Technology as Pedagogy: The Rhetoric of Learning Management Systems

Technology as Pedagogy The Rhetoric of Learning Management Systems

Andrea L Beaudin

Contents Introduction 1 Defining the Concepts CMSs LMSs and VLEs (Oh My) 1 Technology and Human Interaction 2 The LMS as a Rhetoric and Pedagogy 3 Blackboard Learn and Moodle An Analysis 6

Blackboard Learn Efficient and Consistent Education 7 Moodle Pedagogy Precedes Technology 10

Application and Empowerment 14 Final Thoughts 17 References 18

Figures Figure 1 Blackboard Instructor Dashboard (Blackboard 2009 Slide 10) 5 Figure 2 Word Cloud of Blackboard Learn web page (Blackboard 2011) 7 Figure 3 Blackboard Learns Learning Module with Table of Contents (Blackboard 2009 Slide 4) 9 Figure 4 Blackboard Learns Student Course Page Screenshot from Instructional Video (Blackboard 2012) 9 Figure 5 Word Cloud of Moodle About web page (Moodle 2012) 10 Figure 6 Word Cloud of Moodle Pedagogy web page (Moodle 2011a) 12 Figure 7 Moodle Demo Course Page Student View (2013) 13 Figure 8 Primary Needs and Concerns of LMS Stakeholders 15

P a g e | 1

Introduction With the near ubiquity of online and hybrid instruction learning management systems (LMSs) have been touted as a singular often ldquoone size fits allrdquo mode of course delivery Many departments and institutions citing concerns over security and ease of student adaptation have mandated specific LMSs for classes Yet such directives often neglect the importance of pedagogy and ultimately academic freedom Kimball (2005) and Palmquist (2006) both argue that technology is in essence pedagogymdashthe digital means of instruction is as much an expression of course (and instructor) values and goals as the course content and assignments An LMS therefore constitutes a rhetoric However this relationship between LMSs and rhetoric has yet to be explored For this purpose I rhetorically analyze two popular LMSs used in the composition classroom Blackboard Learn and Moodle as a means for constructing each systemrsquos vision of the instructor-student relationship and the ldquoworkrdquo of the composition course The goal of this analysis is to provide instructors and departments a basis for an informed empowered and productive dialogue about the adaptation of specific learning management systems

Defining the Concepts CMSs LMSs and VLEs (Oh My) While CMSs and LMSs are widely used for course delivery the terms are often used interchangeably to denote a digital course space Both are virtual learning environments (VLEs) designed information spaces that allow social interaction employ multiple tools and enable student activity in digitalonline spaces their use is not confined to distance education but can also be used for onsite (f2f) courses (Dillenbourg 2000) Technically CMSs and LMSs differ in foundational philosophy but they are often quite similar in design and use

The term CMS is an abbreviation for ldquocourse management systemrdquo and entails a software-based framework typically accessible online through password protection for administering a course Malikowski Thompson and Theis (2007) establish five functions that define a CMS ldquo(a) transmitting course content (b) evaluating students (c) evaluating courses and instructors (d) creating class discussions and (e) creating computer-based instructionrdquo (167) The CMS typically is a primarily administrative technology the course is managed attendance is taken and recorded grades are recorded and accessible via an online gradebook and learning materials (ranging from readings to activities) are housed in a database-driven site Roqueta (2008) distinguishes between CMSs and learning management systems (LMSs) claiming that while both ldquomanage courses deliver content to learners conduct learning activities and evaluate learning outcomesrdquo LMSs ldquoare designed with the learner in mind and promote a focus on the learner in addition to the contentrdquo (59) While this distinction appears to be straightforward it seems to be unclear how this actually manifests in the different systems Roqueta points to the LMSrsquos capabilities in automation (auto-generating emails for missed assignments for example) as proof of focus on the learner but it can be argued that such capabilities are not as much learner-centered as they are administrative akin to the mailing of billing statements and invoices Ultimately while the terms CMS and LMS appear to have different philosophical foundations their functions and applications are practically indistinguishable Blackboard Learn and Moodle use both terms in their promotional materials Moodle (2012) makes no distinction

P a g e | 2

stating it is ldquoan Open Source Course Management System (CMS) also known as a Learning Management System (LMS) or a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)rdquo (About)

In reviewing the past ten years of literature on the topic it appears that the terminology is actively evolving ldquoCMSrdquo is declining in popular usage and ldquoLMSrdquo appears to be the preferred term but ldquoLearning Environmentrdquo is becoming more prevalent in promotional materials For the purposes of this analysis I will use the most common term LMS to refer to the various systems

In this analysis however it is necessary to consider the implications of the different terms as philosophical foundations What does it mean to use a system to manage a course What does it mean to employ a system to manage learning To ask such questions is to begin to delve into various theories of technology and human interaction

