Learning Management Systems and Virtual Learning

Chapter

33

Learning Management Systems and Virtual Learning Environments A Higher-Education Focus

Colin Baskin and Neil Anderson James Cook Universit y

Learning Management Systems and the Global Client Community

Q1 Q2

Q3

Q4

The e-mail arrived like all others, but came with the weight of expectation. Why would the presidents and CEOs of the world’s two largest proprietary elearning systems be issuing a joint e-mail? It began fairly innocuously: “We are writing you today directly communicate some momentous news. Earlier today, WebCT and Blackboard signed a formal agreement expressing our intent to merge our companies” (personal communication, 2005) . It continued, This decision is one that has been made based on careful consideration by both entities. We believe that this union will have a positive impact on the global e-Learning community and on the individual clients of both companies. We want to communicate the rationale behind the merger and to provide some of the early details on what this news means for you. (personal communication, 2005) This proposed merger would leverage “the best of Blackboard and WebCT,” to deliver an “improved online learning experience” in a single global company (read, community of practice) comprising “some of the brightest, most experienced talent in the e-Learning industry” (personal communication, 2005) . This would include redevelopment of both “Blackboard and WebCT 979

ER56528_C033.indd 979

6/14/07 1:21:29 PM

980 • Baskin and Anderson

Q5

Q6

Q7

products, WebCT Vista and WebCT Campus Edition, and Blackboard Academic Suite and Blackboard Commerce Suite” with a “futures’ orientation” (personal communication, 2005) . Expected to be finalized early in 2006, this in-principle agreement extols greater centralization and standardization within the proprietary e-learning community. It is also a useful point at which to commence this discussion on learning management systems, and virtual learning environments, in the higher education sector. That higher education is facing the prospect of a single proprietary provider of learning management systems (LMS) and virtual learning environments (VLEs) with an express vision to “actively engage industry standards efforts” is a double-edged sword. The joint proprietors are sure the merger is a good thing. When this vision is underpinned by a mission to “develop common standards-based APIs, based on Building Blocks and PowerLinks” that enable “existing product lines to interoperate with one another” combining “the best features and usability characteristics from the two product lines into a new, standards-based product set” then benefits must surely accrue (personal communication, 2005) . Yet, we are compelled to ask, “Who benefits?” Downes (2005) raised the specter of the “digital native,” that sometimes “n-gen” referent who not only approaches life, work, and play at “twitch speed,” but who is busy changing the very nature of markets, in particular information and communication technology (ICT) markets (p. 2). These “smart markets” are more informed, more organized; people in these markets deliver far better information and support to each other than vendors can possibly provide. In the context of learning, Downes conceded, “[T]hese (emerging) trends are manifest in what is sometimes called ‘learner-centered’ or ‘student-centered’ design, which are essentially issues about the control of learning itself” (p. 2). Herein lays a compelling contest over the future of the LMS. John Hall (2003), from Oracle University, set the development of the LMS on a parallel track with other large-scale enterprise implementations—for example enterprise resource planning (ERP), customer relationship management (CRM), and supply chain management (SCM; p. 1). George Siemens (2004b) and Stephen Downes saw the LMS differently, spawned not by an emerging sense of management order, but conceived out of knowledge workers’ shared sense of chaos, and the need for an end-user flexibility and control to move in paths driven by learning needs, and not by LMS design. The material effects of a proprietary merger are compelling; bringing the e-learning community together “to broaden access to shared expertise, reusable technologies, faculty and developer networks” and for the promotion of “exemplary course programs” transforms a distributed network of e-learners into a “global client community” (personal communication, 2005) . This kind of digital rhetoric foregrounds the use of VLEs and locates learners, lecturers, and pedagogues as “users” of such technologies. The user label is an interesting one; it is an expression of a broader set of social relations, encompassing service-level relationships based on identified client needs. The good thing

ER56528_C033.indd 980

6/14/07 1:21:30 PM

Management Systems and Virtual Environments • 981

about being a client is that someone else works to meet your ICT needs for an agreed-upon fee. The problem with being a client is that clients are “done to” and “done for”; they are not expected to impose themselves on the technology but are much more expected to have the technology imposed on them. LMS technology is at risk here—at risk of becoming utilitarian, despite the fact that there may be more people than ever before accessing institutional learning through proprietary e-learning systems. The real challenge for e-learning systems is to deliver a VLE/LMS whose use will be inspired rather than patterned, proactive rather than reactive, and creative rather than reproductive. This chapter takes account of this challenge and points to areas within contemporary research that open productive intersections for a new social discourse on e-learning systems applications and development. From the Global to the Local

E-learning has been around for approximately 10 years (Downes, 2005). It brackets ICT integration in education with contemporary changes in society, in which technology is the root cause of social evolution and the primary motivator for the digitization of education (Sasseville, 2004 ). ICTs are therefore considered powerful tools of social change, as they not only bring about changes in the way we deal with information, but also challenge how we think and how we view our world. The mere fact that new learning technologies enable greater access to information imbues this information with the joint qualities of being “technical” as well as “scientific.” It is searchable, retrievable, and describable; it can be interrogated, amended, contested, disputed, and conscripted. It is “out there” in an objective sense—each piece a fractal, a potential learning object to be put together and organized for the purposes of learning delivery (Downes, 2005). The dominant platform for the delivery of e-learning is the World Wide Web, and the dominant mode of delivery the online course. The corollary of this is the need for a mechanism to manage such delivery; in its least structured form this would be a simple VLE or LMS, depending on which hemisphere and continent you come from. For some in education, a Web quest fits this definition of a learning organizer: for others, nothing but an enterprise solution would suffice. For the purposes of this discussion, both terms are used interchangeably, although this does not deny that some VLE/LMS solutions can be simple in composition, while others can be quite complex and elaborate (Baskin & Anderson, 2003 ; Shaw & McCauley, 2003). The main “client” relationship featured in this kind of system is that of learner and learning provider, with a clear emphasis placed on core learning functions built around • controlled access to curriculum that has been “chunked” for discrete assessment and reporting; • tracking student activity and achievement against this curriculum through simple administration tools;

ER56528_C033.indd 981

Q8

Q9

6/14/07 1:21:30 PM


• a structured (learning) resource base and facilitated assessment suite; • communication between the learner, provider, and learning technicians to support learner feedback; • group communication suites to support collaborative learning; and • links to parallel administrative systems, both in-house and external (Joint Information Systems Committee [JISC], 2003, p. 85–98). An example of such a system, its core learning functions, and its “local” context of use is provided in the vignette that follows: Melissa is a part-time student studying education at James Cook University in Cairns. One day each week she is required to travel 70 km from Mareeba on the Atherton tablelands to attend lectures for one of her subjects at the Cairns campus. Her second subject is conducted online in LearnJCU, the university-wide learning management system. She adopts a participation pattern of four entries to the site each week, and has identified this as the minimum amount of “hits” to stay abreast of course announcements, variations, updates, and just-in-time resources. This can sometimes be frustrating, as her work schedule on weekends is variable, and sometimes she just feels “too tired” to maintain the schedule. The concessions overall she believes are worth the effort; she has halved her petrol bill travelling to university each week, and her Internet costs are only $29.95 per month for broadband access… 200 MB is plenty. Her login ritual is straightforward; she uses a username and password to access her student gateway, enters the subject, reads all the announcements, and proceeds to the subject discussion board. Here, each week’s material is laid out as an independent forum, and with 164 students in the course, there can be many threads to read through between each site visit. She has identified three fellow posters whom she thinks make more sense than the lecturer; she prioritizes their threads, and then looks for postings from her project group, which she groups chronologically, copies, and pastes to a running Microsoft Word log stored on her desktop as a record of group exchanges. She generally makes one posting or at best two, claiming that neither is particularly “earth shattering,” but that each serves to let the learning community know that she is alive and participating. She then closes her Internet connection, and turns her attention to the word file on her desktop. She is working in a group project with three other students. This project involves examining the “culture” of a local school, and presenting findings in the form of a Web site for comments by other groups. Logging off the Internet she believes is a relic of times gone by, where her dial-up connection often meant the rest of the house was denied access to the telephone, while she connected to her learning materials. She understands that broadband now enables her to stay online and still take phone

