A Learning Management System (LMS) is a software system designed to support teaching and learning in an educational setting. A LMS will normally work over the net and provide a collection of tools such as those for assessment and communication. While originally created for distance education, LMS’s are now most often used to supplement traditional face to face classroom activities. The question that now needs to be considered is which LMS is best for learners, teachers and curriculum developers?
With the appearance of strong open source contenders in the LMS market, many schools are evaluating whether to stay with one of the commercial LMS products such as Blackboard and WebCT or move to one of the open source options which are free to use, but offer no support. There are many factors contributing to such a decision beyond price including movement away from a current LMS interfaces, technical support and buy in costs. In the end, it is a decision that an educational institution needs to be well informed about.
This blog aims to provide learners, teachers and curriculum developers with a platform to develop their own informed opinions about the different LMS interfaces which are available. The blog includes 10 sources to provide learners, teachers and curriculum developers a starting point to develop their own ideas about this topic. As you explore this topic please feel free to include and add your own links to sources which are relevant and allow other learners, teachers and curriculum developers to evaluate and develop their understanding of the various LMS interfaces.
READINGS
The readings provided in this blog are based on research and evaluation of Learning Management Systems in a wide range of educational settings. There is a focus on qualitative data relating to the implications of Learning Management Systems for learners, teachers and curriculum developers. Some relevant readings I have used to explore this theme include:
Al Naddabi, Z. (2007). A Moodle Course: Design and Implementation in English for Academic Purposes Instruction. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 1371-1376).
Clark, T. (2007). Digital Learners: A Moodle Environment To Promote Life-Long Learning. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 267-272).
Daulton, M. (2006). Sakai and Graduate Education Students, Phase I. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 1143-1144).
Dralle, A. (2007). Analysis of Blackboard and Open Source Course Management Systems in Online Instruction. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 7064-7066).
Dwyer, C. & Dwyer, F. (2003). ANGEL Course Management System Removes Barriers to Course Development and Student Interaction. In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003 (pp. 1255-1256).
Feng, W. (2007). A Journey from WebCT to Angel. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 807-813).
Samsonov, P. & Beard, M. (2005). Implementing Blackboard Online Delivery System at a High School: Lessons Learned. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 1578-1582).
Siekmann, S. & Schullo, S. (2003). Improvements in Blackboard 6 Win Over WebCT Users -- Or Do They?. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2003 (pp. 2441-2444).
Sloan, J., Novikova, A., Ansorge, C. & Xu, C. (2002). Faculty Use of Blackboard for Course Instruction at Two Mid-Western Universities: A Multiple Case Study. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 330-334).
Tossavainen, K., Turunen, H., Räihä, T. & Enkenberg, J. (2003). Adolescents` experiences of health learning in a web-based learning environment. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 3298-3301).
Al Naddabi, Z. (2007). A Moodle Course: Design and Implementation in English for Academic Purposes Instruction. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 1371-1376).
Clark, T. (2007). Digital Learners: A Moodle Environment To Promote Life-Long Learning. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 267-272).
Daulton, M. (2006). Sakai and Graduate Education Students, Phase I. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 1143-1144).
Dralle, A. (2007). Analysis of Blackboard and Open Source Course Management Systems in Online Instruction. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 7064-7066).
Dwyer, C. & Dwyer, F. (2003). ANGEL Course Management System Removes Barriers to Course Development and Student Interaction. In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003 (pp. 1255-1256).
Feng, W. (2007). A Journey from WebCT to Angel. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 807-813).
Samsonov, P. & Beard, M. (2005). Implementing Blackboard Online Delivery System at a High School: Lessons Learned. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 1578-1582).
Siekmann, S. & Schullo, S. (2003). Improvements in Blackboard 6 Win Over WebCT Users -- Or Do They?. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2003 (pp. 2441-2444).
Sloan, J., Novikova, A., Ansorge, C. & Xu, C. (2002). Faculty Use of Blackboard for Course Instruction at Two Mid-Western Universities: A Multiple Case Study. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 330-334).
