learning or management system?

Learning or Management System?

A Review of Learning Management System Reviews

October 6, 2006

Learning Technologies Centre

George Siemens

Learning Technologies Centre 2

Abstract

Learning management systems (WebCT, BlackBoard, Desire2Learn, Angel, Moodle)

hold a position of first choice in learning technology adoption within higher education.

Selecting a traditional Learning Management System (LMS) requires balancing learning

and management. The initial intent of an LMS was to enable administrators and educators to

manage the learning process. This mindset is reflected in the features typically promoted by

vendors: ability to track student progress, manage content, roster students, and such. The

learning experience takes a back seat to the management functions. Numerous reports (citing

administrators, IT departments, and educators) laud the management functions of an LMS. To-

date, student experiences and efficacy of the tools have been subjected to limited research.

The position offered in this report encourages an organizational definition of learning as

the starting point for selecting a technology platform for creating and delivery learning content.

A clear definition of learning vision and desired future states, created through input from

stakeholders (administrators, faculty, students, and information services) should provide the

foundation for decision making, and the boundaries of platform selection.

This report covers the typical decision-making criteria utilized by various organizations

in selecting an enterprise LMS—most often with the intention of settling on a single, system-

wide platform.


Introduction and Background

While virtual learning environments have been available in some capacity since 1960,

“the PLATO system featured multiple roles, including students who could study assigned lessons

and communicate with teachers through on-line notes, instructors, who could examine student

progress data, as well as communicate and take lessons themselves, and authors, who could do

all of the above, plus create new lessons” (Wikipedia, 2006a, 1960s section, ¶ 1). Learning

management systems have only been available, in roughly their present form, since the 1990s

(Vollmer , 2003), with Blackboard and WebCT being broadly adopted in universities and

colleges by early 2000 (Online, 2006). Initial versions of an LMS focused on organizing and

managing course content and learners. As with many organizations, higher education was unsure

about the role of technology in the educational process.

Aggressive sales and state or province-wide licenses resulted in WebCT and Blackboard

—now merged as one company (Blackboard, 2006a) cornering over 75% or the market (Mullin,

2005). The rapid penetration of learning management systems as key tools for learning occurs in

a vacuum of solid research as to their effectiveness in increasing learning—or even indication of

best practices for technology implementation. Pedagogy is generally a secondary consideration

to student management; some researchers attempted to bridge research from face-to-face

environments to technology spaces (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996)—a practice that may be

convenient, but errs in assuming that the online space is an extension of physical instruction, not

an alternative medium with unique affordances. Learning management systems became the

default starting point of technology enabled learning in an environment largely omitting faculty

and learner needs.


Learning Circuits’ (n.d.) publication, A Field Guide to Learning Management Systems,

revealed the nature of most LMS decisions at committee levels (an experience paralleled in

academic environments): “an LMS should integrate with other enterprise application solutions

used by HR and accounting, enabling management to measure the impact, effectiveness, and

over all cost of training initiatives” (p. 1). The value of an LMS is ensconced in language of

management and control—notions that most academics would perceive as antagonistic to the

process of learning. Most LMS options, features, and comparisons (LMS Options, 2006) focus

on tools included in a suite, not on how to foster and encourage learning in relation to an

organization’s definition of “what it means to learn.” Discussions of features are divorced from

emphasis on learning opportunities.

Current LMS Trends and Needs

After almost a decade of LMS experience, educators and administrators are beginning to

question the prominence of an LMS. In a recent LMS governance report, Wise and Quealy

(2006) stated “the educational significance of LMS is largely overemphasized and

misunderstood [suggesting it is critical for a university to] understand itself—what it

values, what it does well and how it does it, what it would like to do, and how it might do this”

(p. 4).

In a previous publication (Siemens, 2004b), this report author has suggested that LMS in

general are the wrong starting point for learning:

“Learning Management Systems (LMS) are often viewed as being the starting point (or

critical component) of any elearning or blended learning program. This perspective is

valid from a management and control standpoint, but antithetical to the way in which

most people learn today.”


