Classification of the features in learning management systems

A Learning Management System (LMS) can be analyzed by sorting the features into four groups; tools for distribution, tools for communication, tools for interaction and tools for course administration. This classification was used for the first time when the use of LMS at the School of Engineering, University of Boras, in the year 2004 and the academic year 2009-2010 was investigated. The results from this longitudinal investigation confirmed the suspicion that lecturers used the available LMS predominantly to distribute documents to students, and that the pattern of use did not change over time. In this article the authors asserts that this classification is necessary to convincingly demonstrate the pattern of use and to analyze the pedagogical application of an LMS. The classification system works regardless of what brand of LMS is used, and it allows the connection between educational procedures and features in the LMS to be analyzed. Today, platforms, similar to a LMS are used in industry and government to handle information, staff development and internal communication. The possibility to analyze the use of such platforms may have beneficial effects on society beyond and outside universities.

[1]  Clark Shah-Nelson,et al.  Synchronous Tools in Support of Teaching and Learning , 2013 .

[2]  C. Cheung,et al.  Media And Information Literacy Curriculum For Teachers , 2011 .

[3]  William H. Dutton,et al.  The Social Shaping of a Virtual Learning Environment: The Case of a University-Wide Course Management System. , 2004 .

[4]  Lowell Yarusso,et al.  Constructivism vs. Objectivism. , 1992 .

[5]  Alice Yuet Lin Lee,et al.  Conceptual relationship of information literacy and media literacy in knowledge societies: Literacy and competencies required to participate in knowledge societies , 2013 .

[6]  Thurasamy Ramayah,et al.  Analyzing the Use of Web 2.0 for Brand Awareness and Competitive Advantage: An Empirical Study in the Malaysian Hospitability Industry , 2014, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[7]  Martin Mulder,et al.  Determining factors of the use of e-learning environments by university teachers , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[8]  T. Paulus,et al.  The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers.Learning through Dialogue: Online Case Studies in Educational Psychology , 2006 .

[9]  C. Irwin,et al.  Socialization in the Online Classroom , 2006 .

[10]  Ramon Garrote Jurado,et al.  The use of learning management systems: A Longitudinal Case Study , 2011 .

[11]  D. Weaver,et al.  Academic and student use of a learning management system: Implications for quality , 2008 .

[12]  Johannes Christoffel Cronje,et al.  Paradigms Regained: Toward Integrating Objectivism and Constructivism in Instructional Design and the Learning Sciences , 2006 .

[13]  Ramon Garrote Jurado,et al.  Lecturers' attitudes about the use of learning management systems in engineering education: A Swedish case study , 2007 .

[14]  S. d'Antoni.  Open Educational Resources: reviewing initiatives and issues , 2009 .

[15]  Steven Lonn,et al.  Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of Learning Management Systems , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[16]  Sergey Butakov,et al.  LMS Implementation in Startup Institutions: Case Study of Three Projects , 2013 .

[17]  K Wall,et al.  Engineering: issues, challenges and opportunities for development , 2010 .

[18]  Jane E. Klobas,et al.  The role of involvement in learning management system success , 2010, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[19]  Elizabeth Murphy,et al.  Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion , 2004, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[20]  Ramon Garrote Jurado.  The use of learning management systems in Engineering Education: A Swedish case study , 2006 .

[21]  Stephen Marshall,et al.  Leading and Managing the Development of E-learning Environments: an Issue of Comfort or Discomfort? , 2004 .

[22]  Maggie McPherson,et al.  Constructivism vs. objectivism: where is difference for designers of e-learning environments? , 2003, Proceedings 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Technologies.

[23]  Jim Poirot,et al.  Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning in Oman , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[24]  Rod Sims,et al.  Interactivity on stage: Strategies for learner-designer communication , 1999 .

[25]  T. Anderson.  Getting the Mix Right Again: An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction , 2003 .

[26]  Kamla Ali Al-Busaidi,et al.  Instructors' Acceptance of Learning Management Systems: A Theoretical Framework , 2010 .

[27]  Yefim Kats,et al.  Learning Management Systems and Instructional Design : Best Practices in Online Education , 2013 .

[28]  Rob Phillips.  Tools used in learning management systems: Analysis of WebCT usage logs , 2006 .

[29]  Oleg Liber,et al.  A framework for pedagogical evaluation of virtual learning environments , 1999 .

[30]  Richard Walker,et al.  A longitudinal perspective regarding the use of VLEs by higher education institutions in the United Kingdom , 2006, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[31]  Ramon Garrote Jurado.  Barriers to a wider Implementation of LMS in Higher Education : a Swedish case study, 2006-2011 , 2013 .

[32]  Theodoros Kargidis,et al.  Virtual Learning Institution: A Distributed Model for Networked Open Learning for the Purposes of Lifelong Learning , 2003 .

[33]  Sevgi Ozkan,et al.  Identifying success factors for WBLMS use by instructors of engineering departments , 2010, 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[34]  R. G. Jurado,et al.  HOW UNIVERSITY TEACHERS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES PERCEIVE THE USE OF OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES IN HIGHER EDUCATION , 2012 .

[35]  António Trigo,et al.  Using integrated information systems in supply chain management , 2015, Enterp. Inf. Syst..

[36]  Laura Czerniewicz,et al.  A study of the relationship between institutional policy, organisational culture and e-learning use in four South African universities , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[37]  Ramon Garrote Jurado,et al.  The use of a Learning Management System to promote group interaction and socialization in a trainee project : Unemployed Academics on their way to new jobs , 2007 .

[38]  Roisin Donnelly,et al.  Interaction analysis in a 'Learning by Doing' problem-based professional development context , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[39]  Jennifer M. Brill,et al.  Perils and promises: University instructors' integration of technology in classroom-based practices , 2007, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[40]  Yuri Q. Bongalos,et al.  University teachers' experiences in courseware development , 2006, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[41]  Neil Selwyn,et al.  The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: a critical perspective , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[42]  Françoise Blin,et al.  Why hasn't technology disrupted academics' teaching practices Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[43]  Robert Ubell.  Engineers turn to e-learning , 2000 .

[44]  L. Hadjileontiadis,et al.  E-Learning Exequibility in the Information and Knowledge Society , 2014 .

[45]  Valentina Ndou,et al.  E – Government for Developing Countries: Opportunities and Challenges , 2004, Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries..

[46]  Michael D. Bush,et al.  The transformation of learning with technology: Learner-centricity, content and tool malleability, and network effects , 2009 .

[47]  Elizabeth Stacey,et al.  Online interaction impacts on learning: teaching the teachers to teach online , 2004 .

[48]  BlinFrançoise,et al.  Why hasn't technology disrupted academics' teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory , 2008 .