Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:32, 14 June 2019

A learning management system (LMS) is a software application for the administration, documentation, tracking, reporting, and delivery of educational courses, training programs, or learning and development programs. The learning management system concept emerged directly from e-Learning. Although the first LMS appeared in the higher education sector, the majority of the LMSs today focus on the corporate market. Learning Management Systems make up the largest segment of the learning system market. The first introduction of the LMS was in the late 1990s.

Learning management systems were designed to identify training and learning gaps, utilizing analytical data and reporting. LMSs are focused on online learning delivery but support a range of uses, acting as a platform for online content, including courses, both asynchronous based and synchronous based. An LMS may offer classroom management for instructor-led training or a flipped classroom, used in higher education, but not in the corporate space.

Characteristics

Purpose

An LMS delivers and manages all types of content, including video, courses, and documents. In the education and higher education markets, an LMS will include a variety of functionality that is similar to corporate but will have features such as rubrics, teacher and instructor facilitated learning, a discussion board, and often the use of a syllabus. A syllabus is rarely a feature in the corporate LMS although courses may start with heading-level index to give learners an overview of topics covered.

History

There are several historical phases of distance education that preceded the development of the LMS:

Correspondence teaching

The first known document of correspondence teaching dates back to 1723, through the advertisement in the Boston Gazette of Caleb Phillips, professor of shorthand, offering teaching materials and tutorials. The first testimony of a bi-directional communication organized correspondence course comes from England, in 1840, when Isaac Pitman initiated a shorthand course, wherein he sent a passage of the Bible to students, who would send it back in full transcription. The success of the course resulted in the foundation of the phonographic correspondence society in 1843. The pioneering milestone in distance language teaching was in 1856 by Charles Toussaint and Gustav Langenscheidt, who began the first European institution of distance learning. This is the first known instance of the use of materials for independent language study. Correspondence institutions in the United States and across Europe were encouraged and fostered by the development in 1680 of the penny post service, which allowed the delivery of letters and parcels for a penny.

Multimedia teaching: The emergence and development of the distance learning idea

The concept of eLearning began developing in the early 20th century, marked by the appearance of audio-video communication systems used for remote teaching. In 1909, E.M. Forster published his story 'The Machine Stops' and explained the benefits of using audio communication to deliver lectures to remote audiences.

Here the term "multimedia" refers to the use of several means (media) to reach the students and provide instruction. Printed materials are joined by audiotapes, videotapes, radio and TV, broadcasts, telephone, etc. The earliest networked learning system was the Plato Learning Management system (PLM) developed in the 1970s by Control Data Corporation. In 1920, Sidney L. Pressey developed the first teaching machine which offered multiple types of practical exercises and question formats. Nine years later, University of Alberta's Professor M.E. Zerte transformed this machine into a problem cylinder able to compare problems and solutions.

Telematic teaching

In the 1980s the modern telecommunications start to be used in education, with computers more present in the daily use of higher education institutions. Computer aided teaching aim to integrate technical and educational means and instruments to student learning. The trend then shifted to video communication, as a result of which Houston University decided to hold telecast classes to their students for approximately 13-15 hours a week. The classes took place in 1953, while in 1956, Robin McKinnon Wood and Gordon Pask released the very first adaptive teaching system for corporate environments SAKI. The idea of automating teaching operations also inspired the University of Illinois experts to develop their Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching Operations (PLATO) which enabled users to exchange content regardless of their location. In the period between 1970 and 1980, educational venues were rapidly considering the idea of computerizing courses, including the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute from California that introduced the first accredited online-taught degree.

Teaching through the internet: The appearance of the first LMS system

The history of the application of computers to education is filled with broadly descriptive terms such as computer-managed instruction (CMI), and integrated learning systems (ILS), computer-based instruction (CBI), computer-assisted instruction (CAI), and computer-assisted learning (CAL). These terms describe drill-and-practice programs, more sophisticated tutorials, and more individualized instruction, respectively. The term is currently used to describe a number of different educational computer applications. FirstClass by SoftArc, used by the United Kingdom's Open University in the 1990s and 2000s to deliver online learning across Europe, was one of the earliest internet-based LMSs.