Tossavainen, K., Turunen, H., Räihä, T. & Enkenberg, J. (2003). Adolescents` experiences of health learning in a web-based learning environment. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 3298-3301).
LITERATURE REVIEW
A learning management system is seen as a software platform which automates many of the processes associated with learning. It is a management software package enabling the delivery of learning content, resources and activities and also handles the associated administration tasks.
With the extraordinary increase in information, increased student variety, new learning theories and ready access to the internet, teachers in today’s classrooms are being presented with an opportunity to transform the learning in their classrooms from a traditional transmission model to a student-centred model, where students are more responsible for their own learning.
Many of the papers reviewed suggest that in order to do this, schools need to adopt a student-centred approach where students can become adept at finding, analysing, organising, evaluating, internalising and presenting new information (Gillani, 2003) - LMS can provide unprecedented opportunities for this to happen. Computers can support knowledge construction, learning-by-doing, conversing and reflection (Jonassen, 1999) but managing all this in a student-centred environment is a complex task that might be made more manageable by the implementation of a Learning Management System (Al Naddabi et.al, 2007).
The Features common to all LMS
When comparing information from Siekmann & Schullo (2003), Clark (2007) and
Daulton (2006) it is clear the majority of Learning Management Systems explored in this assessment have the same general features
• General course organisation
• Content
• Self-study
• Assignments
• Testing
• Communication
The Advantages and Disadvantages of LMS
Advantages
• LMS such as Moodle, Blackboard, Sakai and ANGEL allows flexibility of access from anywhere with internet access and usually at anytime.
• Utilising correct learning strategies, it is possible for a LMS to increase motivation of learners, assist processing, promote significant learning, encourage interaction, provide feedback, facilitate contextual learning and provide support during the learning process (Sloan et.al, 2002).
• A LMS can support content in many formats, eg. multimedia, video, and text. (Dralle, 2007).
• Educators can gain access to course materials at anytime. Materials can be updated and students are able to see the changes immediately. Teachers are not restricted to workbook or pre-printed information sheets that can not be modified according to the student’s needs. Rather, the design and organisation of activities within the LMS can proceed while the course is in progress (Samsonov & Beard, 2005).
• Learning Management Systems do not guarantee an improvement in teaching and learning outcomes but are able to convert the teaching and learning process to better suit the Y Generation of learners.
• When used creatively, the role of the teacher is not reduced but there is a difference in emphasis. (Tossavainen et.al, 2003).
• It is easy to offer students a choice of activities.
• Learning activities can be re-used. By re-using content, time and effort can be saved and the cost of improving online content is also reduced (Al Naddabi et.al, 2007).
Disadvantages
• Conventionally, LMSs tend to be course centered rather than student centered. At this time, a LMS does not accommodate a complete range of teaching styles. However some of the more recent versions of LMS do allow greater flexibility, eg MOODLE.
• Managing a LMS at a whole school level requires a high level of technical expertise that most teaching staff do not have. Therefore those who decide what system is to be acquired and how it is implemented are often removed from classroom and have limited understanding of the pedagogical implications of the final decisions which are made (Sloan et.al, 2002).
• Some teachers have weak computer and information literacy skills and lack the information management skills needed to successfully use a LMS to support their teaching. Teaching staff in this situation must not only learn how to operate within these environments but also develop a critical perspective of their use of the LMS in teaching in a variety of modes (Samsonov & Beard, 2005).
• Many teachers are challenged to design and organise a mixture of learning activities which are appropriate to the needs of the student, teaching skills and teaching styles. (Dwyer & Dwyer, 2003).
• It is very easy to convert existing poor teaching practices to a LMS.
• Some current research suggests that online teaching leads to an increase in teacher workload (Dralle, A. 2007).
• Using a LMS can also lead to teacher frustration in the quality of the teaching experience and teachers can feel less “in control” (Clark, 2007).
With the extraordinary increase in information, increased student variety, new learning theories and ready access to the internet, teachers in today’s classrooms are being presented with an opportunity to transform the learning in their classrooms from a traditional transmission model to a student-centred model, where students are more responsible for their own learning.
