Our presentation is entitled “LMS/CMS Integration: Common Issues and Practices.” We scoured databases within our local UT library system and Google Scholar for articles pertaining to the use of LMSs in higher education in order to see how they were being used. We found three studies which we felt exemplified the tale we were seeking.
The use of LMS/CMSs in higher education institutions is rising in order to support face-to-face instruction and as fully online course offerings. One study by Falvo & Johnson cited a 2003 Sloan Report claiming that 81% of universities were offering online courses. Most of the universities they studied were using Blackboard/WebCT as their preferred LMS, although many had also built their own systems.
Many use the terms, LMS, CMS,and LCMS interchangeably.Several authors noted a difference, or at least intended difference, between the terms Learning Management Systems, Content Management Systems, and Learning Content Management Systems. While a CMS seemed to describe a place for uploading, organizing and retrieving documents, a LCMS seemed to be a system which allowed for the creation and delivery of content within it.
On the other hand, a LMS seemed to combine both the ability to create and deliver content and upload and retrieve documents in addition to being able to manage learners, through grouping, grading, registration, etc., and provide activities, such as wikis, blogs, discussion boards, email, etc. A LMS can usually run reports and analyze data for overall student status or prescribed learning needs.
We compared four LMS/CMS systems currently on the market. Two open-source systems, Moodle and Sakai, and two proprietary systems, Blackboard and SimplyDigi. All of these LMSs seem to share certain features and functionalities such as announcements, email, chat, the ability to build quizzes, gradebooks, basic reports, audio and video. The differences came in special features such as the ability to desktop share, whiteboards, blogs, wikis and portfolios.
Black and his colleagues noted that institutions must take several factors into consideration before adopting, such as compatibility—How compatible is the system with what I have going on now? Relative Advantage—What can the system do for me that I don’t already have? Trialability—How long can I use this before I have to make a decision? Complexity—How easy is it to use? And Observabililty—How are my colleagues faring using it?
Kwon & Zmud identified an implementation framework for all ICT or IT adoption. After initiation and adoption decisions, faculty still go through the stages of adaption, acceptance, initial use and finally full incorporation of a system. The studies we looked at focus on these remaining stages.
The first study we look at took place at Kingston University in London. They integrated the Blackboard System during the 2002-2005 school year. It opened as the Kingston Technical University in 1899, and gained university status in 1992. In 2009, Kingston University had over 22,000 students, four campuses and seven faculties, or colleges, offering both undergraduate and graduate degrees.
Our second study is at Dublin City University in Ireland. They implemented Moodle in 2004. It opened as the National Institute for Higher Education in 1975 and reached university status in 1989. It has 8400 undergrad and graduate students, 1100 distance education students and four colleges. It is also host to “Oscail” Ireland’s National Distance Education Centre.
Finally, our last study takes place at Brigham Young University in the United States, where they adopted Blackboard during the 2004-2005 school year. BYU is a private university in Utah. Brigham Young Academy was founded in 1875 and took on university status in 1903 when the academy dissolved into two institutions, a High School and the University. It services are focused on undergraduate studies, but the system also offers many graduate programs.
Most faculty begin integration by uploading course documents. At DCU, 70% of faculty using the Moodle uploaded course documents. Also interestingly, the majority of uploads were text based. Only 7% of uploads were sound or video. The responsibility of getting course materials to students has moved to the LMS
We know from pedagogical research that collaborate learning is most effective, yet very few faculty took advantage of the collaborative tools available in the LMS. Faculty don’t know how to set up the tools within the LMS, faculty don’t know how to teach using collaborative methods, and finally faculty want to limit their workload.
Once the faculty posts materials on the LMS, they can use the user statistics information to check how that information is being used by the student. What is the student doing in the LMS? Faculty can see how many times a students has logged in, how long the student stayed, and what assets did the student access. This information can be an indicator of how engaged a student is in the course. As one faculty member described, he can check whether students are “attending the course” online.
Faculty are well educated people who are capable of accomplishing most tasks. However, when it comes to technology, faculty reported a high level of anxiety. 2/3 of faculty at BUY expressed concern about technology issues such as log-in problems, access denied to tests, emails being lost or not posted.
I don’t know the educational theory that postulates that knowing your grades impacts students learning, but my practical experience is that this knowledge changes student behavior. A strong tool within most LMS is the ability to post assignment grades and have them available 24/7. Some systems even provide some statistical analysis letting the student know the class average for the assignment and the percentile ranking of his/her grade.
When an LMS is available communicating becomes easier. While using the email tool is easy, many faculty question the pedagogy of emails; just because you can email the entire class, should you? What is the academic merit of emailing the entire class? Is this good use of teacher time, how about student time? At KU faculty noticed an increase in student emails at the same time that they noticed an increase in face-to-face conversations.
Isn’t it nice to get the lecture notes and then refer to them as the lecture is being delivered during class. That way, you can really concentrate on what is being said instead to struggling to write down your notes. For this reason, many faculty post their lecture notes on the LMS. At the same time, they noticed that students began to skip face-to-face meetings. Student’s interpreted that since they had the notes, they didn’t need the lecture.
