Literature Review
Implementation and Training of a Learning Management System in Higher Education
Introduction
The purpose of this literature review is to examine a body of work created by educational institutions pertaining to the effective implementation of Learning Management Systems (LMS) into their curricular environment. A Learning Management System is a system designed to coordinate, facilitate, and deliver educational materials for the learner, while also providing a means for assessing progress throughout the course. The key type of information sought was that of the techniques and tools applied in engaging the uses of LMS to aid in learning objectives for traditional and e-learning classrooms. The goal of this research is to find out what types of LMS are employed at various institutions, the types of support and training provided, and how these systems are utilized.
Selection of a Learning Management System to Meet Institutional Needs
Advancements in technology have provided us with a myriad of specialized tools to aid in realms of communication, business, and entertainment. It is only natural that these tools would also find their way into the sphere of education from the K-12 to university level. The benefits of utilizing a LMS at an institution are that it provides students with the ability to register for a course and have instant access to course content, web-based interfaces allow for anytime access and provides a more malleable learning environment that adheres more closely to the students schedule, and the near instantaneous feedback the students can obtain in online assessment (Tools and techniques, 2009). These systems are more closely aligned with the types of technologies that learners are exposed to everyday in the realms of social networking, electronic gaming, and web-based utilities providing a service or for entertainment. LMS can be used to varying degrees at an institution, from simply passing information back to a human resources system, or using multiple systems to handle separate aspects of learning, or even using a hosted or outsourced solution (Scheepers, Jordaan, & Mostert, 2008). They come in many shapes and sizes, generally with an associated cost either monetarily or in the time investment required for implementation. The decision for an institution to use a LMS requires a very strict analysis of how the school plans to utilize the system, the size of the institution, the system cost, the ability for the system to grow as needs increase, and how it interfaces with other infrastructural systems (Ragsdale, 2009). Often times, systems are put in place that are either underutilized or do not provide enough of a service to the institution. Using this type of technology also requires increases in financial resources for technical support and maintenance of a technological infrastructure (Cangelosi, 2009), which can be a limiting factor for some. In addition to the technological requirements of running a LMS, the end-user experience and satisfaction is a major factor in the effective adoption of the system (Barr, Gower, & Clayton, 2007).
Many of the hundreds of LMS on the market are similar in overall structure, with differences generally arising from the amount of available features and levels of support in a software package at a particular cost bracket (Black, Beck, Dawson, Jinks, & DiPietro, 2007). Some of these systems have annual subscriptions costs that range from $10,000 to $400,000 (Cangelosi, 2009). Cost can be prohibitive to some, leading to the use of an inferior product in relation to the needs of the institution, or detraction in the ability to provide support for the system. There are, however, free open-source alternatives in LMS selection. Open source LMS systems offer most of the features of the enterprise systems, but also require that the institution design and integrate the system internally (Boehle, 2007). This requires technology personnel capable of meeting the needs of server integration, and troubleshooting issues to provide reliable service. Selection of a LMS requires addressing all of these factors to meet the specific needs of the individual institution.
Provision of Learning Management System Training and Support
With the implementation of a course management system, there comes a need to provide proper support and training to the campus community to ensure that the tools are being utilized to their fullest extent. This involves not only training in the use of the software but also how new teaching methods are implemented through the use of the software (Bongalos, Bulaon, de Celedonio, de Guzman, & Ogarte, 2006). Without accessible support these systems often fall to the wayside at the first sign of a problem, or do not use all of the tools intrinsic to enhance the learning process. This training can be in the form of a face-to-face class, or through the online delivery of screen-capture video tutorials and instructional text-based training (Blicblau, 2006). Proper support and training systems can help to alleviate some of the natural anxiety that comes with using a new or unfamiliar tool and aid in the adoption and continued use of the LMS at the institution (Ackerman, 2008). Separate training modules would need to be developed to service the individual needs of the student, teacher, and administrator of the system. Much of the training material can be housed on the LMS system itself, however many institutions opt for training and support systems that work symbiotically with the LMS, hosted solutions for training, or use training systems delivered by the LMS provider (Olliver, Westergard, & Hesting, 2007). These types of support systems, regardless of method, require additional service charges or payroll hours for development, but are integral to facilitate the use of the LMS platform (Marengo & Marengo, 2005). It is not enough to simply make the LMS available to the institution, but to teach the users how and why they are using it. A method of consultancy support tools would also need to be provided for the infrastructure of the LMS in the event of a system failure, need for an upgrade, or compatibility issues with other changing technologies (Weaver, Spratt, & Sid Nair, 2008). An unreliable system would reduce user confidence in the system, and could inhibit users from using the system when needed for a course.
Implementation of the Learning Management System at the Institution
The third set of considerations in this research is how the school will implement the LMS, both in infrastructure and in the learning environment. A LMS should make the management of materials easier for an institution and their users. In order to be effective, a LMS needs the ability to interface with other school systems, such as user information, business records, and any other current data associated with technology-enhanced learning (Riad, El-Minir, & El-Ghareeb, 2009). A system of authentication will need to be provided to effectively track students’ progress using the LMS. Planning will have to be done to see if the physical network can handle the demands of a LMS, as inadequate infrastructure reliability can impede the adoption of an LMS system (Barr, et al., 2007).
