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
- 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.
- 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.
- 19. Steve Wheeler
- 20. Steve Wheeler
- 21. Steve Wheeler
- 24. Mark Pesce http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/2010/08/05/paperworks-padworks/
- 25. Mark Pesce http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/2010/08/05/paperworks-padworks/
- 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
- 31. Future of LMS @ AUT
- 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’ ?