Technology and Human Interaction Although there is limited analysis directly applied to the rhetoric of LMSs many theorists have addressed ways that technology influences human interaction Generally the arguments (and these are arguments) fall into two camps determinism versus constructivism Technological determinism as espoused by theorists such as Ellul (19642003) and Kurzweil (2006) maintains that technology drives culture In other words technology and its uses influence and create cultural norms beliefs and structure At its most extreme it is the belief that technology creates culture Conversely technological constructivism assumes that it is society that drives technology Two proponents of this view Pinch and Bijker (19872003) posit that social values and interests create incentives for technological research development and application to the extent that scientific knowledge itself is socially constructed

Habermas (19702003) and Feenberg (19922003) further complicate the deterministconstructivist dilemma however by introducing society economics politics and ultimately power into the discussion Habermas brings to the discussion of technology and humanity the perceived divides between phenomenology and ontology claiming that scientific theory needs no longer to be practical or viable as long as it is rational The repercussions for society become ldquothe relation of technology to democracy how can the power of technical control be brought within the range of the consensus of acting and transacting citizensrdquo (533) Citing Schelsky Habermas observes that presently technology begets needmdashldquotechnological progress produces not only unforeseen methods but the unplanned goals and applications themselves technical potentialities command their own practical realizationrdquo (534) Technology therefore has the potential to drive shape and potentially usurp democracy Feenberg acknowledges Habermasrsquos concerns by countering technological determinism versus indeterminism (technology as a neutral ldquotoolrdquo) arguing for a more complex relationship within social economic and design contexts As part of his analysis Feenberg advocates treating technology as artifacts analyzing both the technologyrsquos social meaning (how the technologyrsquos design has been framed nurtured or otherwise influenced before it is stabilized) and its cultural horizon (a hegemony that is a ldquoform of domination so deeply rooted in social life that it seems naturalrdquo [657]) Feenberg argues ldquoThe narrow focus of modern technology meets the needs of a particular hegemony it is not a metaphysical conditionrdquo (663) To counter this and achieve ldquodemocratic rationalizationrdquo he advocates for

P a g e | 3

ldquoresistancerdquomdashadapting hacking using technologies in ways and means other than those originally intended

Applying the philosophies of technology and human interaction to LMSs two considerations emerge how technology affectsis affected by pedagogy and to what extent are two primary stakeholdersmdashinstructors and studentsmdashempowered in the development of technology Johnson (1998) expounds upon these concerns and highlights the theorypractice divide which (in his view) still pervades the development and application of technology the user (whether for the purposes of my study she is an instructor or learner) is not the focal point of the process Instead technology is often task-driven with the architect being the designer When problems arise they tend to be blamed on the user who (in the designerrsquos perception) just doesnrsquot ldquoget itrdquo In response Johnson proposes a ldquoUser-Centered Rhetorical Complex of Technologyrdquo (39) in which users stand at the center influencedaffected by and influencingaffecting tasks designers and the artifact itself Orbiting this relationship are actions learning doing and producing Surrounding these actions are the effectsexpectations of institutions disciplines and community Finally the entire construct is ldquoembracedrdquo so to speak by culture and history

Johnsonrsquos model seems ideal for technology in general and educational technologies in particular but the vision appears difficult to realize in the mass-marketed LMS packages currently available When the technology is a tool for education and the users who donrsquot ldquoget itrdquo are instructors learners or administrators is the issue technological pedagogical or rhetorical In the next section I will argue that LMSs are rhetorical and pedagogical technologies their design and intended use are both constructivist and determinist simultaneously reflecting collective culturalcorporate assumptions of education as knowledge management while dictating what the work and goals of education should be

The LMS as a Rhetoric and Pedagogy In considering the terms LMS and CMS in light of theories of technology and human interaction one cannot escape the underlying assumption that education is somehow quantified and controlled through technology To return to the questions asked earlier labeling a technology a course or learning management system carries with it implications from Feenbergrsquos ldquocultural horizonrdquo At the most fundamental level the term ldquocourse management systemrdquo means that through the use of technology a course a unit of institutionalized education is managed Management of a course would seemingly entail record keeping and resource availability Using a technological system to manage learning however seems more problematic as this management implies setting limitations or boundaries upon learning While ldquolearning management systemrdquo is touted as the more pedagogically-friendly term technologizing learning as an activity that is managed through a system leads to questions of purpose function and even indoctrination It suggests that learning be confined in some ways suppressed Yet the cultural horizon is such that the increasingly corporatized institutions of education value management as a way of quantifying learning and quantifying knowledge

Far from being a mere semantic exercise the analysis of the terms bears out in the design and functionality of most LMSs As a rule all LMSs have three major sections (a login screen a dashboard