Many of the papers reviewed suggest that in order to do this, schools need to adopt a student-centred approach where students can become adept at finding, analysing, organising, evaluating, internalising and presenting new information (Gillani, 2003) - LMS can provide unprecedented opportunities for this to happen. Computers can support knowledge construction, learning-by-doing, conversing and reflection (Jonassen, 1999) but managing all this in a student-centred environment is a complex task that might be made more manageable by the implementation of a Learning Management System (Al Naddabi et.al, 2007).
The Features common to all LMS
When comparing information from Siekmann & Schullo (2003), Clark (2007) and
Daulton (2006) it is clear the majority of Learning Management Systems explored in this assessment have the same general features
• General course organisation
• Content
• Self-study
• Assignments
• Testing
• Communication
The Advantages and Disadvantages of LMS
Advantages
• LMS such as Moodle, Blackboard, Sakai and ANGEL allows flexibility of access from anywhere with internet access and usually at anytime.
• Utilising correct learning strategies, it is possible for a LMS to increase motivation of learners, assist processing, promote significant learning, encourage interaction, provide feedback, facilitate contextual learning and provide support during the learning process (Sloan et.al, 2002).
• A LMS can support content in many formats, eg. multimedia, video, and text. (Dralle, 2007).
• Educators can gain access to course materials at anytime. Materials can be updated and students are able to see the changes immediately. Teachers are not restricted to workbook or pre-printed information sheets that can not be modified according to the student’s needs. Rather, the design and organisation of activities within the LMS can proceed while the course is in progress (Samsonov & Beard, 2005).
• Learning Management Systems do not guarantee an improvement in teaching and learning outcomes but are able to convert the teaching and learning process to better suit the Y Generation of learners.
• When used creatively, the role of the teacher is not reduced but there is a difference in emphasis. (Tossavainen et.al, 2003).
• It is easy to offer students a choice of activities.
• Learning activities can be re-used. By re-using content, time and effort can be saved and the cost of improving online content is also reduced (Al Naddabi et.al, 2007).
Disadvantages
• Conventionally, LMSs tend to be course centered rather than student centered. At this time, a LMS does not accommodate a complete range of teaching styles. However some of the more recent versions of LMS do allow greater flexibility, eg MOODLE.
• Managing a LMS at a whole school level requires a high level of technical expertise that most teaching staff do not have. Therefore those who decide what system is to be acquired and how it is implemented are often removed from classroom and have limited understanding of the pedagogical implications of the final decisions which are made (Sloan et.al, 2002).
• Some teachers have weak computer and information literacy skills and lack the information management skills needed to successfully use a LMS to support their teaching. Teaching staff in this situation must not only learn how to operate within these environments but also develop a critical perspective of their use of the LMS in teaching in a variety of modes (Samsonov & Beard, 2005).
• Many teachers are challenged to design and organise a mixture of learning activities which are appropriate to the needs of the student, teaching skills and teaching styles. (Dwyer & Dwyer, 2003).
• It is very easy to convert existing poor teaching practices to a LMS.
• Some current research suggests that online teaching leads to an increase in teacher workload (Dralle, A. 2007).
• Using a LMS can also lead to teacher frustration in the quality of the teaching experience and teachers can feel less “in control” (Clark, 2007).
ARTICLE 1
A Journey from WebCT to Angel.
Feng, W. (2007).
Summary of central themes
This paper looks at the transition from using the WebCT interface to the ANGEL interface. In Summer 2006, Ohio Dominican University began an evaluation of LMS interfaces. At that time, Ohio Dominican University had been using WebCT for close to 10 years. There were several motivations for a fresh look at LMS choices: upcoming annual license renewal; concerns about ease of use among faculty and instructional technologists; and a goal of extending Ohio Dominican University’s efforts in web-based learning. The school's Centre for Instructional Technology and elearning (CITe) evaluated 3 systems: WebCT, Blackboard, and ANGEL. The evaluation included user tests, vendor presentations and an online ballot. The University chose ANGEL as it's new LMS based on the following criteria: ANGEL was rated best by our campus in terms of ease of use. The interface offers an intuitive interface for adding and organising content. This was the most important factor in the CITe’s decision hoping that a simpler tool might increase and improve academic staff’s use of an LMS. Other significant factors were ANGEL offers a technical support portal and other schools had reported problems with technical support when using the other LMS.
