LMS Integration in Higher Degree Programs Author I (Eliani Colferai BOTON)a, Author II (Sue GREGORY) b, a b
University of New England, School of Education, PhD Student, NSW 2351, Armidale, Australia,
[email protected]
University of New England, School of Education, Chair - Research, ICT Education Team, NSW 2351, Armidale, Australia,
[email protected]
Abstract This research examines the application of eLearning in degree courses delivered by 18 online lecturers in six countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Norway, Spain and U.S.A.). Using an interpretivist paradigm with qualitative case studies from these six countries, the research explored current online lecturers’ views on effectiveness and challenges on the use of Learning Management Systems (LMS). The study revealed that lecturers find it challenging to transfer their pedagogical skills and apply them to an online LMS, creating the need for professional development courses on LMS application in degree programs.
Keywords: eLearning, teaching strategies, Learning Management Systems, LMS, interpretivist paradigm, case studies
1. INTRODUCTION Universities worldwide have embraced the evolution of educational technology with an increasing number of individual core subjects (units), if not fully online degree (course) programs, becoming available every year. Some institutions began delivering individual units and some opted to offer full degree online programs. A recent market size analysis report on Global Education Expenditure indicates that the online market has a predicted global growth rate of 23%, from 2015 to 2017, which takes the market from US$90 to US$166.5 billion in 2015 and US$255 billion in 2017 (Edtech Digest Market predictions, 2013). However, lack of training in the use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) has accompanied this exponential growth (Buabeng-Andoh, 2012), and as a consequence, educators have found the implementation of online teaching a real challenge (Gomes & Fonseca, 2013). Lecturers’ perceptions and challenges teaching online with the use of LMSs is the focus of this research. Solutions have been found that can be used to increase the success of eLearning implementation and delivery in the higher education sector.
2. THEORY This research followed an interpretivist paradigm, using a case study approach and relying on qualitative data collection methods and analysis. A total of 18 lecturers (three in each university) were selected from six universities located in different countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Norway, Spain and U.S.A.), facilitated by cross-case analysis and triangulation of data. This research applied a web-based survey in the first phase of data collection and semi-structured individual interviews in the second phase.
Constructivism and connectivism are the learning theories applied in this research. eLearning is based on the concept of online interactivity, which assumes engagement, collaboration and communication (Meier, 2007). Constructivists claim that learners construct their own meaning, and are not passive recipients of knowledge (Petegem, De Loght, & Shortbridge, 2004); it also has the focus on active learning and cooperation through discussions (Rovai, 2004; Haythornthwaite, 2006), which are both the core of learning online. As this research investigates online learning environments, it is imperative to explore emerging learning theories that explore online teaching and learning. Hence a connectivist approach is also applied, as it acknowledges the complexities of knowledge building and management in the digital age, where students can leverage knowledge networks for sharing, collaborating and generating personal knowledge in online environments (Couros, 2008; Siemens, 2005; Downes, 2012). Even before connectivism started to be discussed as a possible new theory, lecturers were already applying a connectivist approach in teaching strategies. Connectivism provides an ‘ideological framework’ that can impact how lecturers plan and develop pedagogical tools for their online courses (Darrow, 2009). 3. METHODS This research applied a web-based survey in the first phase of data collection and semi-structured interviews in the second. This qualitative research involved 18 lecturers who were chosen using purposive sampling, as participants needed to be carefully selected on the basis of their experience (Parahoo, 2006). For this research, the choice was to select only lecturers who taught core subjects in Education, fully online. Data collection was over a six-month period. Common themes were grouped and after analysis of all interviews, results were compared with data collected from the web-based questionnaire and the themes that had emerged. Having participants in six universities in different countries and using two different data collection methods permitted cross-case analysis and triangulation of data, which was used to increase research credibility (Hall, 2008). 4. FINDINGS Lecturers were asked about their ability to teach online. According to results, 15 lecturers (83%) are at an intermediate level, with two (11%) saying they are at an advanced level and only one (6%) considering him/herself an expert. None claimed to be at beginner level. A subsequent question asked whether lecturers had any training in the use of eLearning. According to responses, five lecturers (28%) had formal training in the use of eLearning, while only two (11%) argued that they are able set up their own courses without any formal training. Two lecturers (11%) declared that they learn as they go and nine (50%) have technical support (see Table 1). Table 1. LMS training (n=18) eLearning
Response
Percent
Formal training
5
28%
I set up my own courses – no formal training
2
11%
I learn as I go
2
11%
I have technical support
9
50%
With only two lecturers (11%) claiming to be able to set up their own courses, it means that being proficient in the use of eLearning does not mean proficiency on the technicality of LMSs.
