrate for the final product,

® Linux Server (Gentoo Zype-Plone-Fle-LeMill and LIS System

with xen virtualization) "aia “

‘The software structure (Figure 1) is modular / onion-skin, in

fact the core is the program- Figur: Software Stracture ‘ming language (Python), then

wwe have Zope, which works as a strong and stable web server and then, at the upper level, we can find Plone and Fle which are the effective user interface LeMill is the Leaming Object repository and LIS is the Intelligent Agent that structure data in ontological ways and build per- sonalized leaming paths

Server Structure

According to the project’s needs, the research group has chosen a vit- tualized server structure with Xen technology (Citrix Systems, 2009)

Virtualization is a term that refers to the abstraction of computer resources The use of system virtualization offers many benefits to IT organizations and to end-users,

Among these are:

1 More efficient use of resources: In order to guarantee that suf ficient cesousces are available to every user and application to

Trang 36

satisfy business demands and service level agreements, IT organizations have over-provisioned systems, increasing, capital and operating expenditures With virtualization, capacity can be used more effectively, reducing the costs to acquire systems, the environmental (power cooling and real estate) costs te- quired to run them, and the staff costs associated with managing the additional systems

Fault isolation: an application error, operating system crash, of

user error in one virtual machine will not affect the use of oth-

er virtual machines on the same system

3 Increased security: By separating users and applications into different virtual machines, diverse user communities (and, in hosting environments, even multiple customers) can use the resources of a single physical system securely, with theie infor- ‘mation and network traffic safely isolated from others,

4 Rapid provisioning: Because a virtual machine’s disk storage is usually represented as files or logical volumes, standard storage management techniques, such as file copy or volume cloning, can be used to create new virtual machines rapidly, eather than requiring teal “bare metal” installation of operating, system: and applications, as non-virtual use of separate physical servers would require, This can cut the time to set up a new system (including hardware acquisition and racking, software installation and configuration) from weeks to minutes,

5 Postability: ‘The use of abstract devices within vieual machines combined with the encapsulation of virtual data in file-backed or volume-backed virtual disks, makes it easy to move virtual machines ftom one physical system to another, for maintenance, more effective resource utilization, or simply for repli- cated provisioning, In many cases, running virtual machines can even be moved while they are online, with no interruption

to service, (Citrix Systems, 2009)

‘The main reasons which support the use of Xen are:

Trang 37

ing; disaster recovery; ease of hardware upgrade /replacement, possibility of mirroring; live migration),

+ — Resouree pools (zero downtime maintenance; load balancing; high availability/fault tolerance; backup policy, firewall and malware scanning; multi-path storage and networking; certify app-on-O8, OS-on-hypervisor, hypervisor-on-h/w; enables vietual appliances; using hardware extensions and OS para- vierualization)

Host and Guest Operating Systems

Linux has been chosen as the Host and Guest Operating System The literature supports this as a very good choice for a server, in part, due to the fact that Linus has native support for the Python programming Janguage, which is the development language for LIS

A Linux distribution (also called GNU/Linux distribution by some vendors and users) is a member of the family of Unix-like software distributions built on top of the Linux kernel Such distributions (often called distros for short) consist of a large collection of software applications such as word processors, spreadsheets, media players, and data base applications ‘The whole operating system will consist of the Linux kernel and, usually, a set of libraries and utilities ftom the GNU project, with graphics support from the X Window System Distributions opti- mized for size may not contain X and tend to use more compact alternatives to the GNU utilities such as Busybox, uClibc o¢ dietlibe There are currently over six hundred Linux distributions, Over three hundred of those are in active development, constantly being revised and im- proved

Trang 38

'buntu server is the Guest Operating System Ubuntu Server Edition is buir on the solid foundation of Debian, which is known for its co- bust server installations Tt has a strong heritage for reliable perfor- mance and predictable evolution

A key lesson from its Debian heritage is that of security by default, The Ubuntu Server has no open ports after the installation and contains only the essential software needed to build a secure server Ubuntu provides an up-to-date software repository and a large amount of packages pre-built It represents a best practice for security update quality and responsiveness in recent studies Those are some of the reasons that brought us to use Ubuntu server as the Virtual Machine Operating, System,

