1. Key issues in implementing learning management systems (LMS) in schools include determining needed features, technical requirements, gaining staff and community acceptance, providing training, and establishing organizational roles and policies. 2. A framework categorizes implementation into decision making, content, human factors, and logistics. Key considerations are selecting an LMS, defining its uses, involving stakeholders, addressing attitudes, and designating support structures. 3. Ongoing management requires evaluating use, updating policies, and adapting to changing LMS features to support 21st century learning.

1. 1
Key Issues in the Implementation of Learning Management Systems in Schools: A Generalised Framework.
In recent years the evolution of Learning Management Systems (LMS) has significantly changed the way that educational institutions manage their approach to 21st century administrative and content management. Traditionally, this type of software has been predominantly associated with tertiary institutions and e-learning providers and has become an integral reality in higher education (Klobas and McGill, 2012, p115). In recent years however, the software has increased in popularity in primary and secondary education with its ability to promote a blended approach to managing the classroom learner. Not only can the software “organize and regulate the administrative tasks of schools”, it “continues well beyond the classroom through emails, discussion groups, student–teacher question–and–answer sessions, and the posting of course content” (Nasser, Cherif& Romanowski, 2011, p40).
With the continued growth and popularity of these systems, it is more than likely that most schools are either adopting LMS for the first time; in the process of implementation; or evaluating their current software for future decisions on the selected brand of software. As a result, it is important for educational leaders to understand the key issues surrounding the implementation and use of LMS as an educational tool for learning. As a casual and temporary teacher who is currently seeking permanent employment, my main objective for this discussion is to develop a generalised understanding of LMS and to identify the key issues surrounding its integration into schools to perhaps assist in decision making in a technology team in the future. The research is not intended to explore deeply technical elements but to generate the more practical considerations for an executive team.
Perhaps the first issue in developing an understanding of LMS is standardising a conceptual definition for the term. The literature at times uses terms such as CMS (Course Management System) and LCMS (Learning Content Management Systems) interchangeably with LMS (for example Picciano, 2011, p153). Watson (2007) suggests that these terms may be too loosely used in place of LMS creating confusion over the specific functions of LMS. He references his own Google Scholar search of “Blackboard lms” with over 36 articles referring to Blackboard as an LMS (P6). In contrast, however, he notes that the Blackboard company itself refers to the software as a CMS. Iqbal (2011) further examines the difference between the two and concludes that “CMS is more focused on the contents and delivery of the course, whereas an LMS is more focused on the learning need and achievement of a person” (p207).
A further term that has emerged in the research is Learning Content Management System (LCMS). The literature tends to complicate a definition of the term creating some confusion for the less technically-oriented. Mahnegar (2012) defines LCMS as “software for authoring, editing and indexing e-learning content” (p148), Watson focuses on the ‘delivery of learning content’ and Ellis (2001) claims that LCMS “combines the learner administration capabilities of an LMS with the content creation and storage capabilities of a CMS”. Nevertheless most of the research concedes that the three systems are more effective if integrated together. In my experience, most teachers including some executives are not really aware of the terminology and refer more to the

2. 2
product names such as Blackboard, Sentral and Moodle. Although it seems that the industry is, for the time being accepting of a more generalised definition of these systems; when interacting with technicians, IT personnel and educational software companies, it would certainly be beneficial to understand the specific functions of each type of management system. For the purposes of this discussion however, I will predominantly reference the issues with LMS, but will identify the others where necessary.
One of my stated objectives for this discussion is to identify the key issues surrounding the integration of a learning management system into a school with the idea of assisting an executive or technology team in its decisions. Once a number of the key issues were identified, I found it helpful to construct a conceptual framework that could be used to represent them in a more meaningful way. The framework as outlined in the table below categorises the issues into implementation components and factors that should be considered throughout the planning process. This is not intended to be exhaustive and it is envisioned that it will be the starting point for future development. Unfortunately the constraints of this task make it impossible to discuss every individual identified issue in detail and some will be only minimally referenced during the discussion.
Table 1: Generalised Framework for considering key issues in the implementation of Learning Management Systems in Secondary Schools.
The first component in the framework involves the initial decision making process in the selection of an LMS. The ‘Content’ factor addresses the need to determine what aspects of administration, management and content the school will need and the technical aspects of its integration. This can be a difficult process and Cavus (2013) identifies issues such as “hidden costs; unclear user, developer and administration manuals; and limitations with regard to interoperability, integration, localization, and bandwidth requirements” (p421). In my experience, when first implementing LMS, schools tend to focus on a minimum financial commitment, purchasing basic software that does not double up on already existing management software they may have already purchased rather than spending the money on a streamlined package. Whilst working at ‘School A’ for example there were three different commercial packages for managing administration, reports and parent-teacher interviews. This was confusing for staff and eventually they purchased a system that incorporated all of these features.
Components of implementation
Factors in implementation
Areas of Issue to be considered in implementation Decisional Content Types of LMS packages (open source, commercial) Determining needed features Technical Hardware and software Adaptability and interoperability Human Relational Consultation Attitudes and acceptance Support Staff, student and parent training Internal/ external help and support Logistical Organisational Staff Roles Committees/ Teams Institutional Policies Evaluation and ongoing management