P a g e | 4

and a course shell) and include a gradebook These sections and this function are distinctly rhetorical in nature

bull Login The user login is essentially a gatekeeper only those with the code can enter view and interact within the course Unlike face-to-face (f2f) classes where a visitor may drop in adding a student or guest to LMS-run courses can be difficult as typically institutions link the courses to a registration database To add additional participants may require special login access from administrative branches such as the Registrarrsquos officemdashif the access is granted at all Therefore the first rhetorical move of the LMS is that learning happens in a restricted-access space

bull Dashboard After login LMSs users are greeted with a ldquodashboardrdquo The term itself refers to an instrument or control panel While this could be perceived as empowering (the user has control over some functions) it is also limiting (in the sense that a dashboard is a barrier of sorts against elements) Users have set options such as what courses to enter (through the hypertext menu) or ldquocustomizingrdquomdashsetting font size or color Options are available but constrained The second rhetorical move then is that the LMS offers defined paths to and options for educational access

bull Course Shell Once a user clicks on a course the course screen appears in the case of Blackboard Learn there are tabbed folders in the header (a throwback to paper notebook and print days) Typically all course material is available (with the exception of quizzes and exams) for learner access Information is both chronologically organized (often with the addition of a calendarreminder system) and existing all at once The digitized environment is such that instructor engagement seems secondary to materials and the technology of delivery The third rhetorical move consequently is that mastering the subject is merely ingesting the data and following prescribed steps

bull Gradebook Possibly the most clicked-on section of the LMS is the gradebook learners have almost immediate access to grades which are typically the only forms of assessment in the course LMSs have the capability to calculate course averages moment-by-moment and several (like Blackboard Learn and Moodle) will email students when assignments are graded Blackboard Learnrsquos Instructor Dashboard has modules in the panel labeled ldquoNeed Attentionrdquo and ldquoAlertsrdquomdashmodules which indicate that assignments or quizzes need to be graded (see Figure 1) The fourth rhetorical move of the LMS is that primary goal of education or learning is grades

P a g e | 5

The sections and functions of the LMS when analyzed rhetorically demonstrate both technological constructivism and determinism A heightened drive for capitalism and profit in US society has in the past two decades extended into the realm of education it can be argued that this movement is in some ways related to technologyrsquos influence While for-profit institutions of higher learning have existed in the US for over a century (Hanford 2012) it was not until the advent and success of online for-profit universities In the late 1980searly 1990s that both public and private assumedly non-profit universities have been charged with increasing profits leading to the the term ldquothe corporatized universityrdquo1

1 Interestingly an

Technology has supported this movement by creating ldquolocked-downrdquo course environments through the LMS much like digital copyright protections the technology makes it more difficult to share or disseminate the ldquointellectual propertyrdquo (another term popularized due to technology) of a class By limiting access to paying customers (as students are now considered in this environment) the institution has tighter control to maximize profitability

annotated bibliography on the topic has as its earliest entry 1988mdashone year before the University of Phoenix began its online program

Figure 1 Blackboard Instructor Dashboard (Blackboard 2009 Slide 10)

P a g e | 6

Technology is also respondent to culture the American2

Figure 1

cultural values of free and immediate access to information have influenced the development growth and content of the internet For example in 2009 the Texas legislature passed HB 2504 mandating that all higher education syllabi instructor information and costsfees be accessible within three clicks from a universityrsquos home page (HB 2504 2009) This is also borne out in the gradebook design which enables immediate access to student grades However this has created an increased pressure upon instructors to evaluate student work almost immediately (as is evidenced by the ldquoNeeds Attentionrdquo and ldquoAlertsrdquo boxes on the instructor dashboard in ) Quantifying education in terms of profitability as well as in terms of grades have become key features of the LMS The LMS both responds to cultural values and perpetuates new norms including theories of how one should educatemdashpedagogy

As LMSs have become more prevalent some theorists are exploring the implications of LMS adoption on pedagogy leading to examinations of the systems as a form of rhetoric LMSs through their design and use construct student-instructor and institutional relationships as well as define the ldquoworkrdquo of a class even the goals of the university itself Coates and Baldwin (2005) assert this in their article ldquoA critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learningrdquo in which they argue

LMS are not pedagogically neutral technologies but rather through their very design they influence and design teaching As the systems become more incorporated into everyday academic practices they will work to shape and even define teachers imaginations expectations and behaviours (27)

Wise and Quealy (2006) reiterate this view claiming that current learning models founded in social constructivism with a focus on building communities of practice are not realized due to the inherent limitations of LMSs the LMSrsquos architecture is one of order and control which inhibits both the creativity and the innovations that e-learning ostensibly promises

In addition the authors locate currently un- or under-researched relationships with LMSs and education as both a system and a practice namely the LMSrsquos influence on teaching and learning its effects on student engagement its re-construction of the dynamics of academic work and the organization of teaching and the possible corporatization of academic knowledge The LMS is not simply a tool but a system that creates relationships as well as affects and re-constructs power dynamics

Blackboard Learn and Moodle An Analysis In this section I will look at two of the most popular LMSs Blackboard Learn (proprietary software that is the LMS component of Blackboard Incrsquos offerings) and Moodle (open source software) focusing on the various offeringsrsquo promotional materials and general software design in order to answer two questions

bull What philosophies of education does the LMS promote or encourage

2 While the geographic Americas are quite a vast and culturally disparate space I use the term ldquoAmericanrdquo in the sense used by both US citizens and in global media outlets to encompass the values of the United States of America