Intended audience
This paper focuses on the introduction of a new LMS interface to a small American university and the professional development offered to academic staff. The group being studied is from the higher education sector therefore the specific target audience are educators from universities or other higher education institutions. However this does not limit the use of this article to university educators, it may be beneficial to educators from other sectors such as secondary or primary school teachers. The paper also identifies a suggested audience including instructional designers, learning and development administrators and staff and finally faculty training personnel.
Methodology and results
Academic staff continued to share positive comments about the online teaching and learning course and the ANGEL training sessions with the CITe staff and their peers. CITe also collected qualitative and quantitative feedback using a web based survey tool however results of these surveys were not published. After the face to face ANGEL training sessions, the instructional designers sent out the web based survey including feedback on ANGEL learning and the training experiences and the feedback again was positive.
How does this article relate to the topic?
The article raises the issue of the need for relevant professional development opportunities for teachers using new LMS interfaces. It presents a model specific to the ANGEL interface and tests the usefulness of this model amongst university educators. The article highlights the importance of gaining staff support to achieve successful implementation of new LMS interfaces.
Feng, W. (2007).
Summary of central themes
This paper looks at the transition from using the WebCT interface to the ANGEL interface. In Summer 2006, Ohio Dominican University began an evaluation of LMS interfaces. At that time, Ohio Dominican University had been using WebCT for close to 10 years. There were several motivations for a fresh look at LMS choices: upcoming annual license renewal; concerns about ease of use among faculty and instructional technologists; and a goal of extending Ohio Dominican University’s efforts in web-based learning. The school's Centre for Instructional Technology and elearning (CITe) evaluated 3 systems: WebCT, Blackboard, and ANGEL. The evaluation included user tests, vendor presentations and an online ballot. The University chose ANGEL as it's new LMS based on the following criteria: ANGEL was rated best by our campus in terms of ease of use. The interface offers an intuitive interface for adding and organising content. This was the most important factor in the CITe’s decision hoping that a simpler tool might increase and improve academic staff’s use of an LMS. Other significant factors were ANGEL offers a technical support portal and other schools had reported problems with technical support when using the other LMS.
Intended audience
This paper focuses on the introduction of a new LMS interface to a small American university and the professional development offered to academic staff. The group being studied is from the higher education sector therefore the specific target audience are educators from universities or other higher education institutions. However this does not limit the use of this article to university educators, it may be beneficial to educators from other sectors such as secondary or primary school teachers. The paper also identifies a suggested audience including instructional designers, learning and development administrators and staff and finally faculty training personnel.
Methodology and results
Academic staff continued to share positive comments about the online teaching and learning course and the ANGEL training sessions with the CITe staff and their peers. CITe also collected qualitative and quantitative feedback using a web based survey tool however results of these surveys were not published. After the face to face ANGEL training sessions, the instructional designers sent out the web based survey including feedback on ANGEL learning and the training experiences and the feedback again was positive.
How does this article relate to the topic?
The article raises the issue of the need for relevant professional development opportunities for teachers using new LMS interfaces. It presents a model specific to the ANGEL interface and tests the usefulness of this model amongst university educators. The article highlights the importance of gaining staff support to achieve successful implementation of new LMS interfaces.
ARTICLE 2
Implementing Blackboard Online Delivery System at a High School: Lessons Learned.
Samsonov, P. & Beard, M. (2005).
Summary of central themes
Blackboard is a delivery system for online teaching. The Blackboard program has been successfully used across America, mostly in universities and colleges. It has many unique features which include the grade book, discussion board, digital drop box and others. One valuable advantage is that it is very suitable for use in schools. Although schoolteachers may not always have the need to teach online, and school students may not be prepared to be taught online, the software can successfully enhance and improve a teacher’s ability to communicate. The project focuses on twenty high school teachers who were selected for an ongoing project to implement the Blackboard online delivery system at their school. After a one-day seminar the researchers assisted the teachers in setting up their accounts, enrolling students and using Blackboard. The parents of the students enrolled in the Blackboard courses were given their children’s user names and passwords to monitor their progress. The process of implementing Blackboard and encountered problems are described and discussed.
