I was absolutely drawn in by the first chapter of Course Management Systems for Learning: Beyond Accidental Pedagogy (McGee, Carmean, & Jafari, 2005), particularly the concept of no significant difference (NSD) intrigued me. The NSD trend is the observation that despite all of the investments of time, money, and resources into Course Management Systems (CMS), there has been neither measurable advantage nor disadvantage in the overall quality of learning. This is somewhat mind-blowing in many ways. Throughout time humans have created tools to make the task at hand easier, faster, or more productive. How is it that we have a garage full of state-of-the-art tools, and we still have the same throughput of vehicles as we did before the fancy tools? Something doesn’t make sense.
One of the roles of my position at Keystone College is that of part-time Blackboard LMS support, so I have experienced many of the flaws in the system first-hand. Primarily, facilitating a proper level of support for the system requires at least ninety percent of my work time per week, leaving my other duties to fall by the wayside. This fluctuates drastically dependent upon time of year, moving from the end of completely overwhelming to a manageable amount of time required for support. This includes faculty and student training on system usage, user management, course creation, and issue troubleshooting. Secondly, the complexities of a large enterprise LMS like Blackboard means that it is hard enough to teach faculty what it can do and how to navigate within it, let alone how to use it to effectively augment their coursework. For the most part, it seems that these systems have just become a replacement for paper handouts. In itself, this is a great benefit to the environment, but is an overly elaborate means of providing a service that a networked folder could do easily.
Systems like these have the potential of creating a learning environment that make the material so engaging that student would want to learn it. Right now, it seems like we are just making our students jump through a technological hoop just because the hoop is there. This article suggests that we look at the issue of LMS usage not as what features can we cram into the box, but as how are the features enhancing the learning experience, and how do we know that they are enhancing the experience. Grades alone are not reflecting that students have a more comprehensive knowledge of the subject when using a LMS, therefore we need to explore ways of utilizing the technology to engage a deeper understanding of the subject matter so our students are better off having used the technology than not.
McGee, P., Carmean, C., & Jafari, A. (2005). Course Management Systems for Learning: Beyond Accidental Pedagogy. Hersey, PA: The Idea Group.
As someone that is involved in operating and controlling an LMS, these readings have a much different meaning to you than me. I can't imagine being on a team that designs and implements a LMS as I have a hard enough time trying to maneuver through one. I imagine that providing a support system for a LMS takes up a lot of time, but 90% of your time is a lot more than I would have estimated. I'm sure you have a better appreciation of FSO than any of us.
ReplyDeleteWell Becky, it definitely gives me one perspective on the usage of LMSs, perhaps one that is a little cynical. :)
ReplyDeleteI think the FSO is amazing from the student perspective. It is simple to use, and intuitive. I would imagine that from the instructors perspective there may be certain limitations, and features it may not support, but all in all I love it.
“For the most part, it seems that these systems have just become a replacement for paper handouts. In itself, this is a great benefit to the environment, but is an overly elaborate means of providing a service that a networked folder could do easily.”
ReplyDeleteThis is a problem much bigger then the CMS/LMS/LCMS industry as you probably well know with the time you have spent in a support role. I am amazed as time and time again the human want to reach out and use the shiny new toys passes right by the problems that we might solve with those resources. The concept of NSD was brought up to our school when people in charge of a technology grant mentioned that on billion dollars had been spent on technology in education, but had we seen a billion dollar improvement. This question was used as justification to give us all training in how to use digital story telling in our math and science classrooms. They spent a million dollars in our district to do this training and buy the equipment for digital storytelling as if this was the panacea that would fix our problems. Sadly they did not even debug their own offerings because when I went to use the training two months later I found that the laptops did not talk to the network, or the printer, or even have firewire connections to hook them up the camcorders. We really need to make sure that the time and money we spent on technology in education goes to actually solving real problems and not just adopting the newest fad.
I am in the same state of wonderment about NSD. It seems incredible to have developed so many new advances and yet to not see a measurable difference in the result. It really makes you wonder if we are actually looking at the bet practice in our assessment. Could it be that there needs to be a bigger change in exactly what we observe and assess? Maybe some of the intangible abilities we have not figured out HOW to assess yet.
ReplyDeleteYour observations go so along with the article I shared in tonight's wimba session: "How to not use computer to teach kids (http://stager.tv/blog/?p=1299).
ReplyDelete