Uppsala University
Department of Informatics and Media
Concerning the transition of learning
A case study of the LMS and elearning situation at university department level
Author: Joakim Rådemar.
Supervisor: Anneli Edman.
Uppsala University, Sweden.
Department of Informatics and Media Master programme in Information Systems.
Spring term 2016.
Abstract
Uppsala University (UU) is a complex institution, which combines geographically disparate campuses, as well as distance education programs and metropolitan sites for international students.
Like many other universities, UU is currently reviewing its elearning and Learning Management Systems (LMS) situation. In effect, signalling the desire for a strategic change in the future management of learning and teaching arrangement. This thesis analyzes UU’s strategic position and current drivers of change from a LMS and elearning perspective. Conclusions drawn on the results suggests both retarding and accelerating measure for effective LMS and elearning engagement. The author contend that adoption of a LMS systems is likely to enhance an elearning situation if engaged with indicated drivers of change. Illuminating potential LMS transition process, including summation for the upcoming transition.
Acknowledgments
I would like to officially thank those who took part in this thesis and supported me in it. Special thanks to my supervisor Anneli Edman for her burning interest in the project, her encouragement and good humour, and her knowledge and experience in the area. I would also like to thank Eva PärtEnander her interest, feedback and aid in providing necessary UU documents.
Also a big thanks to all the interviewees for their time and for interesting interviews. It made the thesis worth the effort.
Finally, a special mention to our families and friends for their always unconditional support and motivation.
Table of content
1 Introduction
1.1 Problem overview 1.2 Method
1.2.1 Research strategy 1.2.2 Research approach 1.2.3 Data collection 1.2.4 Data analysis 1.3 Disposition
2 Learning Management Systems
2.1 Introduction to Learning Management Systems 2.2 Characteristics of Learning Management Systems 2.3 Usability
2.4 Remarks about Learning Management Systems 3 Learning Management Systems clarification
3.1 Learning and Course Management Systems 3.2 Traditional Learning Management Systems 3.3 Blackboard and Moodle
3.4 ‘Futuristic’ Learning Management Systems 4 Elearning
4.1 Introducing elearning 4.2 Elearning features 4.3 Blended learning 4.4 Elearning criticism 4.5 Modes of elearning 4.6 Summative elearning 5 Planning for change
5.1 Approaching a system changeover
5.2 Transitioning between Learning Management Systems 5.3 Technology acceptance
5.3.1 Social characteristics 5.3.2 Technology experience 6 The Uppsala University situation
6.1 Studentportalen 6.1.1 System features 6.1.2 System assessment 6.2 Uppsala University elearning
7 Findings Systematic, enthusiastic, enigmatic, problematic 7.1 Interview objects
7.2 Contemporary system situation
7.2.1 Overviewing situation and infrastructure 7.2.2 System specific
7.3.1 Examination, learning material and learning tools 7.3.2 Elearning repository and supplementary software 7.3.3 Innovation
7.4 LMS inquiry
7.5 Overviewing summary 7.5.1 Comment summary
7.5.2 Most sought after capabilities 8 Analysis Investigate, allocate, mitigate
8.1 System assay
8.1.1 Address the addressee 8.1.2 Features and attributes
8.1.3 Workarounds & training, support and updates 8.2 Elearning
8.2.1 Elearning and exams
8.2.2 Innovation & modes of elearning 8.2.3 Future elearning architecture 8.3 SWOT analysis
8.3.1 System SWOT 8.3.2 Elearning SWOT 8.3.3 Organisation SWOT
8.4 Prospective system augmentation 8.4.1 System changeover
8.5 Conclusive analysis 9 Discussion
10 Conclusion
10.1 Conclusive findings
10.2 Situation progression or recession 11 Future research
References
1 Introduction
Since the late 1990s access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) has seen tremendous growth and is increasingly becoming a bigger and more important part of everyday life (Lonn and Teasley, 2009). With the help of ICT, its practitioners can more easily handle assignments and communicate across time and space (Chen, 2011).
Three, often interchangeable, forms of ICT are Learning Management Systems (LMS), Course/Content Management Systems (CMS), and Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) (e.g Dyson and Campello, 2004 ; Dutton, Cheong and Park, 2004 ; Lonn and Teasley, 2009). All of these have become ubiquitous platforms for learning in higher education throughout European (Browne, Jenkins and Walker, 2006), Australian (Smissen and Sims, 2002 ; Coates, James, and Baldwin, 2005) and American (Hawkins and Rudy, 2007) Universities.
At the same time, pressure and demand on physical and human resources have been increasing.
Francis and Raftery (2005) noticed a decade ago that growth in learner numbers had not been matched by a corresponding growth in the availability of teaching and learning spaces, while the per capita unit of funding for teaching has actually decreased.
Per contra, sophistication and improvement in user features have been increasing in these systems.
This has in turn lead to an explosion in the number of institutes using LMS solutions to deliver blended learning and distance education courses, as countermeasure to this growing problem ( Lonn and Teasley, 2009 ). This has also, in theory, provided the potential for social constructivist learning environments, available to learners and instructors, across the educational body (Ng, 2007).
The importance for learning, enabled by technology, has therefore become increasingly pervasive in higher education. It is also apparent that technology has quickly become part of the daily learning routine.
1.1 Problem overview
LMS comes with some inherent complexities and risks, such as forecasting of requirements across the organisational body, as well as establishing procedures and policies for its usage (Morgan, 2003). This can, unconsciously or consciously, move organisational systems towards standardization, which in itself might lead to complications, since it consequently affects learning and teaching structures. In addition, since LMS, per definition, impose personalized learning one can assert that LMS are not value neutral broadcasting systems, but are rather influenced by its producers. Attempting to standardize this is likely to be a cumbersome task (Morgan, 2003).