When asked about the LMS used to deliver their online classes, Moodle is the most popular, with 13 lecturers (72%) using it to teach online; Blackboard is the second choice, with four lecturers (22%), and only one lecturer (6%) works with Desire 2 Learn. According to Joh (2013), Moodle is the most popular LMS as an open source software system, and it is widely used by most universities worldwide because it attracts no costs for its implementation and use. Moreover, Moodle allows the “creation of powerful, flexible and engaging online courses and experiences” (Romero, Espejo, Zafra, Romero & Ventura, 2013, p. 138). Blackboard is Moodle’s commercial counterpart, and the choice of its use within universities is due to being a less vulnerable system if compared to Moodle (Joh, 2013). Literature highlights the fact that educational institutions would like to have LMSs that meet lecturers and students’ expectations and needs. Following McGill, Klobas, and Renzi (2008) and Tyler-Smith’s (2006) suggestions that more research was required on the performance impacts of the use of LMSs, this research intended to explore the issue. Findings suggest that although lecturers can be proficient in teaching within online environments, which reflects their pedagogical skills, there is still a lot of dependence on specialised technical support. This research confirmed findings by McGill, Klobas and Renzi (2008) that lecturers need to acquire expertise in making use of technology to be more independent in the creation of their own courses. Lecturers were asked about e-tools that foster higher engagement with other students within the online environment. According to six lecturers (33%), the most successful e-tool used for creating higher engagement online is forums (also known as discussion or bulletin boards), followed by wikis (five lecturers, 28%), asynchronous video sessions (three lecturers, 17%), blogs (two lecturers, 11%) and the provision of up-to-date content (2 lecturers, 11%). Under the ‘other’ option, three lecturers (17%) who had already made a choice as described previously, also listed: • sound pedagogical design •
other collaborate activities, such us problem-solving activities related to the subjects students are learning, games related to the subject content and conceptual mapping.
According to six out of the 18 lecturers (33%) LMS systems are too complex and need to be made simpler to use, not only during the design stage, but for the duration of a course, its updating and general online maintenance. Two lecturers, one from Brazil and another from Norway explained: It is time consuming having to contact IT for some of the structural changes I would like to make to the course. Adding content is fine, but any changes that affect the marking system make the whole process far more complicated.
I have the habit of updating reading material, changing the videos provided per subject that I teach and the type of assessments required every time I start teaching the same subject. This follows the way I’ve always taught as the last comment I’d like to hear from students is that someone else did that same assignment last year. Online teaching should make these possibilities endless and not limited. Five out of 18 lecturers (28%) argued that they should have access to templates that could be easily changed and adapted according to their pedagogical strategies. Lack of training was the complaint of seven lecturers (39%), and it seems that this leads to the frustration of having to rely on staff with expertise in setting up LMS courses. The views presented by the lecturers are summarised in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. (a) LMS Barriers
Lecturers claimed that eLearning has become a new trend before having user-friendly LMSs available. Complaints about the difficulties in adapting teaching pedagogies into tailored activities were brought up by nine out of 18 lecturers (50%) – two from Australia, two from Brazil, two from U.S.A., two from Norway and one from Spain. These lecturers mentioned that they would prefer a platform that it is easy for them to set up and tailor activities from, without having to rely on technical staff. According to these lecturers, online education is a long way from becoming user-friendly. Although lecturers in this research expressed their positive views for the future of eLearning, 16 of them (89%) agree that the platforms they use are far from making it easier for them to create online environments. The LMSs do not always allow them to tailor the activities without relying on specialised technical support. A lecturer from Spain commented: It is so frustrating. It’s like you and the technical staff do not speak the same language and they normally do not understand why I want an activity a certain way, may it be the way the quizzes are graded, or why I want the page to be shown a different way for the different cohorts. I cannot explain my pedagogy to them, and they treat me like I am the one who doesn’t know how things work. It is frustrating for both sides. 4.1 Overcoming barriers After presenting their views on eLearning barriers, lecturers were asked how they deal with them. According to three out of the 18 lecturers (17%), all from Norway, if proper work is performed during the planning stage, where lectures and course designers work together, issues of accessibility, flexibility and pedagogical design can be addressed. When it comes to the technicality of LMSs, seven out of 18 lecturers (39%), one from Australia, two from Brazil, two from Canada and two from Spain, shared a similar view. They believe that online platforms are already changing, and although it may be some time before they are able to take charge of their own eLearning environments, they will never stop learning, because technology is always evolving. A lecturer from Canada clarified: Lecturers teaching online are making use of innovative ways of teaching and learning, and we need to look into a future that will bring even more challenges and transformations, as technology will not stop evolving. We need to detach ourselves from our old paradigms and our old-fashioned ways of teaching.
