Learning Management Systems: A Review
Prepared for:
LMS Review Committee
AUT University
(contact stanley.frielick@aut.ac.nz )
Prepared by: Sara Bennett
Contact details:
Sara Bennett
P O Box 56053
Dominion Rd
AUCKLAND
Ph 021 369 039
Email: sara.bennett@orcon.net.nz
Contents
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................2
Literature Review Methods ......................................................................................................6
A Brief History of E-Learning in New Zealand .........................................................................7
Environmental Scan of Selected Universities LMS Change and Transition Decision Making
...............................................................................................................................................10
Massey University ................................................................................................................11
Waikato University ...............................................................................................................13
La Trobe University ..............................................................................................................14
Macquarie University............................................................................................................15
Queensland University of Technology ....................................................................................16
RMIT ..................................................................................................................................17
University of South Australia.................................................................................................18
Critical reflections on LMS .....................................................................................................20
Pedagogy .............................................................................................................................20
LMS, Engagement and learning outcomes...............................................................................23
System (in)flexibility ............................................................................................................24
Inclusion of Web 2.0 technologies..........................................................................................24
Future considerations for LMS...............................................................................................29
Concluding comments ...........................................................................................................35
References ............................................................................................................................36
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 1
Introduction
In October 2010, the AUT University commissioned a literature review of learning
management systems (LMS) as one part of a broader project reviewing LMS at AUT.
Learning management systems have been available in their current form since the early
1990s. Internationally and within New Zealand, LMSs have become nearly ubiquitous
across the higher education sector as a core component of e-learning (also referred to as
blended learning) (Pina 2010). A frequently used definition of an LMS describes it as “a
broad term that is used for a wide range of systems that organise and provide access to
online learning services for students, teachers, and administrators. These services usually
include access control, provision of learning content, communication tolls, and administration
of user groups” (Paulson 2002). Most, if not all, Universities in New Zealand use one or
more LMS (Elgort 2005). Summarising the extent to which the higher education sector has
embraced the use of LMS, Jones comments “it is broadly accepted that the almost universal
response to e-learning within Universities has been a selection of an LMS.” (Jones 2009).
Learning management systems are referred to by several names in the literature, including
course management systems, virtual learning environments (VLE), and e-learning
courseware. The term LMS is more frequently used in the majority of US based
publications, and VLE is more frequently used in Europe and Asia (Weller 2007). For the
purposes of this report, the term LMS is used synonymously with VLE.
A University LMS consists of many interlinked components, as illustrated below (Wise and
Quealy 2006):
LMSs resemble other systems designed for e-commerce, human resources and student
records, but what makes an LMS unique is its functionality and instructional nature. Ellis
describes a ‘robust’ LMS as a system which has the ability to:
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
Centralise and automate administration
Use self-service and self-guided services
Assemble and deliver learning content rapidly
Consolidate training initiatives on a scalable web-based platform
Support portability and standards
Personalize content and enable knowledge re-use (Ellis 2009:1)
Hayward (2009, cited from Adams 2011) describes LMSs through a five level hierarchy of
increasing capabilities:
1. Classroom management – facilitate delivery of notes or other learning aids for a
particular lecture (e.g., lecturer creates a website to distribute materials)
2. Course management – support to span multiple class sessions across an entire
course with common goals, adding tools for evaluation, feedback and discussion
3. Curriculum management – provides meta-tools (e.g., content tagging and objectives
management) to handle relationships among a set of courses. These tools can be
used to index a curriculum across a programme or identify common attributes across
courses
4. Learning management – information is organised around the learner. This facilitates
self-directed learning as students can chose from a variety of learning opportunities,
and can progress at different rates over time depending on individual goals.
Students may have a private area within the system to assemble selected resources
(facilitating the use of an eportfolio)
5. Community management – enables borders to extend beyond the class, course,
curriculum or the traditional campus learner, allowing for multiple learning contexts
and organisations.
Selecting an LMS is a critical decision for any University, and is likely to have a major impact
over a number of years. LMSs are available in two broad categories: propriety (paid for) and
open source. Most of the propriety systems are based on Microsoft .NET and/or Java
technologies (Eckstein 2010). Examples of paid-for LMS include Blackboard, JoomlaLMS,
Learn.com, and Saba Learning Suite. Most open source systems are based on Apache,
PHP and MYSQL, making installation simple and inexpensive (or free), and the software for
each open source LMS is free to download, install, use and update, and all have
comprehensive free documentation and forums (Eckstein 2010). Examples of open source
LMS include Moodle, Sakai Project, Claroline, and aTutor.
This review concentrates on Blackboard and Moodle, as these are the most frequently used
second generation propriety and open source LMS in use in New Zealand and Australia
(Bacus 2010; University of Tasmania. 2010). Although definitive data is very difficult to
access, it appears that of 33 universities across New Zealand and Australia 29 are currently
using a version of Blackboard (including WebCT), 12 are using a version of Moodle, one is
using Sakai and one is using Desire2Learn.
There are more than 90 different types of LMSs available (Pina 2010). Second generation
LMS are characterised by a shift towards modular architecture designs, recognitions of the
need for semantic exchange, integration of standards-compliant platforms and increased
shift towards the ‘services’ principle, where aspects of functionality are externally exposed
(Dagger, O'Connor et al. 2007). Second generation LMS remain content or teacher centric,
rather than learner-centric (Yau, Lam et al. 2009).
Blackboard was established in 1997, and has grown considerably over time through the
strategic acquisition of other LMS and non-LMS companies. As a result, Blackboard has a
wide-reaching product line. In 2009, Blackboard Learn Version 9 was introduced, which
incorporated functionality from earlier versions of Blackboard and WebCT.
Walsh and Coleman (2010) note that the latest version, Blackboard Learn 9.1 also
incorporates Blackboard Connect (at an additional cost), which alerts students to deadlines,
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 3
due dates and academic priorities within a course. Blackboard 9.1 also allows educators to
more easily incorporate videos and photos directly into text for a more complete learning
experience. Finally, this version also features Blackboard Mobile Learn (also at an
additional cost), which lets students connect to their online courses using various handheld
devices, such as the iPhone or iPad.
Blackboard has adopted a modular approach, where the LMS is extended by the
incorporation of ‘building blocks’ – applications built by third parties. A small number of
building blocks are available free of charge, however most are purchased or licensed
annually. Tools included within the Blackboard Learn community are course-centric, and are
supplemented with the Content, Community and Outcomes systems to add institutional
based content and learning object management, e-library reserves, e-portfolio, and group
and user role management (Pina 2010). Due to the significant annual investment required
for the Content, Community and Outcomes systems which can triple or quadruple the initial
licensing fee for the Learn system many customers only use the core Learn system (Pina
2010). In contrast to Moodle, Blackboard positions itself as pedagogically neutral (Adams
2011).
In New Zealand, Blackboard has been used by many tertiary institutions as an LMS (Winter
2006).
Moodle has been freely available for download and implementation since 2002, and is
developed and supported by an active community of developers, users and administrators
that keep the software evolving at a steady pace (Pina 2010).
Moodle 2.0 is the latest version, and new features focus on increased usability, including:
easier navigation, improved user profiles, community hub publishing and downloading, a
new interface for messaging, and a feature that allows teachers to check student work for
plagiarism (Walsh and Coleman 2010). Text formats also allow plug-ins for embedded
photos and videos in text. Walsh and Coleman (2010) note that Blackboard 9.1 allows for
this too. A major improvement in Moodle 2.0 is that anyone can set up a community hub,
which is a public or private directory of courses. Also, Moodle now allows teachers to search
all public community hubs and download courses to use as templates for building their own
courses. Teachers can now see when a student completes a certain activity or task and can
also see reports on a student’s progress in a course (Walsh and Coleman 2010).
Moodle LMS design is explicitly conceptualised to support a social constructivist framework
of education, where students are actively involved in constructing their own knowledge
(Moodle. 2011). The concept behind this philosophy of learning is that learners actively
construct new knowledge and they learn more by explain what they have learnt to others, as
well as by adopting a more subjective stance to the knowledge being created (Barr, Gower
et al. 2007). Pina (2010) comments that the Moodle interface contains a feature set similar
to a commercial LMS, however the focus of the interface reflects Moodle’s constructivist
roots, and is focused on facilitating communications and social interaction.
In New Zealand, Moodle was reviewed by the Open Source Virtual Learning Environment
Project, as part of the identification and selection of a suitable open source learning
environment to develop for use in educational institutions. Moodle was shortlisted from over
30 options, and was recognised for its user friendliness, flexibility, excellent documentation
and evolution to meet SCORM standards, along with accessibility to developers, modular
architecture, and the existence of a lively developer community (Winter 2006).
Identifying LMS market share information is very difficult to ascertain, however there is
general agreement that Blackboard and Moodle are responsible for a large section of the
LMS market. A recent analysis of LMS market share for US Higher Education institutions
was undertaken by the Delta Initiative, a US based higher education consultancy company
which assists with the delivery of enterprise wide technology, and findings are illustrated
below.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 4
Figure 2: LMS Market Share for All Institutions (US) 1997 –2010. (Delta Initiative, 2010)
Similar trends are also illustrated in the Australian LMS market share. A recent report from
the University of Western Australia (Bacus 2010) documents that in 2008, Blackboard
accounted for 48% of the LMS market share in the Australia Higher Education sector,
WebCT accounted for 43%, and Moodle for 3%. However, considerable change was
anticipated across the sector, as 17 Australian Universities were reviewing their LMS options
and applications, and the market share for Moodle was expected to grow to 21% after 2011
(Bacus 2010).
Increasingly, reviewers agree that there is little difference between the most recent versions
of Blackboard and Moodle’s LMS (Obexer and Bakharia 2005; Feldstein 2010; Momani
2010). For example, commenting on a recent review of Blackboard 9.1 and Moodle 2.0.1
undertaken at the Ruhr University in Bochum Germany (Otto 2011), Thibault states:
Blackboard Learn 9.1 (SP3) and Moodle 2.0.1 are extremely similar in their
capabilities in about 95% of the features and tools. With a few extensions and
additional plugins ... the LMSs can mirror each other in 100% of the functionalities
they set out to provide. (Thibault 2011).
The
comparison
can
be
found
at
bochum.de/file.php/1/Feature_Comparison_Moodle-Blackboard.pdf
http://moodle.ruhr-uni-
Ellis (2009) recommends that careful consideration is first given to identifying how an
organisation will use an LMS, before matching product functionality to requirements.
Given the essential similarities between LMS, it is important to understand what
considerations Universities have given to their decision making about LMS, and what
information could support AUT University as part of its review of LMS.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 5
The remainder of this report is structured as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Literature review methods
A brief history of e-learning in New Zealand
Environmental scan of selected universities lms change and transition decision
making
Critical reflections on LMS
Future considerations for LMS.
Literature Review Methods
Two key approaches were taken to identifying materials for the literature review.
Initially, a search of electronic databases available through the AUT library was undertaken
by AUT librarians. An initial key word strategy was agreed in advance with the AUT project
team, and combinations of the following search teams were used to identify relevant
materials:
Learning management system(s); blackboard; moodle; sakai; vle; lms; virtual learning
environment(s); cms; clms; evaluation; comparison.
The following data bases were included in the search:
Science Direct; ERIC; Summon; Cambridge Journals; Scopus; Web of Science and Google
Scholar.
A total of 79 documents were identified through this initial search. This material was
provided to the researcher, and reviewed according to the following parameters:
•
Currency – how could the material identified can build on and support the purpose of the
review;
•
Source – potential sources of information were identified and prioritised, including
academic data bases and sources of unpublished literature (e.g., conference
proceedings);
•
Reliability and validity – all materials collected were critically reviewed, ensuring they are
obtained from credible sources and are appropriate to the project’s purpose; and
•
Coverage and relevance – relevance was ensured by assessing that materials included
in the review were appropriate to the project’s purpose.
The review was limited to information published in English. The criteria for inclusion in the
review was documents produced from 2006 onwards, as well as seminal references
published earlier.
Findings from the review of this material were discussed with the Director of Learning and
Teaching. Of the 79 references in the data base, 57 were accessible to the researcher – the
remainder were unable to be accessed (primarily due to restricted access websites, or
conference papers that were unable to be sourced). To supplement the materials identified
to date, the researcher also attempted to access information through the AUT on line LMS
Wiki. Some difficulties were also experiencing accessing information through this site, as
some links were inaccessible.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 6
In addition, difficulties were experienced by the AUT team in accessing a commercial
eLearning Guild report which was intended to supplement the peer-reviewed material
sourced through the AUT library literature search.
Of the literature that was able to be accessed at this stage, an initial assessment of this
information indicated that the majority was not relevant to the agreed parameters of the
literature review.