ER56528_C033.indd 982

6/14/07 1:21:30 PM


calls, but “old habits die hard.” She opens the word file on her desktop, and completes responses to her group’s requests and suggestions. She later reconnects to the subject site, happy that connections to her broadband provider incur no dial-up costs. She notices another 15 messages have been posted to this week’s discussion board, including a summary of this week’s online lecture by the lecturer involved. She downloads the PDF file, saves it to her desktop, and proceeds to cut and paste her postings from her desktop document. She can always read the PDF document later. The LMS Melissa used is essentially a piece of software that provides a standardized platform for delivering learning content in a supported and systematic way. Her local learning environment integrates with existing student and administration systems within her host university, what King (2002) described in total as a managed learning environment (MLE). She accesses learning content via the student portal, through which access to all component systems and services is provided. This includes • built-in infrastructure and security-related features (single sign-on authentication and authorization to the portal and its component parts as separate subsystems); • access to enterprise-wide information and services (directories, aliases, calendars, and news updates); • group-level customization to discriminate separate services/information to defined subgroups; information “push” channels that form part of the subgroup customization; and • individual customization facilities to support the sublevel customization efforts of users. Learning materials manifest as folders, and folders constitute collections of files. A file is the smallest conception of a learning object, and learning objects by their very nature need to be grouped. Implicit in this modular structure of learning content is the sequencing and pacing of learning events, a form of curriculum design that contradicts Melissa’s sporadic access and download patterns, and the 24/7 availability of all learning provider LMS content. Melissa defies this normalizing frame; she refuses to have the technology imposed upon her. She has determined her own login ritual and prioritizes subject announcements and discussion boards above all other VLE functionality. Within the discussion board, she identifies 3 out of a total of 163 fellow students for the collaborative value they offer her learning; none of her learning circle selections include the subject lecturer or subject tutors. Melissa’s learning is strategic; she begins by building an association with her learning resources, determining the connections between LMS functionality and her perception of what needs to be learned. These associations are then integrated as a meaningful pattern of ideas, sourced by Melissa, with connections, in most cases, to identifiable people or established resources. Melissa then begins

ER56528_C033.indd 983

6/14/07 1:21:31 PM


Q10

to validate her own understandings through the communication suites, testing the consistency between her patterns of understanding with the existing understandings of her peers. The culmination of her learning is her appropriation of knowledge, usually stored in her desktop journal and disseminated via the group project. Despite the best of pedagogical opportunities, Melissa’s online course still tries to replicate the rhythms of a stand-and-deliver, faceto-face model of learning. Melissa however, tells otherwise; like Vaill (1996, p. xx ), she demonstrates that learning is about the “attitudes and actions” of individuals, as they transform groups in order to deal with “novel, messy, obtrusive (and) recurring events.” The LMS—An Elephant in the Lounge Room

Q11

Q12

Q13

Q14

Siemens (2004) extended this analogy, placing learning as a key interface for processing the acceptance of new values through change processes (see also Mezirow, 1991). In higher education, this is captured in a range of terms designed to convey the dynamic of the new learning agendas: action-learning, collaborative learning, lifelong learning, self-paced learning, situated learning, distributed learning, flexible learning, and, more recently, practitionerbased learning. In moving toward what Lemke (1996) termed the “interactive learning paradigm,” Siemens (2004 , p. 1) identified some significant trends in learning, and to some degree, Melissa enacted most of these: • We are lifelong learners in a variety of fields; • formal education no longer comprises the majority of our learning; • learning is now predominantly a networked (connected) activity; • technology is redefining and reshaping our brains; • the organization and the individual are indelibly connected as learning organisms; • many conventional learning processes can now be embedded in technology; and • strategic knowledge (knowing where as well as how and what) is on the increase. A LMS provides a business critical platform for an enterprise’s online learning environment by “enabling the management, delivery and tracking of blended learning (i.e., online and traditional classroom) for employees, stakeholders and customers” (Hall, 2003, p. 1). Siemens (2004b) suggested that this perspective is valid from a management-and-control standpoint, but is “antithetical to the way in which most people learn today” (p. 1). Parkin (as cited in Siemens, 2004b) argued that a contemporary LMS “is often the albatross around the neck of progress in technology enhanced learning” (p. xx). Siemens (2004b) elaborated; he suggested that the management aspect of the LMS reduces learning to a subset of observable statistics related to “the number of students enrolled in our LMS” and the “number of page views by students,” which are just another variation on the “number of bums on seats” headcounts used by some institutions to judge course effectiveness (p. xx).

ER56528_C033.indd 984

6/14/07 1:21:31 PM


Against this backdrop of the “LMS loves me, but loves me not,” many universities treat their host LMS like an elephant in the collective lounge room—it is visibly there, it is expensive to feed, we do our best to ignore it, and we certainly do not draw attention to it by talking about it. The odd thing about LMSs and quality teaching and learning is that they never seem to be the shortest distance between two points. Focusing on one only seems to bring into play a myriad of other institutional factors, concerns, resources, personnel, and issues. The origins of the “elephant in the lounge room” can be traced back to the evolution of the learning content management system. Shelley Robbins (2002) provided a detailed account of its evolution through four stages, namely

1. generic content libraries; 2. learning management systems; 3. outsourced e-learning platforms; and 4. learning content management systems.

Generic content libraries established the early pedagogy of the LMS. Siemens (2004 ) pointed out that “behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism” are “the three broad learning theories most often utilized in the creation of instructional environments,” emphasizing that these theories are an artifact of an era in which learning was not “impacted through technology” (p. 2). The individualistic drill and practice of the behaviorist model gave rise to an information transmission process, in which interactive multimedia and the World Wide Web were used as demonstration or information-dissemination tools imposing linear learner control. These early libraries of courses were generally accessible via subscription, primarily targeting training in managementrelated disciplines. As more and more organizations accessed these libraries, the opportunity for exchange between participants grew, and with it grew the opportunity for learners to participate in the processes of knowledge construction—both cognitive and social. Siemens (2004 ) launched a critique on the limitations of “behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism” (p. 2) as an inadequate account of contemporary learning. In short, the central tenet of each is that learning takes place “inside a person,” a premise that fails to account for how learning might occur outside of people, namely through technology or organizationally mediated learning. Secondly, each theory is more preoccupied with process rather than strategy, and Siemens contended that contemporary networked learning is much more strategic in nature than it is process-oriented. Moving learning into the digital age “requires us to derive our competence from forming connections,” in turn, assembling meaning and mediating chaos as we go (Siemens, 2004, p. 3). The benefits of generic content libraries as a first stage were obvious, primarily as just-in-time resources for the purposes of self-paced study and for cognitive apprenticeship into discourses of preference. Yet the production of generic resources for management training provided little competitive advantage to

ER56528_C033.indd 985

Q15

Q16

Q17

6/14/07 1:21:31 PM


purchasing organizations; business was more interested in differentiation and the problem of being a client in the LMS supply chain was evident in earlygeneration libraries. Robbins (2002) identified learning management systems as a second-generation response to organizational learning needs. With the advent of the Internet came the opportunity for interoperability; at the enterprise level this meant the LMS could be utilized to integrate functionality to enable the planning, tracking, measuring, and evaluation of employees, customers, and stakeholders. The LMS is a strategic infrastructure and essential architecture—it is a significant component of how every higher-education institution sees and positions itself in terms of its connections to local, national, and global higher-educational markets and agendas. Robbin’s stage-three iteration of the LMS is the outsourced e-learning platform, a kind of e-learning intermediary popular among large textbook-publishing houses. Her culminating stage-four learning content management system was adopted by higher-education institutions, who saw this as an opportunity to consolidate and institutionalize ICTs as core practice at the enterprise level, embedded in a range of institutional practices including learning management, performance management, staff development, knowledge sourcing, knowledge sharing, knowledge dissemination, employee relations, capacity planning efforts, internal and external marketing, as well as administrative, accountability, and reporting compliance. Q18