Nonetheless, one can not argue against the usefulness of ICT in higher education. Improved access, long term low cost, and quality assurance are only some of the common reasons for its prominence (Katz, 2003). It is also important to acknowledge the paradigm shift in delivery modes that is still underway (Katz, 2003), which includes personalized and self paced learning. In the light of this, it is of importance to understand best course of action when implementing and using LMS. Above all, it is key to support teaching and learning capabilities, which can partly be done by gathering information about users perceived usefulness of a system.
At its current state, Uppsala University (UU) is using the Studentportalen (SP) system in order to fill the inherent need for this type of software in an higher education environment. However, except for internal assessments, little to none research has been conducted in order to evaluate elearning capabilities of SP and the imminent future of the LMS and elearning situation within UU. Dahlström (2009) conducted a bachelor level research on SP from a Human Computer Interaction (HCI) perspective; and there has been several internal discussions and analyses ([UU 14]) at UU in order to evaluate the current LMS and elearning status and course of action.
Research and studies on the transition to a LMS environment, as well as the turbulence, and adjustments is scarce. Ryan et.al (2012) pointed out that these types of tranisitons “... sends various stakeholders into problemsolving mode as the unfamiliarity of the new LMS, and changes required, transfer stakeholders from the known into the unknown.” (p. 3)
Determinately, documents ([UU 14]) suggest that SP is currently not being updated and is therefore not on par with many other alternative learning systems used globally, leaving UU with a LMS gap.
Currently discussions are held in order to decide the upcoming elearning arrangement, which involves whether or not UU needs to invest in a new elearning system or continue the development of SP. This raises the question, how do its users manage with an outdated system and how would a LMS benefit learning and teaching at UU? This thesis is therefore aimed to aid in the upcoming decision process for UU by shedding light on the current LMS and elearning situation and producing a model for transition.
1.2 Method
This section explains the research methodology used when conducting the thesis. Including its strategy, approach, data collection, and data analysis. In addition to specific motivations for each and every choice made, grounded in research.
1.2.1 Research strategy
The aim is to generate qualitative information from a specific organisation, therefore this study qualifies to be a qualitative case study (Oates, 2006; Yin, 2013). Additionally, taking into account that the study has no clear hypothesis, it motivates the choice for a explorative approach of the case study (Yin, 2013; Baxter and Jack, 2008).
The generation and construction of theory is largely based on Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (2013) research on creating theories in case studies. The main goal of the theory was to act as an accurate base for the study. The theory acted as an initial point of approach for the sorting and collection process of the empirical data (Oates, 2006).
1.2.2 Research approach
executed to map out the necessary knowledge base (Bowen, 2009), such as understanding the current and historical view of LMS and elearning and how it is situated in modern research. In addition to the goal that was to grasp how LMS is practised in organisational structures similar to UU. Furthermore, the review included extensive document studies of studies conducted within UU, which aided in grasping the current LMS and elearning situation at the university. This promoted research perspicuity, as well as providing educated and relevant interview questions for the data collection process (Oates, 2006).
It is typical for a case study to make use of an array of sources in order to strengthen the study approach (Rowley, 2002). Document studies are generally applied in combination with other qualitative research methods (Rowley, 2002; Seale, 1999). The document studies were mainly used to comprehend the current elearning and LMS situation in UU, such as how elearning was viewed at UU and if any future actions were pending.
1.2.3 Data collection
Interviews were the chosen method of data collection in this thesis work. The use of interviews were motivated by DiCiccoBloom and Crabtree (2006) and Tellis (1997) who assert that interviews are amongst the most applied and important strategies for the collection of qualitative data. Several identified key subjects were identified at UU by the help of the thesis supervisor, which provided great insight into the organisation and as to which subjects would be capable of providing rich data. A total of five interview subjects were identified, which covered a significant amount of institutional and system experience, as well as covering each and every subject offered at a department.
The interviews were conducted with a semistructured approach, since the goal with the interviews was to accumulate as much qualitative data as possible, but still maintain control over the interview at hand (DiCiccoBloom and Crabtree, 2006). The interviews were recorded in order to correctly reproduce the data and statements. Furthermore, each interview was selectively transcribed on an individual level in order to highlight interesting data.
1.2.4 Data analysis
After the interviews the empirical data was summarized and analyzed in relation to the theory in order to gain a comprehensive understand of the LMS and elearning situation at UU, contrasting the theoretical situation. Since the generated data was exclusively qualitative, a segmentation approach was used in order to classify and arrange the data in different categories that were of relevance for the study (Oates, 2006). The data was then investigated inductively for patterns and then analyzed and examined from the perspective of the stated theory. This was done with the hopes that explanations would arise for some of the phenomenons. A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis was then performed in order to further categories the highlights that had been discovered in the analysis, which then substantiated the conclusions presented in the end of this thesis.
1.3 Disposition
This thesis is divided into ten further chapters which is intended to bring the reader both introductory and advanced knowledge regarding the LMS and elearning areas, as well as how these two are interweaved (see chapter 24). Included in these chapters are also chapters which will bring knowledge to prospective methods of LMS transition (see chapter 5), as well as the contemporary case system and elearning situation at UU (see chapter 6). The last chapters introduces empirical findings (see chapter 7), the analysis on these findings (see chapter 8), thesis discussion (see chapter 9), thesis conclusive remarks (see chapter 10), and finally potential future research suggestions (see chapter 11).
Chapter 2 introduces LMS fundamentals and characteristics such as its attributes and functionality.
Chapter 3 establishes a thoroughgoing summarisation of different types of LMS, its practice, application, and variations.
Chapter 4 undertakes the task of elucidate elearning and its relation to LMS, which brings fundamental understanding to how the two are intertwined.
Chapter 5 presents aspects for a LMS changeover scenario and elements to consider in the transition.
Chapter 7 displays the collected empirical evidence that were collected in agreement with the methodology introduced in chapter 1.2 Method.
Chapter 8 analysis the said data provided from chapter 7 Findings Systematic, enthusiastic, enigmatic, problematic in accordance to the said formulated theory.
