Information Technology: Learning Management System - Essay Example

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM goes here] [Your goes here] [Due the paper] As the use of technology in education has become more prevalent in higher education, the importance of Learning Management Systems (LMS) has also increased (Yueh & Hsu, 2008). The purpose of this research paper was to spell out the key areas of concern associated with Learning Management Systems (LMS). The paper distinguished LMS from other related technologies, described their significance in today’s environment with an emphasis on the higher education sector, and proposed a guide on the criteria that organizations can use to evaluate the best LMS for their needs. The researcher discussed the possible frameworks for introducing LMS for the first time at an institution or for migrating from one LMS system to another. This research paper also highlighted the way this technology can negatively affect pedagogy at institutions as instructors are forced to teach in certain ways. The researcher discussed this challenge in depth within the context of modern distance education programs that incorporate blended learning. The Significance of Learning Management Systems Today’s education system still largely resembles the industrial age despite of the society’s shift to the so-called Information Age. In the industrial age, education placed the onus for learning on teachers and kept students passive. All students were treated as being the same with all expected to grasp and do the same tasks in the same amount of time (W. Watson & S. Watson, 2007). In today’s world, education stakeholders are demanding a more learner-centered education system to support the customized pace of instruction. It is difficult to see how it will be possible to achieve these new customized learning processes for individual learners without technology playing a central role. For this reason, over the past decade, there has been increased use of computers in education (W. Watson & S. Watson, 2007). This increased use of computers in education has resulted in literature that has an array of non-standardized terms and acronyms. The three more popular technologies often cited in the literature are Course Management Systems (CMS), Learning Management Systems (LMS), and Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS) (Coates, James, & Baldwin, 2005; W. Watson & S. Watson, 2007). LMS and these related technologies have the potential to meet these needs of today’s learners. This research will be focused on the integrated computer systems known as Learning Management Systems (LMS). It is therefore important to understand LMS, its merits and demerits, the way to implement it in institutions of learning successfully, and areas that need further research and development. LMS is important to both academia and industry. In Academia, several drivers behind LMS adoption have been identified. First, institutions are looking for means to deliver large-scale resource based learning programs efficiently and cost-effectively. Secondly, student expectations for advanced technologies are increasing almost as quickly as the technologies are developing thus universities have to match these information resources and tools needs if they are to remain competitive in the academic marketplace. There is a cultural shift taking place in teaching and learning in higher education with LMS playing an integral part (Coates et al., 2005). Though this paper focuses on LMS in academia, it is also important to note that these technologies play a vital role in business and commerce. In industry, companies need to integrate, organize and standardize learning across their broad organizational requirements (Grace & Butler, 2005; Hall, 2002). This is especially important for multinational corporations that need to enforce consistent learning standards and skill training across their operations in different geographies and languages. Also not to be forgotten is the challenge for companies with overseas offices to ensure corporate accountability, business ethics and compliance with international, and regional and local statutes and ordinances. LMS offers companies the platform and technology to distribute, manage, and assess their educational programs across practices and geographies in an efficient, fast, and low-cost manner (Grace & Butler, 2005; Hall, 2002). This paper begins by describing LMS in order to distinguish it from other related technologies. Secondly, it outlines how institutions can go about evaluating LMS. Thirdly, the paper discusses the challenges and possible solutions to managing the change process when implementing and/or upgrading of LMS in an institution. The paper then briefly studies the potential impact of these online systems on teaching and learning. An emphasis is placed on modern distance education programs that rely heavily on blended learning technologies. The paper then concludes by identifying some areas for further research on specific aspects of Learning Management Systems. Identifying key sources of information In selecting our key sources of information on the current thinking and new developments in Learning Management Systems (LMS), we will first begin by identifying the major stakeholder groups – academic staff, technical, students, development and administration (Ryan, Toye, Charron, & Park, 2012; Sturgess & Nouwens, 2004). Our major sources of information will be the articles from academic journals and a few articles from industrial magazines. Journal articles, which are usually peer-reviewed, will also be included in the research. Industrial articles, which are written by practitioners, will also provide us with some confidence in writing. We will restrict our research to documents from the last ten years. Distinguishing LMS from related technologies According to W. Watson and S. Watson (2007), clarifying the use of a term enables proper differentiation from similar terms, which places researchers in a position to build their arguments properly. LMS is often misunderstood and the term misused. An inconsistent use of the term LMS in the literature would lead us to evaluate improperly the technology’s capabilities in advancing the application of computers to education. So, what is a LMS? A LMS is the framework that handles all aspects of the learning process (W. Watson & S. Watson, 2007). It enables the management, delivery and tracking of blended learning, that is online and traditional classroom. It is also supports integration with other departments, such as human resources, accounting and so on, so that administrative and supervisory tasks can be streamlined and automated while giving management the ability to track and quantify the overall cost and impact of education (Ellis, 2009; Hall, 2002). LMS is also often confused with Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS) and Course Management Systems (CMS). Blackboard is a good example of the confusion that exists regarding these terms as it is commonly referred to in the literature as LMS, whereas the manufacturer, Blackboard LLCs, refer to their product as a CMS for classroom and online educational assistance (Bradford, Porciello, Balkon, & Backus, 2007). In reality, a CMS can be seen as a part of LMS but not vice versa. A CMS provides a set of tools and a framework that allows relatively easy creation of online course content and the subsequent teaching and management of that course including various interactions with students taking the course. This differs with the LMS in that the scope of functionalities for a CMS does not encompass the entire organization and the course-focused nature of applications is not systemic (W. Watson & S. Watson, 2007). About Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS), the key distinction between LMS and LCMS is content. LMS is learner/organization focused implying that its major concern is the logistics of managing learners, learning activities and the competency mapping of an organization. LCMS, on the other hand, is concerned with the challenges of creating, delivering, managing and reusing content (Anderson, 2004; W. Watson & S. Watson, 2007). Evaluating Learning Management Systems (LMS) LMS can be categorized into two categories: Closed Source and Open Source. Closed Source LMS refers to commercial LMS, such as WebCT, where the manufacturer does not give access to the program’s source code for custom development in its licensing agreement. Nagar (2010) found that reviews of Closed Source LMS are not very favorable for the most part for two reasons. First, educators and developers are unable to customize the package themselves. Secondly, these out of the box solutions limit the pedagogies available for instructors to use. In addition, another study by Machado and Tao (2007) that compared students and faculty preference between an Open Source LMS and a Closed Source LMS found that students rated the ease of use of the Open Source LMS higher and 75% of them would prefer to use it over the Closed Source LMS. Currently, there are three licensing and pricing models for Closed Source LMS: (1) direct purchase model, where the software is purchased, installed, and managed in-house; (2) third-party maintenance model, where the software is bought and installed in the institutions own data platform, but the maintenance and upgrades are managed by the LMS vendor or another third party; and (3) Software as a Service (SaaS) model, where the software is paid for per use and accessed over the Internet. Here, the software is housed and managed remotely by the vendor of another third party (Ellis, 2009). On the other hand, Open Source LMS refers to those learning management systems that released under the GNU General Public License, which gives educators and developers access to the program’s source code for custom development. Even though Open Source solutions offers significant financial advantages compared to commercial products, the rate of the platform diffusion is low (Grob, Bensberg, & Dewanto, 2004). This is largely because the critical success factor for their adoption requires developers or educators with profound skills in software engineering who can manage the complexity involved in self-modifying of the Open Source LMS. Other attributes to look out for in a good LMS are scalability, usability, interoperability, high availability, stability and security (Ellis, 2009; Hall, 2002). Scalability refers to the LMS’s ability to expand to meet future growth. The expansion is in the size of the student body, as well as the volume of instruction. Usability refers to ease-of-use, ease of access, delivery and presentation of material and support of a host of automated and personalized services, such as role-specific and self-paced