Are LMSs helping to improve education or are the current offerings so inflexible that it actually hinders teaching? What are people doing with LMSs that they can't do in an in-person classroom?
Do Learning Management Systems (LMSs) help or hinder?
September 29th, 2007 Keith Bourne
- Login or register to post comments
- 1515 reads
- by Keith Bourne
- 1 point
Affordances
A LMS is neither good nor bad. It is simply a tool; a tool with certain affordances.
The key is matching needs with affordances. Organization and management of content is often a need. LMSs are good at that. They are good at allowing instructors to organize and manage their content, and then delivering the content to the students.
This is fine, but in my mind LMSs today are mirrors of the typical classroom, where information delivery is the sole mode of instruction. I would love to see an LMS that is designed around some best practices for teaching and learning (Chickering and Gamson?); an LMS designed to encourage student-instructor and student-student interaction and active learning. Wouldn't that be something?
It's not that you can't make today's LMSs do these things. You can. But you can also pound in a nail with a screwdriver.
My $.02.
A Bit Harsh on LMSs Globally IMO...
...since LMSs vary widely in their ability to do these things. For instance, a couple of years ago I viewed a vendor demo for an LMS product which was truly content-oriented and which would have required considerable contortions to enable interpersonal interaction or support active learning. By contrast, many other LMSs are easily adapted to encourage contact between students and faculty, or to develop reciprocity and cooperation among students. LMS assessed are easily configurable for prompt feedback and by their very nature are better suited for emphasizing time on task relative to classroom seat time. IMO online education has helped advance the use of active learning strategies such as problem-based or project-based learning. Communicating high expectations and respecting diverse talents and ways of learning are LMS-independent IMO.
One indicator of how effectively LMSs can support the seven principles is the Quality Matters rubric which incorporates several of the Chickering and Gamson principles. The QM rubric is routinely used to review LMS-based courses which meet expectations.
I agree that it would be an interesting exercise to build an LMS using Chickering and Gamson as a starting point, but I don't think that the result would all that foreign relative to current LMSs. Current LMSs are still like older adolescents -- a mix of great capabilities, potential, and maddening flaws and habits -- they still have a lot of room for improvement, but many of them are a far cry better than.
The source of the problem more often IMO is getting faculty who want to change how they teach and enable learning.
A Bit Harsh on Older Adolescents :)
:) Just kidding.
Thanks for your reply! I love a good discussion. You are correct that I was a bit harsh on LMSs by making overly general statements. Guilty as charged!
I would extend your argument that "Communicating high expectations and respecting diverse talents and ways of learning are LMS-independent" to "All of the good practices are LMS-independent."
But, again, the question is: What's the right tool for the job? (Warning: Here comes another overly general statement.) The core structure of a LMS is designed to allow instructors to control, manage, and deliver content. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But where is content control, management, and delivery in the seven principles? I'm just saying that it would be cool if the design of a LMS (maybe it should be renamed) started with some learning principles in mind, instead of being learning-principle agnostic as LMSs currently are (I know this is arguable also, e.g. Moodle claims to be designed with constructivism in mind).
I'm more thinking outloud here than making a point. I have no idea what this kind of LMS might look like. My $.02.
Getting Learning Principle Religion
It's an interesting question -- what would an LMS which was learning-principle-specific look like? I wonder whether it would look all that different from some current LMSs in one sense, since many LMS are capable of supporting C&G-based learning to a large extent already. So one related question is whether or not you're talking about a system which does not include learning management or content management capabilities (in which case it would certainly need a different name).
I'm tempted to say that such a design wouldn't be integrated at all, but instead a conglomeration of tools like we did in the early days of online learning with FirstClass, Allaire Forums, et al. But that's probably just me being lazy instead of imaginative ;-).
Moodle is an interesting example. It says it's designed with constructivism in mind, but in my experience I don't quite know what to make of that. Most of its tools don't resonate with me, and I've never even bothered to learn how to use them. On the other hand, I've facilitated online workshops using Moodle which were arguably very constructivist -- but which basically used very simple features (discussion forum, content posting) which are available in any decent LMS now.