He Organizations Consolidating and Institutionalizing ICTs

Like the wheel of retail, higher-education institutions have moved along the continuum from initiating ICTs in learning, to implementing ICTs for learning, toward institutionalizing ICTs as an enterprise-wide organizer for teaching and learning practices. Each of these phases can be seen, for example, in the evolution of Australian higher education, with most research (Baskin, Barker, & Woods, 2005; Bell, Bush, Nicholson, O’Brien, & Tran, 2002; McKnight et al., 2002) pointing to evidence that all institutions have moved from the implementation toward the institutionalization phase. This is no surprise, given that most ICT developments in higher education have stretched beyond experimentation, to include knowledge sharing amongst cohorts and groups of universities. ICTs are well and truly integrated into the mainstream operations of all 37 Australian universities. In an era of competition, this has lead to a focused and pragmatic use of ICTs to bring about consolidation and economies of scale within universities to take advantage of knowledge, dataset, and learning-object repositories. In turn, this is connected to research capacity, funding, quality, and policy imperatives—the very stuff of survival the universities in a competitive funding environment. John Hall (2003), senior vice president of Oracle University, conceded that despite a shaky start in the 1990s, industry analysts are now “bullish about enabling technologies” buoyed by “growing adoption rates” and “quick return

ER56528_C033.indd 986

6/14/07 1:21:31 PM


on investment” to organizations who adopt enterprise learning management system solutions (p. XX) . Not all drivers toward the consolidation of ICTs within higher-education institutions are demand pull; the need to professionally support and maintain a dispersed student body has largely been a demand push innovation. Innovative technology systems for student, staff, and financial support and administration form an important component of contemporary universities. These connect student to student, student to institution, and institution to institution. In some institutions, there is a visible integration of these support and administrative processes with the teaching and learning systems through the construction of member portals. Further focus on the development of university-wide knowledge/data object management systems to provide security (intellectual property and data protection), consistency, and economies (in that data/knowledge creation will not be needlessly duplicated) has seen many universities invest heavily in e-learning infrastructure and architecture. Although there is some attention to the pedagogies underlying e-learning, very often technology implementation or implementations of e-learning strategies primarily appear to be made with regard to cost and efficiency savings rather than to any commitment to improve teaching and learning from a pedagogical basis (Baskin & Anderson, 2003a).

Q19

LMSs, Teaching, and Learning

Daniel (1996) pointed to the fact that a new university would be required every week in order to sustain emerging participation rates in higher education. Given the implausibility of infrastructure growth of this kind and scope, higher-education providers have enlisted the potential of new information technologies to extend and support the administrative, research, teaching, and learning functions of the university. As universities grapple with identifying a future role for LMSs the level of practice by current academics, at large, has not delivered the “critical mass” (Rogers, 1995) of practitioners required to make adoption of new learning technologies self-sustaining. Academics are more likely to adapt LMSs for personal reasons, rather than to enhance teaching and learning (Macchiusi & Trinidad, 2000; Brennan, Miller, & Moniotte, 2001). As Macchiusi and Trinidad (2000) and Hagner and Schneebeck (2000) indicated, the perceived lack of leadership in growth-oriented learning opportunities within the global higher-education sector means many academic managers become bogged down with restructure behaviors at the expense of innovation uptake. This has lead to a learning system imbalance, wherein technology investment has outstripped investment in people, and “where information technology rather than ‘pedagogy’ is the driver of curriculum reform” (Celsi & Wolfinbarger, 2001, p. 308). As a result, the limitations of “teacher bandwidth” have never been more acutely felt in an era where academic development involves the adaptation of an entirely new working identity. There is a sinking feeling that existing models

ER56528_C033.indd 987

6/14/07 1:21:32 PM


Q20

Q21

for integrating LMSs into the higher-education curriculum fail to adequately address the learning, teaching, and research needs of the host communities. It is ambitious to assume any single medium is able to “resolve fundamental educational problems or alter the ways teachers understand teaching” (Ramsden, 1992, p. 161), but in the case of ICTs • at the infrastructure level, Macchiusi and Trinidad (2000) pointed to a lack of uniformity in enterprise-wide computer hardware and software systems in universities, even where an institution has adapted a commercial LMS; • there exists a diversity of “faculty” views on the role and value of ICTs at a time when “technological change has removed the spatial security of academic institutions by opening up and redefining the core concept of the delivery of learning” (Hagner & Schneebeck, 2000, p. 2); • Vogel and Klassen (2001) suggested that with technology the role of the faculty member is not eliminated, but rather “their resource base gets larger and more varied as technology extends in a plurality of new directions” (p. 105); • in terms of “job expansion,” Dabbagh (2002 ) detailed that preparation time for face-to-face teaching requires 6–7 hours per week, compared to its LMS counterpart requiring 18–19 hours per week. Not only are teaching staff doing more, but they are required to do it differently and often in dual or multiple delivery modes; • while the LMS is seen as an innovation in teaching and learning, teaching and learning success stories featuring LMSs often remain unsubstantiated (Baskin, Barker, & Woods, 2003 ; Tyner, 1998; Snyder, 1997; Ramsden, 1992). Evaluation studies, thus far, fail to reveal much of the anticipated improvement in learning outcomes (McNaught, 2002; Alexander, 1999; Alexander & McKenzie, 1998); • a characteristic of institutions’ initial choice of LMS products has been ease of use by staff as a main criterion for initial product selection (Morgan, 2003; Stiles, 2002). Staff think first in terms of delivery approaches (Tomes & Higgison, 1998) and later about how to convert traditional courses into electronic ones (Morgan, 2003; Phillips, 1998); • in the use of LMSs in most institutions, there is evidence of effort spent on the conversion of existing lecture-based learning programs into modular materials which are distributed to learners along with traditional assignments and examinations as the sole means of assessment (Morgan, 2003; Littlejohn, 2002); and • there is a growing criticism of mainstream commercial LMSs as content-centered, and their pedagogic bias such that they “fit” certain cohorts (and styles) of learners above others (Milligan, 1999).

ER56528_C033.indd 988

6/14/07 1:21:32 PM


To date, LMS uptake in higher education has focused primarily on trying to overlay new technologies on traditional forms of teaching, without making substantive changes to the character of teaching or to learner perceptions of the host institution. These conclusions led Shaw (2003) to highlight the rarity of whole-institution strategies to the implementation of an LMS within the broader MLE, pointing more to their piecemeal and often accidental evolution. In particular, he stressed the need for institutions to find approaches to build on existing localized initiatives to better address issues of pedagogy, and to better manage the differences between MLEs (which are essentially processes) and LMSs (which are essentially software systems) to support enhanced learning (JISC, 2003; Shaw, 2003 ; King, 2002). In essence, as a learning media, LMSs are seen not to sustain ongoing teaching and learning development in their current context of use, nor are they likely to deliver high organizational expectations of the digital campus. Describing e-learning in the HE sector as a simplified cottage industry (see Figure 33.1.) McLean (2003) presented three converging institutional user platforms as (a) knowledge, (b) dataset, and (c) learning-object repositories. McLean (2003) painted a compelling picture of the university, its cultures, and its practices, where digital assets are managed in discrete “faculty silos,” and the duplication of faculty and central staff immersed in the process of Web-services development equates to little awareness of stewardship of these assets. Financial constraints on the upgrading and customization of proprietary business-critical server resources means little growth-oriented planning or agreement at the enterprise level on how to store and access digital learning content. The rapid take-up of content-management systems drives institutions deeper into a culture of “do it yourself” infrastructure management in which, until recently, there was a distinct lack of institutional metadata strategies. The net result is that systems’ interoperability is limited, while organizational expectations for the digital campus remain high. Where technical planning is a feature of strategic institutional planning in higher education, the discourse of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) applies. Koch (as cited in King, 2002) defined ERP as “attempts to integrate

