In reading Module 2 I’m reminded once again of a tendency (on my part, at least) to think of LMSes as the sole platform option in online course delivery. But of course, LMSes (even Moodle) demand considerable resources, and this must be weighed against “reasonable” alternatives. Could a wiki, for example, be considered an LMS-on-the-cheap? Wikis lack discussion-thread software, although this might be simulated, in a crude way, by assigning a group of pages for this purpose, with a page devoted to each topic/thread.
We want our LMSes (or equivalents) to be containers, which implies our courses should be thus self-contained, yet this is often a fallacy. In practice, instructors usually expect students to venture beyond these containers — for readings, research, etc.
Example: for this module we’re expected to read an article by Perkins & Pfaffman, yet I could find no link within the Vista course (a link to Panettieri was there, however). After looking through Ebsco, Eric and Google, I eventually found a rough html facsimile of the Perkins & Pfaffman article (probably unauthorized) via Google Scholar. This was presumably an unintended detour outside the Vista course envelope, but nonetheless, the course was not self-contained. [NOTE: I take part of that back — the Panettieri article wasn‘t there! The link was dead, having been last checked or updated last spring. This goes back to my first post about editing and proofing of online course material.]
Where am I going with this? Perhaps my point is that the notion of a self-contained course is a myth, and what’s really needed is good navigation. Yes, navigation — a buzzword in the 1990s that now sounds a bit quaint, and yet I’ve yet to encounter an LMS-based course with what I would consider really intuitive navigation, which I find a shame — learners shouldn’t have to struggle at all with navigation, or what’s the point of an LMS?