A lecturer from Australia presented an interesting advice for online lecturers:
Although lecturers require technical support with their online classes, they need to focus on their pedagogical approach and do not deviate from it. On the issue of lack of training, six out of 18 lecturers (33%), three from Australia and three from Canada, expressed their views that experience comes with time and practice, as according to them, any training that they do now, although essential, will only cover the aspects of teaching online that they are already dealing with currently. According to these lecturers, technology changes at a rapid pace and the best way is to apply it every day while receiving continuous professional training. 5. DISCUSSION Analysis of results indicate that, as universities introduce more online course offerings, lecturers seem to be taking the challenge to teach online, even though just a portion of them have received formal training in the use of eLearning for teaching, which also refers to the application of LMSs. The main challenge for lecturers is not how they want to structure their online courses, or the pedagogy of it, but the technicality of doing so. Lecturers have unanimously agreed that LMS is just a tool and it depends on the lecturer’s ability to use pedagogical skills to create activities that are engaging and appropriate for diverse cohorts. The main issue presented by lecturers was that, although most consider themselves specialists in teaching online, which reflects their pedagogical skills, there is still a lot of dependence on specialised technical support. Up-skilling lecturers in the technicality of LMSs seems to be a real necessity, leading to the seamless implementation of online pedagogies, where lecturers are able to set up and update their courses in a more independent way. 6. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Although being positive about the use of eLearning in universities, the lecturers in this research stressed the fact that dependence on technical staff to set up online courses according the pedagogical structure chosen can be a challenging and frustrating process. The main implication of the findings in this research is that there is a need to provide professional training in eLearning. The training should have a focus on how lecturers can apply their pedagogical principles online as well as the technicality of LMSs. For universities, this means the provision of continuous professional development courses and appropriate procedures on the design, pedagogical choices, management and delivery of online courses. The use of LMS could be simplified by providing more technical training to online lecturers and by making LMSs simpler to use, with the use of templates that could be easily modified and updated, for example. This should allow educators to focus more on the online pedagogical aspects and strategies required for online learning environments without the need of specialised technical support, resulting in increased success on the use of the LMS. As a result, lecturers’ knowledge is increased, not only by their own experience teaching online, but also from professional development courses in the use of technology in education. This could lead to a more successful implementation and a wider application of LMSs in some online degree course subjects.
References Buabeng-Ando, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers’ adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 8, 136–155. Couros, A. (2008). Open, connected, social - Implications for educational design. In Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(3), 232-239. Darrow, S. (2009). Connectivism learning theory: Instructional tools for college courses. Western Connecticut State University. Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays on meaning and learning networks. [online]: National Research Council. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/files/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf
Edtech digest market predictions. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.e-learningcentre.co.uk/resources/market_reports_/2012_17_market_predictions_from_gsv_advisors Gomes, N. F., & Fonseca, C. (2013). Building a successful e-Learning project in higher education. GSTF Journal of Computing (JoC), 3(3), 101–107. doi:10.5176/2251-3043 Hall, R. (2008). Applied social research: planning, designing and conducting real-world research. South Yarra, Vic.: Palgrave Macmillan. Haythornthwaite, C. (2006). Facilitating collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 7–24. Joh, H. (2013). Modeling security vulnerabilities in learning management systems. International Journal Learning Management Systems, 1(2), 1–12. doi:10.12785/ijlms/010201 McGill, T., Klobas, J., & Renzi, S. (2008). The relationship between LMS use and teacher performance: The role of task-technology fit. 19th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, (1995), 648–657. Retrieved from http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/846/ Meier, C. (2007). Enhancing intercultural understanding using e-learning strategies. South African Journal of Education, 27, 655–671. Parahoo, K. (2006). Evaluating research studies. Basingstoke, England: Macmillan. Petegem, P. Van, De Loght, T., & Shortbridge, A. M. (2004). Powerful learning is interactive: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Instructional Science & Technology, 7(1), n. 1. Romero, C., Espejo, P. G., Zafra, A., Romero, J. R., & Ventura, S. (2013). Web usage mining for predicting final marks of students that use Moodle courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 21(1), 135–146. doi:10.1002/cae.20456 Rovai, A., & Jordan, H. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2). Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3–10. Tyler-Smith, K. (2006). Early attrition among first time eLearners: A review of factors that contribute to drop-out, withdrawal and noncompletion rates of adult learners undertaking eLearning programmes. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 73–85.