P a g e | 7

bull How does the architecture of the LMS support or reject these philosophies

The answers to these questions will create the foundation for analyzing the two systems in terms of Feenbergrsquos cultural horizon and a consideration of technological determinism and constructivism and how it relates to pedagogy

Blackboard Learn Efficient and Consistent Education ldquoImprove efficiency quality and collaborationrdquo reads the lead headline on Blackboard Learnrsquos landing page (Blackboard 2011) In this overview the term ldquoyourdquo is used to address it appears administrators with statements such as ldquoIt will help you increase educator efficiency and curriculum quality Yoursquoll have consistency through the central management collaboration sharing and reuse of academic contentrdquo This is reflected in the pagersquos word frequency a word cloud of the page demonstrates that the most frequent term in the site is ldquomanagementrdquo and its derivatives (manage manager etc) (See Figure 2)

Figure 2 Word Cloud of Blackboard Learn web page (Blackboard 2011)

Not surprisingly this ldquomanagerialrdquo approach is reinforced throughout the page In explaining the offerings Blackboard touts that it will improve four key areas efficiency quality and consistency collaboration (another frequently used term) and return on investment According to the site these improvements are realized as follows

bull Efficiency Save educators time with centralized management of course materials used across multiple courses sections or departments Make managing files in Blackboard Learn as easy as managing local files on their computer

bull Quality and Consistency Improve curriculum on every level through centralized management and distribution of curriculum resources

P a g e | 8

bull Collaboration Promote user-driven collaboration and sharing within and outside the institution school or district

bull Return on Investment Rely on one easy-to-use flexible solution that meets academic general content management and collaboration needs across your organization (Blackboard 2011)

The terms touted on this page are typically ones found in businessmdashefficiency consistency ROI even collaboration often valued in education takes on a more corporate meaning in that it refers more to a centralized repository of information accessible by ldquomanagementrdquo In a darker sense it becomes reminiscent of Foucaultrsquos writing on the Panopticonmdashthose in greater positions of power can access the data at any time and the creatoruser may not be aware if or when the course or site is being visited viewed or evaluated

Blackboard Learnrsquos web page encourages adoption of the system by administrators and managers in touting its ability to increase efficiency promote uniformity and manage access In appealing to instructorscourse designers Blackboard Learn again stresses efficiency and uniformity The PowerPoint presentation Blackboard and WebCT together addressed to teachers provides comparative screen shots of WebCT (which Blackboard acquired in 2006 [Wikipedia 2012]) and Blackboard Learn The captions for the various slides typically stress familiarity (eg uniformity) ldquoContinue to deliver content to students via Learning Modules with a familiar experiencerdquo (Blackboard 2009 Slide 4) ldquoWith a familiar user interface manage the task of grading even more efficiently and flexibly in the new Grade Center with inline grading and powerful filtering and reportingrdquo (Blackboard 2009 Slide 6) The Panopticon returns as well ldquoPrevent Plagiarismhellip SafeAssign teaches students to properly cite their resources as their assignments are submitted and verified against online databases and any materials in the Blackboard communityrsquos global databaserdquo (Blackboard 2009 Slide 11) Information is centralized for access but access to make sure that one (whether it be an instructor or a student) is adhering to the proper standards

From the marketing materials directed at administrators and instructors Blackboard Learn promotes efficiency and uniformity with the underlying (often unstated) claim that efficiency and uniformity facilitates learning and improves education Blackboard Learnrsquos architecture reflects this philosophy as well Efficiency in practice is often synonymous with modularity and structure As Figure 3 shows courses are separated into Learning Modules in which content assignments and tests are brought together in one section and can be easily integrated into a table of contents (Blackboard 2009 and 2010) Learning as well is managed highly-publicized options like Sequential Learning Modules which force students to view (or at least click through) each section of the module before moving to the next structure the learning process along defined paths that cannot be deviated from

As mentioned earlier and noted in Figure 1 a major focus of Blackboard Learn is assessment the instructor dashboard is primarily devoted to notifications for assignments or tests to be evaluated For students the navigational sidebar is prioritized first announcements then information units assessments assignments and grades (see Figure 4) Interactive (student input) activities such as discussions wikis or groups are at the bottom of the sidebar Part of the reason for this is the instructorrsquos design interface in designing a course instructors have a series of tabs from which to choose build content create assessment add interactive tool and assign textbook Delineating educational strategies in this way marks course content as something other than assessment and other than interactivity Furthermore student interaction is both separate and (architecturally) of lower worth

P a g e | 9

Figure 3 Blackboard Learns Learning Module with Table of Contents (Blackboard 2009 Slide 4)

Figure 4 Blackboard Learns Student Course Page Screenshot from Instructional Video (Blackboard 2012)