Learning management systems like WebCT, Blackboard, and Desire2Learn offer

their greatest value to the organization by providing a means to sequence content and

create a manageable structure for instructors/administration staff. The “management”

aspect of a learning management system creates another problem: much like we used to

measure “bums in seats” for program success, we now see statistics of “students enrolled

in our LMS” and “number of page views by students” as an indication of

success/progress. The underlying assumption is that if we just expose students to the

content, learning will happen. (¶ 1-2)

Two broad approaches exist for learning technology implementation:

1. The adoption of a centralized learning management approach. This may include

development of a central learning support lab where new courses are developed in a

team-based approach—consisting of subject matter expert, graphic designers,

instructional designer, and programmers. This model can be effective for creation of

new courses and programs receiving large sources of funding. Most likely, however,

enterprise-wide adoption (standardizing on a single LMS) requires individual

departments and faculty members to move courses online by themselves. Support

may be provided for learning how to use the LMS, but moving content online is

largely the responsibility of faculty. This model works well for environments where

faculty have a high degree of autonomy, though it does cause varying levels of

quality in online courses.

2. Personal learning environments (PLEs) are a recent trend addressing the limitations

of an LMS. Instead of a centralized model of design and deployment, individual

departments select from a collage of tools—each intending to serve a particular


function in the learning process. Instead of limited functionality, with highly

centralized control and sequential delivery of learning, a PLE provides a more

contextually appropriate toolset. The greater adaptability to differing learning

approaches and environments afforded by PLEs is offset by the challenge of reduced

structure in management and implementation of learning. This can present a

significant challenge when organizations value traditional lecture learning models.

The two dramatically opposing approaches to elearning deployment require consideration of

what learning means within an institutional context.

Selection Criteria

Reviews of LMS selection criteria fluctuated considerably within the cases reviewed,

often reflecting a lack of clear focus on intentions of an LMS as a learning support tool. These

criteria were generally considered important:

1. Ease of use by faculty and students

2. Integration with a learning object repository

3. Functionality and tools available

4. Transition ease and cost from existing tool

5. Integration with other enterprise-wide tools

6. Extendibility—configuration to the university or college environment

7. Cost

Cases Considered

Learning Management Systems: A Review

In LMS: A Review, Hultin (In press) analyzed key criteria to consider when adopting an

LMS, and offers various common platforms. LMS purchasing mistakes include:


1. Skirting senior management

2. Failing to spell out your needs

3. Comparing apples and oranges

4. Excluding IT from the process

5. Focusing more on price than on value

6. Overlooking scalability

7. Ignoring LMS interoperability

8. Overlooking vendor track records

9. Selecting customization instead of configurability (pp. 4-5)

The report attended to divergent needs of different users (administrators, faculty, course

developers, learners), context of use (internet connections), usability, and time required to learn

the LMS. To meet the needs of various users, a learning environment was offered as a valuable

aspect of LMS implementation, while learning environments in this context were linked to an

LMS, they will be presented later as an alternative to an LMS:

“An important aspect of the learning environments is that they don’t realize any

pedagogical models or create learning for the individuals itself. It demands a context

based on a pedagogical idea. The pedagogical idea can be realized and strengthened with

appropriate learning environments. It is therefore important to integrate the possibilities

with Internet based learning already in the idea—and production phase when developing

course content.” (p. 8)

Learning environments were categorized as: (a) communication (asynchronous and

synchronous), (b) distribution, (c) test and assessment, and (d) interaction (p. 9).


Over the last several years, specialized service providers (like Questionmark,

CourseGenie, and Articulate) have offered enhanced testing and content development tools—

replacing the tools included in many LMS. This trend is resulting in LMS vendors providing

“partners” (Blackboard, 2006d) with priority status in developing and integrating third-party

tools.

Melbourne-Monash Collaboration in Educational Technologies

Input from diverse stakeholders within the university environment was solicited during

this report. Informal conversations—with individuals directly involved in LMS implementation,

support, and administration—were combined with internal reports, meeting minutes, a literature

review, and project management reports (Wise & Quealy, 2006). The report presented two broad

approaches for LMS governance:

1. Top-down, command-and-control: Adopt a system, mandate its use, provide support,

identify needs and support through new tools as needed (p. 18), and

2. Bottom-up, emergent: “moves governance into the unordered, ambiguous realm of

social complexity” (p. 19) by offering support based on elements of use that emerge.

Governance styles must be aligned with the nature of intended learning. The adoption of

technology for learning will differ based on faculty learning models and needs. Medical faculty

will require different tools and approaches than Engineering or Arts faculties. To suppose on

enterprise-wide model of LMS implementation and governance is to overwrite and obscure the

multi-faceted nature of learning and knowledge acquisition (and creation).

