After reading the second 1/3 of Weller’s book, one lesson that I see as having immediate relevance is the Learning Management System (LMS) 2002 in chapter 9. Weller (2020) stated that the LMS provided an enterprise solution for e-learning for universities and stands as the central e-learning technology (p. 63). My organization has also adopted the LMS as an e-learning enterprise solution with multiple operating systems such as Quality Learning Management System (QLMS), UDUTU LMS (a platform for e-learning), etc. in the early 2000’s. Conole, de Laat, Dillon, and Darby noted in the chapter that the LMS was often used as a place to dump notes…rather than engage in the more experimental pedagogies in constructivism (p. 64). For example, the LMS in my company seems to be a ‘good enough’ (p. 64) in-house system which allows their employees and contractors to sign up for training courses as needed (some conduct and safety courses would be mandatory). It also supports training completion tracking and recording for each individual. However, it does not make effective use of asynchronous communication to enhance employee and/ or contractor interaction and collaborative learning in this case.
In the “between the chapters” discussion, the panel argued that LMS provides a space for asynchronous classes and learning that Zoom does not allow (Pasquini, 2021). I find this most relevant to my project during the pandemic. Although many employees were resistant to using LMS initially, the ease of accessibility and convenience of the LMS offered a viable alternative for online learning. Employees are convinced that they can learn at any time and any place. The flexibility was what the employees prioritized during that time, and I can see this trend continuing going forward.
According to Weller in chapter 18, Personal Learning Environments (PLE) can be viewed as a reaction against LMS (p.123) or an extension of LMS (p. 125). PLE were seen as a means of allowing greater learner control and personalization, in keeping with the learner-centred approaches to education (p. 124). Despite dissatisfaction of LMS from the employees, my organization does not broadly promote PLE for academic learning possibly because of the high overhead cost. Since LMS has always been under the control of the organization, employees may not see the opportunities in creating and managing a learning environment they wish to have.
References
Pasquini, L. (Host). (2021, January 7). Between the chapters: The LMS (No. 10) [Audio podcast episode]. In 25 Years of Ed Tech. Transistor. https://25years.opened.ca/2021/01/07/between-the-chapters-the-lms/
Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01
Great comments Megan,
You mentioned that your organization has a ‘good-enough’ approach to LMS but does not necessarily use it to its full potential, particularly with asynchronous communication and collaboration. Is this something you would like to see change? Would you feel comfortable (maybe after a few more courses!) leading this change yourself?
Thanks for your questions Terry. Yes, I would like to see change in our LMS. It feels like an old administrative/ management system that mainly tracks our training records. It is controlled by the organization and it doesn’t encourage collaboration. Watters (2014) mentioned in her article “Un-Fathom-able: The Hidden History of Ed-Tech” that LMS is a technological silo and a reflection of the institution of education. It is closed, centralized and in the controls of administrators, teachers and IT but rarely in the hands of learners. My company is currently working on the Human Capital Management (HCM) foundations project that will help upgrade the LMS and other modules. I am not in the project myself but I would love to explore more and be part of the change (after a few more courses would definitely be helpful :)).
Hi Megan,
Your post was so interesting to me because I had to stop and wonder if I have ever encountered a Learning Management System other than Moodle. In reading Terry’s comment, I saw an opportunity for you, as Terry said, to take a leadership role in your organization’s management system. It sounds like you have an interesting idea forming of what learning can look like at BC Hydro and what would make it resonate with your employees. Knowing that there’s a lot of information pushed to employees at Hydro, what would have to happen for Hydro’s LMS to resonate with employees?
Thanks for your comment Sarah! I felt like there needs to be acknowledgement from the company that the LMS has profound benefits that require recurring development and attention than its current state. As mentioned in my previous reply to Terry’s comment, BCH is currently working on the Human Capital Management (HCM) project which will help upgrade our LMS and other modules in the system. I have yet to find out more about it 🙂 Overall, the company needs to understand what kind of system would generate the most workplace learning benefits for their employees and implement something that is user-friendly which allows learning engagement and collaboration.
I also looked at PLEs and whether they are/were really extensions of LMSs or something else altogether. For me, I wondered if the idea or definition was too narrow or perhaps too broad. If it is called a personal learning environment, would that not mean it can include whatever I think is valuable and personal to my learning environment? Too many researchers seem to get bogged down in trying to define things like learning objects or e-portfolios. Why can’t we just say it is whatever we wish them to be?
Good point Marion. My interpretation was that because LMS did not provide the learning environment the users wanted, thus PLE was a reaction/ extension of creating a more desirable learning space. I agreed with you that we should be able to add what we think is valuable to our PLEs; however, I also see risks and boundaries at the workplace for supporting PLEs. Did you find anything interesting on PLE and extensions of LMS?