Scholarly Information

GRID Computing

E-Learning

User Interfaces

User Interfaces

User Interfaces

Applications

Applications

Applications

Common Services

Common Services

Common Services

Infrastructure

Infrastructure

Infrastructure

Knowledge Repositories

Data Sets Repositories

Learning Object Repositories

Q22

Q23

Q24

Figure 33.1 Converging ICT domains in higher education (McLean, 2003)

ER56528_C033.indd 989

6/14/07 1:21:33 PM


all departments and functions across an organization onto one single computer system that can serve all those different departments’ particular needs” (p. 2). ERP activity is costly, and correlates in scale to the size of the institution (King, 2002). King reported that such projects appear only moderately successful; half of the 481 respondents to her survey reported achieving targeted outcomes through adoption of a suite of proprietary enterprise systems, with 46% only partially achieving targeted outcomes. Most institutions reported loss of functionality and momentum before making any measured progress, and cited a “steep learning curve” (resistance to change and lack of staff expertise) as major obstacles to implementation. The benchmark short-run curve for implementation of a single system is 1–2 years, with a 4-year average for implementation of the three-component system (King, 2002). A common theme across participating institutions was the perception that “workloads” and “costs” had increased across the organization; in short, institutional systems have changed operational practices, but the underlying principles of business practice in HE have remained fixed despite pressures for change. Cost sensitivity in MLE development is therefore increasing (Bentley, 2003); institutions embarking on MLE development or assembly are not especially loyal to, or dependent on, one proprietary provider, with the majority of the institutions having changed (or planning to replace) systems, or planning to implement secondary systems (Bentley, 2003; King, 2002). This suggests that proprietary systems may have reached the point where user issues (user-friendliness, cost effectiveness, and integration with other systems) override the marginal returns user institutions derive from manufacturer add-ons and new system features. The trend in proprietary LMS uptake in Australian universities is presented later in this chapter. (See Table 33.1.) In 2003, of the 34 institutions who responded to the CAUDIT learning management systems survey, 27 indicated an intention to upgrade their systems in the ensuring 12-month period. By contrast, in 2005 of the 32 institutions who responded to the CAUDIT learning management systems survey, only eight indicated an intention to upgrade their systems within the ensuing 12-month period. The number of institutions moving toward homegrown, or multiple LMSs had increased to five; these included pilots with Moodle, VISTA, as well as a continuation of existing in-house systems and blends. Developments in joining up LMSs with MIS systems, authentication servers, digital libraries and portals and other systems to form MLEs are formative. Table 33.1 Changing Use of Proprietary LMS in Australian HE Year

Survey Respondents

Top Class

Multiple Homegrown

Blackboard Only

WebCt Only

2003

34

1

3

10

21

2005

32

0

5

13

13

ER56528_C033.indd 990

6/14/07 1:21:33 PM


Robbins (2002) and Hall (2003) discussed the evolution and functions of the LMS in some detail and depth, and Hall went on to elaborate how this maps onto licensing and purchasing options that “compare to an ERP system in terms of complexity and cost of implementation” (p. XX) . For the cashconscious university, interoperability standards do not yet provide a “plug and play” solution to interoperability as universities continue to add new building blocks (challenges and costs) to old ones. This has led to a rigorous examination of the culture of “universities” and their uptake of new technologies (Morgan, 2003; McLean, 2003; McNaught, 2002; Hagner & Schneebeck, 2000) with critical response to academic practices. Beyond the creation of functional Web services architecture (document control, resource discovery, repositories, delivery, and security) there remains little shared view of the potential of the digital campus among university stakeholders. There remains wide variation in levels of information and IT literacy, piecemeal consensus on the application of LMS technologies and pedagogic practice, and a general failure to capture the social nature of learning (the university experience) through technological and LMS applications. It does seem that the marginal returns from ICT development (that is MLE and LMS) have reached a saturation point, where further investment by universities is unlikely to result in higher levels of investment return. Almost by default, the pedagogical functions of ICTs as a learning technology are now foregrounded in this debate. It is here, at the pedagogical interface, that universities need to be looking for the new generation of value added returns from LMS and MLE investment. It is less a case of which LMS the university adopts, and more a case of how the LMS is used and implemented to support the training, teaching, learning, administrative, and research goals of the organization (Hall, 2003).

Q29

Defining the Problem—The Limitations Of LMSs

Siemens (2004b) demarcated between learning tasks that are well suited for a LMS (learner administration and content management) and learning itself. The distinction is so acute that Siemens (2004b) contended “ organisations that are now locked into enterprise level systems will be able to do an excellent job of delivering courses. They won’t, however, the positioning themselves well for informal learning, performance support, or knowledge management. The concept is simple: One tool can’t do it all without losing functionality. This is the same impasse documented in the university experience mentioned earlier; the more feature-rich a LMS becomes, the less utility it has to the average user. Siemens went on to detail some of the more glaring weaknesses of a LMS; these include • LMS tools structure and define the learning task, therefore prescribing the nature of interaction (instructors-learners, learner-the learner, learner-content). Where content is viewed as the most valuable contribution to learning, the LMS will suffice;

ER56528_C033.indd 991

Q30

6/14/07 1:21:34 PM


• the LMS interface is designer driven rather than end-user friendly. The learner is often and easily confused by the complexity and layers of the LMS interface; • only recently have proprietary LMS providers begun to extend their basic platforms with toolsets beyond content sequencing and discussion forums. Many universities in Australia have carried a dual Blackboard and WebCT platform to maximize utility, with synchronous integration tools a recent innovation. These tools still comprise part of a “locked down” platform; and • monocultural LMS tools limit learner options and opportunities. There is still an implicit assumption embedded within the LMS that functionality is the ultimate goal and teachers and learners need not go beyond what is currently possible to reconceptualize the curriculum itself.

Q31

Downes (2005) defined the knowledge-work of the “n-gen” as having moved well beyond the “gathering and accumulation of facts” and toward “the riding of waves on a dynamic environment,” even posing the rhetorical question, “Do we need factory universities to learn” (p. 2)? In many ways, the attitudes of academics to widespread adoption of the LMS are understandable and predictable. If the university professor is to become a redundant intermediary, and the role of the LMS is to disintermediate teaching and learning processes, then academics are unlikely to contribute to their own demise through wholesale adoption. The LMS is much more likely to replicate existing highereducational practices, than it is to challenge them (Morgan, 2003; Tomes & Higgison, 1998; Phillips, 1998). On the user side, major parts of the World Wide Web were replicating communications networks, in its transition from a read-only to a read-write environment. In narrating the shift from information transmitted to platform, Downes told an evolutionary tale spanning networks, blogs, Wikipedia, podcasting, and communities of practice. In his analysis, Downes, like Siemens (2004 ), concluded that the emergence of a new model of learning is part of an impending revolution, but not of the technical kind. This kind of learning, and the purpose of new learning technologies, is socially constructed. Attending to Learner Needs

Social presence theory (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) is based on the belief that “different media” convey different degrees of “perceived substance” to an interaction, with the quality of connection based on the amount of nonverbal communication made available to the receiver in a given exchange. In this regard, an LMS is a low-presence, and low-cue, media; the theory of social presence therefore suggests that LMSs will be “limited” in its attempts to facilitate the “cooperative interaction” of students in an e-learning environment. While no doubt an artifact of its time, social presence theory is elaborated and extended in related research by Sproull and Kiesler (1986),

