Should we be aiming for our Learning Management Systems to be 'next gen'?

I've just finished reading a blog post by Tom Vander Ark entitled "Why Aren't There Any Next Gen Learning Platforms?". As Joyce indicated in her blog post (source):

Well, I'm starting to think that most LMSs are simply not very good social learning environments. They're not even middling. They're great at administrative tasks. Most are ok to good on content management. But despite course pages, discussion forums,Jowikis and glossaries, they are just not great social environments, requiring too many hoops to jump through to create a convenient, natural, social learning experience that fits in with our information consuming, active, diverse and increasingly mobile lives.

Joyce suggests that LMSs are great for administrative tasks, and, to a certain extent, management of content. However, "LMSs should not try to emulate all of those social media, but instead become better at integrating with them" - and this requires educators to be aware of the importance of design, as well as up to speed with the many options that will make it simple for learners to collaborate and communicate.
Returning to Tom's post, he indicates that learning platforms of the future will include 6 core elements, underpinned by 4 central services (student services, teacher services, back-office services, and school services):

1. Standards-aligned libraries of open and proprietary content with search and content management tools
2. Social, collaborative, and productivity tools
3. Assessment tools and achievement analytics
4. Learner profiles and portfolios
5. Recommendation engines smart enough to build custom playlists
6. Assignment, matriculation, management, and motivational tools (e.g. achievement recognition systems, badges or other data visualization strategies) (source)

My question is why? With younger learners the obvious benefit is the provision of a 'walled garden', although that often has the effect of also shutting out parents and whanau who could and should play an important part in the learning experience. With students over the age of 13, what are the benefits of having an LMS with everything built in? It might indicate an attachment to a model of teacher-centred, institution 'owned', model of learning, which will only be addressed by initiatives such as Open Education Resources, along with a real understanding of learning as a social undertaking. Also, the notion that students are likely to create resources and records of their learning that they will want to take with them and access once they have left an institution (and I'm not going to jump into the conversation of who 'owns' these artefacts), often seems to be neglected by administrators.

So - do we really need a learning platform that has all the elements that Tom identifies, and, if developed, whose needs will it really be serving the best?
Image
Elements for constructing social learning environments by jrhode

Blended Learning reviewed in New Zealand

Image by groovysuvi via FlickrAn article recently published in the Computers in New Zealand Schools Journal, gave the details of a study that examined a teacher’s first implementation of online learning in a Learning Management System (LMS). The programme of learning was Home Economics, and the students and teacher are based in a New Zealand high school. The article, entitled The first blended or hybrid online course in a New Zealand Secondary School: A case study, lists some of the benefits of using a blended approach, including the development of ICT confidence and skills, enhanced interactions, and the fostering of independent learning with increased self management and higher order thinking skills.

Nigel Bailey, who is trialling a blended learning approach with his Geography students at Chanel College, and made the following observations:

"From my experience so far, and the results of the questionnaire that I put out to the students, I would agree with much of what they say in this article but there are a few areas that I feel I have worked through and am possibly in front of where this study has got to.

The need to scaffold the course varies by level (ie Level 1, 2 or 3) and also by the IT competence of the students. I have been amazed by the lack of working knowledge of some of the Office packages that some of the students exhibit so this re-inforces the statement in the article about us assuming that students are digital natives (a phrase that Prensky himself has now moved away from apparently!).

I have found that students are working at their own pace and own level and the course so far has been a great leveller especially for the less able or less confident students. Online questioning has been invaluable for some of these students. The ability to upload their work, have it ‘e-marked’ and returned quickly has also been a plus. I have found that I am marking far more work and in far more depth now than I have for years. This is partly due to the increased amount of work the students are producing and also partly due to the fact that I can read what they have written and have space to add a valid comment at the appropriate place in the text, which in the past there wasn’t room for.

•  I agree with the positive outcomes stated and have my own evidence to support this from my students
• The challenges faced are also very well stated.
• Strategies suggested are also good for the growth of e-learning
• The statement about schools having a professional responsibility to expose students to e-learning really rings true. Morally we also have this obligation as educators.
• Students may be familiar with the ICT but they still need guidance in how to use it effectively and this is best achieved in a blended rather than fully OTL environment
• I found it interesting that they were proposing the more practical subjects were best suited to blended learning; what is wrong with more academic subjects going down this route?
• My results also back up the flexibility comments, but the amount of flexibility/freedom also concerned some of my students
• Greater resource options is definitely true but again care is needed to ensure validity"

Moodle use in NZ Government (Austen Sinclair)

Image via Wikipedia

Austen Sinclair talked frankly about using Moodle in the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) of the NZ government. The IT department insists they use off-the-shelf products, reduce diversity in IT systems, fully leverage investment in SAP products for finance, payroll and HR information - which makes the use of Moodle problematic.



In the government each business area produce their own training products. There is also an issue of inertia whereby communities within various business areas could deploy their own LMSs etc, but choose not to as they are comfortable with the situation as it currently stands.



Austen described a number of successes with training around products such as Kiwisaver, and health and safety. Traditionally a health and safety officer had to take between 2 hours to a whole day to complete training. With the alternative LMS solution people could choose when, where and how to train, which proved very popular.



Agencies need an LMS to host courses in a simple and coherent way, but wish to buy "elaborate tools to provide metrics on improvements in capability without any of the necessary building blocks for this". Sinclair suggests that a 'successful' LMS needs to be owned by someone that 'cares', whether this be a person, team, or business unit. Furthermore, the LMS design needs to be inclusive,  critically adaptive to business usage, and supported in a manner that suits people who offer the training.



Interestingly, Austen emphasised the issue of motivation - the fact that people cannot be made to learn, and to encourage people to visit a learning environment it has to be user-centric. The LMS also has to have a life of its own (in a manner a little bit like Facebook) so that there is a reason to visit the site regularly.



The presentation gave an interesting insight into training and professional development that harnesses some of the functionality of an LMS to offer flexible professional development. It was heartening to see examples of design for social learning, learner-centred environments, and related aspects of motivation.