Skip to content

Freedom and the Learning Management System (LMS)#

Summary/reactions to blog post by Neil Mosley.

Current question if Mosley's problem/solution pairing - freedom and consistency - is less than useful than another pairing - capability and usability? Or maybe softness and usability as softness gets more at the "freedom" question.

i.e. the apparent "freedom" of the LMS is actually a problem with limited capability. Because the LMS is to soft a technology.

Summary#

Starts with a framing of the problem with the "sole creator" myth. Herculean individual doing their own thing.

Which of course ignores the reality that individual success "actually involves scores of people"

Especially in a large organisation. Especially in a good one where people work together. But problematically introduces the notion of "moving in the same direction". Immediate alarm bells, but all may not be bad.

Brings in the LMS. Every course with a shell. Students experience numerous, but how they are used, structured, and various other design aspects "is often under the control of an individual with core responsibility for the course"

Identifies two ways to look at 1. "you have great variety and diversity" 2. "there's huge potential for inconsistency and overall lack of cohesion"

Identifies universities taking #2 driven by student feedback about their experience. Links to blog post from Phil Hill - "Student panels: Non-traditional students and consistency in course navigation"

Raising the question, what do you do about it?

Suggests universities have "struggled somewhat in drawing the line between recommendation and compulsion"

The idea being the compeling academics to use a template "is an abhorrent curb of their freedom and individual autonomy"

Definition of freedom#

Looks to define "freedom". Examines a couple of ways. Including the idea that when you work for an institution, you lose some freedoms. "You become part of something that's bigger than you as an individual"

Giving up this freedom may be reasonable if students experience less friction.

Example of necessary component#

Segues into an example of an important design feature - student orientation to the course site - using "How to find your way in the world of online learning". Includes mention the assumption that there is some validity in the recommendations you are giving up freedom for

Tensions and issues in achieving a cohesive digital study and teaching experience#

  • quality of the LMS technology - old tech "can be a deeply frustraiting technology to use"
  • the similarity arising from the "near quadropoloy" of LMS vendors
  • digital technologies as the poor relation to campus-based teaching
  • LMS responsibility more in the hands of IT, than L&T -- leading to "voices and experiences of educators and students" not being heard as much
  • LMS symptomatic of "shallow consideration" of broader organisational change

Lessons, conclusions...#

Just "putting a tool in the hands of educators doens't magically bring a desired result" need to consider other factors including "implications for their role, for the organisation and for their work and workload, the support needed..."

Perhaps getting close to Norman's conception of activity-based design

The pandemic should bring this to the fore, but if institutions don't get it...troubles will arise.

The LMS isn't going anywhere. Imperative to make best use of it.

Inconsistency of use of the LMS across some areas often does just that. Is a template, a rubric, some guidelines, a mandate or another means of tackling this a gross violation of freedom? Well it really depends on what you believe about freedom