Overall, much of the literature that was able to be accessed was not
considered to be appropriately aligned with the agreed areas of focus for the review, had
limited relevance, and had limited value in relation to reliability and validity.
A meeting was held in early March 2011 with the Director of Learning and Teaching to
discuss the literature and the implications for the project to date. The researcher expressed
concerns about the literature accessed to date, and agreement was reached to refine and
rescope the project.
Agreement was reached that the review would focus primarily on a comparison between
Blackboard and Moodle, and some consideration would be given to other examples of
LMSs.
A second literature search was undertaken to supplement the initial search findings. This
search was informed by materials provided by the Director of Learning and Teaching, and
also supported by additional Google Scholar and academic data base reviews. Further
references were also sought by searching the reference lists of identified materials.
The second search identified more than 150 document (peer review journal articles, reports,
trade journal articles and e-learning and LMS commentator blogs), and the majority were
able to be incorporated into the current review document.
A Brief History of E-Learning in New Zealand
Internationally, LMSs have been available and implemented by Universities since the early
1990s. Adoption and implementation of LMSs by New Zealand Universities has been
evident since the mid to late 1990s. Since the early 2000s, there has been considerable
national discussion and policy interest focused on New Zealand’s e-learning capabilities,
which incorporates the use of LMSs (Shephard, Stein et al. 2008). This discussion has
occurred within an overall focus on a constructivist education model, which underpins New
Zealand’s approach to education and which provides rich active learning environments, and
emphasises the active and personal construction of knowledge by the student through
experiences and interactions within a learning environment (Papastergiou 2006; Ministry of
Education. 2008). Internationally, constructivism has been a key strand of educational
discourse for more than 20 years (Conole and Alveizou 2010). Summarising constructivist
principles, Papstergiou (2006) notes they place importance on:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Negotiation of learning objectives
Student control over their learning
Authentic, purposeful and contextual learning
Problem solving
Collaborative learning
Multiple, alternative perspectives
Knowledge construction and validation through action and discourse
Authentic, contextual assessment and
Development of metacognitive skills.
A brief history of key points of e-learning in New Zealand is summarised below, with
particular emphasis on LMS related findings.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 7
In 2001, the E-Learning Advisory Group was established to inform strategic and investment
decision making and to explore issues related to the development of e-learning across the
tertiary education sector. In 2002, the E-Learning Advisory Group produced a vision for elearning in New Zealand, Highways and Pathways: Exploring New Zealand’s e-learning
opportunities (Butterfield 2002) which recommended the establishment of the e-learning
Collaborative Development Fund, and the launch of two electronic portals for tertiary
education in New Zealand. The report identified a number of key issues, including the
importance of sound pedagogical foundations to support e-learning, along with the need for
adequate funding and infrastructural requirements to ensure good access and quality
learning opportunities. The importance of professional development for teachers was also
emphasised, to support effective learning outcomes for students.
Informed by this report, significant capability development initiatives were introduced to
support e-learning by the New Zealand Government. For example, in 2003, the e-learning
Collaborative Development Fund was established by the Tertiary Education Commission to
enhance the ability of the tertiary education sector to use e-learning to improve the quality of
education, and to give learners improved access to education. A number of projects were
funded through this $28 million, four year contestable fund (Suddaby and Milne 2008). The
e-learning Collaborative Development Fund produced a range of investigations into the
adoption, development and delivery of e-learning in Tertiary Education Organisations,
including an analysis of virtual learning environments (Catalyst IT Ltd. 2004), an analysis of
e-learning in Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (Mitchell, Clayton et al. 2005) and elearning in industry training organisations (Clayton and Elliott 2007). The Innovation
Development fund was also developed as an annual $10 million contestable fund (Suddaby
and Milne 2008).
In 2004 the Interim Tertiary e-learning Framework was published, which outlined a vision for
“a networked, flexible education system offering accessible, relevant, high quality learning
opportunities for all New Zealanders” (p.15). The framework was developed in collaboration
with representatives from the tertiary education sector, and outlined five guiding principles
for e-learning in New Zealand: learner-centeredness; good practice; collaboration;
innovation; sustainability and affordability. The Framework also outlined seven action areas
essential for the development of sector capability to support the development of e-learning in
New Zealand, including the need for professional development; development of communities
of practice; and research.
Building on the Interim Framework, in 2005, the New Zealand e-learning guidelines were
released (NZ E-Learning Group. 2006). The purpose of the Guidelines was to support a
framework for reflective practice and quality in e-learning among tertiary education
organisations, across key audience groups (managers, teaching staff and students) and
across teaching activities (learning design, teaching relationships and support). The elearning guidelines “inform staff of good practice, help in the design of learning and offer a
practical entry to discussing quality teaching using e-learning” (White and Milne 2005:17).
They reflect key change measures for tertiary education priorities, including the need for
greater collaboration and rationalisation within the system; increased quality, performance,
effectiveness, efficiency and transparency; and increased responsiveness to the needs of,
and wider access for, learners (Suddaby and Milne 2008).
Focusing specifically on LMS implementation, in 2004 a consortium of New Zealand tertiary
institutions lead by the Waikato Institute of Technology obtained a grant from the Ministry of
Education to support the ‘Open Source Courseware Initiative New Zealand’ (Barr, Gower et
al. 2007). The project examined whether faculty at three tertiary institutions perceived
Moodle would support e-learning courses which would perpetuate New Zealand’s tradition of
constructivist learning, meet the needs of Maori and Pasifika students, and students at risk
of failing in the education sector, but be flexible enough to cater to students doing advance
study. Findings indicated that Moodle was considered an effective LMS that readily
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 8
accommodated higher order learning activities, it was easy to use and appropriate for
implementation in New Zealand tertiary institutions. Similar findings supporting Moodle as
the core LMS for the New Zealand Open Source Virtual Learning Environment project were
reported by the Open Polytechnic of New Zealand (Catalyst IT Ltd. 2004).
In 2004-05 the Flexible Learning Leaders in New Zealand project was developed, to
consider how staff development programmes and approaches could facilitate effective
adoption of information and communication technology for learning and teaching. The
project involved key informant interviews with university staff involved in academic
development for e-learning across New Zealand, Australia and the UK (Elgort 2005).
Findings revealed that institutional adoption of an LMS was a key catalyst for supporting the
adoption of e-learning practices among teaching staff. However, respondents expressed
concerns that poorly thought out approaches to using LMS were of serious concern, and
could have significant impact on the ability of e-learning to reach its potential.
Other research undertaken at this time also highlighted concerns about the teaching and
learning aspects of e-learning in New Zealand. Marshall (2005) evaluated the capability
across six (of eight) New Zealand Universities and three polytechnics to sustain and delivery
e-learning. Key institutional capability weaknesses were identified directly relating to the
teaching and learning aspects of e-learning. For example, learning objectives were used
poorly in e-learning papers in most institutions, and there was a lack of focus on learning
objectives relating to analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Marshall (2005) also identified a
lack of clear relationship between e-learning technology deployed by universities and
desired educational outcomes.
In 2006, the Ministry of Education commissioned research to develop a strategic framework
to support professional development for e-learning within the tertiary education sector. The
research was undertaken by a combined team from Otago and Massey Universities
(Shephard, Stein et al. 2008). Although focused on professional development requirements,
the report highlighted concerns among tertiary education organisation staff about the impact
of infrastructural requirements, institutional structures and capability issues on learning and
teaching outcomes, similar to those reported by Elgort (2005).
In 2007, the Ministry of Education commissioned the development of resources to assist
institutional leaders to plan and manage their use of e-learning more strategically (AKO
National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence. 2008). While focusing on e-learning in
general, the report highlights a series of key questions specific to institutions’ considerations
of LMS, including:
•
•
•
•
How should e-learning be managed within the institution – who should be responsible
for the management of an LMS?
Resourcing – how should a fully functional LMS be resourced, planned and
managed? What will an LMS cost? What are costs likely to be relating to the IT
environment, software, pedagogical support, and professional development for staff
and students? To out-source or not?
Staff development requirements – what expertise and training is required for elearning? What guidelines should support this?
Functionality – what should an LMS be able to do? Which functions are priority?
The report offers a series of case studies from various tertiary institutions around New
Zealand about the use of e-learning as examples of practice of strategic leadership.
Current e-learning national policy is described in the ICT Strategic Framework for Action
2008-2012, which focuses on:
•
•
Making optimal use of high-speed internet connections
Collaboration across the sector in the development and sharing of resources and
services;
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 9
•
•
•
•
•
Investment in and use of shared digital repositories of content;
Use of ICT to support the provision of life-long learning opportunities
Ensuring that learners and teachers are proficient in a range of current and emerging
Its;
Ensuring that learners, teachers and administrators are well supported in their use of
ICT in their work and that they learn to make effective use of emerging tools for
online collaboration and communication;
Ensuring that all investment in ICT is measured against agreed standards of valuefor-money (Ministry of Education. 2006; AKO National Centre for Tertiary Teaching
Excellence. 2008).
Overall, the development of e-learning and LMS adoption in New Zealand has paralleled the
drivers of the introduction of LMS internationally. Coates and colleagues (2005) summarise
the key drivers that have supported universities to introduce enterprise-level LMS including:
•
•
•
•
•
LMS as a means of increasing the efficiency of teaching
LMS and LMS-based resources giving the promise of enriched student learning
Student expectations for advance technologies
Competitive pressure between universities
LMS as part of a cultural shift in education to control and regulate teaching.
While LMS are evident in most universities across New Zealand, and in many tertiary
institutions internationally, increasingly there agreement among e-learning researchers that
the quantity and quality of learning occurring within these systems remains limited (Beer,
Jones et al. 2009; Lane 2009). Specifically, questions remain unanswered about the
adoption curves of LMSs, about the pedagogically sound use of these technologies and
about the return on investment for institutions in light of the high investments from a human
resource and financial costs perspective (Obexer and Bakharia 2005).
Within New Zealand, some universities are at various change and transition points in relation
to their LMS use. While initial LMS adoption and implementation was guided and supported
by early institutional and national educational policy development about e-learning, current
choices appear to be guided by the need to move to more responsive models of LMS to
meet emergent teaching and learning requirements. Similar transitions are occurring in
other jurisdictions, for example, in the UK many institutions are in the process of reviewing
their current LMS (or virtual learning environment) provision in the light of changing
pedagogical requirements, more administrative integration and the emergence of new
classes of social media on the web (MacNeill and Kraan 2010).
Environmental Scan of Selected Universities LMS Change and Transition
Decision Making
This section of the report provides an overview of the use of LMSs at selected Australian
and New Zealand Universities. Universities were selected for inclusion in the review if they
were similar in key characteristics to AUT University, and had recently reviewed and/or
changed their LMS. Summary information is provided about the LMS change, the process of
review, timeline, costs, key drivers in the reviews and associated business cases, and the
rationale for the final decision. Identifying organisational strategic and operational priorities
for investment in e-learning capability is recognised as a significant challenge facing many
Universities. Consequently, deciding to review an LMS, and whether or not to change an
existing LMS, is a considerable investment for a tertiary institution, and “therefore it is
essential to clearly identify the ‘business’ needs of the organization prior to selecting a LMS
to implement i.e. what educational and/or training needs is the organization wanting to
address by implementing a LMS?” (Eckstein 2010: 1).
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 10
A key challenge in critically considering LMS reviews is that there is no shared standard
across Universities for what could, or should, be included in a review (Pina 2010). Siemens
(October 6, 2006) comments that this reflects “a lack of clear focus on intentions of LMS as a
learning support tool.” Criteria that are often considered in reviews are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ease of use by faculty and students
Integration with a learning object repository
Functionality and tools available
Transition ease and cost from existing tool
Integration with other enterprise-wide tools
Extendibility – configuration to the University environment
Cost (Pina 2010; Siemens October 6, 2006)
Overall, there is little publically available information about tertiary institution’s decision
making outcomes about LMS review and change processes, and there is even less detailed
information focused on New Zealand and Australian Universities. Some information about
transition between LMSs is reported in a recent environmental scan from the University of
Western Australia, but this information is limited to Australian Universities (see Appendix
one) (Bacus 2010). Recently, the University of Tasmania has also undertaken a review of
LSMs being used by tertiary institutions in New Zealand and Australia, and the information
for New Zealand has been updated by AUT University (see Appendix two) (University of
Tasmania. 2010). However, neither of these environmental scans included data about the
drivers of change that informed decision making by specific institutions. Information included
in the following environmental scan is limited to documents available via the internet, and
more detailed information should be sought directly from the tertiary institutions. Extremely
limited data (in many cases, no data at all) was publically available about the costs
considered in an LMS review, and this is a significant limitation.