Intended audience
This article is aimed at academics who are interested in the use of Blackboard as a LMS interface. It would also be beneficial to educational leaders who have already begun to implement other LMS but have found their staff to be lacking motivation or engagement in the process.
Methodology and results
The project was conducted in three stages. Preliminary work started in the spring semester of 2004. The administration and the investigators identified 20 participants from the Lafayette High faculty. Each participant was interviewed in order to determine her/his computer skills, and a short questionnaire was completed by every participant to identify his/her level of computer preparedness. The project then moved into the workshop stage which was carried out on August 5, 2004. The workshop lasted 7 hours in the computer lab of Lafayette Parish School Board. During the workshop the 20 participants were taught the methodology of using Blackboard. They assumed the roles of teachers and students using Blackboard, learned technical and pedagogical issues of Blackboard. The participants exchanged ideas of how to use Blackboard in their particular subjects. The final stage was a stage of assistance and research. From the beginning of the school year the investigators assisted the participants in practical application of Blackboard. It was expected that some participants would need to enroll new students, convert their teaching material into electronic format, and program their grade books. It was also expected that they would probably encounter other difficulties. All problems and difficulties were recorded during this process. Problems which were identified were the need for individual assistance, the turn around time for student enrollment, the current grading system of Lafayette was not compatible with Blackboard and teachers complained about being “overwhelmed with work”.
How does this article relate to the topic?
The article again raises the issue of relevant professional development opportunities for teachers using new LMS interfaces. It identifies many problems associated with the implementation of the Blackboard interface. The article highlights the importance of gaining staff support to achieve successful implementation of new LMS interfaces.
Samsonov, P. & Beard, M. (2005).
Summary of central themes
Blackboard is a delivery system for online teaching. The Blackboard program has been successfully used across America, mostly in universities and colleges. It has many unique features which include the grade book, discussion board, digital drop box and others. One valuable advantage is that it is very suitable for use in schools. Although schoolteachers may not always have the need to teach online, and school students may not be prepared to be taught online, the software can successfully enhance and improve a teacher’s ability to communicate. The project focuses on twenty high school teachers who were selected for an ongoing project to implement the Blackboard online delivery system at their school. After a one-day seminar the researchers assisted the teachers in setting up their accounts, enrolling students and using Blackboard. The parents of the students enrolled in the Blackboard courses were given their children’s user names and passwords to monitor their progress. The process of implementing Blackboard and encountered problems are described and discussed.
Intended audience
This article is aimed at academics who are interested in the use of Blackboard as a LMS interface. It would also be beneficial to educational leaders who have already begun to implement other LMS but have found their staff to be lacking motivation or engagement in the process.
Methodology and results
The project was conducted in three stages. Preliminary work started in the spring semester of 2004. The administration and the investigators identified 20 participants from the Lafayette High faculty. Each participant was interviewed in order to determine her/his computer skills, and a short questionnaire was completed by every participant to identify his/her level of computer preparedness. The project then moved into the workshop stage which was carried out on August 5, 2004. The workshop lasted 7 hours in the computer lab of Lafayette Parish School Board. During the workshop the 20 participants were taught the methodology of using Blackboard. They assumed the roles of teachers and students using Blackboard, learned technical and pedagogical issues of Blackboard. The participants exchanged ideas of how to use Blackboard in their particular subjects. The final stage was a stage of assistance and research. From the beginning of the school year the investigators assisted the participants in practical application of Blackboard. It was expected that some participants would need to enroll new students, convert their teaching material into electronic format, and program their grade books. It was also expected that they would probably encounter other difficulties. All problems and difficulties were recorded during this process. Problems which were identified were the need for individual assistance, the turn around time for student enrollment, the current grading system of Lafayette was not compatible with Blackboard and teachers complained about being “overwhelmed with work”.
How does this article relate to the topic?