Chapter 9 discusses the empirical findings and the analysis on a deeper and unstructured manner, bringing forth reflections that were not familiarized in the analysis.
Chapter 10 concludes the accommodated analysis and findings in accordance to the theoretical framework, abstracting the discussed remarks as well as proposing future remedying potentialities.
Chapter 11 settles the thesis with proposing potential and fruitful future research options based on the thesis subject, conclusive findings, and appropriate approach.
2 Learning Management Systems
In order to grasp the fundamentals of LMS usage this chapter provides a general overview of LMS attributes and functionality. Additionally, the chapter voice some concerns regarding actual LMS usage and counter views to LMS practises. Furthermore, this chapter introduces, discusses, and defines the term usability and its relation to LMS, in order to understand any potential and actual value of the system.
2.1 Introduction to Learning Management Systems
Typically LMS are a relatively easy, inexpensive (Landon, Henderson and Poulin, 2006) and swift (Katz, 2003) means for communication and to provide course materials. In addition, a LMS supplies users with a plethora of usable tools and technical components that can be used in order to support learning and make it more accessible (Lonn and Teasley, 2009), with reduced demands on physical space (Katz, 2003) . Concern have, however, been expressed as to whether LMS are being used as effective learning tools, merely as electronic document repositories (Badge, Cann and Scott, 2005), or just for the plain convenience of communication (Frey, 2005). Criticism has also been directed towards the large upfront capital investments, in addition to the obvious imposition of new structure of online resources and infrastructures.
Even so, these systems can also incorporate functionality that provide opportunities for enabling institutional innovations in learning and education (Dutton, Cheong and Park, 2003 ; Katz, 2003) with greater efficiency (Morgan, 2003). Integrating, organizing and systemize learning (Hall, 2003 ; Katz, 2003) are some of the exemplified innovative effects. Additionally, LMS are seen as a timely, secure, and flexible (Frey, 2005) channel to introduce central means to automate organization administration (Hall, 2003). Furthermore, LMS brings forth a possibility to incorporate enterprise application solutions (Hall, 2003), through this being able to unify fragmented IT components and systems (Katz, 2003). A LMS can thereby offer institutions means for delivering largescale resource based learning programmes (Freeman, et.al, 2013) and bring the organization to a seamlessly functioning whole (Hall, 2003). However, with the note that this type of configuration and transition requires a great deal of advanced planning and attention to detail (Frey, 2005).
It is nonetheless important to keep in mind that, whilst LMS offer a great deal of organisational and structural improvements in contrast to nonLMS adopters, its main objective is to act as a platform for learning. Consequently, the mindset for developing the system needs to be focused on supporting instructional activities within the learning environment. A LMS can promote learning in its purest form, rather than acting as a tool for convenience of sending email, distributing handouts or keeping an online grade book (Frey 2005). Thus a LMS should rather be seen as a secure system to create virtual environments with the ambition to enhance learning capabilities . With the capability of effectively accumulating elearning functions in one application solution, all whilst improving quality assurance procedures (Katz, 2003).
2.2 Characteristics of Learning Management Systems
Bailey (1992), Hall (2003), and Ninoriya et.al (2011) presents the following general characteristics for an LMS, seperated into administratation and learning:
Administration
● Centralise and automate administration
● Use selfservice and selfguided services
● Integrate with other enterprise application solutions.
● Consolidate training initiatives on a scalable webbased platform
● Support portability and standards Learning
● Assemble and deliver learning content rapidly
● Personalise content and enable knowledge reuse
● Tie instructional objectives to individual lessons
● Incorporate lessons into the standardized curriculum
● Extend courseware several grade levels in a consistent manner
● Collect the results of student performance in a central management system
● Provide lessons based on the individual student learning progress
● Measure the effectiveness of training initiatives
● Mix classroom and online learning
In addition to these characteristics, research has found an overabundance of attributes connected to LMS perceiving successfulness in integration. Examples being system interactivity (Northrup, 2001),
improved learning, convenience (Hanson and Robson, 2004), manageability in course material (Parker, Bianchi and Cheah, 2008), ease of use (Landon, Henderson and Poulin, 2006), accessibility (Rosenberg, 2001) availability, scalability, usability, interoperability, stability, and security (Hall, 2003), to mention some of them.
2.3 Usability
A prevailing consensus amongst many researchers (Berns, 2004 ; Hall, 2003 ; Landon, Henderson and Poulin, 2006), while named differently, is the importance of usability of LMS, making usability the number one attribute for all learners and instructors. Something that is also underpinned by International Standards Organisation (ISO) standard 9241, Part 11 Guidance, where usability is defined as “the extent to which a product can be used by specific users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use”.
However, worth noting is that the LMS in itself is a tool to be used. Its usefulness should therefore be determined on how it is used rather than presume its usefulness just because it is a LMS (Holm, Röllinghoff and Ninck, 2003). An example of this would be how a LMS is used in a given course, contra if the system actually aids in achieving desired course goals. Additionally, Nichols (2008) points out that extensive usage of a LMS, or its availability, does not necessarily entail similar levels of engagement. Nor can a more general claim be made by stating that the mere presence and practise of technology can be used as a measurement of effectiveness in technology (Parker, Bianchi and Cheah, 2008). Therefore, the overall functionality of the platform is as important as the adaptation capabilities (Graf and List, 2005)
2.4 Remarks about Learning Management Systems
Despite history or strategic direction a LMS is supposed to act as instrument for leveraging the internet as a tool, and act as infrastructure for:
● Managing and delivering of instructional content,
● Identifying and assessing individual and organizational learning or training goals,
● Tracking the progress towards meeting set goals,
The systemic nature of LMS, contrasting other educational systems, is that the LMS is acting as an overall framework for accumulated learning processes in an organisation. However, what is the actual differences between LMS out on the market? And how does the architecture look like in these learning environments? The coming chapter (see chapter 3 Learning Management Systems clarification) will shed light on these questions.