ER56528_C033.indd 992

6/14/07 1:21:34 PM


who suggested that social presence also extends to social context cues, which serve as indicators of appropriate “contextualized” behavior. Social context cues in a face-to-face setting govern the norms and practices of contact, social desirability, conversational turn taking, standards of disclosure, and a host of situational and context variables. However, social context cues are embedded in nonverbal communications. Given the absence of nonverbal cues in the LMS setting, it follows that where digital communication suites are involved we are less able to make subtle differentiations among communication stimuli, and therefore less able to exert control over ourselves in order to meet social expectations and to perform important social roles. As Sproull and Kiesler contended, this is more likely to lead to role ambiguity, increased anonymity, reduced self-regulation, and reduced self-awareness; a worst-case scenario could see LMSs as counterproductive to learning. At risk in the LMS environment is the “fabric” of critical education, the very stuff of traditional higher education. The fear is that students will move away from active learner participation to browse through a “stockpile” of justin-time information made available online (Blasi & Heinecke, 2000, p. 83). On top of this, as Lambier (2002) put it, LMSs seem to “feed of the limitations teachers often have to face” (p. 113) in the process of teaching. The emphases placed on time management, class management and efficiency, individualization and autonomy, information processing, and problem solving in an LMS environment promote a pedagogy that understates the value of deeper learning processes. Three Pillars of Enquiry: Social Presence, Transactional Distance, and Social Affordance Social Presence: An Interlocutory Space

Building on the theories of Short et al. (1976), Social Presence Theory argues that social presence is a critical component of learning. The theory of social presence presupposes that learning is best achieved in social environments and that any form of communication (virtual or real time) can be used to enhance or silence the social presence of others. Hence, both the face-to-face and the LMS have an intrinsic social presence value. The new social space we refer to as “cyberspace,” is created according to in the areas of knowledge, new social relationships, new social roles, and a reconstructed (deconstructed) sense of self (Downes, 2005; Siemens, 2005 ; Rheingold, 2000). The key feature of cyberspace (transcribed onto the LMS) is interaction, whereby a new sense of “self” and “community” can be mediated, negotiated, and, if required, continuously renegotiated. Wolfe (2000) suggested that within teaching and learning exchanges there have been three key changes in a shift away from a dominant cognitive view of learning, these being the concept of communication, the concept of interaction, and the conceptual model of context. The

ER56528_C033.indd 993

Q32

6/14/07 1:21:34 PM


Q33

Q34

latter, the conceptual model of context, accounts for interaction, identity, and knowledge-construction processes within learners (Wolfe, 2000; Anderson, 1995). This model of context is not restricted to the coconstructed physical presence of others, but consists of what is known as the “interlocutory space” that provides each of us with access to socially recognizable meanings (Hymes, 1970 ). With such a rich genealogy, social presence is something of a slippery concept. It is defined by its progenitors, Short et al. (1976), as the “degree of salience of the other person in the (mediated) interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships” (p. 65). In other words, social presence refers to how real (Richardson & Swan, 2003) or three-dimensional (Stein & Wanstreet, 2003) a person or group is perceived to be despite the medium of communication; it is in essence an interlocutory space, a purely Vygotskian zone wherein one’s ability to assemble and focus the presence of communicating subjects to the means of communication is determined (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1997 ). The LMS is the software expression of these relationships. Partee (2002) advocated social presence be enacted when a teacher e-mails notes to the students; this establishes an immediate and special contact, compared to the more traditional classroom in which there may be a large number of students and limited scope for definitive “social presence.” Murray (2004), like Stiles (2002), found that while integrating an LMS into schools, most teachers simply applied the technologies over the top of traditional teaching practices, rather than reinventing new approaches to teaching and learning through innovative and divergent thinking. Schwitzer, Ancis, and Brown (2001) maintained that in order to encourage effective “e-learning,” the facilitator must emphasize the “meaningfulness” of the learning material, rely upon learner-centered instructional approaches, provide positive interpersonal exchange, and attend to a host of student-diversity issues. Baskin and Anderson (2003b) found that women engaged in distance education embraced LMS communication tools, and were found to have a higher relative level of academic success, satisfaction, and sense of the social presence than their male counterparts did. Maor (2003) found that interaction and a corresponding perception of the social presence of others grew from the use of socially constructivist approaches to teaching and learning in an LMS setting. Taken together, these studies suggest that not only does the medium in part dictate the perception of social presence by its interactive limitations (such as the inability to convey nonverbal cues), but also that students tend to avoid certain interactions within certain media. This awareness of “social presence” as a structuring theory suggests that learning media can be facilitated in such a way that the perception of social presence is increased, which in turn greatly increases the ability to substitute ICT for face-to-face instances while achieving the same (or better), learning outcomes (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Stein & Wanstreet, 2003). In doing so, it shifts

ER56528_C033.indd 994

6/14/07 1:21:35 PM


focus away from technological events (system components and capabilities), back onto critical teaching and learning events. The relationship between interaction and social presence is a complex one. Picciano (2002) pointed out that students in traditional classrooms participate in social and communicative practices, from joining in discussions about a topic of study and sending and receiving nonverbal cues to interacting outside of the classroom. These kinds of interactions suggest social presence. The theory does not argue, however, that face-to-face classrooms by definition have high social presence; indeed, the reverse is particularly true if students or teachers feel alienated. Indeed, a common misconception is that social presence is a symptom of interaction (Picciano, 2002). In further attempts to quantify social presence, other researchers have measured a variety of indicators, including semantic differentials (Short et al., 1976) immediacy patterns (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997), emotional expression (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000), and communication styles (Tu, 2002 ). To emphasize these connections, Tu and McIsaac (2002) redefined social presence as an outcome of intimacy and immediacy (which are themselves determined by the three dimensions of interactivity, social context, and online communication). They believe it unlikely that the LMS will replace face-to-face instruction. Nonetheless, they mention that with careful selection and attention to the three dimensions of interactivity, social context, and online communication, the LMS can enhance some less successful face-to-face teaching and learning situations (Tu & McIsaac, 2002).

Q35

Transactional Distance: Mapping Pedagogical Spaces

The pedagogical theory of transactional distance sits firmly within the learning theory of social constructivism. Dewey and Bentley (1949) derived the concept of a “learning transaction” to mean a transaction in which a person “shares learning” with the rest of his or her “group” in a way that is dialogic. The subsequent theory of transactional distance was originally formulated by Moore in the early 1970s and has since become a fundamental concept in distance and remote education (Faust, 2004). Indeed, Moore’s concept of transactional distance replaced common understandings of what “distance education” is taken to mean. The latter emphasizes a geographical separation of learners and teachers rather than a pedagogical concept (Mueller, 1997). Moore and Kearsley (1996) suggested that while physical distance can lead to “a communications gap,” transactional distance is the “psychological space of potential misunderstanding between the behaviours of instructors and those of the learners” (p. 200). As a result, transactional distance is not directly related to geographical distance (Faust, 2004) and even face-to-face environments can have some element of transactional distance (Mueller, 1997). Faust (2004) argued that transactional distance is really a pedagogical distance determined by the balance of teaching and learning “structure and

ER56528_C033.indd 995

6/14/07 1:21:35 PM


Q36

dialogue.” In terms of transactional distance, “structure” relates to the rigidity/flexibility of the course of study, including its objectives, strategies, and its capacity to accommodate learner diversity. “Dialogue” refers to purposeful, constructive, and valued interaction. Moore’s theory, at its simplest, posits that if the structure of the course is high and dialogue is low then there will be a larger transactional distance leading to psychological gaps, different teacher and learner behaviors, and increased likelihood for misunderstandings between participating parties. In this respect, it is much harder for learning to occur. On the other hand, if the dialogue is high and structure is low (e.g., more flexible) then the transactional distance will be much smaller (Faust, 2004). Transactional distance is therefore a subjective experience that varies according to learner autonomy and dependency (Moore, 1993; Mueller, 1997). “Learner autonomy” is a well-used concept within higher education and refers to the extent to which “in the teaching/learning relationship it is the learner rather than the teacher who determines the goals, the learning experiences, and evaluation decisions of the learning programme” (Mueller, 1997, p. 2). Moore’s research indicates that as students progress toward autonomous learning, they are less likely to need dialogue and structure, and that for them the transactional distance in such courses will be much less than for learners with a higher degree of dependence (Moore, 1993). Conversely, learners with high dependency tend to favor courses with greater dialogue, relying on “a close relationship with an instructor” (Mueller, 1997, p. 5). When applying theories of social presence and transactional distance to the use of LMSs in teaching and learning, we illuminate the possible explanation for the high value placed on face-to-face interactions (high dialogue) for large-group teaching, and the possible failure of the LMS (high structure, low dialogue) interactions for the same cohort of learners (Richardson & Swan, 2003). Yet, the “social context” of education is affected by motivation and attitudes, as much as it is by teaching and learning (Foley, 2004; McInnis, 2003; Treleaven, 2004). Social presence within a face-to-face classroom can be associated with social cues; these same cues are now available and present in distance education through the LMS. The gestures, smiles, and praise that can be achieved though the face-to-face classrooms (Jordan & Le Metais, 2004) are also available within distance education via auditory video teleconferencing (Everett, 2001). Garrison and Anderson (2003) suggested that within the discourse of the classroom, the “success” of the learning event lies in the individual’s ability to project him- or herself socially and emotionally as a person to the learning community. While the LMS is viewed as culturally neutral (Giovannetti, Kagame, & Tsui, 2003), it has its drawbacks insofar as media, materials, and services are often inappropriately transferred without attention being paid to the social setting or to the local recipient culture (Johns, Smith, & Strand, 2003). The literature on social presence and transactional distance points to the context of use as a critical determinant of learning through an LMS.

