XplanaZine

History, as they say, tends to repeat itself. Take, for example the case of of the telephone technology wars that began more than a decade ago.

When the war began, it seemed like a case of David vs. Goliath. The stalwart phone companies represented tried and true ubiquitous technology. Yet, by 1996, the upstart Internet had gained enough momentum to inspire a Wired magazine article about the growing tension between the Netheads and the Bellheads. ”

The battle raged over whether to adopt ATM or to extend IP when it came voice and data. According to Sean Doran of SprintLink, the struggle was between a community “that is used to making plans based on extrapolating from the previous 40 years” and one that is “trying to do the equivalent of modifying a 747 while it’s in the air.” It is “the detail-oriented telecom guys versus the computer yahoos.” It’s “hardware versus software.”

In the end, the conflict wasn’t quite as simple as Doran stated, but the Netheads were the biggest winner. Sending packets is more flexible than throwing switches and as communication demands have grown, the most efficient solution is also the most attractive.

Most recently, Verizon decided to scrap its old ATM network technology in favor of Internet-style packet switching. In a Technology Review article, members of the Verizon team talk about the changeover. They admit that as recently as three years ago most engineers at traditional phone companies still sneered at packet switching. “Saying that Internet Protocol was going to be the most important protocol — well, that would be a career-limiting move,” said Stuart Elby, Verizon vice-president. Now, no one is looking down their nose at IP.

The similarities between the ATM vs. IP battle and current conflict between first-generation LMS platforms and next generation tools such as blogs and wikis are not lost on me.

In the past two weeks, there have been a number of eloquent statements made about the limitations of current educational technology. Stephen Downes gave a series of informative presentations in Australia, George Siemens wrote a nice article on the limitations of LMS platforms, and Geoffrey Parkin provided a clear summary of the problems with current LMS technology and design.

Still, to the untrained eye, these might appear as the rants of of a few disenchanted users. After all, the current LMS platforms are ubiquitous and seemingly popular. Added to that, we all know how resistant to technology change most teachers and institutions tend to be. To suggest that the current technologies will not last almost seems absurd.

And yet, as with the eventual victory of packet switching over dedicated circuits for voice and data traffic, the handwriting is on the wall. We may have to wait five or ten years, but the next generation of teaching and learning tools will look different and foster different teaching styles and results.