week 3. open-concept loft vs. regal, sprawling academic institution.
Learning Management Systems: Affordances and Limitations
In their examination of the effects of LMS on university’s teaching and learning practices Coates, James & Baldwin (2005) argue that technologies are not pedagogically neutral, but through their very design, they influence and design teaching.
- Have you been experiencing some of the pedagogically restricting effects of LMS in your own practice?
I have used three different LMS’ in my time as an educator: Blackboard Connect, d2L (Brightspace), and more recently Google Classroom (not exactly an LMS yet). The first two, in my opinion, are designed so that the average teacher have access to ready-made learning repositories and course modules. In terms of design, the UI’s are not very modern, and the capacity of the average teacher to truly personalize the learning experience is somewhat lacking. Also, there is also the possibility that these LMS developers wanting to provide teachers with every possible tool out there could be daunting and perhaps unnecessary. How many teachers will use half of the learning tools offered? I’ve spoken to teachers and students, and both have said that these LMS were “confusing” and “difficult to navigate” – too much going on. Classroom’s UI is different, in that it is limited and simpler. While “limited” can be a negative (it doesn’t have a grading application…yet), “simpler” can be a positive. Classroom provides that “hook” that teachers require to get themselves on board – the fact that its UI is simple, clean and manageable by the average teacher, and not by a third-party entity (whether that is an e-learning contact employed by the Board, an IT department or otherwise). In sum, if an LMS’ design/UI is cluttered, reeks of the mid-90’s and/or over-engineered, teachers will not buy in and continue to do things the way they’ve always been done. If you present them with a tool that is both functional and aesthetically pleasing (and not daunting to navigate), they will more likely embrace, or at least try! If you can’t get the audience to buy in, the LMS and the amazing things it has to offer is a moot point. And this openness to try is that foot in the door you need to make change.
- Give examples of the restrictive and the choice-widening LMS features, which affect the learners’ experiences?
I believe this question was partially answered in my earlier response. If the LMS is over-engineered and the teacher finds it difficult to even begin, and therefore no traction is made (no matter how noble the intentions were – to provide teachers with every tool necessary to ensure a student’s learning experience is heightened, or to provide teachers with choice), then this will obviously affect the learners’ experiences in that they won’t get to experience the LMS in question. So, choice-widening may not be the best, and I love and value choice. But, because technology is so rapidly evolving, many teachers feel left behind, and if there is even a hint of having to do “simple HTML coding” or putting in a tech support ticket and waiting for assistance, they will inevitably go back to their binders – tried and true. But, if they are offered a simple platform to start, this could be the gateway drug they need to open themselves up to other possibilities in the future. So, it depends on the teacher. It depends on the teacher’s experiences with technology and their intrinsic motivation to try something new, and not “look foolish”. An LMS is only as good as the person wielding it. I also think that grade level has something to do with it, as I am certain an LMS like Blackboard Connect would be disastrous in a primary classroom. Again, it depends on whether the teacher has enough know-how to wield it properly based on expectations in a primary classroom. I guess what I’m trying to say is, if an LMS is what you want, then one standardized platform shouldn’t happen across all grade levels – perhaps one with a simpler UI to start, and then gradually you scaffold the students to more complex systems. Just like teaching. For students now, they naturally gravitate towards platforms like Google – everyone knows Google. They will get on board with it. It works hand in hand with Google Apps for Education. It’s seamless and promotes more creativity in lesson planning because it almost forces you to supplement (which is a good and bad thing, depending on how you look at it). And with the built-in tools such as Research Tool, revision history, and the inherent sharing functionalities, I believe it is more reflective of what is happening online now. It promotes curation and production of content. It’s like Google Classroom (and others such as Eliademy) is an open-concept loft where you can imagine creative, artsy tech-type people hang out, and the LMS’ that are typically used in post-secondary edu-settings (such as the long-standing Connect, d2L, etc) are like regal, sprawling institutions that may not be *as* inviting. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but I suppose I’m a sucker for design.
- What are some of the advantages and dangers of the process of standardization of knowledge and instructional practices?
