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. \u00a0A 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. \u00a0Once a designer begins to \u201cfeed\u201d the tool, it no longer is neutral. \u00a0Although 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. \u00a0However, 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. \u00a0For example, consider the option to create modules. \u00a0In 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, \u201c In-built functions may not encourage awareness of or experimentation with sophisticated pedagogical practices\u201d (p.27). \u00a0\u00a0IBL is a non-structured process and I feel there should be more fluidity and an \u201copen\u201d approach in the LMS. \u00a0When I think of the discussion component, the questions are led by the instructor. \u00a0In an IBL approach, the questions are asked by the students. \u00a0Now 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?<\/p>\n
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. \u00a0\u00a0Having standardized courses will save time and money, and an instructor does not need to start designing from scratch; however, \u201cthe incorporation of LMS into universities makes it likely that such academics will gain most of their experience in teaching contexts saturated by such systems\u201d (p.27). \u00a0I know in our MET courses the instructors work collaboratively to design a consistent course for all students enrolled. \u00a0I wonder if any of the instructors feel that there are pedagogically restraining effects teaching this way? \u00a0As 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. \u00a0In 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. \u00a0If an instructor has an issue or a student, the instructor has to go through some form of IT support. \u00a0In previous courses, this has happened when students cannot access certain articles and the instructor has to \u201cget back to them\u201d. \u00a0So not being able to troubleshoot yourself is a disadvantage.<\/p>\n
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. \u00a0As Coates, James, & Baldwin (2005) note that \u201cWithin 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\u201d (p. ). \u00a0I think this is a great start to more flexibility in design; however, I really like Cprio\u2019s (2014) 3rd point around curation and collecting learner generated content rather than creating the courses and scheduling events which lends itself \u201ctowards more flexible and personalized learning material instead of a one-size-fits-all course\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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. \u00a0A 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. \u00a0Once a designer begins to \u201cfeed\u201d […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31771,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/shafalihamir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/shafalihamir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/shafalihamir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/shafalihamir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/31771"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/shafalihamir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/shafalihamir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/shafalihamir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54\/revisions\/55"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/shafalihamir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/shafalihamir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/shafalihamir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}