ER56528_C033.indd 996

6/14/07 1:21:35 PM


Social Affordance: Designing Pedagogical Space

Given the preceding discussion, “the LMS” is first and foremost a “pedagogical space” rather than a deliberate educational service-delivery strategy (Downes, 2005; Siemens, 2004 ). The teacher and learner are geographically separated, but are connected via knowledge-construction processes, communicate via back channel and public discussion forums, and submit assignments via email or digital drop-box, or by posting to a “designated” work area within the LMS (Howard, Schenk, & Discenza, 2004). Transactional distance within this concept of learning is defined by the psychological and communications space between teachers and learners. In their exploratory study of e-learning, Volet and Wosnitza (2004) concluded that engagement in asynchronous and synchronous learning activities reflects a substantial amount of “social interchange” and “meaningful learning”; however, only a limited social negotiation of meaning was found to exist. New learning media are essentially social, but not constructively so (Baskin & Henderson, 2005). While the communication properties of the LMS may trigger social interactions, they do not necessarily sustain or direct learning engagement within that environment. Krieijns and Kirschner (2001) described this phenomenon as social affordance—namely, the amount of structure that exits in the design of the learning material (Bradner, 2001). Needless to say, this structure needs to be supported by the capabilities of the LMS. This is the precinct of e-moderating. A term made popular by Gilly Salmon (2000) , e-moderating is the transitive term given to strategically tailoring educational experiences for the consumption of individuals—that is, using ICTs as a structuring resource for more effective teaching and learning. Krieijns and Kirschner (2001) would have suggested this meant designing for higher relative levels of social affordance. E-moderating draws on elements of both face-to-face teaching and traditional print-based distance teaching to construct new teaching and learning events, but also identifies the need for the introduction of a range of new understandings and techniques that are specific to e-learning delivery. The logic of linking social affordance with e-moderating is profound; if social presence is an attribute of the teaching and learning environment, and transactional distance frames teaching and learning events, then social affordance provides the means to “design” for better teaching and learning outcomes (Wenger, 1998). It is to this point we now wish to turn.

Q37

Q38

Social Presence, Transactional Distance, and Social Affordance as Learning Organizers

What follows is an illustration of how social presence, transactional distance, and social affordance conspire to create the conditions for teaching and learning, and how these might constructively align in an LMS. It is time for a return visit to Melissa. Melissa is one member of the cohort cited here. The data captures and brackets the experience of 164 students over a 13-week period. The students

ER56528_C033.indd 997

6/14/07 1:21:36 PM


Social Presence Ratir

involved had no previous experience of face-to-face university learning, nor had they any experience of learning through the agency of an LMS. The presumptions of the researchers were simple: if learners were exposed equally to face-to-face teaching and learning, as well as learning through an LMS, then we ought to be able to assign learning values to each learning event and be equally as able to make inferences based on a comparison of these values. So it was that students attended virtual and face-to-face lectures, tutorials, group projects, examinations, and study-skills workshops in equal degrees over a 13-week period. Students were subsequently asked to assign a learning index (rating 1–5) for each learning event, indicating the degree to which they either agreed or disagreed with each indicator statement using a 5-point Likert scale (“1 = strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree”). Across-group means were calculated, as were item average means for male (n = 61) and female (n = 103) students. Data presented here includes Paired Sample t Tests for differences between the ICT-enhanced and face-to-face experiences of male and female students. In cross-sample comparisons, in all but one of the nine listed learning events (academic writing) female students assigned higher relative learning ratings to both LMS and face-to-face learning events than their male counterparts. (These differences in the perceptions are presented graphically in Figure 33.2). The results indicate that in terms of LMS and face-to-face comparisons, female (M = 4.02) and male (M = 3.99) students are more likely to prefer face-to-face lectures, with male students assigning significantly less learning value to faceto-face (t = –2.11, df = 162, p < 0.05) as well as online (t = –3.16, df = 162,

t en m

an ag e

ad in g

in

g

Re

rs pe er

W rit

al on

zz

M ng ni ar

Q

ui In t

Le

Ex

am s&

Pr o

ce

es

ss

t en k

or W

up ro G

G

ro

up

W

or

k

Co nt

ria ls to

Tu

Le

ct ur

es

Male F2F Male Online Female F2F

Figure 33.2 Learning events ratings face-to-face and online by gender (Basking & Henderson, 2005)

ER56528_C033.indd 998

6/14/07 1:21:37 PM


p < 0.05) lectures than female students. The same trend can be seen in patterns of interpersonal exchange; in the face-to-face (t = –4.97, df = 162, p < 0.05) and online (t = –3.41, df = 162, p < 0.05) settings, male students placed less learning value on interpersonal exchanges than their female counterparts. Both male and female respondents rate group-work processes (skills) in face-to-face group work the same (M = 2.89), yet differ significantly in their perceptions of group-work processes in the online setting, with male students much more circumspect about the role of the LMS in facilitating group-work processes (t = –2.47, df = 162, p < 0.05). Male students present clear preferences for face-to-face group work tasks, but not in a tutorial setting in which applied learning exercises were the focus of tutorial tasks and activities. Males and females prefer LMS tutorials to face-to-face tutorials, but again male respondents assign a significantly lower learning weighting and preference (t = –2.11, df = 162, p < 0.05) for LMS tutorials than female students. Similarly, male students also reported significantly less preference for face-to-face exams and quizzes (t = –2.20, df = 162, p < 0.05). In regard to learning selfmanagement, both male and female respondents assigned higher relative learning values to the LMS (sample mean, M = 4.43) as a learning manager, with female respondents reporting a significantly higher rating the males (t = –2.26, df = 162, p < 0.05; and t = –2.59, df = 162, p < 0.05). As an aside to this, male students also reported LMS group work (M = 4.27) as having a higher (but not significantly so) learning value than its face-to-face alternate (M = 3.85), while female respondents report a significant preference for face-to-face group work as the preferred environment for “doing group tasks” (t = –3.60, df = 162, p < 0.05). New Questions for Tertiary Teachers

Effect differences reported here indicate that discernible differences in the “learning choices” and “patterns” of male and female LMS users do exist. But which constructs underlie student preferences in each case? How does this pattern of discrimination between face-to-face and LMS contexts capture the deeper split between the “public and private” knowledge-making processes of the learner? What kinds of knowledge are better supported by the face-to-face architecture of the classroom? In turn, what kinds of knowledge are better supported by the virtual architecture of the LMS? Is there a taxonomy of knowledge-construction processes that underlie (or should underlie) blended models of teaching and learning? This preference for differentiation and the capacity of the LMS to meet and extend this preference set beyond the face-toface setting in the majority of learning events, points to a new application for LMSs at the university level. This preference goes beyond overlaying new technologies on traditional forms of teaching, toward the consideration of how social presence, transactional distance, and social affordance are expressed and enacted within teaching and learning environments.