learning. Interoperability refers to the LMS offering support to the major learning standards, content from different sources and multiple vendors’ hardware/software solutions (Hall, 2002). High availability refers to the robustness of the LMS to serve the various needs of thousands of instructors, administrators, learners and content builders simultaneously. Stability refers to the LMS infrastructure being reliable 24x7 all year round. Lastly, security refers to the ability to selectively limit and control access to online content, resources and back-end functions, both internally and externally, for its diverse user community (Ellis, 2009; Hall, 2002). Change Management in implementing and/or upgrading LMS Introducing a learning management system in any institution raises a number of complex issues that involve institutional responses at different levels to the adoption and diffusion of technological change. Naturally, this calls for a broad theoretical ICT adoption and implementation framework. Benson and Palaskas (2006) argued that the RIPPLES (Resources, Infrastructure, People, Policies, Learning, Evaluation and Support) model was the best suited for this role especially where the LMS implementation was for a new system. Sallum (n.d.), on the other hand, advocated for the use of an adaptation of Rogers’ diffusion theory for a similar exercise. In the cases where an upgrade is involved, we found use of a participant action evaluation process by Sturgess and Nouwens (2004) to be the better alternative to the previous two. First time LMS implementation For a first time LMS implementation, Benson and Palaskas (2006) advocated for the use of the RIPPLES model because it comprehensively covers a broad range of factors. The factors that this model covers give rise to its acronym. RIPPLES model addresses: “The fiscal resources associated with innovation adoption; the institution’s infrastructure namely, the hardware, software, facilities and network capabilities in support of teaching resources, production resources, communication resources, student resources and administrative resources; the needs, hopes, values, skills and experiences of the people involved; institutional policies and procedures; the relationship between the technology and learning outcomes; evaluation and review (both summative and on-going), including the impact of the technology on learning goals; and the support systems and scaffolding required to ensure successful implementation” (Benson & Palaskas, 2006, pp. 549–550). Although the RIPPLES model appears to be comprehensive, we found Sallums (n.d.) adaptation of Rogers’ diffusion theory to be more direct and easier to use in a first time LMS implementation activity. Sallum (n.d.) focuses on putting in place an effective change management strategy. This strategy has six steps, which aim to maintain and manage change through the involvement, acceptance, and participation of the stakeholders who would benefit and be the most affected by it. The first step is to identify a champion for change. This person(s) would preferably be an individual(s) with the power or backing needed to promote the initiative at higher levels within the organization when need be in support of the LMS implementation effort. Second step involves realigning of the existing resources. Here, the organization needs to come up with a staff professional development plan. This enables the organization identify skills gaps in order to develop an effective training program that will prepare staff for the challenges arising from the change effort (Sallum, n.d.). Third step calls for promoting e-learning itself and not the new tools. This can be achieved by increasing the number of course offerings and traffic to the LMS. Fourth step involves setting standards and modeling innovation behavior. In step five, the persons leading the change effort seek lateral buy in from the organization’s leadership. The final step, involves collaborating with designers and subject matter experts to create Computer Based Learning modules that support good instructional design methodology (Sallum, n.d.). The thought here is that these modules would promote the desire among different stakeholders to acquire the necessary skills to produce effective training and use different technologies provided by the LMS. Upgrading a LMS For an organization seeking to change from one major enterprise LMS to another the key elements to take into account are on the one hand the interactions between humans, structures, tasks and technology subsystems within that organization. On the other hand, one must also take into account the goals of the organization and the contingencies of the environment in which the organization is operating (Sturgess & Nouwens, 2004). Use of a participant action evaluation process in such cases is both effective and quick to complete because the organization begins by identifying the major stakeholder groups to understand better the perspectives of each of their sub-cultures and the labor they each contribute towards their enterprise (Sturgess & Nouwens, 2004). The involvement of these critical interest groups in the evaluation and the decision-making process leads to general acceptance of the decision to change and to undertake the work associated with the change. Sturgess and Nouwens (2004) approach almost resembles Sallums (n.d.) in that it segregates the process