P a g e | 10

Overall Blackboard Learn promotes a philosophy of education based in efficiency and modularity while interactivity and collaboration is touted in its marketing materials the systemrsquos navigation perceptually separates student input and collaborative activities from the ldquoimportantrdquo information of the coursemdashthe instructorrsquos input and evaluations of student work

Moodle Pedagogy Precedes Technology Upon visiting the Moodle landing page the reader is greeted with ldquoWelcome to the Moodle communityrdquo After a brief description of the LMS (noting that it is a free application) the page extends an invitation to learn more about Moodle and to ldquojoin inrdquo (Moodle nd) Unlike Blackboard Learn Moodle has an About page (as a general overview) (Moodle 2012) a Philosophy page (describing the theoretical foundations of the system) (Moodle 2011b) and a Pedagogy page (describing the goals of online education) (Moodle 2011a) A word cloud of the About page also demonstrates the frequency of the term ldquomanagementrdquo (See Figure 6) with ldquocoursesrdquo and ldquolearningrdquo being equally stressed However ldquomanagementrdquo appears to be used primarily in the context of ldquolearning management systemrdquo with no references to related terms such as ldquoefficiencyrdquo or ldquomodulesrdquo Two terms that appear here that are absent from Blackboard Learn are surprisingly ldquoeducatorsrdquo and ldquoknownrdquo (with its variants knowledge knowing etc)

Figure 5 Word Cloud of Moodle About web page (Moodle 2012)

What may be most intriguing are the pages devoted to pedagogy and philosophy Educators are the clear audience for these pages yet Philosophy speaks to ldquoyourdquo (ldquoYour job as a teacherhelliprdquo) (Moodle 2011b) while Pedagogy speaks to an inclusive ldquoyourdquo and ldquousrdquo from a first-person perspective

All of us are potential teachers as well as learners - in a true collaborative environment we are both Its so important to recognise and remember this I think this perspective helps us retain some humility as teachers and fight the (very

P a g e | 11

natural) tendency to consolidate all your history and assume the revered position of ldquowise source of knowledgerdquo It helps us keep our eyes open for opportunities to allow the other participants in our learning situation to share their ideas with us and to remind us to listen carefully and ask good questions that elicit more from others I find I need to constantly remind myself of this point especially when the culture of a situation pushes me into a central role (like now) (Moodle 2011a)

Moodlersquos information pages differ from Blackboard Learnrsquos not simply in that they are addressed to a different primary audiencemdasheducatorsmdashbut that educators are identified as part of the community which has created and continues to develop the technology This contributes to Moodlersquos ethos with the implication that the users are creators designers and developers assumedly in line with Johnsonrsquos (1998) ideal

As it is a technology developed by educators for educators it is not surprising that Moodle includes a page specifically devoted to the pedagogical foundations of Moodle and how the technology has been developed to affirm those foundations The section ldquoSocial Constructionism as Referentrdquo lists five precepts for the social construction model of an LMS

1 All of us are potential teachers as well as learnersmdash in a true collaborative environment we are both

2 We learn particularly well from the act of creating or expressing something for others to see

3 We learn a lot by just observing the activity of our peers 4 By understanding the contexts of others we can teach in a more

transformational way (constructivism)[] 5 A learning environment needs to be flexible and adaptable so that it can quickly

respond to the needs of the participants within it (Moodle 2011a)

This section is followed by ldquoHow Moodle tries to support a Social Constructionist viewrdquo in which each claim is substantiated by supporting statements detailing how the LMSrsquos features and options may be customized and employed to ldquobuild communities of learnersrdquo (Moodle 2011a) The site demonstrates a consistent directed effort to offer strategies for using Moodle to encourage the development of learning communities unlike Blackboard Learn which focuses on features and then makes claims to outcomes Moodle focuses on outcomes and then details features which (in the developersrsquo opinion) support those outcomes

A word cloud of the Pedagogy page (see Figure 6) demonstrates that learning (and learners which is also encompassed by the frequency cloud) and activities are central to Moodlersquos vision of education Yet other terms show up that support this claim in interesting ways ldquocommunityrdquo ldquopeoplerdquo ldquoparticipantsrdquo The locus of power is decentralized Teachers and students have equal word frequency as does the term ldquoallowrdquo In a sense to ldquoallowrdquo assumes permission This can be troubling in that there is an

P a g e | 12

underlying sense that what is being allowed is not the norm Yet the ldquoallowancerdquo is in contrast to a system like Blackboard Learn an almost unprecedented freedom

So does Moodle actually allow such freedom To answer this it is necessary to analyze the user interface

Figure 6 Word Cloud of Moodle Pedagogy web page (Moodle 2011a)

As an open source offering Moodle provides two demonstration sites for prospective users demomoodlenet a bare-boned site where users can explore the architecture and modules of the site and the pseudo institution ldquoMount Orange Schoolrdquo (schooldemomoodlenet) which is fully populated with sample classes Both sites have generic logins for differing roles ranging from student to administrator and both sites reset every hour While Blackboard has a demo site it requires registration with an agreement to terms of service and the demo only enables instructors to create a demo class