The governance model utilized in the Melbourne-Monash report (Wise & Quealy, 2006)

relied on ten key principles:

1. Lay solid foundations for management and oversight


2. Structure the board to add value

3. Promote ethical and responsible decision making

4. Safeguard integrity in financial reporting

5. Make timely and balanced disclosure

6. Respect the rights of shareholders

7. Recognize and manage risk

8. Encourage enhanced performance

9. Remunerate fairly and responsibly

10. Recognize the legitimate interests of stakeholders. (p. 24)

The inclusion of a structured process for LMS review, selection, and governance provides value

to all stakeholders. A clear process of selection, preferably tied into the larger university vision

of “what it means to learn, dialogue, reflect, and inquire,” ensures the selection process is not

vendor-driven or focused on only one aspect of university operation (i.e., needs of the IT

department, enrolment and registration, etc.). The needs and interests of learners, however, were

not directly addressed in the Melbourne-Monash Report.

EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR)

Beyond merely defining a suite of tools, LMS evaluations should “focus on the processes

that underlie creating, preparing, teaching, and taking a course” (Hanson & Robson, 2003, p. 2).

Most selection reviews “have typically focused on comparisons of feature checklists and on

costs, often narrowly defined as license fees” (p. 2). Additional consideration should also be

given to the university’s definition of effective learning, pedagogical models, and larger visions

for a changed society—contrast fostering critical thinking with developing learners for the

workforce.


ECAR (Hanson & Robson, 2003) presented several guidelines, or steps, for selecting

course management systems:

1. Determine process benefits (p. 3). This step involves determining critical processes,

benefits, and features. For example, synchronous communication tools may be

deemed as critical for extended education departments, while collaborative spaces

(like wikis) may be important to on-campus only departments.

2. Assigning value to products and features (p. 4). Once learning processes have been

defined, products and features are explored. Synchronous learning—in the above

example—can be supported through a variety of tools—whiteboard, instant

messaging, Skype (or other external voice over IP applications), or integrated tools

such as Elluminate and Horizon Wimba.

3. Assigning costs (p. 6). Cost determination is complex. Due to established technology

investments (for example, an existing LMS), costs involve more than determining

license fees. Integration, support, and faculty training costs will comprise a significant

part of the total investment.

Learning Management System Strategic Review

California State University (Adams et al., 2005) conducted an LMS review of

Blackboard, WebCT Campus Edition, WebCT Vista, Desire2Learn, and open source systems

Moodle and Sakai. After an initial review, all LMS were disqualified, except for WebCT Vista

and Blackboard. WebCT Vista was ultimately selected.

Systems were disqualified for a variety of reasons including: previous scale of

integration, incompatible with “campus data center standards” (Adams et al., 2005, p. 5), limited

feature sets, limited ease of use, open source movement still in infancy, and lack of confidence in


product support by an LMS vendor. Mention of learner/faculty concerns were largely ignored in

the report. Brief mention was made of “ease of use,” eportfolios, and pedagogical flexibility,

which is not defined (p. 7). Migration, training, history with vendor, and technical concerns

formed the bulk of decision-making criteria.

Course Management System

University of Oklahoma (CMS Task Force, 2000b) expanded its search for an LMS by

including a series of surveys from faculty and students. The survey questions focused on

individuals selecting needed features to support learning. As with other surveys and assessments,

learning remained vague, poorly defined, and disconnected from how the organization viewed

teaching and learning. Faculty responses were particularly revealing of the emphasis on “what

works for me” versus “how does this align with larger organizational learning objectives:”

1. Please keep WebCT! I have hundreds of hours invested in WebCT.

2. Most other universities in the Great Plains Consortium use WebCt so I have a

preference for remaining with that system.

3. I have been using the blackboard system for past three years. I really enjoyed this

system which meets all my needs. I hope this system can be kept.

4. Switching to new CMS is a time-consuming (and for some faculty) an overwhelming

endeavour—so, please, please make this decision with the unconfident computer user

in mind - not the power users.