That's one reason why I said previously that the problem may be more with faculty practice than with the LMS toolkits themselves. The capabilities are there, but many faculty don't know or aren't interested in learning how to use them. Which IMO also helps explain why there is not (yet) a learning principle-specific LMS: the market hasn't differentiated that much yet, and a market for such a system hasn't yet become obvious. LMS's currently need to be learning principle-agnostic because they need to appeal to a broader audience.
lms and education
tom
tom abeles, editor
On the Horizon
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/oth.htm
http://www.p2gray.com/
Hi John/all
We are in the process of structuring a virtual P->16/20 school starting at the 11/12-13/14 interface. The question regarding the LMS is central and there are many options from which to choose beyond what is prevalent in the university arena such as Blackboard.
There are a number of interesting trends using what is beginning to be called "cloud computing" or what in the past might have been implied in the use of "thin clients". This becomes very important as we move from desk tops to cell phones in education and in daily life.
I would point out that universities are now looking to Google and Hotmail to provide email addresses with students and faculty keeping their dot edu addresses aliased to a google account. And I would also point out that Google's suite of applications comes close to providing the "cloud" as have others such as Zoho.
Like you, many of us have experience in picking and choosing applications that were not integrated. One of the early packages, Caucus, had most of the features but lacked the central core. And, it is that core that is currently missing.
The core which has a grip on universities is the interface that works with the administration's systems such as class registration, record keeping and similar overheads that make it possible for the university bureaucracy to function (and to meet faculty payroll) It is this center that is missing from the web delivered cloud.
In other words, a lot of what could be delivered to support the pedagogy is held hostage by the very needs of the overhead which should be transparent and supportive of the educational mission.
tom
ps I agree with you that there are so many bells and whistles on these systems that one is hard pressed to know just what to press. But then there was just an article in the local paper about the difference in accessing a TV program from the day when one just turned a nob off/on and a channel to today where we have a hand held device which makes one think they are one step short of sitting in a fly-by-wire cockpit. I wonder if my Rumba does TV as well as floors.
tpa
Online Education and Learning Management Systems from Service-Ce
Online education and training, e-learning, learning management systems, service-centered view, software as a service.
In this paper we explore how Learning Management Systems (LMS) can be offered and used as a service. We use the Software as a Service (SaaS) framework as we study how the service-centered view can be applied in the context of e-learning and offering LMSs as online services. The phenomenon is approached from two different stakeholders’viewpoints: the LMS developer’s and universities'. This paper reports a case study of a LMS called Optima and how it is used as a SaaS service by two major universities in Finland. Empirical data was collected via interviews, and the data was analysed from both the LMS provider’s and the universities’ perspectives. On the basis of our findings, we conclude that the SaaS model can help the different stakeholders to more efficiently take advantage of the online LMSs' benefits provided that the LMS developer and the universities adopt a more service-centered view on offering e-learning. In addition, there are still many obstacles that hinder the optimal use of LMS, such as insufficient user interface design, learning content creation and packaging using the LMS, i.e. in the overall process of providing an online teaching and learning environment.
_______________________
Submited by : Caballos
philosophy of LMS
I've managed LMS's (WebCT, Blackboard, Moodle) for about 7 years. I taught online before that with webpages and shareware, which had all the flexibility I needed. The great advantage of LMS's was not that it gave faculty a template for course design (that still takes a conceptual leap for many), but that it was easier for faculty to use than learning HTML and so brought more faculty into using the technology. I enjoyed watching faculty realize that they could create things online, find administrative convenience for their course(as in the grading and online quizzes), and create classroom community in forums. LMS's may seem out of date now to those in the technological forefront, but they had a pivotal role 6-7 years ago. And even now, many faculty are just getting used to them. So I see them as a necessary step in faculty development.
Also, I'm curious about how your campus views a learning management system. We
have two opposing views here at OU, which makes it difficult to manage. The
faculty view is that Moodle, our LMS, is basically a classroom space and
should have all the intellectual freedom inherent in that idea. The
administrative view is that Moodle is an extension of the student
information system, Banner, in our case, and so should be as tightly handled
for legal and state auditing purposes.