Software Structure

As stated before, the whole framework system is based on Open

Source Software What follows is an overview of the components cho-

sen after a critical analysis of needed features

Programming Language: Python

Python is a general-purpose high-level programming language Its dle- sign philosophy emphasizes code readability Python claims to “com- bine remarkable power with very clear syntax,” and its standard library is large and comprehensive Its use of indentation for block delimiters is unusual among popular programming languages

Python supports multiple programming paradigms (primarily object oriented, imperative, and Functional) and features a fully dynamic type stem and automatic memory management, similar to Perl, Ruby, Scheme, and Tel “Like other dynamic languages, Python is often used

wa scripting language” (Wikipedia nd )

‘The lang an open, community-based development model ma- naged by the non-profit Python Software Foundation, which maintains the de facto definition of the language in CPython, the reference implementation The first release Python was conceived in the late 1980s by Guido van Rossum at CWT in the Netherlands, Van Rossum is Py- thon’s principal author, and his continuing central role in deciding, the direction of Python is reflected in the title given to him by the Python community After the great success of Python success, Google decided

Trang 39

to hire Van Rossum to lead the development and to drive the evolution of this language

Web application framework: ZOPE

Zope is an open source application server for building content management systems, intranets, portals, and custom applications, The Zope community consists of hundreds of companies and thousands of developers all over the world, working on building the platform and Zope applications Zope is written in Python, a highly productive, object- oriented scripting language Zope stands for “Z Object Publishing Environment.” A powerful web-based user interface is provided Zope publishes on the web Python objects that are typically stored in an object database called ZODB These objects could be documents, im- ages, page templates, and so on and are available to users to create and manage them through the web Specialized object types, such as wikis, blogs, and photo galleries, are available as third-party add-ons (called products), and there i a theiving community of small businesses creat:

ing custom web applications as Zope products (Zope Corporation 2009)

User Interface CMS: PLONE

Plone is an open-source content management system/framework that works hand-in-hand and sits on top of Zope It is Free software and is designed to be extensible It is suited for an internal website or may be used as a server on the Intemet, playing such roles as a document publishing system and groupware collaboration tool Plone ss written in Python, This programming language can be used to add new features to Plone and used to understand or make changes to the way that Zope and Plone work By default, Plone stores its contents in Zope’s built in transactional object database, the ZODB There are products and techniques, however, that share information with other sources, such as relational databases, LDAP, and filesystem files Several products may be combined by Plone in order to provide additional functionality;

these products ace distributed through the Plone website or otherwise Plone’s strong points are accessibility and multi-linguality It is secure but has heavy cesource dependencies Plone is noted as good intranet fhware, Tt is suitable for high-load production Internet sites using, caching via Apache/Squid in front, combined with the CacheFu Plone product (Plone Foundation, 2009),

Trang 40

(Future) Learning Environment (FLE)

ELE is a web-based leaming environment: a server software for computer supported collaborative leaming, Fle is a Zope product, written in Python This project is an open source and free software released under the GNU General Public License (GPL) Fle user interface is teanslated into more than 20 languages including most of the European languages and Chinese It is used in more than 70 countries Fle is designed to support individual learner and group centered work that concentrates on creating and developing expressions of knowledge (ie knowledge artifacts) and design, in fact it is focused on collaborative learning, and teamwork With FLE instruments, we can create virtual classes, giving them the possibility to create and develop knowledge astifacts and de- signs (Leaming Environments for Progressive Inquiry research group

(LE team), University of Act and Design Helsinki 2009)

Learning Repository: Lemill

LeMill is a web community for finding, authoring, and sharing open and free learning resources ‘The main target groups are teachers and Jeaming, content authors, but anyone is free to join Tt is Open Source server software All learning resources in LeMill must render properly in modem web browsers There are two kinds of content in LeMill: media pieces and learning resources A media piece can be a single image, short audio file, or short video clip A media piece is something that is probably not very useful in such a leaming situation but ean be used as part of a larger resource Learning resource is a larger unit of content For instance a learning resource can be the complete lesson material used in a course The idea is that you can build learning resources from the media pieces (Media Lab Helsinki, 2009),

Agent System in Learning Environment

According to Dolonen, Chen, and Morch and their DoCTA project, implementing theie thought experiment, we can develop an intelligent software agent that could work in Learning Environment FLE (Dolo- nen, Chen, & Morch, 2003)

Định dạng
Số trang	232
Dung lượng	19,03 MB