I agree with Coates, James and Baldwin (2005), in that technology is neutral until it is used and influenced by the operator of the tool.  A Learning Management System (LMS) is a pre-designed system and affords educators to create content and choose levels of interactions as he/she sees fit.  Once a designer begins to “feed” the tool, it no longer is neutral.  Although there are many pros to using a LMS, there are some pedagogically restricting effects of LMS in my own practice. I am big on Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) and I plan with the end in mind.  However, the process and path to get to the end is dependent on my students. By using a LMS, I would be confined to the structure of a linear path as opposed to a more fluid process of inquiry.  For example, consider the option to create modules.  In an inquiry approach I would not need to go from module 1 to module 4 in such a linear manner, my students would be the ones to generate the content; therefore, “ In-built functions may not encourage awareness of or experimentation with sophisticated pedagogical practices” (p.27).   IBL is a non-structured process and I feel there should be more fluidity and an “open” approach in the LMS.  When I think of the discussion component, the questions are led by the instructor.  In an IBL approach, the questions are asked by the students.  Now I know I could probably design a course to fit an IBL model the best way possible (i.e. let my students lead the discussion with their questions), but at this point would an LMS be the best avenue for this type of teaching and learning?

I would have to say that for large institutions where the lack of time and money to design individual and unique courses could fall into either the pro or con side.   Having standardized courses will save time and money, and an instructor does not need to start designing from scratch; however, “the incorporation of LMS into universities makes it likely that such academics will gain most of their experience in teaching contexts saturated by such systems” (p.27).  I know in our MET courses the instructors work collaboratively to design a consistent course for all students enrolled.  I wonder if any of the instructors feel that there are pedagogically restraining effects teaching this way?  As for disadvantages, I would imagine that when changes are made or newer versions are introduced to the LMS platform, there may be interruptions to the course.  In the MET program, oftentimes Blackboard is shut down for a short period of time for maintenance and this may cause a minor interruption to both the instructor and the students. This also leads into tech support.  If an instructor has an issue or a student, the instructor has to go through some form of IT support.  In previous courses, this has happened when students cannot access certain articles and the instructor has to “get back to them”.  So not being able to troubleshoot yourself is a disadvantage.

As I have touched on personalized learning and how a structured LMS does not lend itself fully to IBL, I would agree withCpiro in that there needs to be more personalized designs if the goal is to achieve a more personalized learning approach.  As Coates, James, & Baldwin (2005) note that “Within limits imposed by particular systems, staff are able to develop interactive web pages, upload and integrate digital resources, and develop assessment tasks and spaces for onlinediscussion” (p. ).  I think this is a great start to more flexibility in design; however, I really like Cprio’s (2014) 3rd point around curation and collecting learner generated content rather than creating the courses and scheduling events which lends itself “towards more flexible and personalized learning material instead of a one-size-fits-all course”.