3. 3
More currently ‘School B’ at first used the DET hosted SBSR reporting system, along with an LMS and a CMS that lacked appropriate interoperability and placed strain on effective management processes within the school. It was decided that a financial commitment to a more streamlined package would be a better long term investment and ‘Sentral’ is currently being integrated into the school.
When determining the specific LMS, CMS or LCMS to integrate there are numbers of considerations regarding content and technical features. Hall (2004) lists a number of deciding factors including: ease of use, delivery platform, compliance with standards, and interoperability (p36). Özdamlı (2007) evaluated administrative tools and curriculum design features in 72 open source LMSs and amongst other features outlined the importance of authentication, authorisation, student tracking, instructional design tools and the look and feel of the interface. Iqbal (2011) believes that an effective LMS should integrate technical and design specifications, support, user-friendly GUI, course repository and administration capabilities, interaction, student profiles, evaluation and feedback (pp208-210). In almost every school I have taught in, the most common criticism of LMS I have encountered is ease of use by teachers, parents and students and this should be the key consideration when deciding on which software program to use.
Further to the more specific features, Ion (2012) classifies three types of LMS software that need to be considered by executives; in- house developed, commercial and open source under a General Public License (p123). In house developed packages are less common in schools, who generally purchase commercial packages and may combine with open source software. ‘Sentral’ for example integrates Moodle for its course management package and hosts it on their server. There are also numbers of teachers who individually use free web based LMSs such as ‘Edmodo’. These are restricted in their features and often monitored only by the classroom teacher which can create accountability issues.
The ‘Human’ component of the framework refers to the involvement of staff, parents and students in regard to their interactions with the software and its features. The Relational Factor in particular attempts to involve all of the stakeholders in the school in creating a shared vision for 21st century schooling. Geer, Barnes and White (2008) suggest the need for teachers to develop a vision for the use of technology to enhance learning outcomes (p152), however this vision may also need to be extended beyond staff at the school. Many of the Learning Management Systems contain features that can involve collaborative interaction with parents and students particularly in terms of feedback from assignments and planning and management of assessment tasks. Principals need to develop strategies to initiate parental and student interest, and a number of schools I have worked in have held consultation meetings to assist in inspiring a whole school ‘transformative vision’ (Afshari et.al, 2012) to encourage all of the stakeholders to use the software as effectively as possible.
Despite the engagement of the whole school community, teachers will initially be the key drivers of technological change as Grey-Bowen (2010) states: “Teachers’ attitudes toward technology and beliefs in the instructional benefits present a significant barrier to technology integration” (p3). In my observations, a number of teachers use the features of LMSs (such as Sentral) for purely administrative purposes and CMSs (such as Moodle) primarily for accessing resources and uploading assignments. Wald (2013) claims that Moodle was “designed to support learning through a set of tools incorporating a social constructivist learning approach” (p2). A further study by Zarkoskie, found that “Moodle forums were a tool that may have helped students

4. 4
increase their participation and improve their level of detail in responses” (p2). Yet in a number of schools I have worked at I rarely observe these features being used in pedagogically valuable ways.
To determine some key factors affecting the usage of CMSs such as Moodle, it may be of benefit for the school to examine the issue of attitudes and acceptance towards the use of the software using an adaptation of the model of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) suggested in Hsu (2012). This would be beneficial; however it is most likely that support factors such as lack of training and centralised support systems/ help desks would be key contributing facets to the issue. Prestridge (2013) claims that “ICT professional development is perceived as an avenue for pedagogical change” (p2). The use of Moodle at School ‘W’ has been in place for a number of years and I am not sure if the staff received any direct training in the features of the package. Certainly I observed that no formalised instruction was given for the use of the Sentral reporting feature due to unforeseeable circumstances, and the school needs to address this with a systematic and organised approach which may need to be extended to parents and students who wish to access features relevant to them. Further to this, Sentral does provide a helpdesk for IT administrators, however as they are only a host for Moodle, they do not administer support or advice regarding issues with the software and will direct any enquires to the moodle.org website.
There are a number of logistical issues in the implementation of any new system in a school and these can be considered in relation to Organisational and Institutional factors. Organisational factors consist of the distribution of prescribed roles of individuals in the planning, implementation and management processes of technology within the school. It is most likely that implementation of LMS will be a micromanaged issue in an already existing technology team structure. At ‘School A’ I observed that they had a technology team consisting of upper executive staff that was predetermined by the principal. There was no consultation with other staff and exclusion often caused morale issues in regards to teachers’ acceptance of technology in the school. Whilst some roles need to be appointed to particular staff, research by Early et.al. (2002) concluded that good school leaders also share their leadership responsibility with other members of staff” (in Lewis and murphy, 2008, p131). In contrast, ‘School W’ does have a cross KLA technology team, however the head teacher of IT tends to make the bulk of the decisions. It would be beneficial for this school to implement a structure that allocates specific support roles within the team, similar to Utecht’s (date unknown) division of ‘Informational Technologists (IT)’, versus ‘Educational Technologists (ET)’ (p14).
‘Institutional Factors’ are those for which the specific educational institution is accountable for on different levels. These may involve legal and ethical responsibilities as in the case of policies and guidelines. As Picciano suggests, on many occasions the importance of a policy is “realized only when a problem, breach or violation has occurred” (p242). There appears to be little advice in the literature on the elements of policy construction for Learning Management Systems. Picciano, however, outlines a number of technological policy issues with elements such as equity, access, cyber bullying, etiquette, privacy, copyright and use of material that could be adapted into an LMS policy. Further to this he suggests adding a procedural framework for the more technical needs involving the practical maintenance of hardware and software and the ongoing management and evaluation of its use. With a lack of clear guidance in the literature, it would be beneficial for schools to either examine a number of openly available policies from