The first fully featured Learning Management System (LMS) was called EKKO, developed and released by Norway's NKI Distance Education Network in 1991. Three years later, New Brunswick's NB Learning Network presented a similar system designed for DOS-based teaching, and devoted exclusively to business learners. Introduction According to Walker, Lindner, Murphrey, and Dooley, (2016), a Learning Management System, commonly abbreviated as (LMS) is a very crucial tool in the education sector. It is at the core of the process of determining education quality when effectiveness and efficiency is a matter of concern. Mostly, it is necessary when evaluated from time to time to seek improvements that can shine a light on the different areas of weakness, strengths, opportunities and the threats that come with its continued use. In this particular analysis, an interpretation of the provided reports will be done in order to make a logical sense of the existing Learning Management System. That will enable the determination of the areas that most engage us as students and those that do not. It will also provide a chance to note the critical areas of improvement and the recommendable changes to be made to the current Learning Management System based on a targeted report. Discussion Generally, it is easily observable from the graphs that from Tuesday to Friday the study activity is significantly low with students spending between 0.0 hours to only 2 hours on the system. Such a scenario presents a couple of possibilities in that there are only a few students enrolled in the system and thus no much activity can be recorded. Again, it could also mean that the system is not flexible enough to allow enrollment of many students and thus only a few students can log into the system hence poor analytics capabilities of the system. On Mondays, the graphs indicate a high significance of irregularity regarding the span of time spent in the system by students at some instances being zero hours, 0.27hours and 4.23 hours. Perhaps, such is due to the students logging into the system while submitting assignments only. An interesting trend is further registered during the weekends in which time lengths of up to 6.43 hours on a one Saturday and 2.55 hours on a Sunday were registered and as low hours of activity as 0.01 hours and 0.00hours were recorded. Such could be due to rush hour retrieval of assignment and discussion details from the system only. Broadly, these inconsistences in student activities and system usage time lengths tend to point us to the possibility that the current system is not as effective and efficient in channeling its mandate towards producing a well-baked lot of students in the particular courses as should be. Thus, courtesy of the inconsistences and the results achieved, there is a possibility of the system bearing some main areas that propel students to the best of their performance targets and skill development and some areas that downgrade the system. The main areas that encourage high engagements in the system include board discussion in the different course learning weeks and assignment submissions and assessments. The e-activity assessments are also presented as a major area that intensely engages students. On the other hand, the main areas that do not intensely engage students include mobile learning activity and the student center activities. Surprising, the career insights offered once in the course study are also shown to record poor student engagement. Significantly, the weak areas as identified in student reports of 2019 present the need to improve the entire Learning Management System. That is because a great Learning Management System will always fight to be completely all round (Daft & Marcic, 2016). According to Daft and Marcic, a great LMS will always bear aspects such as learner-centric experience, in-built reporting, and mobile capabilities. Furthermore, it always ought to bear the survey capabilities in which it can use survey tools to easily and effectively administer pre-training assessment. Hence, following the use of survey tools in the LMS, Post-training evaluations would also be possible. Observing the reports provided as student reports, given a chance, I would firstly improve the analytics area of the system and secondly, the flexibility of the LMS. In this case, improving the analytics of the system would mean there is a possibility of the system capturing more advance data about the students. For example, recording more data as regards the board discussions and login times. Capturing the specific time when discussions are held and when students carry out their e-activities would be a good indicator of the times when students are more active. That is advantageous as it offers insights as to how to push more of the activities to such times when the students are active. Improving the flexibility of the system would also be necessary for example in allowing students to use their mobile capabilities much more hence improving the students' engagements. That is due to the rising preferential usage of mobile devices as opposed to desktops and laptops (Daft & Marcic, 2016). The improvements promise the course uptake and the LMS functionality. To enhance the student learning cycle and managing experiences of the stakeholders in the institution, numerous changes on the LMS are inevitable. Looking at the provided reports, it is frustrating to actually interpret and analyze the developed reports. That is because the data provided is seemingly clunky and thus not easy to understand for the stakeholders. Such difficulty in comprehending the report signifies some sought of the inability of the LMS to even channel the required learning experience to the students. It would thus be recommendable to change the schematics of the data recording and presentation in the graphs. Such might including changing the manner in which the activities are described to include some more details as regards what exactly happens during a certain activity and the type of presentation tools used to visualize the extent of engagement of the activity. Making such changes in terms of the description of activities and the presentation tool used would simplify the effort needed to interpret and analyze the LMS efficiency effectiveness. It further makes it possible to understand when an LMS switching is needed in a quest to take the student engagement and stakeholder a notch higher. Again, changing the activity description would provide prospects of more analytical data to be developed instrumental in reporting the success of the Learning Management System (García-Peñalvo et al., 2015). According to García-Peñalvo and his colleagues, in many occasions, such changes tend to boost the stakeholder satisfaction in the system and thus upping their willingness to even effect the recommended improvements that enhance their own experience in manning the student study cycles. According to Postlethwaite, Wallace, Zboray, and Evans, (2015), there are numerous reports that indicate the efficiency and effectiveness of a Learning Management System for students and institutional faculties. However, for this particular case, the major targeted report that I would wish the current Learning Management System could provide for students or the faculty in order to boost understanding/or comprehension of student progress, monitoring the student activities and other interactions with the LMS is a report on the weekly performance trends of the students. A report on each student’s weekly score trends in their exams and assessments availed in a simple and easily understandable manner is a dire necessity most especially to the faculties. Such a targeted report on the weekly score trends of all students is of dire necessity as it makes it easier for the stakeholders to improve their means of administering training activities. It shines a light on the areas students are performing better and the areas they are poor at (De Smet et al., 2016). In this case, a report indicating such strengths and weaknesses of students makes it easier for tailoring the activities in a manner that favor all students in their faculties. Such tailor-made activities usually give high prospects of improvement in delivering on the main agenda of a Learning Management System that is offering the best quality of education. Again, a report on the satisfaction rate of the students with learning activities would also be necessary. Whether or not students are happy with the design of these activities matters a lot in determining whether to go on with the activities as they are or whether to change them to conform to the preferences of the students. Such is necessary in order to uplift the morale of students and their willingness to learn and garner skills. Conclusion Conclusively, this paper has been able to keenly interpret analyze the student Learning Management System reports of 2019. It has thereby been able to identify the main areas of strength and weaknesses prompting dire improvements. It has also suggested some of the recommendable changes on the current system as regards the presentation tools, and the activity description. Again the paper highlights some targeted reports such as the satisfaction rate report and weekly score trends of the assessments and exams of students that are dire in determining the effectiveness and efficiency of the Learning Management System.

