Future of the LMS - towards a more open and personalised learning environment
1. Future of the LMS –
towards a more open
and personalised
learning environment
Stanley Frielick
Director of Learning and Teaching
AUT University
Presented at the 2011 Tertiary ICT conference
Victoria University of Wellington
5. UoA - NorthTec - AUT
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4074/5444493797_05704fd9de_b.jpg
‘LMS as marriage’ metaphor
Love at first sight / Arranged marriages -
courtship - vendor ‘lock-in’ - review -
divorce / exit strategy
6.
7. 1. Classroom management – facilitate delivery of notes or other
learning aids for a particular lecture or paper.
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.
8.
9. The situation at AUT
Enterprise-scale Blackboard - evolution since
2003 - significant ‘vendor lock-in’
Widespread adoption - threshold project
2009 - every paper has default ‘shell’
LMS review 2011 - literature review
New University strategic plan
Learning and Teaching plan
ICT Strategic plan
10. Key points from lit review
http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/download/ng/file/group-5274/review-of-lms-literature-for-aut-lms-review-committee.pdf
no longer ‘Blackboard vs Moodle’ feature
shoot-out
not a simple case of ‘LMS vs PLE’
Institutional drivers different at AUT
Importance of pedagogical analysis and
critique
11. 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).
12. Keep your 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
Move ahead on LMS initiatives, but be prepared for innovation and
change.
Start with what you know, and build over time. Progress in stages,
not in one jump
Base the LMS model on your culture to 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.
26. iPad 2 + iOS5 + iCloud = LMS+PLE
• iPad 2 as PLE - both container and producer
• Static LMS giving way to dynamic and
personalised learning environment
• Blending of formal and informal learning
spaces - physical and virtual
27. Implications for
‘service’?
Who ‘owns’ the LMS ?
Governance and decision-making models
What will learning look like in 2015 ?
Is the LMS in its current and emerging
forms the way forward ? (PLEs, CLEs,
hybrids, etc.)
Strategy, planning and budgeting
28. Tablets / mobility
Implications for ‘service’?
Wireless network (P2P, video, apps,)
On-campus infrastructure (labs etc)
Private clouds vs ‘iClouds’
Security - BYOD
Support, training, ‘ownership’ ...
Learning space design
29. OERs and new pedagogies
implications for teaching?
‘lecture capture’ / ‘learning on demand’ -
costs, storage, bandwidth
open content freely available
constructivism and student-generated content
virtual and augmented realities
32. Future of LMS @ AUT
no compelling driver for ‘divorce’
33. Future of LMS @ AUT
no compelling driver for ‘divorce’
robust and scaleable implementation on a
shoestring (compared to other unis)
34. Future of LMS @ AUT
no compelling driver for ‘divorce’
robust and scaleable implementation on a
shoestring (compared to other unis)
increasing pressure on constrained resources
35. Future of LMS @ AUT
no compelling driver for ‘divorce’
robust and scaleable implementation on a
shoestring (compared to other unis)
increasing pressure on constrained resources
no data on ‘pedagogical progression’
36. Future of LMS @ AUT
no compelling driver for ‘divorce’
robust and scaleable implementation on a
shoestring (compared to other unis)
increasing pressure on constrained resources
no data on ‘pedagogical progression’
ByeBye Blackboard / Toodle pip Moodle ?
37. Future of LMS @ AUT
no compelling driver for ‘divorce’
robust and scaleable implementation on a
shoestring (compared to other unis)
increasing pressure on constrained resources
no data on ‘pedagogical progression’
ByeBye Blackboard / Toodle pip Moodle ?
what is the LMS/PLE solution for the
‘changing world’ ?