5. I only use WebCT because I have no choice. (Faculty Overall Comments section)


Evaluation of Learning Management System Software

This report focused on “the issues or consideration for online pedagogy that impact on

the selection of an e-learning platform” (Wyles, 2004, p. 4). The focus on pedagogy raised

important questions:

1. What pedagogy will be used?

2. Will the pedagogy work over the internet?

Emphasis for the evaluation of these questions is based on Chickering and Ehrmann’s

(1996) paper Technology as Lever. As mentioned previously, this report assumed that many of

the tasks and goals of classroom activity can simply be transferred online. The growth of

alternative models of online engagement, as well as parallel conversations found through use of

blogs and RRS feeds—such as social bookmarking, tagging, social networks—reveals a dynamic

where end-user control grows in prominence. The principles provided by many face-to-face to

online transfers of principles or practices does not account for the transformative elements of

online learning.

Laying aside the criticism presented, Evaluation of Learning Management System

Software (Wyles, 2004) was particularly effective in matching tools (email, bulletin boards, chat,

quizzes, tutorials, wikis, etc.) with the work of Chickering, Ehrmann, and Gamson. A critical

concept was expressed in the report summary: “Educational institutions need more flexibility and

control over their e-learning environments to enable different schools, programmes, course, or

instructors to select and deploy the most appropriate e-learning tools suited to the pedagogy”

(p. 6). Any LMS selection process should involve a similar match of functionality with the

organization’s definition of teaching and learning.


Commonwealth of Learning: LMS Open Source

Open source tools like Moodle and Sakai continue to attract broad interest. The prospects

of cost savings in license fees (though fee savings at this level may result in additional

investment in maintenance and support) and potential for customization are attractive to

organizations.

Commonwealth of Learning (2003) reviewed two open source platforms: ATutor and

ILIAS. The methodology used was similar to other reviews listed previously (though focused

only on open source options):

1. Develop evaluation criteria

2. Identify open source candidates

3. Filter candidates to produce a short list

4. Systemic evaluation of features

5. Systems evaluation of general criteria

6. Recommendation. (p. 3)

Criteria for selection included:

1. Features and functionality

2. Cost of ownership

3. Maintainability and ease of maintenance

4. Usability and ease of use and user documentation

5. Current user community

6. Openness

7. Standards compliancy

8. Integration capacity


9. LOM integration

10. Reliability

11. Scalability

12. Intellectual property security

13. Hardware and software considerations

14. Multilingual support. (pp. 4-6)

Absent from the selection list is a complaint levelled at other reviews: the act and process

of teaching and learning are largely ignored in the pursuit of functions, features, integration, and

a myriad of other organizational concerns. The very purpose for which an LMS should be

selected seems to be a secondary concern in most evaluations of technology solutions. Obviously

an LMS needs to be stable, effective (however that is defined), supported, and integrated with

other tools. Yet the failure to first define organizational views of learning results in an

unanchored and misplaced model of LMS selection.

Change Challenges

Vendor Lock-in

Vendor lock-in is prominent in the LMS space. Lock-in is described as: “a situation in

which a customer is so dependent on a vendor for products and services that he or she cannot

move to another vendor without substantial switching costs, real and/or perceived” (Wikepedia,

2006, ¶ 1). Due to a combination of proprietary software, weak standards-adherence, and lack of

foresight by colleges and universities, organizations are placed in a position where existing tools

are weighted more highly due to financial and procedural constraints, rather than an evaluation

on tool effectiveness for teaching and learning. For education institutions focused on innovating

course design and delivery to align with rapid societal changes, lock-in is a significant barrier to


the diverse options required to “seed, select, and amplify” (Johnson, 2001, p. 42) approaches to

innovation.

Faculty Comfort

Learning management systems are still developing in functionality. The last several years

has seen existing providers extend their toolset to include tools currently growing in popularity

with many online learners: blogs, wikis, podcasts, and social networking. Blackboard (2006c)

recently announced Blackboard Beyond Initiative to integrate Web 2.0 functionality to the

system.

For many faculty members, the challenges of learning a new tool require a significant

investment in time. Departments face challenges with the nature of content, often created to work

within a certain LMS—standards are generally loosely followed, and even where compliance

exists, fine tuning is often required.

A Word of Caution

Educational institutions seeking to adopt an LMS should be wary of Blackboard and

WebCT, which BB recently acquired. Blackboard (2006b) recently received patent approval for

key components of an LMS and initiated a lawsuit against Desire2Learn. The anti-open

competition stance has a potentially chilling effect on learning platforms and the development of

the industry as a whole. The patent comes at a time when provosts (Jaschik, 2006) are

increasingly acknowledging the value of open source and collaboration. The preservation of

intellectual property is a cornerstone of academic advancement. Claiming the work of other

researchers as one’s own is unacceptable in academic environments and should cause decision

makers to reflect on the values and corporate commitment to the health of a discipline, by


organizations seeking to close down innovations that have been publicly documented as

collaborative in nature (Wikepedia, 2006).