Technical aspects

Most modern LMSs are web-based. There are a variety of integration strategies for embedding content into LMSs, including AICC, xAPI (also called 'Tin Can'), SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model) and LTI (Learning Tools Interoperability). LMSs were originally designed to be locally hosted on-premise, where the organization purchases a license to a version of the software, and installs it on their own servers and network. Many LMSs are now offered as SaaS (software as a service), with hosting provided by the vendors.

Through LMS, teachers may create and integrate course materials, articulate learning goals, align content and assessments, track studying progress, and create customized test for students. LMS allows the communication of learning objectives, and organize learning timelines. LMS leverage is that it delivers learning content and tools straight to learners, and it can also reach marginalized groups through special settings. Such systems have built in customizable features including assessment and tracking. Thus, learners can see in real time their progress and instructors can monitor and communicate the effectiveness of learning. One of the most important features of LMS is trying to create a streamline communication between learners and instructors. Such systems, besides facilitating online learning, tracking learning progress, providing digital learning tools, manage communication, and maybe selling content, may be used to provide different communication features.

Features

Managing courses, users and roles

The LMS may be used to create professional structured course content. The teacher can add, text, images, tables, links and text formatting, interactive tests, slideshows etc. Moreover, you can create different types of users, such as teachers, students, parents, visitors and editors (hierarchies). It helps control which content a student can access, track studying progress and engage student with contact tools. Teachers can manage courses and modules, enroll students or set up self-enrollment, see reports on students and import students to their online classes.