Two New Zealand Universities have published detailed information about their LMS review
processes. Massey University has published a detailed summary of the selection of their
new LMS, including strategic drivers and a high level indication of costs (Brown, Paewai et
al. 2010). Additionally, the University of Canterbury has published a comprehensive report
of the LMS review process it underwent to compare Blackboard and Moodle (University of
Canterbury. 2008).
The following tables provide a summary of the LMS decision making and transition process
undertaken at selected universities across New Zealand and Australia. Universities were
identified for inclusion in this environmental scan if they had similar characteristics to AUT
University.
Massey University
(Brown and Suddaby 2009; Brown, Paewai et al. 2010)
LMS
Had adopted WebCT from 1998 onwards, transitioned to Moodle
(rebranded as Stream) for three year implementation project
from 2009 onwards.
Process of Review
Involved multiple approaches with a priority focus of ensuring
strategic drivers rather than technical considerations drove the
process.
Strategic drivers based up on clear principles;
pedagogical considerations and Massey-specific requirements.
Criteria were made available to all staff and the selection
process involved extensive consultation through a variety of
mechanisms, including:
•
•
•
Working parities, staff surveys and in-house evaluations
Meetings with representatives from Student’s Federation
National and international benchmarking with other
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 11
•
institutions and organisations
Meetings with senior staff from LMS suppliers
Timeline
Review process commenced 2007 with investment plan,
development of guiding principles, pedagogical criteria and
institutional requirements March – May 2008; Pedagogical
reference group May 2008; Institutional endorsement June –
August 2008; Business case development August – December
2008
Costs
Senior Leadership Team approved business case with
$4.5million budget to support infrastructure, and allow for a
fivefold increase in pedagogical support. Brown et al (2010)
note “Never before had such a level of resourcing been available
to support technology enhanced learning within the University”
(p.68).
Key drivers from review Selection and implementation of the LMS was considered a
and business case
strategic opportunity for the University to redefine its delivery
modes to support a more engaging and flexible learning
environment. Key strategic drivers were to:
•
•
•
Rationale for decision
Moodle was the preferred LMS because it:
•
•
•
•
•
Final decision
Respond to the challenge of the ‘Google generation’
Enhance the quality of teaching and maintain Massey’s
University preeminent status as a distance education
provider
Introduce a new flexile model of teaching that increases
the level of student engagement and provides a learning
experience relevant to the requirements of the
knowledge society (Brown and Suddaby 2009).
Clearly signalled the intention to move from a more
formally structured, content and teacher-centered
approach to a blended and flexible learning environment
where ‘communities of learners’ could be supported
Provided a consistent style and institutional branding
across all courses and programmes, with the flexibility for
staff to teach, and students to learn, in different ways
Offered instructional design features that could blend
together print and electronic content, with a capacity to
integrate new electronic tools as they become available
Had the capacity to support Te Reo Maori and other
Pasifika languages
Was used by international leading distance education
providers and large multi-national corporations, and
supported the University’s aspirations for international
delivery.
Recommendation to adopt Moodle provided by Pedagogical
Reference Group, and endorsed by Teaching and Learning
Committee of Academic Board, Extramural Students’ Society;
Senior Leadership Team; and Academic Board. The goal is to
implement Stream in a carefully planned manner on a
programme-wide basis in order to fundamentally redesign the
student learning experience (Brown, Arnold et al. 2009).
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 12
Key
description
Institution
of Largest university-level distance education provider, with over
18,000 distance learners and over 18,000 campus based
learners.
Waikato University
(Johnson and Walker 2007; White 2009; White and Robertson 2009)
LMS
Had previously designed and implemented WebCrossing,
however support for this was stopped in 2006. Support
continued in house, but this was not sustainable. 2007/2008
transition to Moodle.
Process of Review
Process of review was challenging because of conflict
associated with the legacy system, and lack of time and
resources to engage staff in a pedagogical review process.
Urgent timeframe to implement Moodle, so University decided to
implement
risk
management
strategies
to
support
implementation, including: maximise exposure of teaching and
IT staff to Moodle and raise staff awareness of transition issues;
provide intensive 1:1 support to pilot staff to gather requirements
for Moodle based on actual teaching experience and to inform
overall configuration; administer student surveys, staff interviews
and research about implementation; transition to full roll out
scheduled for Summer School 2008 to further pilot test before
full academic year started.
Timeline
Moodle piloted and reviewed in 2007/08. Staged approach to
implementation: Year One initial project aimed to deploy Moodle;
establish appropriate support structures, develop policies and
practices around the management of the system and provide
staff and students with training to support the transition. Year
two project focused on completing the transition, enhancing the
environment in line with University requirements, increase
volume and quality of usage and decommission the legacy LMS
Costs
No information on costs able to be sourced.
Key drivers from review Legacy LMS unsustainable, and urgency to change because of
and business case
limited functionality; problems with performance; no longer
supported; limited standard compliance.
Rationale for decision
Implementation of new LMS supported by four critical project
decisions:
•
•
•
•
Final decision
Key
description
Institution
Full university-wide rollout with staged approach
Developed to ensure no loss of functionality
No automated migration of content
Delayed focus on pedagogy and encouragement not to
implement changes in teaching practice until second
phase of project.
Moodle
of Two Campuses: Hamilton and Tauranga, 650FTE academic
staff; 10,000 FTE students.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 13
La Trobe University
(Curriculum Teaching and Learning Centre. 2010; La Trobe University. 2010)
LMS
Blackboard WebCT CE 6.0 no longer supported, decision to
move to Moodle 2 from semester one, 2011.
Process of Review
Multiple aspects to evaluation of LMS including meetings,
presentations, submissions and briefing papers from vendors;
staff and student usability testing; accessibility testing; functional
criteria; content migration; and vendor responsiveness. Criteria
for review included: usability; functionality; technical fit; reliability
and consistency of ongoing service; cost; and market share.
Comparison between Blackboard 9.1 and Moodle
Timeline
Review commenced 2009, content Migration commenced
October 2010, advanced teaching with Moodle commenced
early 2011 onwards
Costs
No information on costs able to be sourced.
Key drivers from review Drivers for business case included:
and business case
• Vendor ceased further development of LMS and will
discontinue further support
• University wanted to align LMS implementation with
change in university structure and learning and teaching
goals
• Existing LMS cumbersome by current standards.
Rationale for decision
Overall, high scores for both LMS options.
Blackboard
marginally ahead in terms of functionality, ease of use by staff,
and accessibility.
Wider differences seen between cost
structures, flexibility and vendor responsiveness
Final decision
Final rational for Moodle considered structural issues: licence
cost, other cost (forex), vendor lock-in, flexibility versus risk.
Also considered key contextual issues: strategic fit with Design
for Learning project, staff opportunity cost versus existing skills
(technical fit); content migration issues; and time required to
implement.
Key
description
Institution
of La Trobe University is spread across seven different campuses,
including an inner city site.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 14
Macquarie University
(Macquarie University. 2011)
LMS
Blackboard WebCT version CE8 no longer supported by vendor;
transition to Moodle 2.0 from December 2012 (Learn2012
Project).
Process of Review
Review of options undertaken and presented to Management
Advising Committee for Academic Learning Technologies in July
2010.
Timeline
Commenced review 2010; implementation before December
2012
Costs
No information available
Key drivers from review Four key streams of strategic and operational considerations:
and business case
• Technical infrastructure (including integration to
University systems)
• Leading the change (including resource development;
communication and change management; training and
support)
• Faculty and department liaison
• Project management (status and governance reports,
resource management).
Rationale for decision
Selection of Moodle was seen as endorsement of an approach
that embraced the philosophy of growth, transformation and
excellence in online learning. Also aligned to Academic Plan
objective to ‘develop the University’s physical and virtual
environments to provide a quality learning experience.’
Final decision
Learn2012 (Moodle Implementation)
Key
description
Institution
of Macquarie is located in Sydney’s north-west high tech corridor,
and has 31,000 students (nearly 10,000 part time), and 960
academic staff.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 15
Queensland University of Technology
(Mitchell and Obexer 2006; Obexer 2006; Obexer 2006; Queensland University of
Technology. 2008)
LMS
From Online
Blackboard 9
Learning
and
Teaching
(OLT)
system
to
Process of Review
Review strategies included: environmental scan, internal
consultation about evaluation criteria and requirements for LMS;
establishment of detailed and high level evaluation criteria;
comprehensive evaluation of three shortlisted LMS compared to
existing system; closed tender process focused on selected
LMS; establishment of product profiles for selected LMS and
assessment of performance against criteria. Informed by robust
review processes, LMS options shortlisted to comparison
between Blackboard; Desire2Learn and Moodle.
Timeline
Commenced in 2005, decision to replace OLT with Blackboard
by 2007
Costs
Comprehensive analysis of costs indicated that despite high
initial costs for the migration of content and re-training of staff
(estimated at 259,765 over two years), overall and ongoing
costs for maintaining Blackboard would be lower than the
maintenance costs for original OLT LMS when calculated over 4
years. Estimated savings is approximately $1.4 milllion over 5
years (Obexer 2006).
Key drivers from review OLT system needed either significant re-investment or
and business case
replacement. Over time, the initial investment in OLT had been
superseded by the rapid development of the open source
movement, and the development of Blackboard as the ‘industry
standard’ in Australia. Learning Environments Working Party
also identified that the LMS system change provided a number
of opportunities to advance the QUT Learning and Teaching
agenda, including opportunities to: develop staff capabilities;
reinvest resources required to maintain the OLT system into
other activities to support learning and teaching; collaborate with
others regionally and nationally; use innovative resources and
tools developed by a global community; integrate with other
QUT systems.
Rationale for decision
Transition to Blackboard seen to provide increased functionality
in some areas (e.g., communication tools, content management,
student tools); being part of Blackboard developers community
offers collaborative opportunities for tool development; easy
integration with existing systems; building blocks allow for
development and integration of innovative tools; skills of staff
and students from other Universities transferable to QUT;
proven scalability, stability and robustness; possibility of semiautomated content migration from OLT; over time, reduced costs
in maintaining and supporting the system.
Final decision
Final decision informed by recommendations from detailed
evaluation and unanimous advice from the technical advisory
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 16
group in favour of Blackboard. No consensus reached with the
academic advisory group (equally split between Blackboard and
‘wait and see’ approach), however other key stakeholders
including OLT steering committee, and technical support within
the University were in favour of Blackboard.
Final
recommendation of review was that QUT transition to
Blackboard.
Key
description
Institution
of QUT is based in Brisbane, with 40,000 students, spread over
three campuses, and 4,000 staff.
RMIT
(RMIT. 2011)
LMS
Transition to Blackboard 7.2 to Blackboard Learn 9.1 on 31
December 2010.
Process of Review
Existing material was automatically migrated to the upgraded
LMS
Timeline
No information available.
Costs
No information available.
Key drivers from review Review and upgrade was seen as “integral to a reinvigoration
and business case
and re-brand” of RMIT’s use of learning technologies (RMIT.
2011).
Upgrade was intended to provide significant
improvement for all users, more contemporary ‘fit for purpose’
system, and incorporate more features for teaching,
assessment, student work and course management. Upgrade
also introduced flexible and customisable options to improve the
teacher/student experience, and presents in a Web interface of
similar standard to popular online environments. It was also
intended to enable more streamlined integration between
Blackboard and other technologies.
Rationale for decision
No information available about the rationale for the decision
Final decision
Blackboard 9.1
Key
description
Institution
of RMIT has three campuses in Melbourne and two in Vietnam,
and more than 70,000 students.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 17
University of South Australia
(University of South Australia. 2010; University of South Australia. 2010)
LMS
From previous home-grown system, UniSAnet, transitioning to
Moodle Learnonline. Transition to new LMS be completed by
December 2011
Process of Review
No information available.
Timeline
No information available.
Costs
No information available.
Key drivers from review Guiding principles identified to support the achievement of the
and business case
best learning outcomes for all students, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
learnonline will be UniSA's primary environment for
delivering and engaging students with online teaching
and learning, and will include Moodle LMS and other
tools to ensure an integrated online experience for
students.
All UniSA courses will have a learnonline presence.
Staff using learnonline will be fully supported by the IT
help desk, online advisers and academic developers.
UniSA staff and students will be encouraged to develop
innovative online practices.
Students will undertake all summative assessment tasks
within the learnonline environment.
UniSA encourages the sharing of good teaching
practices and collaborative teaching.
All material available through learnonline will be
copyright compliant.
Students can expect access via learnonline to recordings
(audio and presentation) of lectures conducted in a main
lecture theatre
Students will have access to course material for courses
they have been enrolled in for a minimum of 12 months
after the completion of that study period.