3 Learning Management Systems clarification
The concept of LMS is, even today, fuzzy and has multiple interpretations with an array of ways for application and means of concrete practice. This section attempts to elucidate types and variations of LMS, such as systems like CMS and Virtual Learning Environments (VLE).
3.1 Learning and Course Management Systems
While this list of features can be helpful in understanding what an LMS is, as a systemic application, it incorporates a great many features by providing the structure of the entire learning process within an organization. However, researchers has noted the improper use of the term LMS. Thereby, in order to further label what a LMS is, it might be easier to define what it is not.
The main provenance of inappropriate use of LMS in research literature is perhaps mostly due to the common association with computer applications, such as CMS (Watson and Watson, 2007) or VLE (Dyson and Campello, 2003).
Essentially, a CMS primary use is online or blended learning, supporting the placement of course materials online, associating students with courses, tracking student performance, storing student submissions, and mediating communication between the students as well as their instructor. Most of which are common features in a LMS. At heart, the CMS provides an overall framework that uncomplicates creation, teaching and management of courses.
Whilst, as established, there is an array of features associated with the term LMS. Noting that a LMS is, arguably, a secure learning platform with web based environments for the use of on campus or complete distant learning. The LMS learning environment enables administrators, instructors, and learners to supply or be supplied with course information, present and distribute material, conduct and administer examinations, provide means of communication and more, in one system. All in order to provide instructors and learners an online tool and environment for deep learning. The CMS, on the other hand, does not provide all these features. This means that a CMS can be a part of a LMS, but not vice versa (Carliner, 2005). Keeping in mind that the solutions were developed for different problems
To make a visàvis comparison of CMS and LMS, a CMS is supposed to act as a document repository, supplying learners with the same content across the board. A LMS, on the other hand, is capable of producing different content to each individual with regards to their learning needs. A LMS may provide each student with a exclusively generated and ‘optimal’ path for learning.
Irlbeck and Mowat (2007) portrays the difference between a CMS and LMS and how they can harmonize ( Figure 1 ). The picture depicts elements of a CMS and LMS framework where a CMS acts as a supporting feature to the LMS. Learning content and user data is created and accumulated in the repository set up, which is accessible by and distributed from the LMS, and displayed in the presentation layer. The comprehensible solution thereby consolidate content integration, management and distribution.
Figure 1. CMS and LMS infrastructure
3.2 Traditional Learning Management Systems
There are however many different systems out on the market that are labeled as LMS ( Lewis, et al., 2005), therefore it would be beneficial to specify them. Examples are for instance Blackboard, Moodle, Sakai, and Angel, which are some of the popular options out on the market. Though none of these systems fill the requirements for a LMS (Carliner, 2005). In fact, they are at most evolved CMSs. Carliner (2005) even highlights that Blackboard themselves categorize Blackboard as a CMS with Networked Learning Solutions, which adds additional management of learning objects, student portfolios, and learning portals. Instead, Carliner (2005) cites NetDimensions EKP, Saba, and SumTotal Systems as some popular examples of LMS.
There is little research that does side by side comparisons of true LMS. More than often LMS research is basing themselves on CMS, where Blackboard and Moodle are two of the most renowned. Even though it has been highlighted that these system are not true LMS, the compromise is to call them Traditional LMS (TLMS) (Davis, Carmean and Wagner 2009).
There is an array of available TLMS out on the market, varying from commercial to open source, Blackboard and Moodle being the two world dominant TLMS on the market. These systems utilize a diverse palette of tools and features that support the inclusion of varied resources, such as asynchronous discussion boards, online chat rooms, interactive games, and video. A short comparison of the two systems will be given.
Blackboard is one of the more mature TLMS on the market (Butler University, 2011). The system provides features supporting blended and distance learning and is seen as relatively intuitive.
Additionally, Blackboard provides an online help system with detailed support, is supported by and discussed on user forums, and has sponsored user conferences. Moodle is the most renowned unix copyright open source TLMS. Released in 2002, Moodle was developed as an alternative to Blackboard through an in house project by a university. Whilst Moodle provides a similar tool set as Blackboard, the user interface can be found less complicated (Bremer and Bryant, 2005).
Furthermore, though Moodle has a broad community, conferences and is widely discussed online, the system does not offer the same extent of user system support.
3.3 Blackboard and Moodle
It stands clear from an array of studies that the choice between Moodle and Blackboard is not always apparent. Many studies have been conducted between the two systems, few have come out with a distinct winner. Studies like Munoz and Van Duzer (2005) and Bremer and Bryant (2005) concluded similar results with Moodle being slightly favoured in the two studies. Something that was furthered in the aggregate choice, where 80% of the users preferred Moodle as a learning tool when compared to Blackboard (Bremer and Bryant, 2005). Similarly, Kennedy (2005) reported slight preferences for Moodle amongst users, where 49% of users had no system preference. Machado and Tao (2007), on the other hand, showed 80% user favour in using Moodle over Blackboard.
Whilst it is of importance to take the geographical, cultural, and institutional setting into consideration in these studies, the numbers do speak for themselves. The majority do indicate, if ever so slightly, a tendency in favour towards Moodle. Moreover, it is important to note the differences in financial commitments of the TLMS. Blackboard is commercial, therefore requires a hefty initial price sum, but one cannot naively expect Moodle to be costfree because of its open source status. Administration and maintenance costs are factors to consider (Bremer and Bryant, 2005).
3.4 ‘Futuristic’ Learning Management Systems
New elearning platforms are developed and continues to be the status quo in higher education.
Although one might wonder how long this trend will persist. Research in recent years has been conducted on alternative methods for elearning platforms. Web 2.0 (Chen, Hwang and Wang, 2012), Cloud (AlZoube, 2009), and other forms of Personal Learning Environments (PLE) (Mott, 2010), are a few of the possible alternatives discussed. These, basically, offers learners to take more control over the learning process through greater integration of specific and open tools for each course (AlZoube, 2009). In effect, this means a change in roles where learning migrates to the system instead of exclusively being taught by instructors.