In most live Moodle environments to enter a user must first register Each user who registers and logs in does not simply have a role but an identity This identity is more than a user name ldquoparticipantsrdquo as Moodle categorizes all users have profiles similar to those popularized by social media that provide space for text entry (for example a bio) a photo or avatar and general information such as citytown interests (which are clickable keywords that link to other user profiles) and courses Also included in the sections are the first date of access and the last access Moodlersquos supports its mission of a learning community in many ways first all are participants not listed as teachers or students second the inclusion of a profile for each participant provides a more human interface where user names are not simply hyperlinked email addresses but offer opportunities to learn a bit about each member of the

P a g e | 13

community third by coding interests as hyperlinked tabs participants are invited to seek out other members of the community

To create a course an instructor can opt for a chronological setup (week by week for example) or a unit-based setup Each section allows a teacher to add activities and resources from within the section as the site will appear to students Navigation is created by the teacher with the options of adding side modules that include course structure as an outline latest news whorsquos online (again promoting community) upcoming events on- and off-site searching grades graphics participants and the like As Figure 7 shows the page layout is quite similar to that found in professional content management systems with a range of layout and design options

Figure 7 Moodle Demo Course Page Student View (2013)

Features such as activities and resources in many ways are identical to those of Blackboard Learn the site provides forums blogs resources glossaries chat directed (sequential) learning options and assessment in the form of quizzes and assignment uploads However Moodle adds a few additional components such as polls surveys feedback (which as the feedback can be set to anonymous the site states has a range of uses from course evaluations to anti-bullying surveys [2013]) and a workshop activity

P a g e | 14

Although the workshop activity has to be enabled by the instructor its inclusion offers a direct way for peers to interact with other peersrsquo work It is coded to simulate f2f classrooms submissions can be anonymized students can review one or multiple submissions instructors can provide models with assessments and the workshop can be entered as a graded activity (for both draft submission and for the peer review) There are no restrictions on the type of media that is assessed as long as it is a digital file

The workshop activity is perhaps the strongest argument for the guiding precept of Moodle pedagogy precedes technology The way that peer review is constructed as a technological component relies heavily on concepts of writing pedagogy Furthermore the Moodle ideal of social constructionism is reflected in its definition of all users as first participants Tools are presented as ways for all members of a learning community course to share information with each other and the environment is both flexible and adaptable

Application and Empowerment While an analysis of Moodle in comparison to Blackboard Learn may seem a shining endorsement for one product over the other in truth it is not Neither system meets the needs of all instructors either by its architecture or in its underlying philosophy Yet typically one of these two systems is mandated by a department or an institution as the required technology for course materials (and often instruction) Furthermore the technology is often mandated with little to no input from the key stakeholders students and instructors Even if a ldquopreferredrdquo technology is chosen modules must often be enabled by site administrators who may be tied to uninformed administrative dictates or who may not recognize the pedagogical implications of locking down certain options

As stated at the beginning the goal of this analysis has been to provide instructors and departments a basis for an informed empowered and productive dialogue about the adaptation of specific course management systems That dialogue however must go further to include administration and IT to actually influence results What is necessary to remember is that each stakeholder has different criteria for adoption As Figure 8 shows the primary needs (ie necessary criteria) for each stakeholder are typically not shared among all members of the community Administrators will normally prioritize cost security and suitability for programmatic and institutional assessment IT will be concerned with cost and security as well but will also want to ensure that the technology is stable easily maintained and has relative ease of use to cut down on frequent calls for troubleshooting and support Instructors are looking for ease of use for both them and their students and they too will want a system that will aid in assessment (of classes of programs of departments etc) Students will require ease of use and they would want a course to be taught in the manner that would best facilitate their learning so they like instructors are concerned with pedagogy

P a g e | 15

Figure 8 Primary Needs and Concerns of LMS Stakeholders

Unfortunately pedagogy is the one criterion that is rarely a consideration of the decision-makers in Administration or IT The decision-makers will typically look to the features of a system and assume it provides the requisite tools for instruction So how can the primary users (students and instructors) alike educate the decision-makers

As the environment at each institution is different there are no absolute answers only strategies Granted some of the suggestions below may seem obvious but others may provide different perspectives or opportunities To be best prepared to foster dialogue

bull Begin by developing criteria for best and preferred practices of instruction for classes programs and the department Rather than looking to technological features return to more concrete concepts such as course objectives Consider such needs as student interactivity resource access collaboration and critical analysis In an ideal situation how are these needs met How is learning facilitated

bull Analyze how pedagogies will best work with different technologies for example how would class discussion work with different technologies How might discussions differ improve or degrade dependent on the type of technology employed (eg blogs threaded discussions