All course material software will comply with accessibility
requirements
Rationale for decision
No information available.
Final decision
Moodle
As noted earlier, other authors have also reported difficulties in accessing detailed
information about University’s choices of LMS and transitions between different LMSs
(Bacus 2010). While some commentators have encouraged information about this to be
shared in the public domain (see for example (Smithers 2009), this has not resulted in
dissemination of detailed business cases.
However, some Universities not included in the environmental scan have published relatively
detailed information about their LMS change strategies, providing information about
business case and strategic drivers, as well as financial costings. Examples include:
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 18
•
•
•
•
Charles Sturt University, which was the first Australian University to implement Sakai,
an open source LMS. Uys (2010) describes the change and innovation process,
including the model that supported change, initiatives to build learning communities
within the University, professional development requirements for University staff and
students, and communication strategies to support the change process.
The University of Queensland transitioned from WebCT to Blackboard in 2004, and
Steel (2005) reported key drivers in the implementation and change process,
including practical leadership, cultural and project management strategies used to
support implementation.
The Open University has summarised the key drivers that supported the selection of
Moodle, and the implications of this decision for the University (Sclater 2008). Key
drivers that encouraged faculty adoption of the LMS are also described.
The University of Gloucestershire published the review of its transition from WebCT
to Moodle, including evaluation of student and staff usability, pedagogical
implications, systems capability, administration and support, security and costs (Hill
2008).
Overall, information about costs is particularly limited. Costs relating to the implementation
and use of an LMS initially include funds for purchase and maintenance of software and
supporting hardware. Direct costs are the most visible expenditure, however it is also
important to consider indirect costs such as those relating to the professional development
and support of staff using the LMS.
Informed by their analysis of forthcoming future changes in the LMS market, Delta Initiative
(2010) outline a set of key lessons for institutional decision making about LMS choices.
They suggest institutions should:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Keep their eye on the big picture: it’s not simply a decision to choose an LMS, but is
also a choice about a strategic direction for technology and learning. LMS should be
viewed as part of a suite of IT systems, as faculty and students are looking for a
seamless interface to facets of their institutional life
Move ahead on LMS initiatives, but be prepared for innovation and change. Pilot
programmes are a useful way of testing options such as mobile, alternative
approaches to LMS or social networking, alongside the main LMS initiative
Start with what you know, and build over time. Progress in stages, not in one jump,
as this allows for success over time, clarity of purpose and the ability to course
correct
Base the LMS model on your culture, as this will reflect your local culture and history,
and will support flexibility and the integration of LMS other systems
Focus on needs and use a strategic approach to planning with LMS specific
questions
An inclusive process is as important as the decision itself. LMS is more than an
administrative tool, and requires a different approach to decision making.
Governance issues are important, as this is an academic and IT strategic decision.
Similarly, reflecting on international trends in change and transition between LMS, Feldstein
(2010) highlights that many universities which have multiple campuses, or who work in
consortia, appear to be favouring open source LMS such as Moodle, Sakai and emergent
LMS models such as Instructure Canvas. Feldstein and other authors (e.g., Delta Initiative,
2010) agree the LMS market is very much in transition. Reflecting on the potential changes
to the LMS market that are likely to occur by 2014, Feldstein comments “between
movements toward more personal/informal learning environments, the big changes that are
happening in the textbook industry as content providers and delivery platform providers
collide, and the breathtaking pace of innovation that continues in the consumer web market,
I strongly suspect we’ll see a wave of new software that will begin to displace the classic
LMS. My guess is that it will be mostly co-existing with current-generation products over the
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 19
next few years, but by 2014 we may see it beginning to change the whole picture for
technology infrastructure in some fundamental ways” (Feldstein 2010).
Critical reflections on LMS
As stated earlier, LMS are used by the overwhelming majority of New Zealand universities,
and many universities internationally. However, research into the ramifications of LMSs on
teaching and learning is limited and most of the published literature has focused on LMS
evaluation to guide selection of a particular LMS, with a secondary focus on ‘lessons learnt’
when transitioning from a LMS system to another (Adams 2011).
Adams (2011) comments there has been little critical discussion relating to the potential
shifts in teaching and learning practices, and overall there is little evidence-based research
supporting continued investment in e-learning from a pedagogical perspective. The rapid
adoption of LMS has occurred in a vacuum of research into their teaching and learning
effectiveness (Beer, Jones et al. 2009). Overall, LMS are a “taken for granted teaching
technology, based on accessibility and convenience (Weigel 2005), as well as [meeting]
perceived student demand for digitally enhanced learning environments” (Adams 2011: 253).
However, there is increasing recognition that “LMS are not pedagogically neutral
technologies, but rather through their very design they influence and guide teaching. As the
systems become more incorporated into everyday academic practices, they will work to
shape and even define teachers’ imaginations, expectations and behaviours” (Coates,
James et al. 2005: 27). Mersham (2009) states “the choice of medium or LMS is a major
consideration in e-learning. This software facilitates management of educational courses,
including course development, presentation and administration.... E-learning pedagogy
exists in direct and mutually dependent relationships with the technologies, supporting and
allowing certain activities while preventing others” (p.62).
This section of the review outlines key critical reflections on LMS.
Pedagogy
In a recent critical review of LMS, Adams (2011) focuses on LMS design and pedagogy, and
highlights the importance of considering the question “what explicit or implicit theory of
teaching and learning informed the design of a given LMS?” as a key framework for
examining the pedagogical issues inherent within LMS adoption.
The pedagogical differences between open source (e.g., Moodle) and propriety (e.g.,
Blackboard) LMS systems are frequently cited. As noted earlier, Moodle was developed
from a social constructionist pedagogy, and in contrast Blackboard positioned itself as
pedagogically neutral (although this position is contested by many reviewers, e.g.,
Adams2011; Lane 2009). Irrespective of their pedagogical positioning, one of the initial
promises of LMS development was that the software would be transformative, liberating, and
would allow the learner or teacher to choose the methods and technologies that are most
appropriate in a given situation. However, “the outcomes have not quite measured up to the
hype” (Wise and Quealy 2006: 899). There is increasing recognition that even those LMSs
which claim to be are not pedagogically neutral shells for course content – they influence
and potentially limit pedagogy by presenting default formats to guide the creation of a course
in certain ways (Lane 2009).
Current enterprise scale LMSs were created to manage traditional teaching tasks as if they
were business processes, and were designed to focus on instructor efficiency for
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 20
administration processes (Lane 2009). Consequently, managerialism may an inevitable
result of a centrally managed LMS, and pedagogical choices are significantly restricted.
Reflecting on this, Dron (2006) comments that the inherent structure of LMSs imposes a
structural hierarchy which constrains users – tools that are provided through the LMS allow
and encourage some things, and prevent or discourage others. Mott (2010) refers to this as
the ‘troublesome LMS’, and there is a growing body of research that illustrates that
instructors overwhelmingly use content distribution and administrative tools in the LMS, while
using interactive learning tools sparingly (Chang 2008; Wenmoth 2009; Naveh, Tubin et al.
2010). This is particularly evident in integrated systems (e.g., Blackboard), however Lane
(2009) and other authors (Jones 2009) comment that it is also true of more constructivist
systems (e.g., Moodle).
Reflecting on the use of LMSs among New Zealand tertiary sector organisations, Marshall
(2005) reports that while all tertiary institutions reported using an LMS, many did not place
the use of these systems within a framework of strategy and guidance to teaching staff that
would transform learning. Marshall comments “there is a definite sense that existing
approaches for teaching and learning are being carried over to technology without reflection
and planning. A clear example of this is in the absence of linkages provided to students
between the learning objectives of the course and the technologies and pedagogies they
encounter” (Marshall 2005:5).
Adams (2011) also emphasises the need to consider “how do teachers and students
experience teaching and learning in and with these systems, particularly relative to the
educational theory the LMS is designed to operationalise?”
Wenmoth (2010) comments that the design of an LMS should be carefully considered before
implementation, as there are significant links between online learning space design, and
pedagogy. A University’s LMS forms the academic system equivalent of enterprise resource
planning systems in terms of pedagogical impact and institutional resource consumption
(Jones 2009). Wenmoth (2010) notes that frequently LMS implementation is driven by
expediency, costs, limited involvement from teaching staff and post-implementation
involvement of end-users to encourage uptake of use. He notes that less frequently he
observes consideration of other important drivers which should support LMS vision and
decision making including:
•
•
•
•
•
An intensive period of facilitated discussion with teaching staff (as end users) to
develop a shared perspective on the linking of pedagogy to online learning space
design
A significant modification of the LMS interface to reflect the pedagogical decisions of
teachers, and to provide a coherent experience for all users across the various
courses that are provided by an institution
A strategic integration of the LMS with other appliances to provide the full range of
online learning services required to provide the optimal online learning experience
A significant stream of input from learners to provide user-feedback on usability and
the user-experience
A period of negotiation with staff to develop a set of principles to underpin the
interface design across the range of course options provided by the organisation
(Wenmoth 2010).
It is interesting to note that new and emergent models of LMSs such as Smartly Edu are
focusing on design, with the belief that good design will make students spend more time on
line, connected and engaged (Meyer 2010).
One of the negative effects of structural limitations is that they encourage limited use of the
LMS, which in turn retains academic staff at the ‘novice’ user level, thereby continuing to
restrict use of the LMS. This reflects the affordance of the technology, which is defined the
way the application is used in real contexts by experts and novices. Social political,
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 21
personal, economic and other contexts constrain and define the ways in which the
technology is actually used (Mersham 2009). For example, it is important to consider that
academic staff may be at different levels of digital competence in their ability to consider a
change in pedagogical practice. Chang (2008) states that digital competence comprises of
three levels: 1) factual knowledge, about the IT system; 2) knowledge of the tool in context,
or how the system is used within practice; and 3) constructive knowledge – knowing the
system and its use in context, as well as being able to use it to develop and change work
practices. In order for ICT to change pedagogical practice, a user has to be at the highest
level of digital competence with a range of tools, and to be able to think creatively with them,
to bring the experience to the next level of making qualitative change to existing pedagogical
practice (Chang 2008). The under-utilisation of LMS opportunities suggests that few
academic staff transition past levels 1 or 2 of digital competency.
As a response to this ‘LMS pedagogy trap’, Lane (2009) highlights the importance of
introducing pedagogy to novice users of LMS before focusing on LMS features and tools,
and continuing to provide pedagogical support. Lane differentiates between ‘opt-out’ LMS
systems (e.g., Blackboard) and ‘opt-in’ systems (e.g., Moodle). Opt-out systems are
considered more likely to overwhelm novice users as all features are available by default,
and the tendency is to reduce cognitive load by using the minimal default option. However,
in an opt-in system, the instructor selects each activity and presentation system from a menu
list, which effectively designs the interface for the students. Fewer defaults are pre-set,
which requires the instructor to think holistically about structure, context on a macro level
and choice about features and tools on a micro level (Lane 2009). This, Lane suggests, will
encourage the instructor to examine and explore pedagogical options more freely.
The use of LMS also fundamentally changes the relationships between teachers and
students. Coopman (2009:2) states “more than previous technologies, online learning
systems have the potential to enhance the collaborative performative nature of teaching, and
at the same time, the potential to turn teaching into a static exercise – textualisation. As
performance teaching, online classes allow for continual updating, integration of multimedia,
ongoing discussion, and real-time chats. As textualised teaching, online classes become
‘plug and play’, where the person who designed the course may not even teach it and little
about the class changes from term to term.”
Reflecting on the design of Blackboard, Coopman (2009) considers that the intensely
hierarchical nature of Blackboard persists in producing a textualised approach to teaching
and learning. The power to design the online classroom rests primarily with the LMS
designers who determine the structure, secondly with the university administrators who
determine which features should or should not be included, then with the instructors who
determine which features should be available to students, and finally (last and least) with
students who determine how they will use the interface within the structure designed by the
LMS designers.
The Australian-New Zealand New Horizon report from the New Media Consortium Project
(Johnson, Levine et al. 2008) also identified the skills of teachers as a significant priority
challenge facing the tertiary education sector over the next few years. The report states
“many teachers do not have the skills to make effective use of emerging technologies, much
less teach their students to do so” (p.3), and identifies the need to provide pedagogical and
capability development support to teachers. Reflecting a similar concern, Adams (n.d.)
comments that for an organisation to successfully integrate an LMS that will provide longstanding benefits to students and instructors, steps need to be taken to ensure the quality of
instruction is maintained and enhanced throughout the process.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 22
LMS, Engagement and learning outcomes
Coates and colleagues comment “if LMS are having widespread effects on the structure of
university teaching, they are obviously affecting student study habits and learning” (Coates,
James et al. 2005:28). There have been three main approaches to examine LMS usage to
assess what, if any indications of effective learning this can demonstrate: 1) ask staff and
students through surveys or interviews; 2) manually review course sites and 3) mine system
analytics data. However, overall, little is known about the degree to which LMS are affecting
student engagement in universities. Student engagement refers to the intellectual,
emotional and practical interactions students have with educationally purposeful activities
and conditions, and engagement is linked to desired outcomes of academic achievement,
and satisfaction (Coates, James et al. 2005).