To make the contrast more clearcut, the alternative learning platforms presented above provides and enables a wider range of learning. Examples are incorporating a range of other webbased tools for communication, storing, sharing, (Mott, 2010) blogging, and wikipedias (Chen, Hwang and Wang, 2012), and more, that is required for everyday work. All these can be found in an environment that is
running applications and tools as a service on a scaleable infrastructure, which updates itself with very little down time (AlZoube, 2009).
Whilst TLMS platforms, such as Moodle and Blackboard, do indeed aim to cover many of the features needed in elearning platforms, many users might still go outside the TLMS and use other tools and products. Examples are Skype, Dropbox, Facebook, Google drive, Gmail, Evernote, Wünderlist, and more. Imagine instead a system that allows users to integrated open tools, on the web, together with a learning platform. Incorporating these features will allow instructors, in a very easy manner, to offer tools which is relevant for a specific course, or a component in a course.
The critique, however, being that the system is no longer in your explicit care and as readily available as a futuristic learning platform hosted on the web or elsewhere. Nonetheless, the near future does, realistically, suggests that in house LMS will be phased out by learning platforms accommodated elsewhere.
In essence, t he functionality between TLMS are more or less analogous. One of the main differences between TLMS and FLMS is the need and effect from continuous updates. This is a time consuming and generally problematic process if done in house. Especially if colliding with important events, where uptime and continuous availability is a must. This can partially be eliminated by using a cloud or web solution, but not completely, since automatic updates still can cause down time. In addition, the FLMS offer scalability. Which means that increased system capacity is available when needed.
LMS shows that there are plentiful of system techniques available to accommodate and structure material. However, a LMS goes hand in hand with elearning and is of little use without properly formulated pedagogics. The following chapter (see 4 Elearning) presents the elearning area as well as explains the reason of its importance in LMS.
4 E‐learning
The concept of elearning has been highly associated with LMS. This chapter therefore undertakes the essential task to discuss and define the term and concept in isolation to, as well as in connection to, LMS. In addition, blended learning will be discussed in the light of elearning and LMS. The chapter will then provide some critical remarks regarding elearning, as well as a conclusive summary of the chapter to highlight its importances.
4.1 Introducing e‐learning
Since some time ago higher education institutions around the world have adopted elearning, which is a learning situation where instructors and learners are separated by distance, time, or both. This adoption has in turn further developed distance learning. More accurately, elearning is the most recent evolution of distance learning (Raab, Ellis and Abdon, 2002).
Researchers (Hall, 2003 ; Frey, 2005) have pointed out that LMS are increasingly hosting necessary supporting features for active online engagement preferred by today’s generation of learners. Such as in the form of a collaborative learning community, offering multiple modes of learning such as selfpaced coursework, scheduled classes, and group learning. In addition to extended class time, being able to offer last minute resources, in addition to providing learning with immediate feedback (Frey, 2005). All of which should be commonly accessible through mobile features (Casany, et al., 2012 ; Piguillem, et al., 2012). In its totality, these features are supposed to support the interaction between learners and instructors (West, Waddoups & Graham, 2007), and through this promote learning.
4.2 E‐learning features
Within elearning network technologies are used to create, foster, deliver, and facilitate learning, (Liaw, Huang, & Chen, 2007) anytime and anywhere (Capper, 2001). This is done through providing appropriate, individualized, and high quality instructional materials for learners (Frey, 2005).
Research such as Gillani’s (2000), Jonassen’s and Land’s (2012), and Morgan’s (2003) argues for
these same elearning features, as well as elearning’s capability of supporting and amplify student learning. This is achieved through for instance interacting with course content (Frey, 2005). The features provided by a LMS should therefore strengthen the approach of active learning, rather than a simple transmission of knowledge (Coaldrake and Stedman, 1999 ; Herse and Lee 2005).
Additionally, research has noted more specific advantages with elearning such as:
● Freedom to decide when each online lesson will be studied.
● Reduced dependence on lecturers, such as time constraints.
● Freedom to express thoughts, and ask questions, without limitations.
● Access to the course’s online materials at students’ own election.
(Bouhnik and Marcus, 2006)
● Concise and brief discussions through the use of asynchronous interactions.
● Group collaboration opportunities through electronic messaging.
● Alternative educational approaches through online courses.
(Capper, 2001)
4.3 Blended learning
As for traditional, facetoface courses, Dabbagh (2004) asserted that LMS can be used to promote collaborative learning, enhance critical thinking skills, and give all learners equal opportunity to express their views. This is done in the form of blended learning, which is a mix of distance elearning and traditional facetoface learning. Characteristically, blended learning is to support both of the two worlds, giving the learner the opportunity to partake in learning material electronically as well as facetoface learning, however enforcing the use of both in the learning (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005).
However, the research suggests that e–learning has some way to go before it could be said to be able to fully imitate the experiences of well conducted facetoface learning (Chen, 2011 ; Johnson, Aragon, Shaik, & PalmaRivas, 2000). GarcíaPeñalv, et.al (2011) highlights that elearning need to evolve and put the user in the center when using LMS.
4.4 E‐learning criticism
Elearning has however been criticized for reinforcing positivistic learning assumptions about the nature of knowledge (Kolb, 1984) which run counter to the approaches to knowledge adopted in many academic disciplines. The danger is that, if this is the most prominent aspect of the assessment function in LMS, it will drive pedagogy towards a simplistic and mechanical form of the important assessment and feedback loop. A practical example of this being quizzes and assessments that, if incorporated improperly, makes the learning process almost mechanical instead of allowing the learning to reflect on the material. However, if incorporated properly it can lead to significant improvement in student learning (Nicoll and Laudato, 1999). Practicing cognitive skills is often overlooked, but it is just as important as is feedback on physical skills. Added time on each task and course content through elearning has shown to contribute to student learning (Nicoll and Laudato, 1999).
