LMS vs PLE - The blog post discusses the differences between learning management systems (LMS) and personal learning environments (PLE). LMS are more rigid and follow a standardized approach, while PLE are personalized to the individual learner's needs and preferences. PLE support informal, lifelong learning beyond a single course, are more open and decentralized, take a bottom-up approach driven by learner needs, and adopt a knowledge-pull model where learners access knowledge sources.

1. Chatti (2010). LMS vs PLE -
http://mohamedaminechatti.blogspot.com/2010/03/lms-vs-ple.htm
Mohamed Amine Chatti's ongoing research on Knowledge and
Learning
A research oriented blog about Web Information Systems, Technology
Enhanced Learning, knowledge Management, and me...
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
LMS vs. PLE

2. As illustrated in the table above, In contrast to Learning Management
Systems (LMS), Personal Learning Environments (PLE) have the
following characteristics:
 Personalization: A LMS follows a one-size-fits-all approach to
learning by offering a static system with predefined tools to a set of
many learners around a course. A PLE, by contrast, is responsive
and provides a personalized experience of learning. It considers the
needs and preferences of the learner and places her at the center by
providing her with a plethora of different tools and handing over
control to her to select and use the tools the way she deems fit.
 Informal learning and lifelong learning support: A LMS is not
supportive of informal or lifelong learning. It can only be used in a
formal learning setting, managed and controlled by the educational
institution. And, in a LMS, learning has an end. It stops when a
course terminates. A PLE, however, can connect formal, informal,
and lifelong learning opportunities within a context that is centered
upon the learner. A PLE allows the learner to capture her informal
and lifelong learning accomplishment and develop her own e-
portfolio. In a PLE learning is fluid. It continues after the end of a
particular course.
 Openness and decentralization: Unlike a LMS, which stores
information on a centralized basis within a closed and bounded
environment, a PLE goes beyond the boundaries of the
organization and operates in a more decentralized, loosely coupled,
and open context. A PLE offers an opportunity to learners to make
effective use of diverse distributed knowledge sources to enrich
their learning experiences.

3.  Bottom-up approach: Within a LMS there is a clear distinction
between the capabilities of learners and of teachers, resulting into a
one-way flow of knowledge. In contrast to a hierarchical top-down
LMS, shaped by command-and-control and asymmetric
relationships, a PLE provides an emergent bottom-up solution,
driven by the learner needs and based on sharing rather than
controlling.
 Knowledge-pull: A LMS adopts a knowledge-push model and is
concerned with exposing learners to content and expecting that
then learning will happen. A PLE, however, takes a knowledge-
pull model. Learners can create their very own environments
where they can pull knowledge that meets their particular needs
from a wide array of high-value knowledge sources.
 Ecological learning: A PLE-driven approach to learning is based
on personal environments, loosely connected. A PLE is not only a
personal space, which belongs to and is controlled by the learner,
but is also a social landscape that offers means to connect with
other personal spaces in order to leverage knowledge within open
and emergent knowledge ecologies. Rather than belonging to
hierarchical and organization-controlled groups, each learner has
her own personal environment and network. Based on their needs
and interests, different learners come together for a learning
experience. They work together until the learning goal is achieved
and thereby do not have a permanent relationship with a formal
organization or institution. The distributed PLEs can be loosely
connected to build a knowledge ecology. Unlike LMS- driven
groups/communities, which are closed, bounded, structured,
hierarchical, and organization-controlled, a PLE-driven knowledge

4. ecology is open, distributed, diverse, emergent, self-organized, and
learner-controlled.
Posted by Dr. Mohamed Amine Chatti at 9:38 AM
Labels: PhD, PLE, Self-directed Learning
6 comments:
Anonymous said...
hello mohamed
Do you envision that given LMS will evolve in their design through the
integration of PLE solutions/tools and concepts?
5/02/2010 8:42 PM
Elern said...
Hi Mohamed, so I guess PLE could include LMS. Sounds almost like
real life, where you have (or should have) everything set up to fit your
own individual learning needs, while at the same time also working with
what is available through official channels, like school, social networks,
clubs and associations etc.
5/30/2010 4:03 PM
ravenport said...
Hello, Mohamed,
I don't see the two environments as dichotomized as you describe them.

5. I have been infused with top-down input in a "LMS,"(an on-line
Meteorology Course) then went on to pursue the subject by reading a
book on my Kindle (The Cloudspotter's Guide) to enhance my
knowledge and to view it through a more poetic lense. Did learning stop
at the end of the course? Every time the wind blows and I envision it as
air moving from an area of high pressure to low pressure, I experience a
deepening of the knowledge. Did I wish that I could control the pace and
content of the information more. Yes. But I don't know if I would have
worked as hard without the structure. I think it depends on the nature of
the content being learned which kind of environment works best.
10/24/2010 3:00 AM
Anonymous said...
PLE versus LMS - Although I found the title of this blog a bit confusing
- to me it seems to imply that one may be better than the other - I believe
that the PLE and the LMS can not be mutually exclusive because we
simply need both of them. If I think about most students' experiences,
through the academic world, they have been exposed to LMS from a
young age; the information was centralized, the expectations and goals
were clearly defined, and for the most part knowledge was unidirectional
with a beginning time and an end time. Basically they had to adapt to the
system. On the other hand, with the proliferation of technology, PLEs -
such as Google, Twitter, Facebook, My Space, YouTube, SlideShare,
Google,...etc - are now very much accessible to users, and the beauty is
that users do not have to comply to any system, they can select their own
learning systems/topics/time and develop their own community, and
network of knowledge sharing. In essence PLEs are flexible and
completely "user-centric".

6. In conclusion, I believe that ideally incorporating some level of PLE into
the LMS would be very appealing and beneficial to today's end users.
10/25/2010 3:45 AM
Lina said...
Hi, Mohamed
It seems that LMS is more like a traditional classroom which has a stable
envrionment for studying, and knowledge is the context of textbooks.
Teachers focus on the whole class rather than personal needs.In another
words, teachers control the envrionment.However, once students apply
blogs in studying, it seems they apply PLE in studying.
10/27/2010 2:17 AM
CrookedKnitter said...
I have a great appreciation for your differentiation between the LMS and
PLEs. In my current course of study, my school utilizes Blackboard,
which I find very limiting. As you said, once the course is over, I cannot
continue to have access to the resources that were at hand. No more
videos, links, or even documentation of my submissions and online
presence. It seems that professors put a lot of time and effort into
making all of this available to us, only for us to lose it all at the end of
the semester. Had my school used an alternate method for our learning
community, us students may have the opportunity to make use of these
resources throughout our studies and later in our professional lives.
12/17/2010 9:42 PM

7. Post a Comment
Links to this post
Create a Link
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
My dissertation Personalization in Technology Enhanced Learning
(ISBN: 978-3-8322-9575-2)has been published by Shaker Verlag,
Germany.
About Me
Dr. Mohamed Amine Chatti
Aachen, Germany
Dr.rer.nat. Mohamed Amine Chatti is an associate professor of computer
science in the Learning Technologies Group (Informatik 9) at RWTH
Aachen University, Germany. He has a diploma degree in computer

8. science from the Technical University of Kaiserslautern, Germany, in
2004 and a PhD degree in computer science from RWTH Aachen
University, Germany, in 2010. His research focuses on Web Information
Systems, Big Data and Learning Analytics, Technology Enhanced
Learning, and Knowledge Management.
View my complete profile
Contact Information
Edublog Awards 2007