Limitations of LMS Selection Models

The most prominent difficulty, or limitation of review models explored, was the lack of

focus on, or connection to, broader organizational views of learning. Instead of learning driving

the tool selected, the process of reviewing and selecting an LMS often resulting in a tool that

served other organizational needs (student management, content creation, etc.) in advance of

learning itself.

Numerous factors impact successful LMS implementation. Key stakeholders include:

(a) administrators, (b) faculty, (c) IT and technical support, (d) learners, and (e) curriculum

developers.

LMS reviews considered in this paper generally erred in selecting or attending to the

needs of one stakeholder at the expense of others. In selecting an LMS., an argument could be

made for the supremacy of learning and the quality of learning, as being the most significant

element in technology-enabled education.

Within the span of a decade, an LMS has moved from a support tool to the learning

process, to the guardrails of what is possible. For many institutions, management, not learning,

has become the most prominent criteria in e-learning.

The enterprise-wide, controlled, centralized learning model serves a particular type of

learning (often entry-level or foundational). As learners move beyond content consumption and

into stages of critical thinking, collaboration, and content creation, LMS weaknesses become

apparent. For this reason, the definition of a university’s learning philosophy is critical in guiding

LMS activities.


Seeking Alternative Directions

Educator frustration with LMS views of learning is driving alternative views of learning.

Instead of having the software define learning, organizations are beginning to first define

learning, and then seek tools (and tool suites) to meet desired needs.

All learning management systems. are not alike, and they can be used in different ways.

However, a common idea behind an LMS is that e-learning is organized and managed

within an integrated system. Different tools are integrated in a single system which offers

all necessary tools to run and manage an e-learning course. All learning activities and

materials in a course are organized and managed by and within the system. Learning

management systems typically offer discussion forums, file sharing, management of

assignments, lesson plans, syllabus, chat, etc.

Recently, the emergence of social software has questioned the use of an integrated

LMS. Today, only few social software tools are employed within existing learning

management systems. The question is: Is the next step to integrate social software tools in

LMS? Social software has initiated discussions about the extent to which tools should be

separated or integrated in systems. (Dalsgaard, 2006, Integrating section, ¶ 1-2)

Koper (2004) described the allure and promise of alternative learning models not based

on management, but based on increased learner control:

Self-organised learning networks provide a base for the establishment of a form of

education that goes beyond course and curriculum centric models, and envisions a

learner-centred and learner controlled model of lifelong learning. In such learning

contexts learners have the same possibilities to act that teachers and other staff members


have in regular, less learner-centred educational approaches. In addition these networks

are designed to operate without increasing the workload for learners or staff members.

This model does not exclusively replace traditional learning approaches, but does provide greater

alignment with the emerging work-life-learning triad. Instead of learning housed in content

management systems, learning is embedded in rich networks and conversational spaces. The

onus, again, falls on the university to define its views of learning.

Social Software and PLEs

Two key areas are gaining substantial attention: (a) social software, and (b) personal

learning environments (PLEs). Social software and PLEs have recently gained attention as

alternatives to the structured model of an LMS. PLEs are defined as: “systems that help learners

take control of and manage their own learning” (van Harmelen, 2006, ¶ 1). PLEs “are about

articulating a conceptual shift that acknowledges the reality of distributed learning practices and

the range of learner preference” (Fraser, 2006, ¶ 9). A variety of informal, socially-based tools

comprise this space: (a) blogs, (b) wikis, (c) social bookmarking sites, (d) social networking sites

(may be pure networking, or directed around an activity, 43 Things or flickr are examples),

(e) content aggregation through RSS or Atom, (f) integrated tools, like elgg.net, (g) podcast and

video cast tools, (h) search engines, (i) email, and (j) Voice over IP.

The shortcomings of these approaches rest in their lack of integration and the control

required by many universities. The experience of many educators parallels my own—learners are

very active with technology, but once in an LMS space, they seldom do more than the minimum

required (a particular concern in courses where dialogue and theory are important to explore).