In Coates, James and Baldwin’s article, it states that “at the extreme, under the label of self-paced learning, LMS might even be encouraging a movement towards preprogrammed forms of teaching.” I tend to agree. This is one of the dangers of the process of standardization. I also wrote about this in my second response. If you provide teachers with pre-made course modules and present them in a linear fashion, you are taking away the potential for creativity and the natural process of learning. This is why one of my goals is to see and research how an LMS fits into an inquiry-based classroom. Perhaps the answer is to provide an LMS (like Google Classroom or something similar) where the teacher is the one who controls the content. Yes, it’s more work. Yes, it requires more setup on the part of the teacher, and time is a rare commodity. Yes, “the other LMS gives me the course – all I have to do is let the students go and then provide support if they ask for it!” But we have to ask ourselves if that helps the students more – or the teacher. I say the latter. I am not saying that every teacher who uses this type of LMS thinks this way! It just depends on the teaching philosophy of the individual educator. One could also argue that because it frees up the educator’s time, then in theory, the teacher could dedicate more time to providing enriched learning experiences for the students. Which is fine if that’s what is really happening. In my humble opinion, if the platform is one that is truly engaging and does not appear to happen within a box; the confines of the walls of a standard LMS, then perhaps the students’ contributions to discussions will be richer. These students have grown up with social media. They want to believe that their voices are heard, and that they are contributing something to the world at large. And don’t we all want that? Don’t we all want our voices to be heard, and commented on from someone other than your teacher? As great as your teacher is, of course! And this, I believe, is what elevates student learning outcomes – and redefines their thinking from what it perhaps was originally. We need to connect students to the world. We cannot work in isolation. This brings to mind student privacy and security issues, and much work is to be done in this area, both policy-wise from an administrative point of view, and at the classroom level with digital citizenship education. In the article, the authors state that “undoubtedly, it will be valuable for research to explore the new patterns and processes of engagement of campus-based undergraduate students who are extensive users of online LMS.” I was reading in the ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2014, that “Undergraduates value the learning management system (LMS) as critical to their student experience but rarely make full use of it. Today’s undergraduates want a mobile-friendly, highly personalized, and engaging LMS experience.” This sums up my point. We need to listen to the students, and provide them with a forum that THEY will use and engage in, not one that makes more sense to an IT department to deploy and manage, or one that will work for the teacher only. Ideally, the LMS should work for both teacher and student, of course.
- Spiro notices a growing interest to more flexible and personalized learning designs, and sees it as a trend which is already replacing the “one-size-fits-all” principle of LMS architecture.
- Would your conclusion be different from what Spiro gets from his observations? Give examples to support your judgment.
Spiro states that learning organizations have to make a shift from planning and control to facilitating individual learner needs. I tend to agree, but with a balance. Personalized (adaptive) learning is happening, with people like Sal Khan and his Khan Academy, or the Ontario -based start-up Prodigy, an interactive math game that allows teachers to customize the student’s learning path based on need (and in a truly incognito fashion – unlike a service like IXL that explicitly tells the student and everyone else that you are in Grade 4 but working at a Grade 1 level). In terms of the Curation, I believe that students naturally do this, but we as educators should be teaching it explicitly, and providing a rationale as to why this is a useful skill to have for now and the future – we need to give it value, and then perhaps the students will apply a more academic, civic purpose to actually participate in, for example, commenting on current events on online digital media. In the Media Smarts: Young Canadians in a Wired World 2014 report, they researched the top websites in the year 2000 versus 2012, and the top websites accessed in 2000 were gaming websites, however, in 2012 the top sites were all social media sites. When I say that we should explicitly teach curation, we should also teach digital citizenship (as these go hand in hand): as it states in the report, participatory civic uses of digital media are also relatively low, compared with simply reading about issues that pertain to them on digital media (78% of students go online to find out information about topics of interest). Like Spiro concluded, if the LMS can provide the learner with a more open concept feel, with allowances for personalization, curation and mobile learning, then it will be keeping up with trends and ways in which students are now learning. In the ECAR report, however, one of the key findings was “Many students use mobile devices for academic purposes. Their in-class use is more likely when instructors encourage such use; however, both faculty and students are concerned about their potential for distraction.” The potential for distraction is real; however, if students are taught to wield their smartphones in a mature, useful and academic way, they have the world quite literally in the palm of their hands.
We are a long way away from every student being a savvy curator, personalizing their learning experience and performing their civic online duty with acute awareness, however, we are on our way.