of change in a phased manner. Sturgess and Nouwens (2004) stated that there has to be a three-way balance among the sub-cultural group interests as follows. First, there is an interest group to drive change, then seeking a bottom-up participant action and lastly seeking top-down support for change from senior management. The influence of LMS on teaching and learning LMS is not pedagogically neutral technologies, but rather, through their very design, they influence and guide teaching (Coates et al., 2005). As these systems become more incorporated into everyday academic practices, they will define and shape how academics learn to teach; more so for the academics with only a few years of teaching experience. It is for this reason that Nagar (2010) stated that organizations should not take the decision of which LMS to settle for use by their instructors lightly. Often many features and tools of LMS are left unused. According to Govindasamy (2002), this is a terrible waste of resources since these tools account for the total cost of implementing the LMS. What is clear here is that in order for any e-Learning implementation exercise to be successful, it has to be rooted in strong pedagogical foundations. Secondly, instructors should be provided with guidelines on how to design, develop, deliver, and manage pedagogically sound teaching or learning materials (Govindasamy, 2002). In addition to their widespread effects on the structure of university teaching, LMS also, obviously, have an effect on student learning and study habits. In order to identify some of these effects, Coates et al. (2005) called for analyzing of the general dynamics of students’ engagement with their institutions. LMS can influence students’ confidence with and motivation for learning, or their understanding of the significance of what they have learned via these systems. Unfortunately, research on the understanding of students’ use of or attitudes towards LMS is still very sparse. Two areas where the influence of LMS on teaching and learning can be best evaluated are distance education and blended learning. A basic definition of distance education is the form of learning that takes place when a teacher and student are separated by physical distance necessitating for use of technology to bridge the instructional gap (Willis, n.d.). On the other hand, blended learning refers to the ongoing convergence between the traditional face-to-face learning environment with distributed learning environments via use of distributed information and communication technologies (Graham, 2004). In the next sections, we will look at how LMS has influenced teaching and learning with reference to these two paradigms. LMS, distance education and blended learning The rapid technological change and shifting market conditions that supported the growth of Learning Management Systems (LMS) has also increased the challenge placed on academic institutions of higher learning to widen their target market through the provision of distance education. Education journals and newsletters have continued publishing articles praising advancement’s in educational technology and the prudence of offering distance learning. The proliferation of these messages have put competitive pressure for academic institutions to either “get with the program” or risk losing out to their more technologically and bottom-line oriented peers (Bower, 2001). However, as university administrators have embraced this drive towards distance learning, both researchers and university faculty have raised several questions (Bower, 2001; Coates et al., 2005; Nagar, 2010). According to Coates et al. (2005), more research needs to be conducted to understand their effect on student engagement and learning. Bower (2001) analyzed there effect on faculty and the reasons behind why they are not taking it up as enthusiastically as expected, and Nagar (2010) looked at their effect on pedagogy. Current distance learning uses tools that focus on communication and multimedia presentation technologies (Chang, 2003). Here one finds use of Web-based course materials, video conferencing, video-on-demand lectures, and so on. More precisely, Willis (n.d.) grouped the technological options that are currently used in distance education into four: voice (tapes, telephone, audio-conferences), video (film, video DVDs), print (texts books, workbooks, guides) and data (computer-assisted, computer-managed or computer-aided applications). On the other hand, Grahams (2004) definition of blended learning points at the ongoing convergence between the traditional face-to-face learning environment with distributed learning environments via use of distributed information and communication technologies as the core of blended learning. From these two observations, we can categorize modern distance education as a form of blended learning. We shall therefore discuss these two items using a single term coined specifically for this discussion; that is blended-distance education or blended-distance learning. There are five major players in the distance education enterprise, which include faculty, students, facilitators, support staff, and administrators. Our discussion shall focus only on the first two to keep in line with our aim to understand the effect of this enterprise on teaching and learning. Nevertheless, we are not belittling the role played by the other three actors