Clark et al state that LMSs are spaces within which social groups are created, and kept
cohesive if the units within the LMS are working together – that includes the tools, academic
instructors, students, and communication and collaboration spaces (Clark, Beer et al. 2010).
Linking LMS usage to an assessment of engagement and relationships is intended to aid in
reflecting on academic practice, and to support facilitation of engaged teaching, including
incorporating reflective methodologies, and shifting the emphasis in teaching from content to
dialogue (Coates, James et al. 2005).
Beer and colleagues (2009) analysed LMS systems analytics data and investigated LMS
‘clicks’ by undergraduate students as a proxy indicator of course engagement. Engagement
was defined as including active and collaborative learning, participation, and communication
among teachers and students. Acknowledging that learning is more complex and diverse
than demonstrated in this model, findings indicated a positive correlation between the
number of student clicks on LMS courses and their resulting grade. Student grades were
increased where they had participated in discussion forums with teaching staff, compared to
students where staff did not contribute to discussion forms. These authors suggest this
emphasises the importance of employing discussion forums as part of on-line teaching, and
encouraging teaching staff to adopt this LMS feature (2009; Beer, Clark et al. 2010). Similar
findings have been reported by other authors (Dawson and McWilliam 2008).
Also using LSM analytic data, the University of Wollongong has developed a student
network visualisation tool, SNAPP (Social Networks Adopting Pedagogical Practice), to
analyse the network of interactions resulting from discussion forums and replies (University
of Wollongong. 2009). The data is generated from the LMS, and includes reports on the
number of sessions (log-ins), dwell time (how long the log-in lasted) and number of
downloads. Network visualisations of this data provide an opportunity for a teacher to
identify patterns of user behaviour, at any stage of the course. The network diagram can:
•
•
•
•
Identify at risk or disconnected students
Identify key information brokers within a class
Identify potentially high and low performing students to support interventions being
planned even before work is marked
Indicate the extent to which a learning community is developing within the class.
The use of LMS by teachers is also an important part of student engagement – the quantity
and quality of teacher presence are important and influential factors in developing and
maintaining student online engagement (Dawson and McWilliam 2008). Clark and
colleagues (2010) also investigated LMS analytics data to demonstrate that there are links
between an academic’s approach to pedagogy, utilisation of features within an LMS and use
by both academics and students, which together create involvement and engaged learning.
Acknowledging that the academic is only one part of interconnected learning, Clark et al
suggest the following components are necessary in combination to support engaged
teachers and engaged learners:
•
an academic with understanding of their teaching approach,
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 23
•
•
•
a place within an LMS to create space for communication, collaboration and content
dissemination,
a sound understand of assessment and the need for this to be authentic
student motivation (Beer, Jones et al. 2009; Clark, Beer et al. 2010; Clark n.d.).
A recent meta-analysis of student educational outcomes from online learning found that, on
average, students in online learning conditions performed modestly better than those
receiving face-to-face instruction (US Department of Education Office of Planning Evaluation
and Policy Development. 2010). The difference between student outcomes for online and
face-to-face classes was larger in those studies contrasting conditions that blended
elements of online and face-to-face instruction with conditions taught entirely face-to-face.
The authors noted that these blended conditions often included additional learning time and
instructional elements not received by students in control conditions. This finding suggests
that the positive effects associated with blended learning should not be attributed to the
media per se, and that engagement with instructors is important (US Department of
Education Office of Planning Evaluation and Policy Development. 2010).
Similarly, Mersham (2009) comments that to be effective, e-learning must put into practice
an e-pedagogy that relates to social interaction and collaboration. However, communication
opportunities in e-learning are under-used and ineffective when they are grafted onto
courses that are rooted in pedagogic models and practices with which they are incompatible.
System (in)flexibility
Concerns about flexibility and the implications of a lack of flexibility are key critical
considerations for LMS. A LMS that is relatively inflexible may cause institutional processes
to be modified to align with the software, rather than the software being sufficiently flexible to
meet the learning needs of the institution (Adams n.d.). The implications of the integrated or
enterprise resource planning product model resonate across all LMS models. Jones (2009)
comments that “whether or not your LMS is open source or commercial doesn’t change the
underlying model. All LMS are based on the enterprise, or ‘one ring to rule them all’
approach.”
Jones (2011) also highlights the apparent ‘cognitive dissonance’ between the nature of LMS
technology as a core part of e-learning, and the pedagogical underpinnings of good teaching
and learning. He states the dissonance is enhanced by the lack of flexibility in LMS and
other e-learning tools, policies and procedures.
Dron (2006) comments the systemic features of an LMS may lead to the administrative
domination of teachers and learners, and not serve the best interests of the learner. To
address this, the most promising technological models appear to be those that allow an LMS
to be developed from an assortment of ‘smaller pieces’, rather than extending modules in
within a constraining framework of a larger host system (Dron 2006; Adams n.d.). The
model of ‘small pieces, loosely joined’ is congruent with a personal learning environment
(see later section).
Inclusion of Web 2.0 technologies
Web 2.0 tools give users the choice to interact and collaborate with each other in a social
media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to
websites that limited users to the passive viewing of content (Diaz, Golas et al. 2010).
Examples of Web 2.0 technologies include social networking sites, blogs, wikis, videosharing sites, hosted services, web applications, and tags.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 24
Web 2.0 tools and socialisation have resulted in new ways of information organisation,
knowledge generation and learning facilitation, and have resulted in fundamental shifts in the
relationship among knowledge, culture, learning and pedagogy (Conole and Alveizou 2010).
First, the modes of inquiry encouraged by Web 2.0 practices invite the learner to
conceptualise knowledge as something available to be personalised or re-appropriated.
Second, Web 2.0 encourages engagement with knowledge in new ways, e.g., more
animated browsing or scanning. Third, practices of knowledge production are being altered,
and learners are being drawn into more collaborative inquiry methods. Overall, the
application of Web 2.0 technologies support evolution and facilitation of more informal and
non-formal learning contexts which blur the boundaries between categories of learners, as
well as transformation of formal education contexts.
Integration of LMS with Web 2.0 technologies is a challenge and concern for traditional LMS
models, and was recognised as a ‘Top 10’ IT issue in 2009:
Over the years, the LMS has evolved from a content (course) management system
(CMS) to a more all-encompassing system that includes groupware and social
networking tools, as well as assessment and e-portfolios to track learning across
courses and semesters. Although the LMS needs to continue serving as an
enterprise CMS, it also needs to be a student-centered application that gives
students greater control over content and learning. Hence, there is continual
pressure for the LMS to utilize and integrate with many of the Web 2.0 tools that
students already use freely on the Internet and that they expect to find in this kind of
system. (Agee, Yang et al. 2009).
However, how to effectively achieve this poses a significant dilemma for LMS design and
adaptability. Craig (2007) comments “if there is a single fundamental question that Web 2.0
poses for the traditional LMS in the academic community, it is the appropriateness of using
enterprise software to serve as a top-down distribution vehicle for academic resources while
simultaneously providing the digital space to foster innovation and collaboration from below”
(p.157).
Beer and Jones (2008) suggest that the Web 1.0 philosophies that are embedded within
LMS create a range of inhibiters to lifelong learning and to the establishment of a learning
network which is more about a conversation (Web 2.0) than content delivery (Web 1.0).
These include:
•
•
•
•
•
content focus: Most LMS effectively provide learner-content interaction, and progress
to extend tools and offerings beyond simple content sequencing and discussion
forms is limited to a ‘locked down, do-it-our-way’ platform
organisation and instructor focus: LMS use within tertiary education has impacted
more on administration rather than the fundamentals of learning and teaching
IT culture: the technology of LMS is old and consequently the technology provided
by institutions has been outstripped by the functionality and usability of technology
available to individuals
Informal learning: the parameters and boundaries of LMS limit opportunities for
informal learning, where most valuable learning takes place, and is a mismatch with
the complexity of learning in modern life
Course based models: an LMS is designed to provide tools for an instructor to deliver
a single course, for a single term, rather than be part of a flexible community of
practice (Beer and Jones 2008).
As part of the wider debate around pedagogical issues and LMSs, Wenmoth (2011) poses
the question “is a LMS (or virtual learning environment) still the best way to go?” This
question is being considered by various authors and commentators, who are critically
considering if LMSs are still appropriate for learners who are increasingly building online
lives (e.g., (Oneto, Abel et al. 2009). Reflecting on the need for LMS to meet the needs of
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 25
learners, Wenmoth has identified key shifts in pedagogical scope across a continuum of
issues that need to be considered in order for tertiary institutions to use LMS to effectively
engage with students online, as summarised below.
Figure 4: Expanding Pedagogical Scope from Wenmoth 2011
Managing complexity of learning
Emergent
Established
View of knowledge
“knowledge as a verb”
“Knowledge as a noun”
Network-centric
Subject divisions/hierarchical
Folksonomies
Taxonomies
Adaptive, dynamic, connected
Structured, controlled, managed
Learning intentions
Contextualised, nebulous
Clear objectives, outcomes
Expressed as
Learning
‘ecologies’
connected, distributed)
Dominant technology used
Personal learning environment
Learning management system
Dominant theories of learning
Connectivism
Constructivism
Social constructivism
Behaviourism
Constructionism
Cognitivism
Learner-centric
Institutional focus
Learner choice/management
Teacher managed
Activity based, experiential
Organisation of classes, courses
Focus on participation/collaboration
Focus on
delivery
Many to many
One to many
Networked
Transmissive
ELGG
Hosted options:
Main ideas
learning
of
knowledge
Pedagogical focus
Communications model
Examples of technologies
and
(social,
Peer to peer options eg
Course model
coverage,
Del-icio-us
Colloquia
Moodle, Interact
MySpace
Groove
LAMS
content
Blackboard
WebCT
Bebo
Similarly, Sclater (2008) comments that tertiary institutions are considering whether or not
an LMS remains an appropriate medium to facilitate e-learning and are asking critical
questions such as:
•
•
•
Can we bring some of the social networking facilities that students find so appealing
inside the institution?
Should we use the tools hosted elsewhere on the internet by others?
Should we simply allow learners to select appropriate tools for themselves?
Some educators argue that the next requirement is a Personal Learning Environment (PLE)
where students interact with and collect web resources that interoperates with an LMS. This
is highlighted as a top 10 IT issue for 2010, when Ingerman and colleagues (2010)
comment:
It is also important to note the growth in various external modular applications that
complement the LMS, enabling students to create a more personalized learning
environment. These new applications have the potential to become the building
blocks to a dynamic open learning environment that moves beyond the coursecentric organization and stays with students throughout their academic career.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 26
Siemens (October 6, 2006) notes that PLEs are an attempt to address the limitations of an
LMS, as instead of being a centralised model of design and deployment, individual
departments are able to select from a collage of tools to address a particular function on the
learning process, or a ‘small pieces, loosely joined’ approach. A PLE is seen to provide a
more contextually appropriate toolkit, and increased adaptability to different learning
approaches and environments, however there is a consequential reduction of structure in the
management and implementation of learning.
The key differences between PLEs and LMS are summarised by Chatti (2010) as follows:
Figure 5: Key Characteristics of PLE and LMS from Chatti 2010
Siemens (October 6, 2006) comments that “while desired, it is unrealistic to expect
universities to shift significantly from an LMS to a PLE. However, online trends such as
social software and Web 2.0 technologies are impacting on learner expectations. As a
result, LMS designers are responding to critiques about the lack of flexibility of LMS with a
shift to more open, dynamic learning models, and are adding ‘Web 2.0 features’ to their
products (e.g., integration with Facebook, YouTube and other applications). However, Mott
(2010) argues that the administrative structure and pedagogy of LMSs continues to impede
significant teaching and learning innovations because:
•
•
•
LMS are generally organised around discrete, arbitrary units of time (e.g., academic
semesters) and courses typically expire and disappear at the end of semesters,
thereby interrupting the continuity and flow of the learning process
LMS are teacher-centric. Teachers create courses, upload content, initiate threaded
discussions, and form groups. Opportunities for student-initiated learning activities in
traditional LMS are severely limited
Courses developed and delivered via the LMS are ‘walled gardens’, limited to those
officially enrolled in them. This limitation impairs sharing content across courses,
conversations between students within and across degree programmes, and all the
dynamic learning affordances of the read-write web.