ER56528_C033.indd 999

6/14/07 1:21:37 PM


• There does exist a real opportunity to improve the quality of teaching and learning through the adoption of new learning technologies. • At work in our university classrooms are sets of multimodal learners, with identifiable learning preferences that can be serviced through technological innovation. • Social presence is an expression of interlocutory space. • Both face-to-face and LMS learning have some element of transactional distance at the learning interface; the mere existence of learner-preferred environments confirms Moore’s theory that where the relative structure of a learning event is high, and dialogue (purposeful, constructive, and valued interaction) is low, then there will be a larger transactional distance leading to psychological gaps, different teacher and learner behaviors, and misunderstandings. • Data presented here also suggests that the reverse may hold true; if dialogue is high and structure is low (more flexible), then the transactional distance will be much smaller (Faust, 2004) regardless of learning delivery mode.

Q41

Q42

The marginal returns to universities for LMS development have diminished to a critical point: in Australia, only 25% of respondent universities intend to upgrade existing LMS infrastructure beyond 2005 (CAUDIT, 2005). In market terms, this means proprietary LMS software manufacturers will be less inclined to undertake development of existing LMS capabilities. The wheel of retail will grind pedagogical innovation to a halt; what we have is as good as it gets in terms of standardized proprietary LMSs. In the words of Siemens (2004b), “Strongly structured tools, with limited extensibility, face short life cycles in rapidly changing environments” (p. XX) . Despite a need for the contrary, we will likely see the continuance of divergent interactivity suites connected by synchronous cross-platform tools as a substitute for real social engagement. The impetus to redress the bias toward content rather than learning outcomes in LMS design has diminished; a “one size fits all” LMS mentality has prevailed, and is indeed promoted as an industry and standards solution (Hall, 2003). The tendency to superimpose traditional pedagogical approaches onto new learning technologies has become entrenched in university teaching practices and culture. All in all, after 5 years of frantic LMS activity, we are experiencing a pandemic gravitation to the norm. As Carl Jung would have said, as educators we are facing a real “developmental” opportunity; the answers to questions of “where to from here” lie somewhere in the mix between the transactional distance, social presence, and social affordance spaces available to teaching and learning in our universities. Reinventing the university is indelibly tied to how we choose to reinvent the learning management system, and the kind of interlocutory space we assign it.

ER56528_C033.indd 1000

6/14/07 1:21:37 PM


References Alexander, S. (1999). An evaluation of innovative projects involving communication and information technology in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 18(2), 173–184. Alexander, S., & McKenzie, J. (1998). An evaluation of information technology projects for university learning. Canberra, Australia: Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman and Co. Baskin, C., & Anderson, N. (2003a). The butterflies of managed learning environments (MLE) and how to get them flying in formation—the promise of e-publishing. Commissioned Paper. Pearson Education. French’s Forrest. Baskin, C., & Anderson, N. (2003b). The online classroom: A self-actualising theme-park or trial by multimedia. Australian Educational Computing, 18(1), XX. Baskin, C., Barker, M., & Woods, P. (2005). When group work leaves the classroom does group skills development simply go out the window? British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 19–31. Baskin, C., & Henderson, M. (2005). Ariadne’s thread: Using social presence indices to distinguish learning events in face-to-face and ICT rich settings. International Journal of E-Learning, 2(3), XX. Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P., O’Brien, D., & Tran, T. (2002). Universities online: A survey of online education and services in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Education, Science & Training. Bentley, R. (2003). Outsourcing bucks decline in European services market. Retrieved from http://www.computerweekly.com Blasi, L., & Heinecke, W. F. (2000). From rhetoric to technology: A transformation from citizens to consumers. In R. A. Cole (Ed.), Issues in Web-based pedagogy: A critical primer (pp. XX–XX) . London: Greenwood Press. Bradner, E. (2001). Social affordance of computer-mediated communication technology: Understanding adoption. Retrieved January 3, 2005, from the Department of Information and Computer Science Web site: http://portal.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id= 634111&type=pdf Brennan, L., Miller, J., & Moniotte, S. (2001). Herding cats to water: Benchmarking the use of computers in business education. Journal of Education for Business, 76(6), 318–328. Celsi, R., & Wolfinbarger, M. (2001, July/August). Creating renaissance employees in an era of convergence between information technology and business strategy: A proposal for business schools. Journal of Education for Business, 308–312. Dabbagh, N. (2001). The challenges of interfacing between face-to-face and on-line instruction. TechTrends, 44(6), XX. Daniel, J. (1996). Mega universities and knowledge media. London: Kogan Page. Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.aier.org/knowingandtheknown.html Downes, S. (2005). E-Learning 2.0. Retrieved November 15, 2005, from the eLearn Magazine Web site: http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1 Everett, G. (2001). Webpals: Linking students live across the world. Principal Matters, 48, 32–34. Faust, R. (2004). Transactional distance. Retrieved March 30, 2004, from http://coe.sdsu. edu/eet/Articles/transactdist/index.htm Foley, G. (Ed.). (2004). Dimensions of adult learning: Adult education and training in a global era. Crows Nest, New South Wales, Australia: Allen and Unwin. Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.

ER56528_C033.indd 1001

Q43 Q44

Q45

Q46

Q47

Q48

6/14/07 1:21:38 PM


Q49

Q50

Q51

Q52

Q53

Q54

Q55

Giovannetti, E., Kagamim, M., & Tsui, M. (Ed.). (2003). The Internet revolution: A global perspective. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. Hagner, P., & Schneebeck, C. (2000). Engaging the faculty. In C. Barone & P. Hagner (Eds.), Technology-enhanced teaching and learning: Leading and supporting the transformation on your campus (pp. XX–XX). Publisher location: Educause Publication. Hall, J. (2003). Assessing learning management systems. Retrieved November 15, 2005, from http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_feature.asp?articleid=91&zoneid=29 Howard, C., Schenk, K., & Discenza, R. (2004). Distance learning and university Melbourne: Information science publishing. Effectiveness: Changing Educational Paradigms for Online Learning. London: Information Science Publishing. Johns, S. K., Smith, L. M., & Strand, C. A. (2003). How cultures affect the use of information technology. Accounting Forum (Adelaide), 27(1), 84–109. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). (2003). Strategic activities: Managed learning environments. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk Jordan, D. L., & LeMetais, J. (2004). Developing emotional intelligence in the classroom. Education Horizons, 8(1), 10–11, 36. King, P. (2002). The promise and performance of enterprise systems in higher education. Retrieved from the Educause Center for Applied Research Web site: http://www.educause.edu/ecar/ Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P. A. (2001). The social affordance of computer supported collaborative learning environments [Electronic version]. In D. Budny & G. Bjedov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (session T1F). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. Lambeir, B. (2002). Comfortably numb in the digital era: Man’s being as standing reserve or dwelling silently. In M. Peters (Ed.), Heidegger, education and modernity (pp. XX–XX) . New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Lemke, J. (1996). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In D. Reinking (Ed.), Literacy for the 21st century: Technological transformation in a post-typographical world (pp. XX–XX) . New York: Erlbaum. LittleJohn, A. (2002). New lessons from past experience: Recommendations for improving continuing professional development in the use of ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), 166–174. Macchiusi, L., & Trinidad, S. (2000, February 2–4). Implementing IT at an Australian university: Implications for university leaders. In A. Herrmann & M. M. Kulski (Eds.), Flexible futures in tertiary teaching: Proceedings of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology. Retrieved November 5, 2003, from http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/macchiusi.html Maor, D. (2003). Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on on-line learning in a social constructivist learning environment. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(2), 201–218. McInnis, C. (2003). Emerging issues for teaching and learning in Australian universities. BHERT News, 18, 2–5. McKnight, S., Halford, G., Coldwell, J., Corbitt, B., Mulready, P., & Smissen, I. (2002). Evaluation of corporate applications for online teaching and learning. Retrieved June 26, 2003, from Deakin University Web site: http://www.deakin.edu.au/lms_evaluation/old/ McLean, N. (2003). E-learning and digital library trends. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from Auckland University of Technology, National Library of New Zealand Forum Web site: http://www.natlib.govt.nz/files/e_learning/NMcLeanpresentation30june.ppt McNaught, C. (2002). Views on staff development for networked learning. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. XX–XX) . London: Springer-Verlag. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

