Tag Archives: LMS selection

“LMS are not pedagogically neutral technologies, but rather, through their very design, they influence and guide teaching. As the systems become more incorporated into everyday academic practices, they will work to shape and even define teachers’ imaginations…”

— Coates, 2005, p. 27

I think one question Benoît needs to ask himself before deciding to go with Moodle or Blackboard Learn is how much influence on the  actual content of his course by the LMS is he willing to accept? As mentioned in the A Critical Examination of the Fffects of Learning Management Systems on University Teaching and Learning article by Coates, technology is not neutral and will inevitably have some influence on teaching and learning. In the 2005 article by Coates, he does mention that there has not been much research in that area. LMS’s provide structure to the learning content, and they lends themselves to institute wide standardization. Even if Benoît uses Moodle, which is less standardized in his case, this can both be a good thing or bad, depending on what is valued by the institute, his faculty instructors and himself.

If I was in Benoît’s position, I would consider the past, in order to make some decisions about how to move forward. His institute had previously used WebCT, and many of his colleague didn’t not feel the move to Blackboard Learn provided the functionality that WebCT did. It seems that using the LMS to deliver the actual content was not the issue, but rather the dependency on the LMS functionality.

I personally think Benoît should design his course for online, and not design it for a particular LMS. I think Benoit’s approach on storing the content on the FTP server is a good start and good way to centrally store the actual course content, regardless of his LMS selection.  As far as the LMS functionality, he should design the course to rely on LMS functionality as little as possible, so that he is able to “control” the content, and be able to adapt to LMS upgrades or migrations more easily in the future. For example, he could limit LMS use to assignment submissions only, and use tools like “the social web [which] has been offering myriad tools that support everyday communication, productivity and collaboration” (Porto, 2015) . Often those tools are more intuitive to use, are of better quality and functionality when compared to those previously found exclusively inside the LMS (Porto, 2015).

Use this approach will greatly reduce development time. Benoît will not need to learn the intricacies of either LMS. He would not have to write content to include for the discussions or testing areas in the LMS. This will save time in the future as far as edits to content, as the content is centralized on the FTP server, and not repeated or broken up into the different LMS areas.

A far as giving a total completion time, is is hard to predict given how little we know about Benoît’s current training materials. He already have his face-to-face materials prepared, but we don’t know what they are (PowerPoints, readings, lectures, etc) and nor do we know how he is grading the students. Whether he would like to include his lectures in video or animated graphics is not mentioned.  We don’t know if the text is used, and if that text book has a publisher’s companion site with interactive features already existing for student use. In fact, we know nothing about the students demographics, preferences, etc.  So as far as the design of the course content, and development, it is hard to accurately gauge.

Works Cited

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,(1), 19-36. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11233-004-3567-9

Porto, S. (2015). The uncertain future of Learning Management Systems. The Evolllution: Illuminating the Lifelong Learning Movement. Retrieved from http://www.evolllution.com/opinions/uncertain-future-learning-management-systems/