You can see the conflict. I'm asked by faculty to put a student into a
course (who isn't registered for it) just as they would have the freedom to
invite anyone into their traditional classroom. Administrators, though,
expect the Moodle to exactly duplicate Banner for tuition auditing purposes,
so I'm then supposed to call the Registrar about the request. Soon we're in
a mini-blowup.
I've handled these two opposing metaphors for Moodle with the policy
document
at:http://www2.oakland.edu/webct/traindocs/policies/moodlepolicy.html It may
be poor policy, because the Rationale and Section I each put one of those
positions forward, so the document contradicts itself. I've been both
faculty and administrator so see both sides.
Has anyone else come across this issue in managing their LMS? How did you
resolve it?
Learning Management Systems
I have observed the growing use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) as structured and rigid templates for online courses. What is concerning me the most, though, is the use of LMS to enable course development with very little design effort. Faculty and other course developers use basic instructor's support content provided by the textbook publishers in a CD. This content is transfered to the "course shells", creating "canned" textbook-based courses, with the development of instructional content and assessment being replaced by the adoption of a textbook to be read and a publisher provided database of multiple choice questions to be used in an also publisher provided program to create the quizzes and even to easily upload them to the LMS.
Is this a new trend? How is it affecting best practices in teaching and learning online? Are course learning outcomes being adapted to textbook content to meet due dates and course design and development skills?
Your thoughts?
Greetings!
I Never Met an LMS I Liked
I think phillimj has a great point. The LMS is simply the classroom. To expect an LMS to do more than simply be a virtual place where we "read" (interact with content), "talk" (a/synchronously), and "keep track" (take tests and keep our gradebook) is giving the LMS way too much power. Having built, taught in, or managed a half dozen LMS's over the last 11 years, I can't say I really like any of them.
Should online faculty use the LMS templates or publishers' canned eCourses? Nope. But neither should a classroom faculty member use publishers' canned multiple-guess quizzes and PowerPoint lectures. Judy has it exactly right--we have to rethink what we do when we move a course online. When radio first moved to television, TV shows were merely radio broadcasts with motion pictures. It took a while for TV to figure out what it did best. It's going to take us some time as well.
Pat's and Janine's suggestion to consider PLE's seems a step in the right direction when we look for systems to help us help our students learn online (current LMS's are geared to giving us the infrastructure, not the learning environment). Google has a nice suite--I wish they'd add a gradebook with a secure testing system that I could feed from my SIS--and the folks in the UK and Europe (especially at JISC/CETIS and the Open University in The Netherlands) seem advanced in this area (some use Moodle for the management side and Drupal for the learning side--which I guess gives us Droodle).
Here are a few characteristics that seem to distinguish online courses:
What are some other factors?
RE: LMS
Some very good points, however, I think we need to look beyond what is happening to why it is happening. (Here is where I get it to some metaphorical arm waving of windmill proportions.) If we look at the Allen and Seaman reports of the last few years we realize that online learning is growing at a rapid rate. However, we need to stop and consider how the demand is being met. I suspect that probably 3 or 4 years ago we passed the point where the vast majority of the early adopters and those with even a passing interest in online learning, that hold full-time positions, reached full capacity in terms of teaching load. At that point administrators were faced with a dilemma: either, 1. Stop growing their online programs since forcing unwilling tenured faculty to teaching online is a non-starter, or 2. Begin recruiting new faculty to teach online courses.
In pursuing this second option many administrators turned to what they viewed as the most cost effective solution – hiring adjuncts. Aside the moral issues associated with creating a permanent underclass of adjunct instructors (which amounts to little more than indentured servitude), there is the problem of quality control. While a few institutions certainly have top-notch training and retention programs for adjuncts, they are in the minority. Simply put, as long as administrators can pay $100 – 200 per student to an adjunct and reap a 4x – 8x return on investment, many see no need to invest in any significant training of these individuals. For the adjuncts there is likewise no incentive to be more pro-active in course design, development or improvement. Thus the easiest solution from all perspectives is to utilize canned content from the textbook publishers and insert a warm body into the instructor slot.