Online assessment and tracking students' attendance

LMS can enable teachers to create customized tests for students, accessible and submitted online. Platforms allow different multiple question types such as: one/multi-line answer; multiple choice answer; drag-and-drop order; essay; true or false/yes or no; fill in the gaps; agreement scale and offline tasks. Some LMSs also allow for attendance management and integration with classroom training wherein administrators can view attendance and records of whether a learner attended, arrived late, or missed classes and events.

User feedback

Students' exchange of feedback both with teachers and their peers is possible through LMS. Teachers may create discussion groups to allow students feedback and increase the interaction in course. Students' feedback is an instrument which help teachers to improve their work, identify what to add or remove from their courses, where students feel more comfortable, what makes them be more included.

Learning management industry

In the U.S. higher education market as of fall 2018, the top three LMSs by number of institutions were Blackboard (31%), Canvas (30%), and Moodle (18%). The same three systems led in terms of number of students enrolled, but Canvas slightly surpassed Blackboard. Worldwide, the picture is different, with Moodle having over 50% of market share in Europe, Latin America, and Oceania.

Many users of LMSs use an authoring tool to create content, which is then hosted on an LMS. In some cases, LMSs that do utilise a standard include a primitive authoring tool for basic content manipulation. More modern systems, in particular SAAS solutions have decided to not adopt a standard and have rich course authoring tools. There are several standards for creating and integrating complex content into an LMS, including AICC, SCORM, xAPI and Learning Tools Interoperability. However, utilising SCORM or an alternative standardised course protocol is not always required and can be restrictive when used unnecessarily.

Evaluation of LMSs is a complex task and significant research supports different forms of evaluation, including iterative processes where students' experiences and approaches to learning are evaluated.

Advantages and disadvantages

Advantages

There are six major advantages of LMS: interoperability, accessibility, reusability, durability, maintenance ability and adaptability, which in themselves constitute the concept of LMS.

Other advantages include:

• An LMS supports content in various formats: text, video, audio, etc.
• One can access materials anytime, from everywhere, teachers can modify the content, and students can see the updated material.
• The evaluation of students is easier and fair, based on student attendance and online quizzes.
• Students and teachers can re-use the material every time they need.
• Students can learn collaboratively by setting up a School website with the LMS software and helps "Keeps organizations up-to-date with compliance regulations. If your organization must stay up-to-date with current compliance regulations, then a Learning Management System can be an invaluable tool. Compliance laws chance on a regular basis, and updating a traditional course to reflect these changes can be a time-consuming chore.

Disadvantages

Although there are many advantages of LMS, authors have identified some disadvantages of using this system.

• Implementing LMS requires a well-built technology infrastructure. Teachers have to be willing to adapt their curricula from face to face lectures to online lectures. 
• Some organizations don't have the appropriate infrastructure to develop LMS, so it may be difficult for them to operate in this environment and adopt their curricula.
• Some current research suggests that online teaching leads to an increase in teacher workload.

See also

• Competency management system
• Competency-based management
• Digital content creation
• Educational technology (e-learning)
• Intelligent tutoring system
• LAMS – Learning Activity Management System
• Learning objects
• Learning Record Store (LRS)
• List of learning management systems
• Student information system
• Virtual learning environment