5. 5
other institutions, or select an LMS that provides an adaptable framework as a feature of the product.
As the popularity and features of Learning Management Systems progresses, executives must continually make decisions regarding its implementation and management in the school. There are many more considerations than have been represented in this discussion, and in my experience these will predominantly emerge as administrators and teachers physically explore the systems in their everyday use. Nevertheless it is profitable to pre-empt general discussion of these key issues in order to make effective evaluative decisions to support the 21st century educational environment.
References
Afshari, M., Bakar, K.A, Luan, W.S., Samah, B.A & Siraj, S. (2012). Factors affecting the transformational leadership role of principals in implementing ICT in schools. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (4), 164-176.
Cavus, N. (2013) Selecting a learning management system (LMS) in developing countries: instructors' evaluation. Interactive Learning Environments, 21:5, 419-437, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2011.584321
Ellis, R. (2001). LCMS Roundup. Learning Circuits. (8). Retrived from http://www.internettime.com/Learning/lcms/#whitepapers
Geer, R., Barnes, A. & White, B. (2008) Four ICT enablers in a contemporary learning environment: a case study. Act on ICT in ACEC’08 Refereed Conference Proceedings, Canberra. www.acec.2008
Grey-Bowen, J.E. (2010). A study of technology leadership among elementary public School principals in Miami-Dade County (doctoral dissertation). St Thomas University, Miami Gardens, Florida.
Hall, S. O., & Hall, B. (2004). A guide to learning content management systems. Training, 41(11), 33-37. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/203415458?accountid=10499
Hsu, H. (2012). The acceptance of moodle: An empirical study based on UTAUT. Creative Education, 3, 44-46. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1321120844?accountid=10499
Ion, A. (2012). Compared analysis of representative learning and content management systems used in education. Informatica Economica, 16(1), 123-131. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017921375?accountid=10499
Iqbal, S., & Qureshi, I. A. (2011). Learning management systems (LMS): Inside matters. Information Management and Business Review, 3(4), 206-216. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/906002118?accountid=10499
Klobas, J. E., & Mcgill, T. J. (2010). The role of involvement in learning management system success. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22(2), 114-134. Retrieved from doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-010-9032-5
Lewis, P., and Murphy, R. (2008). New directions in school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28 (2), 127-146.

6. 6
Mahnegar, F. (2012). Learning Management System. International Journal of Business and Social Science (Special Issue), 3 (12), 144-150. Retrived from http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_12_Special_Issue_June_2012/14.pdf
Nasser, R., Cherif, M., & Romanowski, M. (2011). Factors that impact student usage of the learning management system in Qatari schools. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 12(6), 39-62. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/985
Ozdamli, F. (2007). An evaluation of open source learning management systems according to administration tools and curriculum design. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/61936073?accountid=10499
Picciano, A.G. (2011). Educational leadership and planning for technology (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson Education. (Supplied through GradSchool)
Prestridge, S. (2013). Three key elements in ICT professional Development. International Society for Technology in Education: Expanding horizons. Retrieved online from http://www.isteconference.org/2012/uploads/KEY_70082891/threePD.pdf
Utecht, J. (date unknown). Planning for 21st Century Technologies in Schools. Retrieved from https://uonline.newcastle.edu.au/courses/1/CRS.104891.2013.S2/db/_3414817_1/planning-for-21st- century-technologies.pdf
Watson, W.R., (2007). An Argument for Clarity: What are Learning Management Systems, What are They Not, and What Should They Become? TechTrends, 51 (2) 28-34. Retrieved from http://hal.archives- ouvertes.fr/docs/00/69/20/67/PDF/Watson-2007.pdf
Wald, R. J. (2013). Understanding the use of social constructivist moodle activities within the north dakota university system.(Order No. 1545130, North Dakota State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 79. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1442799346?accountid=10499. (1442799346).
Zarkoskie, L. (2010). Using moodle forums to increase middle school student participation and level of detail in student responses. (Order No. 1475261, Caldwell College). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 41. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/276056857?accountid=10499. (276056857).