The article again raises the issue of relevant professional development opportunities for teachers using new LMS interfaces. It identifies many problems associated with the implementation of the Blackboard interface. The article highlights the importance of gaining staff support to achieve successful implementation of new LMS interfaces.
ARTICLE 3
A Moodle Course: Design and Implementation in English for Academic Purposes Instruction.
Al Naddabi, Z. (2007).
Summary of central themes
This paper focuses on the use of Moodle as a learning management system in teaching general academic purposes English at an intermediate level of an intensive language program. After describing the Moodle course and providing examples of its content, advantages of integrating it in teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) are pinpointed. Also, problems and concerns about its use are presented. Finally, recommendations for future developments of Moodle as an e-learning component in the program and in similar EFL programs are outlined, as informed by the described practice of designing and implementing a Moodle course.
Intended audience
This article is aimed at academics who are interested in the use of Moodle as a LMS interface. The group being studied is from an intensive language program and therefore the specific target audience is educators working with students learning English as a second language. However this does not limit the use of this article to ESL educators, it may be beneficial to educators from other sectors such as university, secondary or even primary school teachers.
Methodology and results
The Moodle components were scheduled to be introduced by the program teachers every 2 weeks, but students were advised to use them in their own time as well. For example, reading and listening quizzes were progressively shown on Moodle so that students could do some practice on the units they had taken in their reading and listening classes. Observations were made regarding the advantages and disadvantages of using Moodle. Advantages which were noted included: Enhancing student-student interactions and teacher-student interactions, Helping students to do their research for independent study projects, Fostering students’ independence and Providing a change of routine.
How does this article relate to the topic?
It identifies the advantages in a practical situation and also identifies some problems associated with the implementation of the Moodle interface. The article highlights the importance of computer literacy for both teachers and students to achieve successful implementation of this LMS as there is no commercial support for Moodle.
Al Naddabi, Z. (2007).
Summary of central themes
This paper focuses on the use of Moodle as a learning management system in teaching general academic purposes English at an intermediate level of an intensive language program. After describing the Moodle course and providing examples of its content, advantages of integrating it in teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) are pinpointed. Also, problems and concerns about its use are presented. Finally, recommendations for future developments of Moodle as an e-learning component in the program and in similar EFL programs are outlined, as informed by the described practice of designing and implementing a Moodle course.
Intended audience
This article is aimed at academics who are interested in the use of Moodle as a LMS interface. The group being studied is from an intensive language program and therefore the specific target audience is educators working with students learning English as a second language. However this does not limit the use of this article to ESL educators, it may be beneficial to educators from other sectors such as university, secondary or even primary school teachers.
Methodology and results
The Moodle components were scheduled to be introduced by the program teachers every 2 weeks, but students were advised to use them in their own time as well. For example, reading and listening quizzes were progressively shown on Moodle so that students could do some practice on the units they had taken in their reading and listening classes. Observations were made regarding the advantages and disadvantages of using Moodle. Advantages which were noted included: Enhancing student-student interactions and teacher-student interactions, Helping students to do their research for independent study projects, Fostering students’ independence and Providing a change of routine.
How does this article relate to the topic?
It identifies the advantages in a practical situation and also identifies some problems associated with the implementation of the Moodle interface. The article highlights the importance of computer literacy for both teachers and students to achieve successful implementation of this LMS as there is no commercial support for Moodle.
ARTICLE 4
Sakai and Graduate Education Students, Phase I
Daulton, M. (2006).
Summary of central themes
Walsh University, North Canton, Ohio, made the commitment to add an on- line support structure for educational purposes and invited faculty to participate. Walsh selected the Sakai application framework, provided training during the summer 2005 for faculty who elected to try the new system, and gave faculty the opportunity to use in any course they taught in academic year 2005-2006. The University supported the use of Sakai as a teaching tool to supplement or support the professor in teaching, but did not encourage total on- line delivery of courses.
Intended audience
This article is aimed at academics who are interested in the use of Sakai as a LMS interface this may include educators from sectors such as university, secondary or even primary school teachers.
