Efficiency or Innovation: Can Learning Management Systems
Be a Part of Future Learning Spaces?
Stephanie D. Teasley, USE Lab, University of Michigan
Technology-enabled learning is increasingly important and pervasive in higher education. Webbased systems such as Course Management Systems (CMS) or Learning Management Systems
(LMS) allow instructors and students to share instructional materials, make class
announcements, submit and return course assignments, and communicate with each other online.
By 2007, over 90% of US universities and colleges had established one or more LMS-type
products for student and faculty use (Hawkins & Rudy, 2007). Further, LMS use in high school
classrooms is currently growing (e.g., Perkins & Pfaffman, 2006). While the adoption rate for
these systems has been rapid, very little is known about how these systems are being used and if
they are helping instructors change their classroom practices. Early adopters of LMS have
typically come to these applications because they promise to make teaching more efficient
(Morgan, 2003) and most LMS are used for the distribution, management, and retrieval of course
materials (Lonn & Teasley, 2009). However, these systems can also incorporate functionality
that supports interaction between students and instructors and among students (West, Waddoups,
& Graham, 2007), and provide opportunities for enabling institutional innovations in learning
and education (Dutton, Cheong, & Park, 2003). In the use of LMS today, are there innovations
in instructors' classroom practices fostered by LMS and what can LMS offer to the vision of
"future learning spaces"?
In the research conducted in the USE Lab, we have been exploring the perceived benefits and
actual use of a LMS by instructors and students from our campus where the system supplements
traditional face-to-face classroom instruction. The LMS we examine is based on the Sakai
architecture (http://sakaiproject.org). This environment is comparable to other popular systems
such as Blackboard (http://www.blackboard.com) and Moodle (http://moodle.org). We have
several years of survey responses related to information technology (IT) use generally and LMS
use specifically, and we are focusing our analysis on items relating to efficiency versus
interactive teaching and learning practices. We have also recently collected survey data from 13
other universities who are using the same LMS. In addition, we have aggregated log data on
LMS use from our campus that allows us to examine whether system use is consistent with
beliefs about use shown in the survey results.
In recent years, these types of systems have switched their monikers from Course Management
Systems to Learning Management Systems. Embedded in this change is the notion that learning
involves more than providing course content efficiently. Our survey results indicate that while
both instructors and students agree that information technologies improve learning, students do
not agree as strongly as instructors that such technologies improve instruction. These findings
suggest that students may be responding not to whether these tools are used, but rather how they
are used (e.g., Holm, Röllinghoff, & Ninck, 2003). For example, we have preliminary results for
our open-ended survey question asking instructors and students: “Has using (LMS) affected how
you use in-class time? If so, how?” Most of the responses (60%) were positive for instructors
and students, where both groups appreciated that use of the system reduced the class time spent
on logistics and provided more time to cover material. However, this advantage was also
directly related to students' negative comments; they felt that their instructors were going through
the lessons too quickly or not covering material in enough depth. Indeed, very few of the
instructors' comments (3.5%) suggested that they used the system to provide more time for
application of the course content or to facilitate either in-class or between-class discussions.
These survey data are consistent with the actual tool use within the LMS: the materials
management tools (Resources, Announcements, Assignments, Syllabus) were used more than the
interactive tools (Chat, Discussion, Wiki). Nevertheless, we do know that the LMS can be used
to break the traditional format of the classroom and several examples of innovative use will be
included in this presentation.
Our findings suggest that instructors and students either fail to see the relevance of using
interactive tools for teaching and learning, or they lack the training and experience to use these
more complex tools as effectively as the basic materials management tools. These results show
that despite the growing number of tools available in LMS, at present they are not generally
changing teaching practice other than simply providing more time for the sage to be on the stage.
In designing IT and LMS in particular, we need to think about how existing and new tools can
transform the role of the instructor in the classroom and move away from practices that are based
on the assumption that learning is limited to in-class time. However, for any tool to play a
significant role in future learning spaces, LMS implementers need to help instructors and
students learn to use them in innovative and meaningful ways.
References
Dutton, W. H., Cheong, P. H., & Park, N. (2003). The social shaping of a virtual learning
environment: The case of a university-wide course management system. The Electronic
Journal of e-Learning, 2(1). Available: http://www.ejel.org/volume-2/vol2-issue1/issue1art3-dutton-cheong-park.pdf
Hawkins, B. L., & Rudy, J. A. (2008). Educause core data service: Fiscal year 2007 summary
report. Boulder, CO: Educause. Available:
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB8005.pdf
Holm, C., Röllinghoff, A., & Ninck, A. (2003). WebCT and elearning in Switzerland.
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on New Educational Environments,
Luzerne. 139-143. Available: http://www.hsw.fhso.ch/holm/WebCT%20in%20CH.pdf
Lonn, S. & Teasley, S. D. (2009). Saving Time or Innovating Practice: Investigating Perceptions
and Uses of Learning Management Systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 686-694.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.008
Morgan, G. (2003). Faculty use of course management systems (Vol. 2). Boulder, CO: Educause
Center for Applied Research. Available: http://www.educause.edu/library/ERS0302
Perkins, M., & Pfaffman, J. (2006). Using a course management system to improve classroom
communication. The Science Teacher, 73(7), 33-37.
West, R. E., Waddoups, G., & Graham, C. R. (2007). Understanding the experiences of
instructors as they adopt a course management system. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 55(1), 1-26. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9018-1