Other research findings establish that interaction through elearning does not automatically translate into higher grades (Liaw, 2007), or necessarily cause learners to finishing the courses (Dutton, Dutton and Perry, 2001). Davies and Graff (2005) stated that students who participated more frequently was not being awarded with significantly higher grades. However, students who failed in one or more modules did interact less frequently with material and discussions compared to students who achieved passing grades.
This, arguably, suggests that something is not working properly in elearning systems. Bouhnik and Marcus (2006) highlights that lack of a firm course framework and poor peer contact was bases for learner dissatisfaction. Furthermore, research shows that elearning requires a high level of selfdiscipline or selfdirected due to the lack of interpersonal interaction among learners and instructors (Bouhnik and Marcus 2006 ; Liaw, 2007). The learning process is less efficient in the way that it requires learners to dedicate more time to learn the subject matter, compared to facetoface teaching. However, this lack can be countered with richer learning environments with more interaction (Zhang, Zhou, Briggs, & Nunamaker, 2006) and engaging media (Brandt, 1997).
Furthermore, some LMS have been criticised for not sufficiently provide instructorlearner and learnerlearner interaction which exists in a physical classroom environment (Cavus, Uzunboylu and Ibrahim, 2007). Despite not being a completely satisfactory elearning system, the LMS represents a potential solution for instructors seeking to establish and use a range of tools to organize, extend, or supplement resources provided during a facetoface classroom session.
4.5 Modes of e‐learning
Francis and Raftery (2005) attempts to specify elearning by ‘modes’. They argue that the elearning aspects of LMS has three modes: Mode 1, being the ‘baseline course administration and learner support’, which illustrates situations where the majority of the learning is done by traditional means;
and the system is used for the sole purpose of course material distribution and as a repository function.
Mode 2 characterise ‘blended learning leading to significant enhancements to learning and teaching processes’, which combines facetoface learning and features within the system. Last, Mode 3 entails a wholly ‘online course/module’ where the majority of the learning is taking place inside the system, with considerable use of the system features.
4.6 Summative e‐learning
Elearning is very opportunistic in the sense that it is a learning process which is selfpaced and selfdirected, with the potential of supporting the learning process. It has the ability to enrich learning through granting learners and instructors access to a greater range of resources and materials as well as eliminating geographical and time barriers. In other words, elearning has the potential to be a contributing factor to pedagogics and learning with the right support. In essence, a LMS is to be used to influence and guide teaching, a LMS is thereby not pedagogically neutral technologies.
Moreover, it is important to keep in mind a LMS must first and foremost address the learner, which is the ultimate end user of the system. Moreover, as learning is not a passive activity, a LMS have to have key features that inherently allows and enables active involvement of learners. Effectively supporting pedagogics and learning, ultimately engaging learners in a deeper learning experience.
More specifically, instructors needs to create active learning course components and environments.
Accrediting participation responsibility to learners through invaluable elearning methods such as asynchronous, e.g discussion boards (Davies, and Graff, 2005) and synchronous, e.g instant messages, methods (Hrastinski, 2008).
It is this connection to other learners and the instructor that allows learners to feel that they are part of the course and allow them to apply the results of the discussion to their own course and life. To sum up, effective design is an ongoing process of modifying online materials to meet the needs of both the instructor and the learners (Frey, 2005).
LMS and elearning are two fundamentals of modern pedagogics. Although in order to adopt a new way of providing systematized learning it would be beneficial to establish a plan for the transition of
this process. Chapter 5 Planning for change introduces means for executing this type of transition.
5 Planning for change
A transition between systems can be a troublesome feat for many organisations. In addition, approaches and results of planning are varied. This chapter discusses planning and transitioning between systems like LMS, as well as offering some best course of action.
5.1 Approaching a system changeover
Changing LMS can be a troublesome and protracted task to achieve (Beatty and Ulasewicz, 2006 ; Benson and Palaskas, 2006 ; Soule and Kleen, 2012), requiring a great deal of planning and attention to detail (Frey, 2005), which tasks a number of complex issues involving the whole organisation (Self, 1974), such as alteration of learning and teaching standards (Benson and Palaskas, 2006 ; [UU1]).
Therefore it might be preferable to use substantial planning as a means for solving this issue (Self, 1974). However, even though the use of IT planning in strategic planning is undeniably useful (Porter and Millar, 1985). The complexity of planning (Porter and Millar, 1985), how to proceed and accomplish the plan, and its outcome, is however varied (Bourgeois and Brodwin, 1984).
Since the LMS is claimed to bring forth unifying capabilities amongst fragmented IT components and systems (Katz, 2003 ; Hall, 2003), one has to suit the strategic planning accordingly. This includes acceptance and understanding to the changeover on both management (Wheatly, 2000) and staff level (Davenport, 2000). Despite this, the use of future oriented strategic planning has been challenged as a lesser option to a spontaneous or agile option in a changeover (Gaddis, 1997). Nonetheless, one can not argue for a complete abandonment of planning (Porter, 1987).
5.2 Transitioning between Learning Management Systems
Migration between systems happens so often that it is almost mundane. Regardless of this, the task is still one of great importance. Soule and Kleen (2012) have formalized twelve suggestions for transitioning between LMSs:
1. Determine similarities and differences between the new and old system
2. Update and educate key faculty committees even before the system is available for early adopters
3. Create help sheets for popular tasks
4. Create a course section that contains help sheets
5. Offer workshops in the semester prior to the implementation 6. Pilot system with volunteers
7. Offer rapid troubleshooting and problem solving 8. Create additional help sheets as problems arise
9. Send email with help sheet attachments of beginningofsemester and endofsemester tasks 10. Reiterate to faculty to export grades to a spreadsheet such as Excel to check grade
calculations through the spreadsheet before assigning final grades for the semester 11. Offer smallgroup help with grades at midterm and endofsemester
12. Remain courteous, jovial, and accepting of faculty
It is important to remember that even though institutional policy initiatives are in place, teaching and learning outcomes will not necessarily be straightforward, predictable and unproblematic (Holt and Challis, 2007).