in the distance learning activity. Drivers behind blended-distance learning According to Graham (2004), people opt for blended-distance learning for three reasons: increased access or flexibility, increased cost effectiveness and improved pedagogy. The first two reasons can be answered by applying the arguments we had raised earlier about why organizations adopt LMS. One of the core reasons for the establishment of distributed learning environments was to increase the accessibility of learning to for example those disadvantaged by limited time, distance or physical disability (Willis, n.d.). Blending in learning in distance education becomes especially important because as much as learners want the convenience offered by a distributed environment they also do not want to sacrifice the social interaction and human touch they are accustomed to within a face-to-face learning environment (Graham, 2004). Blended-distance learning enables learners to experience the best of both worlds. Cost-effectiveness, on the other hand, is realized largely through the scale economies that blended-distance learning systems permit. With these systems, an organization can reach a large, globally dispersed audience in a short period with consistent and semi-personal content delivery (Graham, 2004). In 2006, the American Council on Education estimated the costs associated with higher educational telecommunications to be US$ 7 billion dollars. In addition, one of the popular course management systems used for blended-distance learning, Blackboard, has subscription licenses that may go from US$ 200,000 to US$ 400,000 per year (Bradford et al., 2007). The ability of blended learning systems to improve pedagogy is still largely theoretical. We argue this way because the proponents of this argument use the capacity that blended learning tools avail to instructors about enhancing their courses with some level of technology. The question though is not whether blended learning provides the capacity; rather it is whether instructors have the expertise in using these tools to improve their pedagogy. This leads us to ask what issues or challenges are faced when blending? Graham (2004) identified six major issues that are relevant to designing blended learning systems, namely: (1) the role of live interaction, (2) the role of learner choice and self-regulation, (3) models for support and training, (4) finding balance between innovation and production, (5) cultural adaptation, and (6) dealing with the digital divide. Distance learning and faculty According to Bower (2001), university faculty are not opposed to participating in blended-distance learning, rather it is the manner in which the universities implemented the programs that fortified their resistance to change. According to her, faculty have specifically expressed concern over the lack of adequate institutional support, the drastic change in interpersonal relations, and their concern for the effect of distance learning on the quality of education given. The inadequacy of institutional support is manifested through a survey conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics that found that 40 percent of the institutions offering distance-learning courses asked their faculty to teach these courses without providing training opportunities (Bower, 2001). That survey did not address the depth or extent of the training that was provided. Bower (2001) argued that faculty are accustomed to being the experts and therefore where they may have misgivings over their competence because of lack of adequate training they would shy away from that activity. With regards to changes in interpersonal relations, Bower (2001) argued that most faculty are trained in ‘hand to hand’ teaching where they have learned to use contact or feedback to help them gauge the clarity of their communications. The technology interface of blended and distance learning often denies them of one of the most gratifying aspects of teaching, which is personal interaction. In as much as modern distance learning offers online chat sessions with cameras and voice, it is not quite the same as face-to-face. The occasional face-to-face sessions that some blended-distance learning courses incorporate can help mitigate this challenge. Lastly, faculty are also concerned over the quality aspect of blended-distance education. Here, Bowers (2001) argument is that blended-distance education technologies creat a major change in the way instruction needs to be delivered which calls for new skills for both the instructor and the student. Given that most faculty are currently over the age of 45 and that they have taught a number of years within the traditional classroom setting (Bower, 2001), it may take some time to bring them up to speed with the skills required to effectively teach in this new paradigm. We believe this point is better illustrated when studying the effects of distance education on student learning in the section that follows. Distance learning and students Coates et al. (2005) identified that most of the discussion about LMS occurred without consideration of their effects on students. The scarcity of research in this area prevents us from fully understanding the effects of blended systems on student study habits and learning. Bower (2001), however, does raise the issue by reminding us the importance of student’s learning from other students through