Methodology and results
To obtain information regarding graduate education student s perceptions of the integration of the Sakai delivery and management into the traditional classroom, three different strategies were developed: a survey questionnaire, emailed questions requesting student input, and following telephone/video conferences. The questionnaire was administered during the last class of each of the two graduate classes. Extended responses to selected questions were obtained via email and follow-up phone calls were made to clarify responses following the email. The researcher plans to refine the data collection process and continue to add to this initial data base as she adjusts her and the graduate students use of the Sakai system, and if possible collaborate with others researching in similar areas.
Data analysis was not completed on the first set of data collected. However it shows the students’ perceptions of participation in the “Sakai experiment” this year, comfort levels with submission of papers, discussion, and tests. The data will also generate suggestions for making the delivery more effective and user friendly, how to communicate directions more clearly to students, and the impact on their willingness to use more computer technology in their classrooms.
How does this article relate to the topic?
It identifies the perceptions of a group of students using the Sakai interface. Although incomplete the study provides a basis to make an informed judgement on the quality of the Sakai interface.
CONCLUSION
While each article explores a different LMS to support and maintain, the tools that they offer are very similar. The thing that is different in each instance is the campus culture in which they are being introduced. Some of the key questions to consider in choosing an LMS for your campus are the following:
Open Source vs. Commercial – Can your campus community handle the dynamic nature of an open source solution or does it need the stability offered by the backing of a company? While the price of open source solution is right, sometimes the services offered by a commercial solution are worth the price.
What are the key tools desired by your faculty? While it is important to consider the whole package, make sure that the tools your faculty use the most are strong in the package that you choose.
Finally, make sure that it is a decision that your faculty support. Since they will be the main constituency using this tool, if they find it awkward or cumbersome to use, they won’t.
Daulton, M. (2006).
Summary of central themes
Walsh University, North Canton, Ohio, made the commitment to add an on- line support structure for educational purposes and invited faculty to participate. Walsh selected the Sakai application framework, provided training during the summer 2005 for faculty who elected to try the new system, and gave faculty the opportunity to use in any course they taught in academic year 2005-2006. The University supported the use of Sakai as a teaching tool to supplement or support the professor in teaching, but did not encourage total on- line delivery of courses.
Intended audience
This article is aimed at academics who are interested in the use of Sakai as a LMS interface this may include educators from sectors such as university, secondary or even primary school teachers.
Methodology and results
To obtain information regarding graduate education student s perceptions of the integration of the Sakai delivery and management into the traditional classroom, three different strategies were developed: a survey questionnaire, emailed questions requesting student input, and following telephone/video conferences. The questionnaire was administered during the last class of each of the two graduate classes. Extended responses to selected questions were obtained via email and follow-up phone calls were made to clarify responses following the email. The researcher plans to refine the data collection process and continue to add to this initial data base as she adjusts her and the graduate students use of the Sakai system, and if possible collaborate with others researching in similar areas.
Data analysis was not completed on the first set of data collected. However it shows the students’ perceptions of participation in the “Sakai experiment” this year, comfort levels with submission of papers, discussion, and tests. The data will also generate suggestions for making the delivery more effective and user friendly, how to communicate directions more clearly to students, and the impact on their willingness to use more computer technology in their classrooms.
How does this article relate to the topic?
It identifies the perceptions of a group of students using the Sakai interface. Although incomplete the study provides a basis to make an informed judgement on the quality of the Sakai interface.
CONCLUSION
While each article explores a different LMS to support and maintain, the tools that they offer are very similar. The thing that is different in each instance is the campus culture in which they are being introduced. Some of the key questions to consider in choosing an LMS for your campus are the following:
Open Source vs. Commercial – Can your campus community handle the dynamic nature of an open source solution or does it need the stability offered by the backing of a company? While the price of open source solution is right, sometimes the services offered by a commercial solution are worth the price.
What are the key tools desired by your faculty? While it is important to consider the whole package, make sure that the tools your faculty use the most are strong in the package that you choose.
Finally, make sure that it is a decision that your faculty support. Since they will be the main constituency using this tool, if they find it awkward or cumbersome to use, they won’t.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