5.3 Technology acceptance
It is evident from previous research that the characteristics of both instructors and learners have a significant effect on elearning and system acceptance and successfulness (e.g AlBusaidi, 2012 ; Selim, 2007 ; Sun et al., 2008 ; McGill and Klobas, 2009 ; Hanson and Robson, 2004). Connecting perception with actual use is therefore not a straightforward task, and technology acceptance is thus one of the main concerns in order to incorporate any new system (Davis, 1989). Thereby it is important to understand the concept of technology acceptance, how users are connected to the subject, how experience affects acceptance, and how previous cases have handled the transition between systems.
5.3.1 Social characteristics
In general, a system needs to fulfil the complex requirements of the users for them to perform their current tasks (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). This reflects an inherent discrepancy between what the user needs and what an existing IT system can provide. Potential examples being divergences between expectations and needs from users and the functionality of the system, culminating in a potential underutilized system that fails to improve organizational processes (Szajna and Scamell, 1993). If a learner perceives a system too difficult to use, the learner might find other systems more appealing (Davis, 1989 ). However, user satisfactions is not guaranteed, even if a system is easy to use (Davis, 1989). To be more specific, this can be broken down into instructor and learner perceptions of the system.
Instructor attitude towards and control over the system are two important factors affecting perceived ease of use, as well as the actual use of the system (AlBusaidi, 2012; Sun et al., 2008 ; Weaver, Spratt and Nair, 2008). In addition, research has found that instructor enthusiasm (Sun et al., 2008) and learners experience, in properly designed courses (Ozkan and Koseler, 2009 ; Weaver, Spratt and Nair, 2008), is important elearning satisfaction factors. This suggests that LMS usefulness and acceptance is based on how the technology is utilized by instructors, in collaboration with how well instructors cooperate and their quality of teaching.
Yet another factor that has been cited in the literature concerns influence between learners and their effect on learner perceived usability and satisfaction with LMS (AlBusaidi, 2012).
5.3.2 Technology experience
Studies also identifies the level of expertise and experience with IT as affecting the satisfaction of users (Drennan, Kennedy and Pisarski, 2005 ; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Research (e.g AlBusaidi, 2012) has shown that computer anxiety and user innovation influence user technology experience. As such, there is consequently a rise in comfort as user experience increase, leading to wider acceptance for the system (AlBusaidi, 2012 ; Selim, 2007 ; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). This is something that Frand (2000) highlights with a term he calls ‘informationage mindset’, where instructor expectations
Thereby one can hypothesize that instructors, accustomed with the technology, will most likely be the main and spearhead users of the LMS that needs to be satisfied.
Research states that user isolation in (Northrup, 2001) and anxiety because of (Sun et al., 2008 ; Selim, 2007 ; AlBusaidi, 2012) elearning technologies can cripple learner satisfaction. These issues can be solved by introducing blended learning courses (Northrup, 2001) and learner support, thereby boosting learner technology confidence (Sun et al., 2008; AlBusaidi, 2012). AlBusaidi (2012) concludes that good learner technology experience simplifies IT usage in education. In other words the level of IT usefulness is based on learner technology experience (AlBusaidi, 2012) and expertise (Drennan, Kennedy and Pisarski, 2005).
6 The Uppsala University situation
Chapter six introduces Studentportalen (SP), the current UU system in use, as well as iterates through various studies and documents that are of relevance to the study. The chapter includes missing features and critique against the system, a brief web and mobile interface summarization, and covers system budgeting. Furthermore, this section introduces the current elearning situation at UU and is at large based on previous investigations conducted at UU. This follows an introduction of the discovered problems as well as solutions to overcome these are presented.
6.1 Studentportalen
Self developed at UU since 2001, SP is the current ‘learning system’ and web portal in use at UU.
Whilst not aimed to be a CMS at heart, Studentportalen provides CMS like features. Study results, links to other external subsidiary systems for learning, information distribution, and course specific functionality such as discussion forums, are some examples.
This type of rudimentary system, in combination with a LMS type system, is something that is common amongst higher education in Sweden ([UU1] ). In the case of UU, the solution is to this is aimed to fuse SP and a LMS into one system, thereby creating a student portal with LMS capabilities.
The system was ambitioned to create a individualized and tailored learner course experience by mainly handling administration and flows of studies. ([UU1])
6.1.1 System features
The system has been in place for more than a decade, with the ongoing goal to let the system scale according to adherent needs. Complications have however lead to nonuniform system adoption across the university, which made the goal difficult to achieve. Consequently, development of other systems took place, that could accommodate particular UU branch needs. ([1] ; [UU1])
A number of assessments and investigations have been conducted on SP (Dahlström, 2009 ; [UU14] )
survey in [UU2] evaluates SP from a user perspective and asserts that user comments frequently mentions system quality, such as its usability. Moreover, the survey noted that system attributes was, in its entirety, overly complex, illogical, unreliable, and in many cases primitive with ungainly functions, in addition to having a high learning curve. All of which ultimately demands extra work from instructors as well as learners. ([UU2]) In addition, the survey [UU2] suggested poor system uptime, poor external system and technology compatibility and standardization, poor response time, which makes the system difficult and troublesome to use, even for experienced users.
Desired and needed system features were summarized in [UU1] to encompass improved
● Flexibility,
changing course layout; creating none uppdok courses
● Functionality,
viewable logged learner statistics; adjustable progression flow, responsive to learner course headway; various changes to existing tools, such as more extensive anonymity, improved and less complicated assessment evaluation functions, subgrouping larger groups, more comprehensive import and export functionality.
● Communication,
a chat functionality; logged in tracking; more advanced discussion forums; implement emeeting functionality; overall better communication support in courses.
● Adaptability,
such as personalizing the system from a user perspective
● Course administration.
