So where does this leave us? The Open Network Learning Mooc has a focus on using open platforms and Open Education Resources; except for the Adobe Connect Pro software being used for webinars. This model of openness signifies a significant move forward in making education accessible and flexible for all participants. However there is still a long way to go before the huge amounts of knowledge and information locked down in courses and databases is made more available. In Primary schools, with the majority of students under 13, an LMS seems logical because of privacy issues. However for older students, university students in particular, and all of the life-long learners out there who can’t access/afford/etc formal learning, open learning makes far more sense. A brilliant debate, carried out over a series of blog posts is a must read for anyone interested in this area. It begins with a polemic by Leigh Blackall, stating there is no need for any type of learning environment at all…and is responded to by Dave Cormier who points out some salient arguments for the PLE. Harold Jarache and Miguel Guhlin join in the debate (see the comments) with responses of their own (sadly the links to these are now dead :-(). These great minds were debating over 5 years ago a topic that is still developing today.

Mott compiled two excellent tables, comparing the strengths and weaknesses of PLEs and LMSs to support his argument for the OLN, a ‘mashup’ of the two:

An LMS is exactly that – a Learning Management System. It is a platform created by a vendor which seeks to provide tools to manage learning. In my recent (and I will admit limited) experience, these systems  incorporate interactive tools (such as wikis, forums and sychronous chat/webinar facilities) yet in the main they are used to provide access to content (which for copyright or intellectual property (IP) reasons must remain secured), for managing groups and securely distributing grades. While LMS vendors seek to create an environment that provides an all-encompassing PLE, the fact that they are closed networks and that they are platforms built to meet the needs of entire institutions means that they usually are not personalised enough to meet the needs of a connected learner, who is (most often) already used to the flexibility and ownership web 2.0 tools provide. In my personal experience I have noted a real tension between the expectations of the institution to use the LMS, and the desire of teachers and students to build their own PLE, to access a range of different, open tools which more closely meet their needs.