References

1. Ellis, Ryann K. (2009), Field Guide to Learning Management, ASTD Learning Circuits
2. ^ Davis, B., Carmean, C., & Wagner, E. (2009). "The Evolution of the LMS : From Management to Learning". The ELearning Guild Research. 24.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. "A Brief History of Online Education". bear.warrington.ufl.edu.
4. "History of Distance Learning". www.godistancelearning.com.
5. "Penny Post - postal service".
6. E.M. Forster, "THE MACHINE STOPS", archive.ncsa.illinois.edu.
8. Solomon Arulraj DAVID, "A Critical Understanding of Learning Management System", academia.edu.
9. ^ Solomon Arulraj DAVID, " Teaching Machines", teachingmachin.es.
10. Parr, Judy M.; Fung, Irene (3 October 2006). "A Review of the Literature on Computer-Assisted Learning, particularly Integrated Learning Systems, and Outcomes with Respect to Literacy and Numeracy". New Zealand Ministry of Education. Archived from the original on 9 March 2007. Retrieved 13 February 2013.
11. Watson, William R. (2007). "An Argument for Clarity: What are Learning Management Systems, What are They Not, and What Should They Become?" (PDF). TechTrends. 51 (2): 28–34. doi:10.1007/s11528-007-0023-y. Retrieved 13 February 2013.
12. "History and Trends of Learning Management System (Infographic)". Oxagile. 12 April 2016.
13. Ashok Sharma. "The History of Distance Learning and the LMS". ELH Online Learning Made Simple.
14. "The NKI Internet College: A review of 15 years delivery of 10,000 online courses", irrodl.org,.
15. Learning management system, stratbeans consulting
16. Lin, Sandi (16 November 2015). "SaaS Learning Management System: Is your LMS Truly SaaS? - eLearning Industry". eLearning Industry. Retrieved 4 February 2017.
17. ^ Long, Phillip D. (2004). "Learning Management Systems (LMS)". Encyclopedia of Distributed Learning. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 291–293. doi:10.4135/9781412950596.n99. ISBN 9780761924517.
18. Wang, Qiyun; Woo, Huay Lit; Quek, Choon Lang; Yang, Yuqin; Liu, Mei (9 June 2011). "Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study". British Journal of Educational Technology. 43 (3): 428–438. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01195.x. ISSN 0007-1013.
19. Chaiprasurt, Chantorn; Esichaikul, Vatcharaporn (5 July 2013). "Enhancing motivation in online courses with mobile communication tool support: A comparative study". The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 14 (3): 377–401. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1416. ISSN 1492-3831.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
20. ^ Schoonenboom, Judith (February 2014). "Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others". Computers & Education. 71: 247–256. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.016. ISSN 0360-1315.
21. 6th Annual LMS Data Update, 2018.
22. "Academic LMS Market Share: A view across four global regions". e-Literate. 29 June 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
23. "SCORM is dead – what are the alternatives to SCORM?". Plume. 22 August 2018. Retrieved 21 February 2019.
24. Ellis, R.; Calvo, R.A. (2007), "Minimum indicators to quality assure blended learning supported by learning management systems" (PDF), Journal of Educational Technology and Society
25. Montrieux, Hannelore; Vanderlinde, Ruben; Schellens, Tammy; Marez, Lieven De (7 December 2015). "Teaching and Learning with Mobile Technology: A Qualitative Explorative Study about the Introduction of Tablet Devices in Secondary Education". PLOS ONE. 10 (12): e0144008. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144008. PMC 4671718. PMID 26641454.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
26. "PsycNET". psycnet.apa.org. Retrieved 26 April 2018.
27. "Teacher workload: using ICT to release time to teach - Google Search". www.google.com. Retrieved 26 April 2018.

Bibliography

• Levensaler, Leighann; Laurano, Madeline (2009), Talent Management Systems 2010, Bersin & Associates

Further reading

• Connolly, P. J. (2001). A standard for success. InfoWorld, 23(42), 57-58. EDUCAUSE Evolving Technologies Committee (2003). Course Management Systems (CMS). Retrieved 25 April 2005, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/DEC0302.pdf
• A field guide to learning management systems. (2005). Retrieved 12 November 2006, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/NR/rdonlyres/BFEC9F41-66C2-42EFBE9D-E4FA0D3CE1CE/7304/LMS_fieldguide1.pdf
• Gibbons, A. S., Nelson, J. M., & Richards, R. (2002). The nature and origin of instructional objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects: Online version. Retrieved 5 April 2005, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/gibbons.doc
• Gilhooly, K. (2001). Making e-learning effective. Computerworld, 35(29), 52-53.
• Hodgins, H. W. (2002). The future of learning objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects: Online version. Retrieved 13 March 2005, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/hodgins.doc
• Wiley, D. (2002). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects: Online version. Retrieved 13 March 2005, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

• Learning
• Educational software
• Learning management systems