As the overwhelming majority of these canned content packages are reliant upon highly objective assessment criteria, the whole concept of facilitation of discourse and the concurrent development of cognitive presence is essentially nullified. Thus we have a race to the lowest common denominator of pedagogical quality being fueled by an administrative decision making process that is based almost entirely on ROI. That said, it is imperative that I emphasize this portrait is based on generalities and in NO way do I intend it to reflect on the many fine administrators out there who insist on development of quality content and pedagogical practices, even if they do take a little bit more away from the bottom line. Sadly though, I believe they are in the minority.
Now, where does this assembly line approach to online learning lead? Will we reach a point where we celebrate mediocrity?
Will this situation sort itself out over time? I suspect it will. We are nearing a point where access is no longer a significant barrier. As such students will start demanding higher quality courses or they will take their tuition dollars elsewhere – at least the ones who are truly interested in learning and not just credit hours to add to their transcripts. When this flight to quality becomes pronounced enough, those responsible for program administration and development will feel the impact where it matters to them most – in the bottom line. At that point, perhaps we will see an end to the widespread use of canned content. In the interim though I suspect those who sincerely care about quality will spend quite some time looking on in disgust at the proliferation of assembly line course development.
Adjuncts and Fulltime faculty
I've helped adjunct and full-time faculty (about 50/50) put on online courses for the past 8 years and taught myself for 30 years and have to say that you simply can't generalize about them. I've seem full-time and part-time faculty who are shameless in the lack of planning they do for an online course, using little interaction and e-packs and I've seen full-time and part-time who spend an incredible amount of time through love of teaching and technology on great online courses. I've seen exactly the same thing in teaching face to face courses. I'm certain that the cost-cutting is harmful to all educational parties as is the 2-class teaching system, that could stand significant restructuring, but a large part of the responsibility rests on the individual instructor.
Use of publishers' course packs
In the recent ETUDES Project (Sakai-based CMS developer) and McGraw-Hill partnership press release, it states: "Adoptions of McGraw-Hill Higher Education's online courses developed through this alliance will fund additional research and development within the ETUDES Consortium community."
On the surface, use of publishers' course packs may seem to be an benign way to support open-source CMS software development and online course development. In reality, the practice of giving faculty CMS coursepacks on the condition of textbook adoption only serves to increase the price of the textbook, even for instructors who do not intend to use the coursepack or only small parts of it.
Furthermore, the indiscriminant use of textbook publishers' coursepacks and test pools by faculty has many other unintended consequences that should be considered. In the short term, the use of these resources is relatively convenient for the faculty. However in the longterm, the practice has the following drawbacks:
Promotes homogeneity of content for courses when all are developed from same prepackaged course materials which makes the content lack localization and unique relevance for students
Hopefully, as the Open Educational Resources (OER) movement becomes more mature, user-friendly, familiar, and convenient, the perceived need for publishers' coursepacks and testbanks will lessen. However, in the meantime, I believe that it is in everyone's best interests to be fully aware of the caveats.
I created a slideshow about this topic a few years ago for a conference presentation that you may want to view: http://www.slideshare.net/bakerjudy/collaborative-open-online-learning/
When the time comes, Foothill Global Access plans to provide training for faculty who want to use coursepacks and testbanks. In that training, all these issues will be discussed.
Dr. Judy Baker
Dean of Foothill Global Access
Foothill College
Los Altos Hills, CA
It depends...
Whether or not LMSs are improving education is a matter of perception, isn't it? It's too general a question to provide a simple answer to. Blackboard, Moodle, WebCT, Angel... I can't imagine any of them were developed with any other intention than to improve (or at least enhance) the education experience for those involved. While some are, in my opinion, more inflexible than others with regard to design freedom, usability, visual fluency, student/content management, etc., the quality of the teaching (the educational component) falls on the instructor. The instructor provides course content, assessments tools, and venues for interaction to engage the students in course content, with one-another, and with the instructor. As an instructor, this is what I am supposed to do, no? I do this in my onsite courses, and I do the same for my online courses. The LMS/CMS is simply the classroom to me... the course is what I make it, regardless of how well the room is or isn't equipped.
The hindrances I've seen for colleagues relates to their understanding how to use the tools to their advantage, the support systems in place (whether personnel to offer assistance or virtual tutorials), and even how to use the tools correctly or effectively. If no one shows me how to use the tools, limitations aside, I may not figure out the most effective way to use it. This cuts both ways- I have a frustrating and perhaps bad experience, and this is usually contagious- affecting the students, too.