With a new learning management system, faculty can be at a loss as to which tools to use. Students often influenced faculty decision of which tool will be integrated. At DCU, students let the faculty member know that they didn’t like using the IM tool, so the faculty member dropped it as a requirement, even though they felt the tool was worthwhile.
Faculty have many demands on their time. Between teaching, research, service to the academic community, there is little time for new responsibilities. Learning a new LMS requires time and energy and many faculty are not knowledgeable about the educational benefits that LMS can deliver. LMS integration becomes a trade-off in terms of faculty time and energy and good learning and teaching.
Experienced are used to thinking of technology as a tool which improves student learning. In fact, this group reported that they felt constrained by the LMS environment itself.Novice ICT users have a steep learning curve ahead of them. In addition to becoming comfortable with technology, they need to learn the specifics of the LMS and then finally they need to learn the pedagogical practices which integrate LMS tools into their course.
Lm swith notes 5-5 at 4pm
LMS/CMS Integration: Common Issues and Practices<br />Michelle Read & RenataGuertz<br />ELEARN 2010<br />Orlando, Florida<br /> Integration Experiences at Three Universities<br />
Introduction<br />LMS/CMS use on the rise at secondary and higher education institutions (Ellis & Calvo, 2007; Falvo & Johnson, 2007; Georgouli, Skalkidis & Guerreiro, 2008)<br />Face-t0-face supplemental<br />Full online offering<br />
What is a LMS?<br />Learning Management System vs. Content Management System and Learning Content Management System. <br />(Watson & Watson, 2007)<br />
What is a LMS?<br />Learning Management System <br />(Watson & Watson, 2007)<br />
LMS/CMS Integration at Dublin City University <br />(Blin & Munro, 2008)<br />United Kingdom, Ireland<br />Moodle<br />2004<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_City_University<br />
LMS/CMS Integration at Brigham Young University<br />(West, Waddoups & Graham, 2006)<br />United States, Utah<br />Blackboard<br />2004-2005<br />
Findings: uploading existing content<br />Placing course assets online<br />Syllabus<br />Readings<br />Lecture notes<br />Very limited uploads of video or sound<br />Initial LMS activity<br />Downloaded from: www.actx.edu/web/index.php?module=article&id=45 on 5/5/2010 <br />
Findings: integration of advanced collaborative tools<br />Types of advanced collaborative tools<br />Discussion boards<br />Wikis<br />Online journals<br />Challenge for faculty<br />Technical skills<br />Pedagogical knowledge<br />Workload<br />Downloaded from: pius7.slu.edu/mclnews/?p=3 on 5/5/2010 <br />
Findings: data on student activity levels in courses<br />User statistics<br />Number of accesses<br />Amount of time spent in the LMS<br />Types of materials accessed<br />Faculty interpretation of the stats<br />Check attendance<br />Guide for face-to-face lectures<br />Downloaded from: www.mugatlanta.org/ on 5/5/2010<br />
Findings: technology challenges<br />Anxiety about technology<br />Not knowing how to operate the LMS<br />Negative impact on professional image<br />Concern about system changes or downtime<br />Downloaded from: www.insanit.com/featured_partners.htm on 5/5/2010 <br />
Findings: assessment and grade reporting<br />Drop box accepts electronic assignments<br />Quiz tool can be used for testing<br />Discussion boards can be used for submitting short answer responses<br />Assignment grades are reported as faculty post them<br />Grades are available 24/7<br />Downloaded from: www.trusmart.com/Default.aspx?tabid=58 on 5/5/2010 <br />
Findings: increased communication<br />Email to entire class <br />Email to individual student<br />Student to student emails<br />Messages posted on the LMS<br />Downloaded from: http://alexandracollege.eu/about-the-college/alexandra-learning-teachingict on 5/5/2010<br />
Findings: attendance to class meetings<br />Increase in absences to class lectures<br />Notes posted to LMS were a substitute for attending class<br />Note-taking during class dropped<br />Downloaded from: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economics470/2006/07/technology_and_.html on 5/5/2010<br />
Findings: selection of tool integration<br />Faculty asked students which tools to use<br />Demand driven education?<br />Student use of tools impacted faculty teaching practices<br />Students recommend tools based on experiences in other courses<br />Downloaded from: www.oread.ku.edu on 5/5/2010<br />
Findings: faculty workload<br />LMS integration increases faculty workload<br />LMS is a trade-off in terms of <br />time, <br />energy, <br />learning benefit, and <br />good teaching<br />Downloaded from: http://psuwcfacdev.ning.com/group/smowstrategiesformanagingtheonlineworkload on 5/5/2010<br />
Findings: novice and experienced ICT user differences<br />Different experiences between Novice and Experienced ICT users<br />Novices overwhelmed with the learning curve<br />Experienced users limited by LMS environment<br />Novel ideas to overcome learning curve<br />Downloaded from: techdoctorcompany.com on 5/5/2010<br />