E-Learning, the Cathedral and the Bazaar: Courseware Development Approaches

...or Top-down versus Bottom-up approaches to content design.

In his 1997 essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar, open source evangelist Eric S. Raymond suggests that

the closed-source world cannot win an evolutionary arms race with open-source communities that can put orders of magnitude more skilled time into a problem.

Raymond considers the development of software by traditional methodologies as analogous to building a mediaeval cathedral,

carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation, with no beta to be released before its time.

He asserts that all software could be developed using the bazaar approach, which he described as

a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches... open to the point of promiscuity.

In this so-called Bazaar Model, roles are not clearly defined. Gregorio Robles suggests that software developed using the Bazaar model should exhibit the following patterns:

• Users should be treated as co-developers

The users are treated like co-developers and so they should have access to the source code of the software. Furthermore users are encouraged to submit additions to the software, code fixes for the software, bug reports, documentation etc. Having more co-developers increases the rate at which the software evolves. Linus' Law states that, "Given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow." This means that if many users view the source code they will eventually find all bugs and suggest how to fix them. Note that some users have advanced programming skills, and furthermore, each user's machine provides an additional testing environment. This new testing environment offers that ability to find and fix a new bug.

• Early Releases

The first version of the software should be released as early as possible so as to increase one's chances of finding co-developers early.
Frequent Integration
New code should be integrated as often as possible so as to avoid the overhead of fixing a large number of bugs at the end of the project life cycle. Some open source projects have nightly builds where integration is done automatically on a daily basis.

• Several Versions

There should be at least two versions of the software. There should be a buggier version with more features and a more stable version with fewer features. The buggy version (also called the development version) is for users who want the immediate use of the latest features, and are willing to accept the risk of using code that is not yet thoroughly tested. The users can then act as co-developers, reporting bugs and providing bug fixes. The stable version offers the users fewer bugs and fewer features.

• High Modularization

The general structure of the software should be modular allowing for parallel development.

• Dynamic decision making structure

There is a need for a decision making structure, whether formal or informal, that makes strategic decisions depending on changing user requirements and other factors (i.e. in extreme programming).

In Raymond's view, most well-known OSS products including Linux, Apache, and the GNU Compiler Collection align with the Bazaar model.
In the 'traditional' Cathedral model (advocated in Fredrick P. Brooks, Jr. in The Mythical Man-Month), development takes place in a centralized fashion. Clearly defined roles including experts dedicated to designing (the architects), established management styles, and 'craftsmen' (developers) responsible for implementation all contribute build a pre-established design according to a pre-agreed blueprint.

He goes further to say that in order to preserve the architectural integrity of a system, its design should be done by as few architects as possible.

Interestingly, the Bazaar model comes close (in manifestation, if not in philosophy) to what Brooks in the 1995 Anniversary edition of his text describes as "shrink-wrapped software." Brooks suggests:

For the developer in the shrink-wrapped industry, the economics are entirely different from those of the classical industry... the starkly different economies have given rise to starkly different programming cultures.

(p.284)

Rather than the traditional Cathedral model,

The shrink-wrapped industry... [is] freewheeling and fiercely focused on getting the job done rather than on process. in this climate, there has always been a much greater recognition of the talent of the individual programmer, an implicit awareness that great designs come from great designers [my italics]. The start-up culture has the capability of rewarding star performers in proportion to their contributions... [i]t is not surprising that many of the stars of the new generation have gravitated to the shrink-wrapped industry.

(p.284)

More tomorrow as I discuss towards the implications of these two models for the e-learning industry.

___________
References:

Brooks, R.P. (1995). The Mythical Man-Month Anniversary Edition London, Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Raymond, E. S. (2000). The Cathedral and the Bazaar Version 3, Revision 1.57 [Internet] Available from: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/
cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ [Accessed 22nd August 2009]

Robles, G. (2004) A Software Engineering approach to Libre Software, IN: Robert A. Gehring, Bernd Lutterbeck: Open Source Jahrbuch 2004, Berlin: Lehmanns Media. [Internet] Available from: http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/
jb2004/chapter_03/III-3-Robles.pdf [Accessed 21st April 2008]
--

The Irish Students’ Blogs Website

Here's an enterprising idea: a number of Irish second-level students have got together and set up their own blog aggregation service: Irish Student Blogs. Being a product of the Irish education system myself, I thought that I’d give them a plug.

According to their introduction, the blog is:

...a website dedicated to the Irish secondary school students' blogs! Here [they] hope to grow the largest collection of these blogs and bring you the latest from this corner of the blogosphere!

Second-level education is not an domain I investigate in any great detail on my blog, unless of course, I can relate the topic to technology in education, but these blogs are from learners "on the front line."As such, these students' insights, ideas, and reflections represent the actuality and the experiences of those who are involved in learning and education, but whose views are perhaps not as regarded as highly as they should be.