This may be a function of students taking on “the student role”—defaulting to passive behaviour

—once in an academic environment. It may also be due to the change in behaviour expected by


educators—where learners must leave their tools behind and adopt tools with limited

functionality. For an individual used to Skyping, blogging, tagging, creating podcasts, or

collaboratively writing an online document, the transition to a learning management system is a

step back in time (by several years).

Recommended Process Forward

Different types of learning require different approaches. As educators, our selection of

tools is determined by how we answer the question: “What types of technologies best suits a

particular learning context?” (Sessums, 2006, Abstract, ¶ 1). Tool selection in advance of context

determination eviscerates subsequent use and adoption. Learning management systems have

been effective in eliminating the challenges faced by educators in selecting and aligning

particular tools with particular tasks. Unfortunately, these systems have begun to determine

options available for faculty and an institution.

Bates and Poole (as cited in Sessums, 2006) listed six characteristics for determining

appropriate selection of technology:

1. Will selected technologies work in a variety of learning contexts?

2. How does it impact strategic, institutional level and tactical, instructional level

decisions?

3. Do the selected technologies provide equal attention to educational and operational

issues?

4. Will it take into consideration the affect of different media and technologies enabling

an appropriate mix for a given context?

5. Are the selected technologies user-friendly, practical, and cost-effective?


6. Will the selected technologies be quickly out-dated, or will they be flexible and

accommodate new developments? (Conclusions section, ¶ 2)

Universities and colleges need to explore broad applications of technology—beyond

simple LMS implementations. LMS may well continue to play an important role in education—

but not as a critical centre. Diverse tools, serving different functionality, adhering to open

guidelines, inline with tools learners currently use, may be the best option forward.

The challenges of LMS utilization is compounded with ongoing changes in technology.

E-portfolios continue to grow in prominence (Siemens, 2004a). Informal, life-long learning—

validated or certified by educational institutions in the form of prior learning assessment and

recognition—is developing in tandem with a greater societal shift. The rapid development of

information (Lyman & Varian, 2003) requires a model that sees learning less as a product (filling

a learner with knowledge) and more of a process of continually staying current and connected

(learning as a process of exploration, dialogue, and interaction).

While desired, it is unrealistic to expect universities to shift significantly from an LMS to

a PLE. Yet the trends occurring online (in relation to social software and Web 2.0 technologies

—resources that are single-focus, connected, and two-way) are beginning to impact learner

expectation. Many educators in the K-12 sector are adopting learner content-creation tools like

blogs, wikis, YouTube, podcasts, and tagging. As these learners enter higher education, they may

not be content to sit and click through a series of online content pages with periodic contributions

to a discussion forum.

The following steps are recommended for moving forward with a broad review of

learning technologies:

1. Involve all stakeholders (beyond simple surveys).


2. Define the university’s view of learning.

3. Critically evaluate the role of an LMS in relation to university views of learning and

needs of all stakeholders.

4. Promote an understanding that different learning needs and context require different

approaches.

5. Perform small-scale research projects utilizing alternative methods of learning.

6. Foster communities where faculty can dialogue about personal experiences teaching

with technology.

8. Actively promote different learning technologies to faculty, so their unique needs—

not technology—drives tools selected.

9. Create ongoing university teaching and learning technologies council to evaluate

ongoing trends, successes, challenges, and needed adjustments to current path.

Creating a vision for online learning requires sustained evaluation and monitoring to

ensure the approaches to fulfilling the vision change as the context of implementation

changes.

Conclusion

The complex process of teaching and learning requires complex, multi-faceted models of

implementation. One tool will not meet all needs in all contexts. Changes impact and influence

existing models—rendering yesterday’s solutions obsolete. In the field of learning, an adaptive

model of technology selection and governance is required to ensure that all stakeholders’ needs

are met. A solution today may not be accurate tomorrow. A sustained process needs to be

enacted to align context changes with changes and approaches to learning methods and

technologies available.


The university “must adapt, using technologies and models of understanding, in this case

to reconcile teaching, research, IT, a changing environment, financial accountability and

managerial models” (Wise & Quealy, 2006, p. 4). Learning management systems have a position

in higher education (certain types of under-graduate level learning are more structured and

focused on memorization or content exploration). To meet the needs of all learners in various

stages of their education, a multi-faceted (holistic) view of learning must be considered.

Increasingly, personal learning environments provide the tools and model to attend to the diverse

learning needs of individuals today.