Wenmoth (2007) comments that some institutions have attempted to meet the needs of
students and developed partial PLEs but he considers there are three key challenges
remaining for education institutions to transition to a student-centric system:
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 27
•
•
•
The locus of control and ownership of tools and features still rests with the institution
not the learner
The nature of social networking software is that it allows for the development of wide
and inclusive networks. By locking software within the boundaries of an LMS the
opportunity for networking is restricted to that community
Increasing numbers of learners have independent access to Web 2.0 tools and
features and will not want to be restricted to an exclusive community or system.
Mott (2010) proposes a model of an Open Learning Network (OLN) as a means to enable
the LMS and PLE paradigms to co-exist and to mashup the best components of each into
something that is more than just the sum of its parts. This is proposed as a balance
between the either-or choice between the LMS and the PLE. The OLN has three key
features:
•
•
•
It is malleable
It leverages technologies that did not exist when the LMS was created in the 1990s
It is a manageable balance between the imperatives of institutional networks and the
promises of the cloud.
Mott (2010) states that the “OLN’s full potential is realised by implementing supporting
technologies such as iCal for calendar aggregation, RSS for content aggregation, widgets
and embed codes for republishing of live content, tags to support folksonomy-driven content
discovery and compilations, and granular authorising codes to support content authoring and
commentary.... The OLN can incorporate a virtually limitless number of web-based
applications and third-party learning tools via web services, published application
programming interfaces, and the LTI framework.... as student computing becomes
increasingly mobile, OLN modules and data can be mashed up and dynamically represented on various devices.” Brigham Young University is in the first stages of developing
and deploying an OLN.
Figure 6: A fully featured OLN from Mott 2010
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 28
Other authors have suggested similar solutions, such as the MOOC or Massive Open Online
Course, which provides participants with an opportunity to create their own PLEs and
personal learning environments (Shimabukoro 2011). The MOOC is a dynamic structure
which is defined by the expansion of the personal learning environments and networks. The
mixed or non-LMS approach is considered more sustainable than the ‘pure’ LMS approach.
The Social Learning Environment is an alternative model which focuses on a combination of
PLEs and personal teaching environments supported by modular architecture (Crosslin
2010).
Future considerations for LMS
The end of the age of the LMS dinosaur may be in sight (Dron 2006).
E-learning 2.0 is a dominant theme in discussions of the future of e-learning environments
(Wise and Quealy 2006). E-learning 2.0 has emerged from the development of Web 2.0,
and has the following key characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Learner-centric rather than content or teacher-centric
Promotes greater autonomy for learners, with a focus on active learning, and
learners as knowledge consumers and knowledge creators
The distinctions between teacher and student are collapsed, and power is
decentralised
Learning is controlled by the learner
Learners are encouraged to interact with others in the learning process using a range
of technologies
Open communication, freedom for sharing, social networked learning and socially
constructed knowledge is emphasised (Yau, Lam et al. 2009).
There is increasing recognition that LMS development, design and implementation needs to
respond to emerging e-learning 2.0 issues. Delta Initiative describes the LMS market as
being “in the midst of change”, and comments that the transition to LMS 3.0 is being driven
by a combination of the following factors:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The market would like to focus on more interactivity/knowledge creation, however
these features are currently exploratory
LMS vendors would like to be the sole platform on which all tools fit
Content portability is not solved
The open source movement is growing, but is unlikely to be a panacea to all the
issues
Similarly, the managed and hosted services are growing but is also unlikely to be a
panacea
The market is unlikely to change unless customer behaviour changes (Delta
Initiative. 2010).
Delta Initiative state that these are not ‘typical’ market dynamics, and consortiums and open
source solutions are providing the most change currently (Delta Initiative. 2010). Overall,
LMS market changes have been driven by vendor business concerns, rather than
institutional or educational needs. This has resulted in raised concerns about the impact on
institutions, which in turn has supported renewed discussions about open source solutions,
and a rethink of systems and how to organise services.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 29
Various commentators have identified key issues for the future consideration of LMS
including the following priority issues:
1. Emergence of new alternative concepts to LMS
New models of LMS are emerging with the specific aim of disrupting the existing market, and
are building on the increasing interest in alternatives to LMS where traditional LMS do not
meet teaching or learning needs. These alternative models are characterised by their use of
Web 2.0 applications, and integration with online media and social networking tools
(Educause. 2010). Two examples of ‘disruptive’ alternative concepts to traditional LMS are
Instructure and SmartlyEdu.
Instructure states “our goal is to disrupt the Learning Management System (LMS) market by
setting a new standard for education technology. We’re all about openness, usability,
communication, and reliability” (Instructure. 2011). Instructure challenges the status quo for
LMS by providing both open source and propriety options, as this is seen to provide the most
effective balance between “the value of openness and the requirement of mission-critical
solution based development and support” (Instructure. 2011). Feldstein (2011) comments
that Instructure is characterised by good design, ease of use, and the ability to work with
Web 2.0 applications, and to integrate third-party applications. It is a different model of open
source development to other open source LMS such as Moodle or Sakai, as it is more of a
traditional company-run open source project, and is unlikely to cede development to an open
source community.
SmartlyEdu has been developed by a group of ‘digital natives’ – “three students from around
the world believe they have a solution and are working to bring this to teachers and students.
Software can't be built by people who aren't going to use it; that's why mega-corps run by old
men won't bring the people what they need” (Smartly Edu. 2010). It focuses meeting the
communication needs of learners and teachers, and is characterised by a belief that “great
design will make students spend more time online, connected, and engaged” (Meyer 2010).
Delta Initiative (2010) has conceptualised the potential impact of emergent LMS models on
the overall LMS market, as illustrated below:
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 30
Figure 5: Potential and emerging market disruptions from Delta Initiative, 2010
2. Social media and social learning
Social media is, by definition and practice, social, and social media tools are designed to
facilitate active discussion, collaboration and sharing, and also to empower individuals with
opportunities to engage and participate. Social media is also translocational, (it operates
independent of place), and can occur in real time (synchronous) or be time agnostic
(asynchronous). As learners interact through various media, a sense of connectivity,
networks and community is developed.
However, various authors warn that adding ‘social tools’ to an LMS does not make it social,
because as noted earlier, traditional LMS are ‘walled gardens’ and more is required to
expand the boundaries about how we learn, what and with whom. For example, Orlando
outlines a range of ways to incorporate social media into online education, and suggests that
an LMS should be considered just one tool to deliver online learning (Orlando 2010).
Integration with formal, informal and social media and social learning is a priority for the
development of future LMS (Expertus. and TrainingIndustry Inc. 2010). Chemielowski (2009
) describes a range of broad-stroke benefits of social media to support enterprise learning,
including learning and performance opportunities such as:
•
•
•
•
The ability to enable ‘mass personalisation’ or the ability to support individuals in
finding (and/or co-creating) just the right information at just the right time
Enable access to experts – the ability to find and connect with the person who can
help in a moment in need
Enable freshness of content
Enable rapid knowledge capture
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 31
•
•
Reduce operating expenses in terms of content development by shifting the model to
leverage user-generated content and collaboration
Increase volume of content available for the same or less investment due to
exponentially more product producers.
Other authors suggest there is increasing need to transition to a focus on collaboration
platforms that are transparent and reward sharing, to facilitate learning. Jarche (2010)
suggests this will result in minimising of the use of an LMS in favour of other tools like blogs,
wikis and presence tools (instant messaging and microblogging). Similarly, others suggest
the need for a LMS to become federated or part of an enterprise-wide collaboration platform.
For example, Pontefract (2009) states “Coaches, mentors, online buddies need to coexist
within the wiki’s, blogs, discussion forums, webcam meetings, online presence, etc. which
needs to coexist within the list of formal classroom and eLearning offerings which needs to
coexist with your documents, knowledge management, videos, podcasts, which needs to
coexist with the profiles, skills, and recent activity-feed happenings of all employees. Blow
up your LMS. Find a way to integrate it into your collaboration platform.”
3. Mobile learning
Mobile devices are not well suited to traditional courseware delivery, but rather for
information delivery and performance support (Rosenberg 2010). The portability of mobile
devices and their ability to connect to the internet almost anywhere makes them ideal as a
tool for storage of learning experiences and reference materials, as well as a general-use
tool for field work (Johnson, Levine et al. 2010). They are ideal tools for ubiquitous learning
– learning that develops in response to personal learning demands and that can happen
everywhere and at anytime.
The ability to be always connected is supporting the development of another transformation
of mobile learning – the use of organization based social networking as a mobile learning
strategy. The future of mobile learning, supported by more powerful and flexible platforms
and devices and anytime access to content, is facilitating the emergence of new
communication channels, which are opening up opportunities to communicate and connect
with other learners and experts, anywhere, time (Rosenberg 2010). Responding to the rise
of mobile computing, all major LMS vendors are demonstrating or marketing mobile access
(Delta Initiative. 2010).
The Delta Initiative (2010) states that there are two competing visions of the response to
mobile computing. One response focuses on engagement with mobile devices and
applications. The benefits of this approach include access to engaging design, free use of
HW features, fast and lightweight technology, however the challenges are that the
applications are device specific, which requires ‘forced bets’ on preferred devices, and high
costs. In contrast, the second approach focuses on interaction with a browser, so the
technology is ubiquitous, mature, and device independent. However, it may also be slower
and more cumbersome to use than applications, misses out on some HW features, and is
harder to access for some smart phones (versus the Ipad). Blackboard are focusing on
native applications, and Moodle and other open source providers and focusing on m-site or
browser technology.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 32
Figure 6: Competing visions of mobile LMS from Delta Initiative, 2010
Mobile learning combined with cloud computing makes virtually limitless amounts of content
instantly available to limitless numbers of users. However, Rosenberg cautions that mlearning content, either instructional or informational (e.g., a website, podcast, blog or wiki)
must be the right information, presented at the right level of detail, targeted for the right user,
and delivered at the right moment of need. Further attention and development is required to
match users with content through profiles, preferences and tagging.
The Horizon Report 2011 identifies electronic books and mobiles as priority technology
which will have a wide impact on learning and teaching within the next 12 months (Johnson,
Smith et al. 2011). Johnson and colleagues (2011) comment that mobiles embody the
convergence of several technologies that lend themselves to educational use, and allow very
simple tools to be easily integrated into learning activities with no need for involvement of IT
or other support staff. Mobiles are increasingly recognised as advantageous tools for
learning, and their ubiquity, portability, and their power and impact is supported by the wide
range of things that can be done with them, and their ability to access the internet anywhere.
However, keeping pace with the rapid proliferation of information, software tools and devices
is a key challenge for learners and teachers (Johnson, Smith et al. 2011).
4. Web 2.0 and Cloud technology integration
A recent analysis of the perceptions of current LMS and critical future functionalities among
corporate and training professionals in the US reported an important area for LMS growth
and development was the ability to incorporate user-generated content, and Web 2.0
usability (Expertus. and TrainingIndustry Inc. 2010).
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 33
Web 2.0 technologies and practices provide new mechanisms for inquiry-based and
exploratory learning (Conole and Alveizou 2010). New tools are emerging for interrogating
and analysing data, along with rich social and information environments to support research
communities. Web 2.0 also challenges learners and teachers and blurs the boundaries of
control. Emergent Web 2.0 technologies support new forms of learning including:
•
•
•
•
inquiry-based and exploratory learning;
new forms of communication and collaboration
new forms of creativity, co-creation and production
richer contextualisation of learning (Conole and Alveizou 2010).
Integration with cloud technologies is an increasingly important trend, as the technologies we
use are increasingly cloud-based, and our notions of IT support are decentralised (Johnson,
Smith et al. 2011). The continuing acceptance and adoption of cloud-based applications and
services is changing the software and file storage is configured and used, and also how
these functions are conceptualised. Overall, Web 2.0 or cloud-based technologies further
support a trend towards control of the instructional functions by the individual user (teacher
and learner). These emerging technologies support and require individual creativity and
autonomy, and foster the growing trend towards user-generated content and knowledge in
the way that many institutionally developed products do not (Diaz, Golas et al. 2010).
Aligning with an increased focus on social learning and social media, they also have the
potential to promote sharing, openness, transparency, and collective knowledge
construction. However, as user created content is ever increasing, giving rise to new
information and ideas, there is a parallel need to create effective tools and filters for finding,
interpreting, organizing and retrieving important data (Johnson, Smith et al. 2011).
Diaz and colleagues state “faculty members no longer need to wait for an LMS to develop
and implement a tool, for an institution to purchase a license to use images, or for a
streaming media service because many of these needs can now be met externally through a
variety of cloud based tools” (Diaz, Golas et al. 2010:2).