P a g e | 16

synchronous chat forums) What factors may affect such results (such as technology access bandwidth ease of usenavigation interface etc)

bull Develop a rating system of necessary versus desired criteria for the LMS For example must it have certain features add-ons what types of files can it work with (important if students are creating for example video projects) should the LMS offer a ldquosocial mediardquo type interface and options how much flexibility is needed for course organization etc

bull Honestly assess student and instructor fluency and comfort with technology Any LMS will require some type of learning curve and instructors as designers may require additional training Some class time may need to be devoted expressly to learning the system How much time is reasonable What resources may be available Consider how important it is to access the site from mobile devices and how long it may take for the site to load or if it requires plugins (which may not be available on all systems) to function

bull Prepare a cost benefit analysis that is clear regarding long- and short- term financial expenditures and time outlay Commercial packages like Blackboard Learn require a hefty investment for most institutions but these programs are generally well supported by the software developer Moodle may be free as software but for installation and maintenance a department program institution will quite likely need to employ staff to provide technical support and maintain the system

bull If a specific LMS is proposed that does not meet the needs of a class department or program prepare concrete language that delineates how and why this is a problem For example if an LMS does not have a way for students to download files uploaded by other students this may create problems for online writing workshops which require students access each othersrsquo work in particular formats Text-only posts like those in forums would not be the same as peer reviewers wouldnrsquot have access to the original intended document design Workarounds (such as emailing drafts) would not be effective in that they would take the work out of the course environment Such issues may tie directly in to course objectives such as collaboration or peer review in the class and the need may also be argued by scholarship in the discipline as to best instructional practices

bull Address the primary needs of the decision makers as part of your argument This may be the most difficult but to engage in the discussion it must be made clear that the decision makersrsquo necessary criteria are understood and can be met through compromise

bull Work with faculty governance and unions if necessary to explore the issue in terms of academic freedom and integrity of education

While different LMSs can offer new ways to implement pedagogies the technology should not shape the pedagogy The values of fostering effective and productive studentinstructor and studentstudent interaction should not be lost due to the constraints of a program Yet without joining in or perhaps forcing onersquos way into the dialogue technology will be mandated and studentsrsquo education may suffer Whether onersquos goal is simply to promote Johnsonrsquos user-centered design to bring control to the consensus of Habermasrsquos ldquousing and transacting citizensrdquo or to bring about Feenbergrsquos democratic rationalization instructors and students cannot passively accept any LMS as a ldquoneutralrdquo technology

P a g e | 17

Final Thoughts Technologies are often perceived by society as neutral tools to achieve certain needs and desires Yet tools are not neutral From design to development to use each technology carries with it a worldview of sorts one that encompasses both purpose and power Educational technologies are particularly potent As Daalsgard (2006) would remind us the term ldquolearning management systemrdquo assumes that learning is managed governedmdasha top-down view of the process that carries with it references to economic labor and power structures As educators as students as members of institutions and yes even as citizens we must analyze and evaluate such technologies looking beyond mere functionality to the ways that we as human beings being human are being not merely guided but structured by the tools we use to learn

P a g e | 18

References Blackboard Inc (2012) Students Checking Your Grades Blackboard On Demand Learning Center for

Students Retrieved January 18 2013 from httpondemandblackboardcomr91moviesbb91_student_checking_gradeshtm

----- (2011) Blackboard Learn Products Blackboard Retrieved December 1 2011 from httpwwwblackboardcomPlatformsLearnProductsBlackboard-LearnTeaching-and-LearningNew-to-LearnContent-Managementaspx

----- (2010) Learning Modules Blackboard Learn Help Retrieved January 18 2013 from httplibraryblackboardcomrefa86c3648-80a5-43cc-8fed-b3f5d24518ceindex_LefthtmCSHID=as_r7_3_Instructor_Manual2FAbout20Learning20Moduleshtm|StartTopic=Content2Fas_r7_3_Instructor_Manual2FAbout20Learning20Moduleshtm|SkinName=Bb_Default

----- (2009 June 8) Blackboard and WebCT Together Retrieved from httpwwwblackboardcomresourceslearnBb_and_WebCT_Togetherppt

Coates H James R amp Baldwin G (2005) A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning Tertiary Education and Management 11 19-36 doi1010801358388320059967137

Dalsgaard C (2006) Social software E-learning beyond learning management systems European Journal of Open Distance and E-Learning Retrieved from httpwwweurodlorgmaterialscontrib2006Christian_Dalsgaardhtm

Dillenbourg P (2000) Virtual Learning Environments EUN Conference 2000 ldquoLearning in the New Millennium Building Educational Strategies for Schoolsrdquo Presented at the EUN Conference 2000 Retrieved from httptecfaunigechtecfapublicatdil-papers-2Dil7518pdf

Ellul J (2003) On the Aims of a Philosophy of Technology In R Scharff amp V Dusek (Eds) Philosophy of technology (pp 182-186) Malden MA Blackwell Publishing (Original work published 1964)

Feenberg A (2003) Democratic rationalization Technology power and freedom In R Scharff amp V Dusek (Eds) Philosophy of technology (pp 652-665) Malden MA Blackwell Publishing (Original work published 1992)

