Why University Learning Management Systems are the temporary classrooms of today

Mark SmithersCurrent issues, Featured, LMS5 Comments

A portable classroom

Be warned, I’m about to torture an analogy. You might want to look away if you’re squeamish.

Growing up in Yorkshire in the 70s and 80s I went to a local high school along with 1800 other kids. To cope with the numbers the local education authority had installed some ‘temporary’ classrooms. They were used long before my  7 years at that school and long after, so it was clearly a new definition of word temporary.

They were cold in winter, hot in summer and damp all year. Nevertheless the teachers made the best of them and they were decorated with student work and made as comfortable as possible.

Now let’s imagine a university in the 21st century decides, as a matter of choice, to make all of its students attend classes in these sorts of learning spaces. But more than this, they decide to black out all of the windows so that no one can see in and they say that there can be no displays of student work within the room. They provide a standard overhead projector in each room and they insist that teaching consists of a 5 minute introductory presentation from the teacher followed by a question, followed by another 5 minute video and so on. Students are only allowed to talk to each other if they go to a corner of the room that has been walled off from everything else. This method of teaching will be the same for every degree program so the artists and sculptors will use a space like this as well as the engineers and physicists. Learning about modern dance and nursing will all occur in these spaces.

This may sound far fetched but that’s often what happens often in university learning management systems. Over the years I’ve seen administrators at several universities attempt to mainstream the use of the LMS through the use of things like minimum online presence policies in which every course has to have an online space in the LMS and, increasingly through ever more restrictions on the configurability of individual learning spaces. The aim is to improve the student experience through mandated standardisation. In fact what happens is that educators already have minimal agency in the LMS (students have almost no agency at all) and they are being given less and less agency as more standardisation is implemented. By agency I mean the capacity of a person to act in any given environment.

There are many reasons why the use of learning management systems is resisted by many university educators even after 16 years of implementation. I would propose that a lack of agency is one of the main reasons. I believe firmly that we should empower both educators and learners to be able to create, share, communicate and learn. That’s not to say that I believe that having a consistent learning experience is not important. I do, but I also believe that this is only important at the program level. Not across all students in the institution. We never expect the experience of nursing undergraduates to be the same as architecture undergraduates so why should we attempt that in online spaces?

I actually believe that we need domain specific online learning environments that cater to the pedagogies appropriate to different disciplines. We can build such spaces quite cost effectively and with much more agency. We’ve just built one for the School of Architecture and Design at RMIT University. It’s for the Creative Practice Research program. It’s built from open source software and is custom designed for the discipline. It’s the online equivalent of a high end interactive learning space like the one below:

Learning space at Saltire Centre CC BY-SA 2.0 by Learning Space Toolkit

Learning space at Saltire Centre CC BY-SA 2.0 by Learning Space Toolkit https://flic.kr/p/bSSVKD

Because at the end of the day the way we use online learning environments is actually largely a human problem not a technical problem

All of this requires thinking beyond the LMS. We describe the space that we’ve built not as an LMS but as a way of thinking. Because at the end of the day the way we use online learning environments is actually largely a human problem not a technical problem. What we need to do is think of the experiences that we want as learners and educators. As Kate Bowles observed in a comment on a blog post by Frances BellLMS vendors sell on the basis of institutional affordance, not user experience“. Universities need to focus on improving the learner experience and making learners work in the modern equivalent of temporary classrooms is not the best way to do that.

Feature image by Steve MorganOwn work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=24258241

Related Posts

5 Comments on “Why University Learning Management Systems are the temporary classrooms of today”

  1. Don’t think you tortured that analogy at all. Reminds me of the concrete lounge metaphor/analogy I’ve been using. Got some more thoughts on this coming, but part of it is what if the digital technologies provided to teachers were protean. i.e. they had the agency to make changes to them.

    As you mentioned, the teachers in those temporary classrooms in Yorkshire were able to make changes to the classroom environment to make them more suitable. Why can’t we do that with the digital technologies we use for learning and teaching?

    Though with the apparent rise of TEQSA and the established approaches to top-down management and enterprise computing, I’m not sure that’s likely to happen anytime soon.

    1. Hi David,

      Thanks for the comment. I’ll follow your links. As for your question; I think you may have answered it yourself.

      Cheers

      Mark

  2. Rather insightful overall. Goes well with a concept of appropriation as “making things appropriate in a given context”. Instead of claiming that LMS are worthless, you point out a Sphere of Agency in making LMS part of something broader and deeper.

    Just a small point, though… While consistent experiences across diverse courses within a program make sense as a desirable outcome… why do we need learning environments to be domain specific? Sounds like the broader point about making learning environments more fitting is strong enough that we need not rush to link it to learning domains. After all, the interdisciplinary thrust of much Higher Ed would use domain-specificity to build a counter-argument showing that standardisation is important for everyone (because cust… stud… learners take classes all across campus and their customer sat… their course evaluations show that they get really confused when instructors deviate from the one institution-approved model, we got datas to prove this!).

    Otherwise, yes, we’re in agreement that bland walled-garden LMS leave a lot to be desired and only matter in some specific contexts.

    1. Thanks for your comment Alexandre. I agree with your point about my focus on domain specificity. I’d be interested in your data on interdisciplinary course evaluations. Do you have a link? I think that what I was trying to say is that some disciplines have very distinct ways of delivering their courses in a face to face setting and that these extend to an online environment as well. I am particularly conscious of this as I work in a College with many arts and design courses for which studio work is integral component. The nature of the online learning environment for these spaces would be quite different to that created for an engineering or business course.

      1. Oops! Sorry! That parenthetical comment about “datas” was meant in jest.
        Have heard about quite a few surveys indicating that students get confused when people from different parts of the same campus dare do things in different ways. In fact, people at both Concordia University and Dawson College have a lot to say about using more than one LMS at the same institution. But the comment was meant to poke fun at administrators who think of students as customers whose satisfaction with the service can dominate over their trajectories as learners.

Leave a Reply