Emerging cloud solutions have the potential to empower individual faculty with diversity of
choice and the ability to independently fashion LMS tools in innovative ways. For example,
Culatta (2011) applies the concepts of modularization and customization to create a ‘mashed
up’ or ‘modularised’ LMS that would have the potential to be infinitely customisable as well
as being able to take advantage of current ‘best of breed’ tools. In this model, an LMS
becomes a ‘loosely coupled system’, where the component parts retain their own specialised
functionality but work together to deliver a tailored learning experience. Culatta (2011)
comments that this model has a number of advantages, including unique customisation for
specific settings, selection of the best systems to support desired functionalities, and the
ability to ‘hot swap’ components as requirements change.
5. Increased use of learning analytics
There is some recognition of the importance of learning analytics to support reflective
practice, however the use of learning analytics is still its early stages (see for example (Beer,
Jones et al. 2009; University of Wollongong. 2009). An increased focus on learning
analytics in the next four to five years will harness the power of advances in data mining,
interpretation and modelling to improve understandings of teaching and learning, and to
more effectively tailor education to individual students (Johnson, Smith et al. 2011).
An increased focus on learning analytics not only has implications for student performance,
but also for how educators perceive teaching, learning and assessment. Real-time analysis
of learning analytics can support immediate alternations, and support a model of curriculum
that is fluid and open to change (Johnson, Smith et al. 2011).
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 34
Learning analytics data can also be used with the semantic web (Web 3.0), with significant
impacts for learners including the ability to access relevant up to date information more
quickly, enable personalised tailored content to fit current learning requirements, and
facilitate close contact with those who provide the information, while sharing information with
those with similar interests (De Waard 2011).
Concluding comments
This aim of this paper was to provide information to the AUT University LMS Review
Committee, as one part of the LMS Review project. Specifically, the goals of this literature
review were to identify what issues other universities within New Zealand and Australia have
used to inform their processes of LMS change and transition, as well as to identify other
significant issues that are pertinent to tertiary sector considerations of LMS change and
transition. The review has assessed a broad array of information, including peer review
journal articles, reports, conference presentations, trade journal articles, and e-learning and
LMS commentator blogs. Collectively, this information identifies a number of issues for AUT
University to consider as the LMS review is progressed, including:
•
•
•
•
•
It is difficult to access complete information about LMS business cases and
transition/change decision making processes across universities in New Zealand and
Australia, however the available information suggests there is a growing trend to
implement Moodle.
The LMS market is in a stage of rapid change, and there is likely to be significant
change over the next three to four years, with predictions of new LMS software that
will displace existing LMSs.
Increasingly, there is a growing trend to critique existing LMSs for their pedagogical
limitations, and this criticism is being applied to propriety and open source software.
In order to maximise the potential of a new or different LMS implemented in a
university setting, significant pedagogical support is likely to be required. Supporting
educators to become confident and competent with all the capabilities of an LMS will
have positive outcomes for learners: the effective use of LMS by engaged teachers
supports engaged learners, and engaged learners have better learning outcomes.
Web 2.0 tools support opportunities for learner interactions and collaboration, as well
as supporting the personal conceptualisation of knowledge, engagement with
knowledge in new ways. Web 2.0 technologies support the transformation of formal
education contexts, however at the same time they provide a significant challenge for
existing models of LMSs. Commentators suggest there is limited value in attaching
Web 2.0 tools to current models of LMS, as their pedagogical and architectural
structures are inherently Web 1.0 and therefore incompatible with the principles and
practices of Web 2.0. There is increasing interest in LMS alternatives such as
personal learning environments or open learning networks which operate in a
mashed up, ‘small pieces loosely joined’ approach, in order to provide increased
adaptability to different learning approaches and environments.
Careful consideration is required about how to respond to key strategic drivers that
are influencing the transition to LMS 3.0, including new models of LMSs, increasing
use of Web 2.0 technologies, mobile learning, cloud technologies, and the increasing
use of LMS analytics, particularly in the period of further rapid change in the LMS
market and LMS technologies that is predicted to occur in the very near future.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 35
References
Adams, C. (2011). "Learning Management Systems as Sites of Surveillance, Control and
Corporatization: A review of the critical literature " Society for Information Technology
and Teacher Educatin INternational Conference 2010(1): 252-257.
Adams, C. (n.d.). Learning Managemet Systems Review, University of Alabama.
Agee, A., C. Yang, et al. (2009). "Top 10 IT issues 2009." EDUCAUSE Review 44(4): 44-59.
AKO National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence. (2008). Taking the Lead: Strategic
Management for e-Learning. Wellington, AKO Aotearoa.
Bacus, M. (2010). University of Western Australia: Summary Report on the Environmental
Scan of LMS in the Higher Education Sector. Perth, University of Western Australia.
Barr, H., B. Gower, et al. (2007). "Faculty response to the implementation of an open source
learning management system in three tertiary institutions in New Zealand."
Computers in the Schools 24(3/4): 125-137.
Beer, C., K. Clark, et al. (2010). Indicators of engagement Ascilite 2010. Sydney.
Beer, C. and D. Jones. (2008). "Learning networks: Harnessing the power of online
communities for discipline and lifelong learning."
Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://davidtjones.wordpress.com/publications/learning-networks-harnessing.html.
Beer, C., D. Jones, et al. (2009). The indicators project identifying effective learning:
Adoption, activity, grades and external factors. Ascilite 2009: Same places, different
spaces. Auckland.
Brown, M., A. Arnold, et al. (2009). Thinking about a new LMS: Comparing different
institutional models and approaches. Ascilite 2009: Same places, different spaces,
Auckland.
Brown, M., S. Paewai, et al. (2010). "The VLE as a Trojan Mouse: Policy, Politics and
Pragmatism." Electronic Journal of e-Learning 8(2): 63-72.
Brown, M. and G. Suddaby (2009). Policy, Politics and Pragmatism: Making the case for a
new LMS. ICDE 23rd World Conference. Netherlands.
Butterfield, S. (2002). Highways and pathways: Exploring New Zealand's e-learning
opportunities. Report of the E-Learning Advisory Group. Wellington, Ministry of
Education.
Catalyst IT Ltd. (2004). Technical Evaluation of Selected Learning Management Systems,
The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand.
Chang, C. (2008). Faculty perceptions and utilization of a learning management system in
higher education, Ohio University.
Chatti, M. (2010). "LMS vs PLE."
Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://mohamedaminechatti.blogspot.com/2010/03/lms-vs-ple.html.
Chmielowski, B. (2009). "Value of social media to enterprise learning." Retrieved March,
2011, from http://velocitymg.com/explorations/leveraging-learning/value-of-socialmedia-to-enterprise-learning.html.
Clark, K. (n.d.). Academic Indicators: data mining as reflective practice, CQUniversity.
Clark, K., C. Beer, et al. (2010). Academic involvement with the LMS: An exploratory study.
Ascilite 2010. Sydney.
Clayton, J. and R. Elliott (2007). E-Learning Activities in Aotearoa New Zealand Industry
Training Organisations. Hamilton, Wintec, Ministry of Education, ESITO.
Coates, H., R. James, et al. (2005). "A critical examinaiton of the effects of Learning
Management Systems on University teaching and learning." Tertiary Education and
Management 11(1): 19-36.
Conole, G. and P. Alveizou (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher
education. Milton Keynes, UK, The Open University.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 36
Coopman, S. (2009). "A critical examination of Blackboard's e-learning environment." First
Monday 14(6): 1-6.
Craig, E. (2007). "Changing paradigms: managed learning environments and Web 2.0."
Campus - Wide Information Systems 24(3): 152-161.
Crosslin, M. (2010). "Social Learning Environment Manifesto." Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://www.edugeekjournal.com/2010/03/18/social-learning-environment-manifesto/.
Culatta, R. (2011). "The traditional LMS is dead: Looking to a modularised future."
Retrieved
March,
2011,
from
http://www.innovativelearning.com/learning_management/modular-lms.html.
Curriculum Teaching and Learning Centre. (2010). "A Recent LMS Evaluation." Retrieved
March, 2011, from http://www.slideshare.net/vdit/vdit-la-trobe-4799832.
Dagger, D., A. O'Connor, et al. (2007). "Service-Oriented E-Learning Platforms: From
Monolithic Systems to Flexible Services." IEEE Internet Computing 11(3): 28.
Dawson, S. and McWilliam (2008). Investigating the application of IT generated data as an
indicator of learning and teaching performance. A Report produced for the Australian
Learning and Teaching Council. Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology.
De Waard, I. (2011). "The semantic web and how the intelligent curriculum will enhance our
learning."
Retrieved
March,
2011,
from
http://ignatiawebs.blogspot.com/2011/01/lak11-semantic-web-and-howinteligent.html.
Delta Initiative. (2010). New Choices: The State of Learning Mangement System Market in
Higher Education. Illonois, Delta Initiative.
Diaz, V., J. Golas, et al. (2010). "Privacy considerations in Cloud-based teaching and
learning environments." EDUCAUSE ELI Paper 3.
Dron, J. (2006). Any color you like as long as it's Blackboard. ELearn Conference. Hawaii.
Eckstein, G. (2010). Guide to Learning Management Systems Gary Eckstein Wordpress and
SEO specialist. 2011.
Educause. (2010). "7 things you should know about LMS alternatives." EDUCAUSE
Quarterly.
Elgort, I. (2005). E-learning adoption: Bridging the chasm. ASCLITE 2005: Balance, Fidelity,
Mobility: maintaining the momentum? Brisbane, Australia.
Ellis, R. (2009). A Field Guide to Learning Management Systems. Learning Circuits.
Expertus. and TrainingIndustry Inc. (2010). Survey results: The current and future state of
LMS. California, Expertus.
Feldstein, M. (2010). "Academic Study of Blackboard vs Sakai at UNC School of Medicine."
Retrieved March, 2011, from http://mfeldstein.com/academic-study-of-blackboard-vssakai-at-unc-school-of-medicine/.
Feldstein, M. (2010). "The evolving LMS market, part ii." Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://mfeldstein.com/the-evolving-lms-market-part-ii/.
Feldstein, M. (2011). "Instructure goes open source."
Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://mfeldstein.com/instructure-goes-open-source/.
Hill, J. (2008). VLE Evaluation: Project Report. Gloucestershire, University of
Gloucestershire.
Ingerman, B., C. Yang, et al. (2010). "Top-10 IT Issues 2010." EDUCAUSE Review 45(3):
45-60.
Instructure. (2011). "Our Open Source Strategy."
Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://www.instructure.com/blog/2011/02/28/our-open-source-strategy/.
Jarche, H. (2010). "Identifying a collaboration platform."
Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://www.jarche.com/2010/05/identifying-a-collaboration-platform/.
Johnson, E. and R. Walker (2007). The Promise and Practice of E-Learning within Complex
Tertiary Environments. 7th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies. Niigata Japan.
Johnson, L., A. Levine, et al. (2008). The Horizon Report: 2008 Australia-New Zealand
Edition. Austin, Texas, The New Media Consortium.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 37
Johnson, L., A. Levine, et al. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas, The New
Media Consortium.
Johnson, L., R. Smith, et al. (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas, The New
Media Consortium.
Jones, D. (2009). "One ring to rule them all": Limitaitons and implicaitons of the LMS/VLE
product model. The weblog of (a) David Jones. 2010.
Jones, D. (2009). Thoughts on "Insidious pedagogy". The weblog of (a) David Jones. 2010.
Jones, D. (2011). "The dissonance between the constructivist paragidm and the
implementation of institutional e-learning."
Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://davidtjones.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/the-dissonance-between-theconstructivist-paradigm-and-institutional-e-learning/.
La Trobe University. (2010). LMS Replacement Project.
Moodle Implementation Information Sheet for Academic Staff. Melbourne, La Trobe University.
Lane, L. (2009). "Insidious pedagogy: How course management systems impact teaching."
First Monday 14(10).
MacNeill, S. and W. Kraan (2010). Distributed Learning Environments: A briefing paper.
London, JISC CETIS.
Macquarie University. (2011). "Macquarie University Learning and Teaching Centre:
Learn2012 Project (Moodle Implementation)."
Retrieved March 2011, from
http://www.mq.edu.au/ltc/projects/learn2012/index.htm.
Marshall, S. (2005). Determination of New Zealand tertiary institution e-learning capability:
An application of an e-learning maturity model. Report on the e-learning maturity
model evaluation of the New Zealand tertiary sector. Report to the New Zealand
Ministry of Education. Wellington, Victoria University of Wellington.
Mersham, G. (2009). "Reflections on e-learning from a communictions perspective." Journal
of Distance Learning 13(1): 51-70.