References

Adams, S., Banks, B., Evans, B., Gardiner, L., Geunter, C., Irving, J., et al. (2005, April). Learning management system (LMS) strategic review: A next generation learning management system for CSU, Chico. Retrieved October 11, 2006, from California State University, Chico Web site: http://www.csuchico.edu/tlp/LMS2/LMSStrategicReview.pdf

Blackboard. (2006a). Blackboard and WebCT merge. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://www.blackboard.com/webct

Blackboard. (2006b). Blackboard recently awarded patent on elearning technology. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.blackboard.com/company/press/release.aspx?id=887622

Blackboard. (2006c, March 1). Blackboard unveils Blackboard beyond initiative: Four bold inaugural projects will advance e-learning 2.0 vision. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/060301/0111604.html

Blackboard. (2006d). Why work with Blackboard? Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.blackboard.com/company/partners/whyworkwbb.htm

Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996, October). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 3-6. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html

CMS Task Force. (2006). Course management system. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from Oklahoma State University, Faculty Development Link Page Web site: http://fp.okstate.edu/fsc/cms/

Common Wealth of Learning. (2003, July). COL LMS open source report. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.uv.es/ticape/pdf/Evaluacion_de_plataformas_libres2003.pdf

Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. European Journal of Open Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm

Fraser, J. (2006). More PLE questions. EdTechUK. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://fraser.typepad.com/edtechuk/2006/10/more_ple_questi.html

Hanson, P., & Robson, R. (2003). An evaluation framework for course management technology [Electronic version]. Educause Centre for Applied Research, 14(Research bulleting). Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0314.pdf

van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal learning environments. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from University of Manchester, School of Computer Sciences Web site: http://octette.cs.man.ac.uk/jitt/index.php/Personal_Learning_Environments


Hultin, J. (In press). Learning management systems (LMS): A review. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://se2.isn.ch:80/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=NATOADL&fileid=09FD0FDC-723F-5E63-CCDB-6AFCDA98BCC8&lng=en

Jaschik, S. (2006, July 28). Rallying behind open access. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/07/28/provosts

Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence. New York: Scribner.

Koper, R. (2004). Increasing learner retention in a simulated learning network using indirect social interaction. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/249/4/preprint-LNsimulation.pdf

Learning Circuits. (n.d.). Field guide to learning management systems. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/NR/rdonlyres/BFEC9F41-66C2-42EF-BE9D-E4FA0D3CE1CE/7304/LMS_fieldguide1.pdf

LMS options and comparisons. (2006). WebCT instructor community. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://ctlet.brocku.ca/webct/LMS_Options_and_Comparisons

Lyman, P., & Varian, H. R. (2003). How much information? Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/

Mullin, S. (2005, December 7). On line learning market may be monopolized. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.antitrustlawblog.com/article-on-line-learning-market-may-be-monopolized.html - some differing views exist on how market share is defined, but—for example a CMS (course management system) definition would exclude enterprise-wide vendors like SAP (who are offering their own learning platform), resulting in a WebCT/Blackboard market share in excess of 80%.

Online learning history. (2006). Moodledocs. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://docs.moodle.org/en/Online_Learning_History

Sessums, C. D. (2006, April 11). Revisioning the LMS: an examination of formal learning management systems and component-based learning environments. http://elgg.net/csessums/weblog/11712.html

Siemens, G. (2004a). ePortfolios. Elearnspace. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/eportfolios.htm

Siemens, G. (2004b). Learning management systems: The wrong place to start learning. Elearnspace. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/lms.htm


Vollmer, J. (2003). Debunking the LCMS myth. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_fairfield.asp?articleid=223&zoneid=13

Wikipedia. (2006a). History of virtual learning environments. Retrieved October 11, 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_virtual_learning_environments

Wikipedia. (2006b). Vendor lock-in. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in

Wikipedia. (2006c). Virtual learning environment. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_learning_environment

Wise, L., & Quealy, J. (2006). LMS governance project. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from University of Melbourne, Information Services Web site: http://www.infodiv.unimelb.edu.au/telars/talmet/melbmonash/media/LMSGovernanceFinalReport.pdf

Wyles, R. (2004). Evaluation of learning management system software. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://eduforge.org/docman/view.php/7/17/Evaluation%20of%20LMS%20-%20Part%20II.pdf

learning or management system?

Documents

learning process

learning circuits

learning opportunities

theprocess of learning

learning technology

delivery learning content

virtual learning environments

blended learning program