Anyway, here is an example of how the LMS allows me to do something more effectively online than in the classroom: Engaging/involving the students in topical discussions and/or debates. I teach Anthropology courses, and often try to have open discussions in the classroom on various topics. The limiting factor is time, of course, and the fact that you simply can't get the whole class involved. Little Jimmy, the quiet kid in the rear corner of the lecture hall- when I call on him I get "uh... um... well... I dunno" if I get any response at all. Some don't have an answer, or don't want to answer.
Now in the online discussion forums, little Jimmy can be very vocal indeed! I require (and grade) participation in all discussions I post for my students. I'm also active in those discussions, just like in class... but rather than conversing with 4 or 6 (out of 40 students), I am maintaining a discussion with the entire class (for the most part). Students have time to read the question (and other posts), investigate, compose a response, reflect on it, and then submit it, all with a sense of anonymity and no on-the-spot response demand.
Over the last ten years this has proven to be one of the most rewarding aspects of online education for me (at least when comparing the onsite verses online versions). I feel I am reaching more of the class as they are actively participating. Onsite, it's easy to be passive.
That's but one example. There are many others. Anyone else have any opinions, experiences (good or bad), or innovative applications of LMSs to share?
Manage? Instruct? Learn?
I concur will everyone's comments and add the question about what the system, by virtue of it's 'management' function, is still an attempt to control and direct the learner, as in a traditional classroom. I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is limiting if the learner (or instructor) wants to 'push in' other tools or resources, or if the learner (or instructor) wants to 'pull out' information or features of the course. For example, as a faculty member, I see my student's contribution to the course as future 'objects' that *can* become part of future offerings of the course but most systems make it difficult if not impossible to harvest lines of reason or re-format student productions (say in whiteboards or chats) so that they can be re-used. Students often want to take things 'out' of the system, but their actions are also restricted about what they can control and manipulate. I do as little as possible with the system specific functions and use as many self-generated objects as I can, so I can retain, revise, and reuse in different ways in different environments. I see this as being the future of systems, less proprietary and more open.
Personally, I am a proponent of the personal learning environment (http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/ple) but this triggers many more challenges. I am interested to follow the adoption of Google Apps by higher education as we remove systems out of university control. The issues around policy and intellectual property rights are many when the institution doesn't 'own' the environment. I wonder if others see this as being an issue as we shift where we teach and learning?
ple's/vle's and the net
The post of Pat and Bethany are critical and interesting since we now have to consider the pedagogical and the administrative. For this moment, since we are talking e-learning, we can consider Virtual Learning Environments congruent with Personal Learning Environments. This leads us to several issues:
1) We must assume that students are enrolled in an institution in order to be recognized for their accomplishments through such methods as credit for courses and diplomas. This means that we have to deal with the entire administrative package where there is the proclivity to try to make these as straight forward and comprehensive.
For many, this means tying the educational experience into some form of administrative system- registration, tuition, class attendance, grades and transcripts. What everyone wants is to push as few buttons to automatically accomplish these tasks.
As soon as we go "ala carte", until we have Kurzweil's intelligent "bots" we introduce manual movement for data entry and retrieval. This means that cMs, lMs, etc are dominated by "M"
2) The ultimate PLE or VLE becomes congruent with the Internet where each student creates their own networks outside of the educational institution. We are back to a virtual "oxbridge" universe because these links are not contained "on-campus" or in a virtual or physical space linked to the institution.
This would seem to change the nature of the institution, except for its principle function which is certification.
tom
tom abeles, editor
On the Horizon
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/oth.htm
no fan of CMS/LMS/LCMS
:)
I'm also not a fan of management systems, primarily because their closed nature seems to constrain the types of interaction and community that I'm trying to foster. And, like you said - it also makes it a bit difficult to turn student work into learning objects for future groups).
My colleague and I (we've been co-teaching in online environments since 2002) have recently been experimenting with PLEs in the context of a cohort-based 1 year program. We're in our second year of experimenting and have learned quite a bit with the help of our students. I'd be more than willing to share that with you, Patricia, if you like.