group tasks and cooperative activities. Without these student-to-student interactions, the quality of education is lowered. Yes, the current LMSs (read blended learning systems) do provide tools that facilitate such student interactions for a distance education environment. However, can we confidently say that the quality of interaction is the same to a face-to-face one? According to Bower (2001), to create an equivalent experience in the distance education environment would require more planning on the part of the instructor and more effort on the part of the student. This leads us to another question. Are blended-distance learning students adequately prepared for the extra effort needed on their part? Conclusion From this paper, it is clear that LMS offer numerous advantages to both academia and industry. Much research on these systems has focused on what they are, how to evaluate which system to take up, and how to implement them within different organizations. Moreover, we learned that all the subsystems within an educational institution need to change in a coherent way if the institution is to make effective use of this new technology. The challenge here is to encourage academic staff to make both efficient and pedagogically effective use of these systems for teaching. Instructors have the tendency to revert to the pedagogy they normally use in face-to-face or distance education and this often negates the benefits gained by having a LMS. That said, as LMS becomes more established in teaching programs, one area that needs more research is their effects on students’ engagement with fundamental learning activities. Coates et al. (2005) outlined a few pertinent questions, such as, whether students use LMS to negotiate more nuanced forms of involvement with their university study or LMS encourages increasingly independent and perhaps isolated forms of study? Finally, with the growth in blended-distance learning, are academic institutions adequately preparing both faculty and students for the extra effort needed to retain the quality of education? The bottom line in this debate is not the advancements in technology; rather it is the way technology is being used to enhance teaching and learning. References Anderson, M. (2004). What’s Ahead for Learning Management Systems in Higher Education? Distance Learning, 1(4), 47. Benson, R., & Palaskas, T. (2006). Introducing a new learning management system: An institutional case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 548–567. Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2). Bradford, P., Porciello, M., Balkon, N., & Backus, D. (2007). The Blackboard Learning System: The Be All And End All in Educational Instruction? J. Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 301–314. Chang, F. C.-I. (2003). Quantitative Analysis of Distance Learning Courseware. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 20, 51–56. Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A Critical Examination of the Effects of Learning Management Systems on University Teaching and Learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 19–36. Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2009). Learning Circuit’s Field Guide to Learning Management Systems. American Society for Training & Development. Govindasamy, T. (2002). Successful implementation of e-Learning Pedagogical considerations. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 287–299. Grace, A., & Butler, T. (2005). Beyond Knowledge Management: Introducing Learning Management Systems. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 7(1), 53–70. Graham, C. R. (2004). Blended Learning Systems: Definition, Current Trends, and Future Directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing. Grob, H. L., Bensberg, F., & Dewanto, B. L. (2004). Developing, Deploying, Using and Evaluating an Open Source Learning Management System. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 12(2), 127–134. Hall, J. (2002). Assessing Learning Management Systems. Chief Learning Officer. Machado, M., & Tao, E. (2007). Blackboard vs. Moodle: Comparing User Experience of Learning Management Systems. Presented at the 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Milwaukee, WI. Nagar, S. (2010). Study of Learning Management Systems and its Effects on Distance Education. International Journal of Educational Administration, 2(2), 323–327. Ryan, T., Toye, M., Charron, K., & Park, G. (2012). Learning Management System Migration: An Analysis of Stakeholder Perspectives. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(1), 220–237. Sallum, S. A. (n.d.). Learning Management System Implementation: Building Strategic Change. Distance Learning, 5(1), 68–74. Sturgess, P., & Nouwens, F. (2004). Evaluation of Online Learning Management Systems. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 5(3). Watson, W., & Watson, S. (2007). An Argument for Clarity: What are Learning Management Systems, What are They Not, and What Should They Become? TechTrends, 51(2), 28–34. Willis, B. (n.d.). Distance Education − Strategies and Tools and Distance Education − A Practical Guide. Retrieved from http://www.giz.de/Themen/en/SID-58C46C42-5DF83159/dokumente/en-pedagogy-distance-education-guide.pdf Yueh, H., & Hsu, S. (2008). Designing a Learning Management System to Support Instruction. Communications of the ACM, 51(4), 59–63. Read More