Meyer, A. (2010). "What Blackboard and Moodle get very wrong." Retrieved March, 2011,
from
http://smartlyedu.com/blog/posts/14-what-blackboard-and-moodle-get-verywrong.
Ministry of Education. (2006). ICT Strategic Framework for Action 2006-2007. Wellington
Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Briefing to the Incoming Minister. Wellington, Ministry of
Education.
Mitchell, D., J. Clayton, et al. (2005). E-Learning In New Zealand Institutes of
Techology/Polytechnics: Final Report. Hamilton, Wintec Waikato Institute of
Technology.
Mitchell, G. and R. Obexer (2006). LMS Implementation Project: Change Management Plan.
Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology.
Momani, A. M. (2010). Comparison between two learning management systems: Moodle
and Blackboard.
Moodle.
(2011).
"About
Moodle."
Retrieved
March,
2011,
from
http://docs.moodle.org/en/About_Moodle.
Mott, J. (2010). "Envisioning the Post-LMS Era: The Open Learning Network." EDUCAUSE
Quarterly 33(1).
Naveh, G., D. Tubin, et al. (2010). "Student LMS use and satisfaction in academic
institutions: The organizational perspective." Internet and Higher Education 13(3):
127-133.
NZ E-Learning Group. (2006). e-Learning Guidelines: Guidelines for the support of elearning in New Zealand tertiary institutions. Palmerston North, Massey University.
Obexer, R. (2006). OLT System Review Recommendation. Brisbane, QUT Teaching and
Learning Support Services.
Obexer, R. (2006). OLT System Review Recommendation: Learning Environments Working
Party Feedback. Brisbane, QUT Teaching and Learning Support Services.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 38
Obexer, R. and A. Bakharia (2005). OLT System Review: Environmental Scan Report.
Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology.
Oneto, L., F. Abel, et al. (2009). Making today’s Learning Management Systems adaptive.
Orlando, J. (2010). "Integrating social media into online education." Retrieved March 2011,
from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/integrating-social-mediainto-online-education/.
Otto, R. (2011). Feature Comparison Moodle-Blackboard. Bochum, Germany, RuhrUniversitat.
Papastergiou, M. (2006). "Course Management Sytems as tools for the creation of online
learning environments: Evaluation from a social constructivist perspective and
implications for design." international Journal on E-Learning 5(4): 593-622.
Paulson, M. (2002). "Online Educaiton Systems: Discussion and definition of terms." from
http://www.nettskolen.com/forskning/Definition%20of%20%terms.pdf.
Pina, A. (2010). An Overview of Learning Management Systems. Learning Management
System Technologies and Software Solutions for On-line Teaching: Tools and
Applications. Y. Kats. Pennsylvania, IGI Global.
Pontefract, D. (2009). "The Standalone LMS Is Dead."
Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://trainingwreck.com/.
Queensland University of Technology. (2008). "Review of Online Learning and Teaching."
Retrieved
March,
2011,
from
http://www.tils.qut.edu.au/initiatives/learningmana/OLTReview.jsp.
RMIT. (2011). "Teaching and Learning: Blackboard Upgrade." Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse/Staff%2FLearning%20and%20Teaching%2FSupport
%20and%20resources%2FTeaching%20technologies%2FBlackboard%20upgrade/.
Rosenberg, M. (2010). "Marc my words: thinking about mobile learning in the age of the
ipad."
Retrieved
March,
2011,
from
http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/477/marc-my-words-thinking-aboutmobile-learning-in-the-age-of-ipad.
Sclater, N. (2008). "Large-Scale Open Source E-Learning Systems at the Open University
UK." EducAUSE Research Bulletin 12(10): 1-13.
Sclater, N. (2008). "Web 2.0, Personal Learning Environments, and the future of LMS."
EducAUSE Research Bulletin 13: 1-13.
Shephard, K., S. Stein, et al. (2008). Professional Development for e-Learning: A framework
for the New Zealand tertiary education sector. Part C: Massey Literature REview:
Professional Development for e-learning: Adoption, implementation, and
improvement. Wellington, Ministry of Education.
Shimabukoro, J. (2011). "Why LMSs aren't the answer." Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://etcjournal.com/2011/02/22/why-lmss-arent-the-answer/.
Siemens, G. (October 6, 2006). "A review of learning management system reviews.
Connectivism blog [Web log message]]." from http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=243.
Smartly Edu. (2010). "Smartly is a reinvention of what is now known as "online learning"."
Retrieved
March,
2011,
from
http://www.smartlyedu.com/newsletters/2010/08/14.html.
Smithers, M. (2009). "Public LMS Evaluations."
Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://www.masmithers.com/2009/09/20/public-lms-evaluations/.
Steel, C. (2005). Game for Change? Balancing an enterprise-level LMS implementation.
ASCLITE 2005: Balance, Fidelity, Mobility: maintaining the momentum? Brisbane,
Australia.
Suddaby, G. and J. Milne (2008). "Coordinated, collaborative and coherent: Developing and
implementing e-learning guidelines wihtin a national tertiary education sytem."
Campus - Wide Information Systems 25(2): 114-122.
Thibault, J. (2011). "Blackboard vs Moodle 2.0: 100+ metrics compared head to head by
@MoodleRUB."
Retrieved
March,
2011,
from
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 39
http://www.moodlenews.com/2011/blackboard-vs-moodle-2-0-100-metricscompared-head-to-head-by-moodlerub/.
University of Canterbury. (2008). Learning Management Systems Review: Final Report and
Recommendations. Christchurch, University of Canterbury.
University of South Australia. (2010). "Learnonline."
Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://www.unisa.edu.au/learnonline/.
University of South Australia. (2010). "UniSA's Guiding principles for Oneline learning."
Retrieved
March,
2011,
from
http://www.unisa.edu.au/learnonline/staff/Guiding%20Principles.asp.
University of Tasmania. (2010). ACODE LMS Update Hobart, University of Tasmania.
University of Wollongong. (2009). "Learning Networks: About SNAPP." Retrieved March,
2011, from http://research.uow.edu.au/learningnetworks/seeing/snapp/index.html.
US Department of Education Office of Planning Evaluation and Policy Development. (2010).
Evaluation of Evidence-based practices in on-line learning: A meta-analysis and
review of online learning studies. Washington, US Department of Education.
Uys, P. (2010). "Implementing an open source management system: A critical analysis of
change strategies." Australian Journal of Educational Technology 26(7): 980-995.
Walsh, K. and O. Coleman. (2010). "Moodle 2.0 versus Blackboard 9.1 - a brief
comparison."
Retrieved
March,
2011,
from
http://www.emergingedtech.com/2010/11/moodle-2-versus-blackboard-briefcomparison/.
Weller, M. (2007). Virtual Learning Environments: Using, choosing and developing your VLE.
Oxford, Routledge.
Wenmoth, D. (2007). Understanding the OLE-PLE relationship, CORE Education.
Wenmoth, D. (2009). "VLE's slow to take off." Retrieved March, 2011, from http://blog.coreed.org/derek/2009/01/vles-slow-to-take-off.html.
Wenmoth, D. (2010). "Designing an online environment for learning." Retrieved March,
2011, from http://blog.core-ed.org/derek/2011/03/making-effective-use-of-vles.html.
Wenmoth, D. (2011). "Making effective use of VLEs."
Retrieved March, 2011, from
http://blog.core-ed.org/derek/2011/03/making-effective-use-of-vles.html.
White, D. (2009). Jumping Ship Without Drowning: Managing Change of an Institutional
LMS. Hamilton, Waikato University.
White, D. and N. Robertson (2009). Jumping Ship Without Drowning: Managing Change of
an Institutional LMS. Hamilton, Waikato University.
White, P. and J. Milne (2005). Survey of support and guidance for e-learning in New Zealand
tertiary institutions. Palmerston North, Massey University.
Winter, M. (2006). Learning Management Sytems for the Workplace: A research report.
Christchurch, Core Education Limited.
Wise, L. and J. Quealy (2006). At the limits of social constructivism: Moving beyond LMS to
re-integrate scholarship. Ascilite 2006: Who's learning? Whose technology? Sydney.
Wise, L. and J. Quealy (2006). LMS Governance Project Report. Melbourne, MelbourneMonash Collaboration in Institutional Technologies.
Yau, J., J. Lam, et al. (2009). A Review of e-Learning Platforms in the Age of e-Learning 2.0.
Hybrid Learning and Education, Proceedings. F. L. Wang, J. Fong, L. Zhang and V.
S. K. Lee. Berlin, Springer-Verlag Berlin. 5685: 208-217.
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 40
Appendix One
LMS Uptake of Australian Universities (Bacus 2010)
Australian Universities
From
Moving to
Australian Catholic University [ACU]
WebCT CE 8.0 +
D2L e-portfolio
unknown status
Australian National University [ANU]
WebCT CE 4.1
Moodle 1.9
Bond University [Bond]
Blackboard 7.0
Blackboard
Central Queensland University [CQU]
Blackboard 6.3*
Moodle 1.9
Charles Darwin University [CDU]
Blackboard 6.3
Bb Learn 9.0
Charles Sturt University [CSU]
Sakai 2.4
Sakai 3.0
Curtin University of Technology [CURTIN]
Blackboard
Bb Learn 9.0
Deakin University [Deakin]
WebCT Vista
Desire2Learn
Edith Cowan University [ECU]
Blackboard 8.5
Bb Learn 9.1
Flinders University [FLINDERS]
WebCT
4.2*
under review
Griffith University [GRIFFITH]
Blackboard 8.0
Bb Learn 9.1
James Cook University [JCU]
Blackboard
Bb Learn 9.0
La Trobe University [LATROBE]
WebCT CE 6.0
Moodle 2.0
Macquarie University [MACQUARIE]
WebCT CE 6.0
under review
Monash University [MONASH]
WebCT Vista 4.0
under review
Murdoch University [MURDOCH]
WebCT CE 6.0
under review
Queensland University of Technology [QUT]
Blackboard 7.2*
Bb Learn 9.0
-
RMIT University [RMIT]
Blackboard 7.2
Bb Learn 9.1
2011
Southern Cross University [SCU]
Blackboard 7.1*
Bb Learn 8.0
Swinburne University of Technology [SWINBURNE]
Blackboard 8.0
Bb Learn 9.0
Vista
In
2009
2010
-
2010
2011
2010
2011
-
2011
2011
Mar
2010
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 41
University of Adelaide [ADELAIDE]
Blackboard 8.0
Bb Learn 9.0
2010
University of Ballarat [BALLARAT]
WebCT CE 8.0
Moodle 1.9
2011
University of Canberra [CANBERRA]
WebCT CE 4.1*
Moodle 1.9
2008
University of Melbourne [MELBOURNE]
Blackboard 8.0
under review
University of New England [UNE]
WebCT CE 6.0
Moodle 2.0
2011
University of New South Wales [UNSW]
Bb Learn 9.0
Bb Learn 9.1
2010
University of Newcastle [NEWCASTLE]
Blackboard
Academic Suite
Blackboard
University of Notre Dame Australia - The [UNDA]
Blackboard 7.0
Blackboard
University of Queensland [UQ]
Blackboard 7.3
Bb Learn 9.0
University of South Australia [UniSA]
Home
grown
system
UniSAnet*
Moodle 1.9
University of Southern Queensland [USQ]
Moodle 1.9
Moodle 2.0
2011
University of Sydney [SYDNEY]
WebCT CE 8.0
Bb Learn 9.1
2011
University of Tasmania [TASMANIA]
WebCT Vista
under review
University of Technology Sydney [UTS]
Bb Learn
under review
University of the Sunshine Coast [USC]
Blackboard
Academic Suite
Blackboard
University of Western Australia [UWA]
WebCT CE 8.0
under review
University of Western Sydney [UWS]
WebCT CE 8.0
Bb Learn 9.1
University of Wollongong [UOW]
WebCT Vista 8.0
under review
Victoria University [VU]
WebCT CE 6.0
under review
-
2011
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 42
Appendix Two: LMS in New Zealand
University of Tasmania environmental scan (University of Tasmania. 2010), updated by AUT
University
New Zealand
Blackboard
Version
BB
–
WebCT
Moodle
Version
Version
AUT University
University
Auckland
of
University
Canterbury
of
Lincoln
Considering
Change
Under review
Cecil
Homegrown,
One
faculty
with Moodle
No
change
being
considered
1.9
1.9
8
University of Waikato
Vic Uni of Wellington
Change Change
to BB9 to
- When MoodleWhen
Bb9
Massey University
University of Otago
Other
Changes
2009
No
2009
Done
2008
No
?
1.9
BB
No
BB 9
Moodle
1.9
Report for AUT University LMS Review group May 2011: Learning Management Systems: A Review
Page | 43