ER56528_C033.indd 1002

6/14/07 1:21:38 PM

Management Systems and Virtual Environments • 1003 Milligan, C. (1999). Delivering staff and professional development using virtual learning environments. Edinburgh, U.K.: Herriot-Watt University. Retrieved from http://www .e-learningcentre.co.uk/eclipse/Resources/profdev.htm Moore, M. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). London: Routledge. Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Morgan, G. (2003). Faculty use of course management systems. Retrieved from the Educause Center for Applied Research Web site: http://www.educause.edu/ecar/ Mueller, C. (1997). Transactional distance. Retrieved March 30, 2004, from http://tecfa .unige.ch/staf/staf9698/mullerc/3/transact.html#210e Murray, C. (2004). The avatars versus the fringe dwellers: Let the game begin. Educare News, 144, 56–57. Partee, M. H. (2002). Cyberteaching. New York: University Press of America. Phillips, R. (1998). What research says about the Internet. In C. McBeth, C. McLoughlin, & R. Atkinson (Eds.), Planning for progress, partnership, & profit (pp. XX–XX) . Perth, Australia: Australian Society for Educational Technology. Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge. Rheingold, H. (2000). From real to virtual communities, virtual reality. In C. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning and teaching on the World Wide Web (pp. XX–XX) . London: Academic Press. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–87. Robbins, S. (2002). The evolution of the learning content management system. Retrieved November 15, 2005, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/lms.htm Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press. Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating in higher education. In C. Howard, K. Schenk, & R. Discenza (Ed.), Distance learning and university effectiveness: Changing educational paradigms for online learning (pp. XX–XX). London: Information Science Publishing. Schwitzer, A. M., Ancis, J. R., & Brown, N. (2001). Promoting student learning and student development at a distance. Lanham, MD: American College Personnel Association. Shaw, T., & McCauley, G. (2003). Infrastructure in education—time to learn lessons from elsewhere? Conference Proceedings of the SSGRR-20025 International Conference. Rome: Telecom Italia Learning Services. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunities. London: John Wiley and Sons. Siemens, G. (2004a). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved November 15, 2005, from www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm Siemens, G. (2004b). Learning management systems—The wrong place to start learning. Retrieved December 15, 2005, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/lms.htm Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organisational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512. Snyder, I. (Ed.). (1997). Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era. St. Leonards, New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Stein, D., & Wanstreet, C. (2003). Role of social presence, choice of online or face-to-face group format, and satisfaction with perceived knowledge gained in a distance learning environment. Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult Continuing and Community Education, 193–198. Stiles, M. (2002). Strategic and pedagogic requirements for virtual learning in the context of widening participation. Retrieved from http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/ Stiles%20Paper.pdf

ER56528_C033.indd 1003

Q56

Q57

Q58

Q59

Q60

Q61

6/14/07 1:21:39 PM

1004 • Baskin and Anderson Q62

Tomes, N., & Higgison, C. (1998). Exploring the network for teaching and learning in Scottish Education. Edinburgh, U.K.: Herriot-Watt University. Retrieved from http://www .talisman.hw.ac.uk/tna/ Treleaven, L. (2004). A new taxonomy for evaluation studies of online collaborative learning. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 160–180). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150. Tyner, K. (1998). Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a way of being. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vogel, D., & Klassen, J. (2001). Technology-supported learning: Status, issues and trends. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(2), 104–114. Volet, S., & Wosnitza, M. (2004). Social affordance and students’ engagement in crossnational online learning: An exploratory study. Journal of Research in International Education, 3(1), 5–29. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Wolfe, C. E. (Ed.). (2000). Learning and teaching on the World Wide Web. London: Academic Press.

ER56528_C033.indd 1004

6/14/07 1:21:39 PM

COMMENTS Q1

CA: Is the word “to” supposed to be missing here?

Q2

CA: Please cite this e-mail document as personal communication. See APA 3.102, p. 214.

Q3


Q4


Q5


Q6


Q7


Q8

CA: Please supply full reference for “Sasseville, 2004” or delete this citation from the text.

Q9

CA: Please specify to which reference in-text citations refer by using “2003a” or “2003b.”

Q10

CA: Please supply page numbers.

Q11


Q12


Q13


Q14


Q15


Q16


Q17


Q18

CA: Is this correct?

Q19


Q20

CA: Please supply full reference for “Dabbagh, 2002” or delete this citation from the text.

Q21

CA: Please supply full reference for “Baskin, Barker, & Woods, 2003” or delete this citation from the text.

Q22

CA: Please supply full reference for “Shaw, 2003” or delete this citation from the text.

Q23

CA: Please supply full reference for “Shaw, 2003” or delete this citation from the text.

Q24

AU: This term has not been defined

Q29


Q30

CA: Please close quote where appropriate. If the contractions are not part of the quote, please spell out “will not” and “cannot”. Also, please place the page numbers at the end of the quote.

Q31


Q32

CA: Please supply full reference for “Siemens, 2005” or delete this citation from the text.

Q33

CA: Please supply full reference for “Hymes, 1970” or delete this citation from the text.

Q34

CA: Please supply full reference for “Short, Williams, & Christie, 1997” or delete this citation from the text.

Q35

CA: Please supply full reference for “Tu, 2002” or delete this citation from the text.

Q36

CA: Please supply full reference for “Garrison & Anderson, 2003” or delete this citation from the text.

Q37


Q38

CA: Please supply full reference for “Salmon, 2000” or delete this citation from the text.

Q41

CA: Please supply full reference for “CAUDIT, 2005” or delete this citation from the text.

Q42


Q43

CA: Please clarify this reference. See APA 4.16, p. 260.

Q44

CA: Please supply page numbers for this reference.

Q45


Q46

CA: Please supply retrieval date for this reference. See APA 4.16, pp. 272–275.

ER56528_C033.indd 1005

6/14/07 1:21:39 PM

Q47


Q48

CA: Please cite “Dabbagh, 2001” in the text or delete this reference. Please supply page numbers for this reference.

Q49

CA: Please supply page numbers and the publisher’s location for this reference.

Q50

CA: Please clarify this reference. See APA 4.16, p. 253.

Q51


Q52


Q53


Q54


Q55


Q56


Q57


Q58


Q59


Q60

CA: Please cite “Salmon, 2004” in the text or delete this reference. Please supply page numbers for this reference.

Q61


Q62


ER56528_C033.indd 1006

6/14/07 1:21:40 PM

Learning Management Systems and Virtual Learning

Learning Management Systems and Virtual Learning

Suggest Documents

Virtual Learning Systems - CiteSeerX

Learning Management Systems and Learning 2.0 - CEID

Distance Learning and Learning Management Systems - ScienceDirect

Virtual Learning Systems - Google Sites

Learning Content Management Systems

based learning management systems

Integrating Virtual Worlds with Learning Management Systems: The

Learning Objects and Virtual Learning Environments Technical ...

Learning Management Systems and Learning 2.0 - Kloxo-MR Page ...

e-Learning and learning management systems (LMS) - SACLA 2017 ...

105 Enhancing Learning Management Systems

Open Source Learning Management Systems in E-Learning and Moodle

A Review of Distance Learning and Learning Management Systems

e-Learning Systems in Virtual Environment

Virtual vs. Real - Learning & Adaptive Systems Group

Competencies and Learning for Management Information Systems

Competencies and Learning for Management Information Systems

Read Learning Management Systems and Instructional Design ...

Virtual International Business Management Learning Environment for

Online Education, Learning Management Systems, Global E-Learning ...

Using Learning Styles to Enhance Learning Management Systems

amalgamising traditional and virtual learning

open source learning management systems in distance learning

Are We Managing Learning with Learning Management Systems?