Webfuse is dead! Long live Webfuse!
Since about 1996 much of my research and development around e-learning has found "concrete" form in a system call Webfuse. First described in Jones and Buchanan (1996) Webfuse became an essential part of CQU's operations. The unkindest (and basically wrong) description of Webfuse is that it was a proprietary, single institution learning management system.
Based on the definition, Webfuse is dead.
CQU is adopting Moodle as its LMS and folk are actively seeking to remove all the other Webfuse services that people use.
Why it worked#
What most folk don't get is that the important part of Webfuse was never the system. It was the process. It was having a small group of people employed to help the academics. It also helped that the group had, at least for a time, little or no direction from senior management who though they knew what to do. This allowed the group helping academics to respond to the academics context, to bring in changes and systems that made life easier for the academics.
This was possible because the group understood the technology and were able to put in place lots of rapid, but small, changes to the product in response to the needs of the staff (and students). This meant that academics could see the technology changing to make their life easier and allowing them to do new things.
This rapid change was only possible because there were no barriers between the developers - the people who could change the technology - and the staff and students - the people using the technology. The developers saw first hand in conversations and in the tea room what the academics were going through. They had deep knowledge of the context.
The developers had a much greater commonality of meaning with the academics than traditionally possible.
Just one simple example of the benefits this bring can be found in the Webfuse online assignment submission system (Jones and Behrens, 2003). The features of this system fit the local contextual needs and offer a different set of features than in any other LMS-based online assignment submission system. It's not a copy, it's different and it's better. For example, CQU"s IT folk are currently modifying the Moodle assignment submission system to provide the same features.
Webfuse and its developers were not limited to course sites. Webfuse also contains an array of management/adminstrative type features that made life easier. They could make connections between different aspects.
Why it's still needed#
The traditional approach to e-learning within universities does the exact opposite of what was most important about Webfuse. Some of the differences include:
- There are significant barriers preventing direct communication between a developer and a user leading to a huge difference in meaning, not commonality.
A user never speaks directly to a developer. Most organisations don't have a developer, if they do any communication must go through a few committees and layers within the IT division. -
People helping academics can't change the system.
As a result of the first, when an academic has a problem the system can't be changed. At best the person helping the academic can show them the roundabout, inefficient kludge that is possible operating within the confines of the system.Think about what this does to the relationship between the academics and the people helping them. It makes it very hard to seem helpful and build up a relationship of trust.
-
It destroys innovation.
Since the institution can't change the system in response to contextual needs, they can't innovate. They are stuck following along behind everyone else. They can't innovate until someone else has developed, tested and proven that the tool works. -
The focus on course delivery creates disparate systems.
Moodle is only being used to deliver courses. The course sites generally only exist for the term. Other administrative tasks like creating course profiles/outlines, curriculum mapping etc. are seen as separate tasks looked after by separate parts of the IT organisation.This contributes to the problem you see at most universities. The LMS used for a small part and then a plethora of other systems for administrative tasks which have to be - and usually aren't - integrated with the LMS.
-
Top-down, disconnects as the basis of policy.
In the absence of bottom up drive any and all change within the institution gets driven from outside (responding to government) and from the top down. From people and places that don't know the complexities and details of the context of academics. Hence their plans are flawed, they are based on too little knowledge.
Long live Webfuse#
There is still a need for people who work very closely with the academics, can appreciate their context, can establish a commonality of meaning about what their experiencing and have the knowledge and capability to modify the technology within the system to improve that context, to innovate and try new things. At least if an institution truly wants to improve the quality of its learning and teaching.
Long live Webfuse!
References#
David Jones, Sandy Behrens, “Online Assignment Management: An Evolutionary Tale,” Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 156c, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’03) – Track 5, 2003.
David Jones, Renay Buchanan, The Design of an Integrated Online Learning Environment, Making New Connections, Proceedings of ASCILITE’96 Adelaide, Allan Christie, Patrick James, Beverley Vaughan, pp 331-345