Once the system is in place a certain amount of motivation is required to adopt the new platform. “LMS need to offer some type of financial, pedagogical, administrative, or other advantage, compared to similar products, in order to be adopted…” (Black, et al., 2007, p. 37). Otherwise, why would teachers and students invest the time needed to adapt to this system? An article by Samarawickrema and Stacey (2007) describes Everett Rogers theory of diffusion of innovations and how this influences potential adopters:
1. Relative advantage—What makes this product better for our use?
2. Compatibility—How will this product integrate with our other systems?
3. Complexity—Will this product have a steeper learning curve?
4. Trialability—Will we be able to experiment with the product before adoption?
5. Observability—Will we be able to see results of the trial period to identify if this product is in fact suiting our needs? (p. 315)
These are among some of the concerns in influencing users to utilize the system, but how the adopters are using the system for effective communication is of higher importance. Caron, Beaudoin, Leblanc, and Grant (2007) describe the role of five “actors” in the learning environment. The first actor is the person learning from the system. Most often this is the student. The second actor is the facilitator of the information, or the class instructor. The third is the administrative role, managing the network community. As stated earlier, this can be the local LMS administrator, or provided by a hosted support team. The forth actor is the collaborator, or a contributor to the body of work on the LMS. These are not only the instructors, but also industry professionals, and experts in the respective fields. The role of the knowledge engineer is the fifth actor, advising on the presentation of on-line content (Caron, Beaudoin, Leblanc, & Grant, 2007). This is a role that is often overlooked when implementing the system, but is now one that requires a great deal of focus in order to use the LMS to provide engaged learning. These roles all have a significant influence on the goal of a LMS system. Addressing the needs of all of the actors in the LMS community is paramount to the successful implementation of the system.
Conclusion
There are many factors in the design and implementation of a LMS system into a particular learning environment: the overall cost of the learning system, the systems usability, providing training and support, and effectively utilizing the technology as an aid in the classroom. We must not lose sight of the ultimate goal in using technology in the classroom; to enhance the learning process beyond the capabilities of the traditional system so that learners have a deeper understanding of what and why they are learning. Taken into consideration, addressing these obstacles could ensure the successful adoption of, or migration to, a new LMS. These core systems can provide a foundation to build a fulfilling e-learning platform, as well as provide a host of tools to further aid in the expansiveness of the educational experience.
References
Ackerman, A. S. (2008). Hybrid learning in higher education: Engagement strategies. College & University Media Review, 14(1), 145-158. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Barr, H., Gower, B., & Clayton, J. (2007). Faculty response to the implementation of an open source learning management system in three tertiary institutions in New Zealand. Computers in the Schools, 24(3/4), 125-137. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Black, E. W., Beck, D., Dawson, K., Jinks, S., & DiPietro, M. (2007). The other side of the LMS: Considering implementation and use in the adoption of an LMS in online and blended learning environments. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 51(2), 35-39. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
Blicblau, A. S. (2006). Online delivery management for teaching and learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(2), 237-246. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.
Boehle, S. (2007). Is open source right for you? Training, 44(7), 36-39. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Bongalos, Y. Q., Bulaon, D. D. R., de Celedonio, L. P., de Guzman, A. B., & Ogarte, C. J. F. (2006). University teachers' experiences in courseware development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 695-704. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Cangelosi, V. (2009). Getting control of course management systems: Recommendations for selection and maintenance of e-learning products. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 23(1), 13-17. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Caron, P., Beaudoin, G., Leblanc, F., & Grant, A. (2007). Architecture for implementation of a lifelong online learning environment (LOLE). International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 313-332. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Marengo, A., & Marengo, V. (2005). Measuring the economic benefits of e-learning: A proposal for a new index for academic environments. Journal of Information Technology Education, 4, 329-346. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Olliver, J., Westergard, V., & Hesting, K. (2007). Universal training-the common denominator for instructional success. Community College Journal, 78(2), 44-44. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Ragsdale, S. (2009). Selecting and using a course management system. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 23(1), 18-21. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Riad, A. M., El-Minir, H. K., & El-Ghareeb, H. A. (2009). Evaluation of utilizing service oriented architecture as a suitable solution to align university management information systems and learning management systems. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 10(4), 27-40. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Samarawickrema, G., & Stacey, E. (2007). Adopting web-based learning and teaching: A case study in higher education. Distance Education, 28(3), 313-333. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Scheepers, D., Jordaan, A. J. J., & Mostert, E. (2008). Analysis of three different models used to acquire three e-learning solutions at the same university. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 3(1), 74-79. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Tools and techniques. (2009). Benefits & Compensation Digest, 46(11), 10-10. Retrieved from Business Source Premier.
Weaver, D., Spratt, C., & Sid Nair, C. (2008). Academic and student use of a learning management system: Implications for quality. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 30-41. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