More extensive result providing and course news; course specific eforum exclusive for instructors
Other missing features are eportfolio, lecture recordings, and forms of electronical examinations (Dahlström, 2009 ; [UU3])
6.1.2 System assessment
SP hosts a significant amount of accounts and logins every day, which requires balanced resources. In 2015, more than 70% of the SP budgeting was set aside for maintenance and development. The balance of this budget went to administration, support, and training. Furthermore, system training
have been offered for instructors and other personnel, however none of which is applied to learners.
([UU1])
At large, system maintenance been focused on the adjustment to external forces. In contrast, technical sustainability has had a relatively meager budget. [UU1] has shown that fundamental parts of SP have not been updated since 2007. Indicating that system sustainability has not been a priority, which in effect means that any remedying attempts to bring SP into a modern and stable state would require considerable resources.
In addition, SP has connections to a large section of central systems that are in use at UU. However, research conducted on UU system infrastructure shows it to be cluttered and inadequate (Bakkalian and Rådemar, 2015 ; Fiske and Eklund, 2013). Including a large array of disparate and poorly linked tools (Lundberg, 2009), used to support the employees and their decision making processes (Bakkalian and Rådemar, 2015 ; Lundberg, 2009).
Furthermore, maintaining several platforms comes at a significant cost. Investigations ([UU1] ; [UU3]) discovered that the years without continued system development might have lead to potential security glitches. In addition to the more obvious adaption in time and technology for any new system developers ([UU1] ; [UU3]). Any future development of the system would also require extensive interoperability support to be integrated into SP in order to integrate learning tools ([UU4]), a feature which that many LMS already possess. Once again pointing towards the need for an extensive boost in resources in order to bring UU system infrastructure into a stable state.
6.2 Uppsala University e‐learning
The contemporary elearning situation at UU is to be viewed as teaching with integrated digital tools as a part of the pedagogic process. Historically, the growth of elearning has been an ongoing process the last 20 years at UU. ([UU2]) Additionally, according to official documents ([UU5] ; [UU2]) UU’s future elearning visions is for the university to actively work to incorporate IT into the learning process. The ambition is to create a secure, stable, flexible elearning environment that meets user functionality and availability needs. Although, assessments and a SWOT analysis indicate infrastructural complications when arranging an elearning commiteé at UU. ([UU3])
Even though SP is roughly uniform across UU, the usage still vary amongst instructors. ([UU1]) shows distribution of documents and information is the primary use of SP amongst instructors. This means that distance learning are mainly carried out on other external, though sanctioned, elearning platforms. This situation, while not unique to UU ( [UU4]) , does not contributes to uniformity of a central education environment. However, the survey asserts a remedying factor, which is instructors willingness for additional elearning training. Indicating that the degree of elearning could be elevated with the support of its practitioners.
However, even though elearning competence is important [UU2] states that the lack of time is a hindrance for developing the competence. Moreover, a survey in [UU2] claims that students are not completely unified in their opinion about elearning. Whilst students advocate the positives in elearning, they also voice concerns regarding the social characteristics in elearning.
Regardless of this, each and every investigation champions the need for UU to address the elearning situation through a continual, unified and strategic development, that stimulates the use of elearning.
([UU14]) Keeping in mind that what could be seen as a clear definite goal today, most likely will be different in the coming future ([UU1]).
7 Findings ‐ Systematic, enthusiastic, enigmatic, problematic
This chapter aims to describe the LMS problem area at UU by giving a summarization of the gathered data of the interview objects, with the aim to describe the current means of conducting and operating elearning and UU’s LMS situation from lecturers point of view. The chapter describes each problem area related to LMS and elearning theory at the department level. This is followed by a summary, highlighting statements and most sought after features.
7.1 Interview objects
Interviews were conducted on 5 persons of interest at the faculty of social sciences. All of the interview objects were at the time in the position of lecturer, with a minimum of 5 years experience at the faculty. Most of them also had experience as head of studies for a significant time.
One of the prerequisites for the interview objects was to sufficiently cover the whole of the institution subject; Information Systems, Human and Computer Interaction, and Media and Communication. The lecturers chosen were therefore to equally cover the spread between these fields, in effect having the experience of at least two lecturers in each said field.
Furthermore, in order to provide reliable and grounded data the lecturers had to have significant experience working with SP and other similar systems. All of the data is based on their knowledge and practice of the system.
7.2 Contemporary system situation
7.2.1 Overviewing situation and infrastructure
Historically, the institution has not been provided with any standards or policies that specify a clearcut system for the purpose of teaching. Whilst this has been remedied to some degree when SP
which system to use when overlapping systems exists. This has however changed in later years and even more recently, as a migration to a unified system has been decided. More importantly, this has albeit not been greeted with a unified appreciation, since a significant amount of lecturers feel that alternative systems might be more suitable for their course needs, some of which provide actual LMS features purposefully designed for the courses. On the other hand, other lecturers impression is that SP is a sufficient system for the courses that are offered by the lecturer; however, adding that there is room for improvements.
7.2.2 System specific
As it stands now, a majority of the lecturers feel generally comfortable with SP as a system, the system is mainly seen as easy to use and getting accustomed to. This has however not always been the case; The system has been lacking in helpful features and user interface which has forced the users to workarounds or delaying tasks, something which is still a precarious part of the system.
The system is today described as, at times, frustrating and laboursome. A lecturer exemplified this with some tasks that required multiple windows, which in turn had different sortings of the same students, that required a significant amount of time to complete. Another example being the registration of students established at the university or at a specific course registry. As well as reregistration for students in order to get access to a course site and its material; which has required extensive work arounds for lecturers in order to accomplish. A third lecturer exemplified this system characterisation through how manual labour is needed in order to unify two courses under one name.
Furthermore, when asked the frequency of system interaction, it stood clear that it is dependent on the stage of the course for most lecturers. At times the frequency of system usage is significantly increased due to
● Distribution of material
● Interaction with students through email
● Reporting and checking student progress
● Dividing students into groups