Irish Student Blogs Homepage
[Click to Enlarge]

Certainly in Ireland (and in most Western countries I suspect) there can be a sense that teaching is almost inflicted on students, with little regard to their learning needs - and by that I mean, the skills that will enable them to flourish as citizens of the 21st century world.

While some of the topics the Irish Student bloggers cover are not learning-related per se, I would assert that they are a channel into the thoughts, concerns and motivations of this group of learners, and maybe shine a light on approaches to providing these students with a relevant learning experience (in the context of the broader curriculum).

Check out their site by clicking here: Irish Student Blogs.

--

An Open Source Environment for E-Learning Content Development

As I'm in the process of updating my website’s Learning Content Management System (LCMS), I though it would be interesting to discuss open source environments, and how they can be implemented in an e-learning content development ecosystem.

Context

When I began developing my website and blog, I decided to use an open standards approach during the course of their initial development, as much for philosophical as for financial or any other reasons. Consequently, as I implement new features (such as my podcasts), and maintain and enhance site functionality, I adhere to the approach, principles and methodologies of the Open Source movement in as far as is practicable.

Now read on...

In as much as is possible, I try to develop content using non-proprietary tools, usually freely available under the GNU Licence. Examples of this type of software include:

• Audacity - an audio editor
• Freemind - a mind mapping tool
• OpenOffice.org - an office application suite for a range of operating systems including Windows and Linux
• NeoOffice - A port of OpenOffice.org to the MacOS X platform.
• Apache - a Web server.
• PHP – a scripting language.
• MySQL - database software.

The Gratis versus Libre Debate

It is important to define usage of the word “open” in the term “open environment:” in this context, I qualify the use of "open" as adhering to the openformats.org definition:

We will say that a file format is open if the mode of presentation of its data is transparent and/or its specification is publicly available. Open formats are ordinarily standards fixed by public authorities or international institutions whose aim is to establish norms for software interoperability. There are nevertheless cases of open formats promoted by software companies which choose to make the specification of the formats used by their products publicly available.

It should be noted that an open format can either be coded in a transparent way (readable in any text editor: this is the case of markup languages) or in a binary mode (unreadable in a text editor but thoroughly decodable once the format specifications are known) .

I should note that while most of the tools I will discuss in this series of articles are ‘true’ open source applications - freely distributable (“free as in speech”), some (like Microsoft Movie Maker) are free from cost - “in the sense that one does not have to pay for some good or service. ” (Wikipedia.org).

My view is that both categories of software enable me to meet my objective of developing courseware, and being of a practical bent, I don't really suffer an ethical dilemma in combining a range of tools if they assist me in achieving my goals. However, I think that it is important to discuss the implications of open software, particularly as the debate is central to the notion of specifications and standards, and how they are implemented. I haven't discussed learning standards yet in my blog, but it is a topic I will be talking about at a later time; I think that elements of this discussion reflect directly on SCORM, AICC, QTI and other learning-related specifications and standards.

What is "free" software?

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (Freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (Freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (Freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (Freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.

(GNU.org)

So, how can we reconcile using free-from-cost software (which usually comes with the kinds of restrictions associated with commercial organizations' End User License Agreements) with this manifesto?

More...
--

The Great E-Learning Debate is On(line)

On 30th September 2009, an invited audience of over 300 leading thinkers from HR, skills, training and education joined eight eminent speakers at the inaugural E-learning Debate at the Oxford Union.

The motion for the debate was:

"This house believes that the e-learning of today is essential for the important skills of tomorrow."

Eight speakers took to the floor:

Debating For The Motion:

• Prof. Diana Laurillard
• Maj Gen Tim Inshaw
• Andy McGovern, Reuters
• Kirstie Donnelly, learndirect

Arguing Against The Motion:

• Dr Marc Rosenberg
• Claire Little, SHL Group
• Wendy Cartwright, Olympic Development Authority
• David Wilson, Elearnity

Clive Shepherd summarizes the pro and contra speakers' arguments here. In my view, Clive’s post is essential reading for anyone professionally interested in training, technology in education, HR, and organizational development.

I like Clive's closing blog post remarks:

I agreed with every speaker, which was quite possible given the different ways in which the motion could be interpreted. I changed my mind eight times but ended up voting for the motion.

At the end, the motion was defeated: the participants voted 90 FOR and 144 AGAINST.

However, this is not the end of the debate, only the beginning. Whether you attended or not, there is still an opportunity to contribute. From 1st October 2009 the E-learning Debate continues online, and you can read a summary of the arguments, view the highlights on Flickr and YouTube, add your comments, and vote.

Click here to navigate to the Great E-Learning Debate website, and to add your contribution.

--