Foucault M (1995) Panopticism In Discipline amp Punish The Birth of the Prison (pp 195ndash228) New York Vintage Books Retrieved from httpwwwcartomeorgfoucaulthtm (Originally published 1975)

HB 2504 81st Gen Assem Reg Sess (Tx 2009) Retrieved from httpwwwlegisstatetxustlodocs81RbilltexthtmlHB02504FHTM

Hanford E (2012) The Case Against For-Profit Colleges and Universities American RadioWorks Retrieved January 1 2013 from httpamericanradioworkspublicradioorgfeaturestomorrows-collegephoenixcase-against-for-profit-schoolshtml

Johnson R R (1998) User-centered technology A rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts Albany State University of New York Press Kimball M (2005) Database e-portfolio systems A critical appraisal Computers and Composition 22

434ndash458 doi101016jcompcom200508003 Kurzweil R (2006) The singularity is near  when humans transcend biology New York Penguin Malikowski S R Thompson M E amp Theis J G (2007) A Model for Research into Course Management

Systems Bridging Technology and Learning Theory Journal of Educational Computing Research 36(2) 149-173

Moodle Moodleorg (nd) Moodleorg open-source community-based tools for learning Moodleorg Retrieved January 18 2013 from httpsmoodleorg

P a g e | 19

----- (2013) Course World of Water Retrieved March 31 2013 from httpschooldemomoodlenetcourseviewphpid=115 ----- (2012) About Moodle Retrieved December 21 2012 from httpsmoodleorgabout ----- (2011a) Pedagogy - MoodleDocs Moodle Retrieved December 1 2011 from

httpdocsmoodleorg21enPedagogy ----- (2011b) Philosophy - MoodleDocs Moodle Retrieved December 1 2011 from

httpdocsmoodleorg21enPhilosophy Pinch T J amp Bijker W E (2003) The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts In R Scharff amp V Dusek

(Eds) Philosophy of technology (pp 221ndash232) Malden MA Blackwell Publishing (Originally published 1987)

Roqueta M (2008) Learning management systems Distance learning 5(4) 59-66 Wikipedia (2012 December 3) WebCT Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia Retrieved January 9 2013

from httpenwikipediaorgwikiWebCT Wise L amp Quealy J (2006) At the limits of social constructivism Moving beyond LMS to re-integrate

scholarship In L Markauskaite P Goodyear amp P Reimann (Eds) Whorsquos learning Whose technology Presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Sydney Australia Sydney University Press

Figures

Introduction

Defining the Concepts CMSs LMSs and VLEs (Oh My)

Technology and Human Interaction

The LMS as a Rhetoric and Pedagogy

Blackboard Learn and Moodle An Analysis

Blackboard Learn Efficient and Consistent Education

Moodle Pedagogy Precedes Technology

Application and Empowerment

Final Thoughts

References

Contents Introduction 1 Defining the Concepts CMSs LMSs and VLEs (Oh My) 1 Technology and Human Interaction 2 The LMS as a Rhetoric and Pedagogy 3 Blackboard Learn and Moodle An Analysis 6

Blackboard Learn Efficient and Consistent Education 7 Moodle Pedagogy Precedes Technology 10

Application and Empowerment 14 Final Thoughts 17 References 18

Figures Figure 1 Blackboard Instructor Dashboard (Blackboard 2009 Slide 10) 5 Figure 2 Word Cloud of Blackboard Learn web page (Blackboard 2011) 7 Figure 3 Blackboard Learns Learning Module with Table of Contents (Blackboard 2009 Slide 4) 9 Figure 4 Blackboard Learns Student Course Page Screenshot from Instructional Video (Blackboard 2012) 9 Figure 5 Word Cloud of Moodle About web page (Moodle 2012) 10 Figure 6 Word Cloud of Moodle Pedagogy web page (Moodle 2011a) 12 Figure 7 Moodle Demo Course Page Student View (2013) 13 Figure 8 Primary Needs and Concerns of LMS Stakeholders 15

P a g e | 1




P a g e | 2






P a g e | 3






P a g e | 4






P a g e | 5


1 Interestingly an




P a g e | 6


Figure 1









P a g e | 7








P a g e | 8







P a g e | 9



P a g e | 10






P a g e | 11











P a g e | 12






P a g e | 13





P a g e | 14





P a g e | 15






P a g e | 16









P a g e | 17


P a g e | 18


















P a g e | 19








Figures

Introduction








Final Thoughts

References

P a g e | 16









P a g e | 17


P a g e | 18


















P a g e | 19








Figures

Introduction








Final Thoughts

References

P a g e | 17


P a g e | 18


















P a g e | 19








Figures

Introduction








Final Thoughts

References

P a g e | 18


















P a g e | 19








Figures

Introduction








Final Thoughts

References

P a g e | 19








Figures

Introduction








Final Thoughts

References

Technology as Pedagogy: The Rhetoric of Learning Management Systems

Documents

Transcript of Technology as Pedagogy: The Rhetoric of Learning Management Systems