Another dot in the blogosphere?

Posts Tagged ‘lms

I agree with the sentiment of the tweet above. LMS developers try to make the same what is inherently different. 

So what exactly is fundamentally different? I can think of: Instructional design processes, teacher organisational strategies, and learner schema.

LMS tend to sacrifice these in order to favour efficiency and administrative desirability over effectiveness and pedagogy. That is why I only pick and choose what to use in an LMS instead of using it wholesale.

For example, I might rely on an announcement tool to disseminate information. That said, I could also rely on email or WhatsApp to do the same if administrators did not like the archivability of announcements so much. 

I house my resources, outlines, scaffolds, and other elements elsewhere, e.g., Google Sites, because I want the freedom to explore, design, and structure. While LMS homogenise, other platforms blend if you embrace what is naturally heterogenous.

I first heard about Lisa Lane when she wrote about the insidious pedagogy of learning management systems (LMS) in 2009.  I captured some thoughts on this in 2010.

We have not met or conversed and we do not share common academic backgrounds. She is a historian while I have a biology background and an edtech doctorate. But we definitely share similar views about how LMS shape teaching behaviours.

Her most recent thoughts on Why your LMS sucks revisits old themes but adds some new emphasis. For example, LMS seem to be designed with computing folders in mind. But scholars who teach with a passion think in terms of habits of mind.

As teachers, we think next in terms of wrapping elements together to encourage understanding. We do not think in terms of all the articles, all the lectures, all the exams, all the discussions.

Instead, we think in terms of weeks, or units, or modules. We section the learning, combining various elements to cover a particular subject. Separating those resources by type makes no sense when one is creating a pattern of learning.

I could not agree more. When I create and curate online resources for my courses, I use Google Sites to organise activities and materials by themes and time.

Another valid complaint of LMS from Lane:

Created student-led or student-designed work is difficult. LMSs require teacher permissions to set up an assignment, quiz, content area, or discussion. Although some discussion forums allow students to begin topics, this feature must also be set by the instructor.

You would think that an LMS as a walled garden would allow free planting and sand boxes. Instead LMS tend to operate to 1) keep strangers out, and 2) tightly control the friendlies within. One has to break out of LMS and use other tools and platforms to facilitate student-centric work and exploration.

So what is a creative and passionate teaching scholar to do? Lane offers this excellent approach:

Creative pedagogy can work within the limitations of the LMS, but it is not easy to implement. Systems are designed to systematize, and the LMS is designed to create cookie-cutter classes based on outmoded structures rather than to promote innovative approaches. Thus for many of us, understanding its design is essential to adapting, subverting, or acquiescing to its suckiness.

So if you must use an LMS — by choice or by pressure — understand its limitations and explore its possibilities. Then work creatively to work within or without in order to do what is best for learners and learning.

Tags: , ,

That is “Don’t friend you!” — an utterance echoed across generations of Singaporean children when one child feels offended by another. This is our way of expressing displeasure, but kids often forgive and forget.

Now here is something educators who are forced to use “learning management systems” (LMS) should note: Canvas is not your friend. Neither is Blackboard or any institutionalised tool that aims to standardise or unify.


In the link above, Lisa Lane highlighted several problems with Canvas. If I had to put what she said in a nutshell, I would offer that the LMS focuses the organisation of information at the expense of pedagogical flexibility (i.e., it is about types of material instead of the phase of learning). LMS are not designed for student-centric or student-led learning.

Canvas is not a pedagogue’s friend. A pedagogue should also say “Dun fren you!” to any LMS because going open and varied is better than limiting yourself to a closed and walled garden. The former mirrors what students already use and will face in every day life and work; the latter are an artificial construct built for control and profit.

Tags: ,

This tweet reminded me about an old rallying cry of mine: An LMS is not about learning, management, or students.

It is about administration and control. It about locking in clients. It is about getting access to user data and behaviour.

Intrepid educators can finds ways to creatively work around or even within an LMS. But they only perpetuate its use by doing so.

The only way to break out of the system is to work outside it. This is not only possible, it is also a richer experience that mirrors the realities outside a walled garden.


One of the reading methods I adopted from my days as a graduate student and then an academic were to read the synopsis, introduction, and conclusion of an article first.

I practice this particularly with opinion pieces in the press. I modify the method by examining who wrote the article and I try to unpack why. Take this “commentary” that proclaims that “It is time to rethink how we do online education”.

You need only to scroll to the end of the article to find that the author is the regional director of a learning management system (LMS) provider. Scroll to the middle and the largest chunk of the article is about (surprise, surprise) the the virtues of adopting an LMS.

An institutional LMS has its uses. But it also has its abuses, so I counter some claims (copied from the article and pasted in italics). At this point, I should mention that I am making some assumptions based on my professional experience of working with such vendors. I need to make assumptions because the statements in the article are either so general as to be vague or are claims without cited and linked evidence.

LMSs are used to create and deliver curriculums that students can follow both online and offline.

Offline? An LMS is online. The whole point is to access it anywhere you have a reliable Internet connection. Some tools have an offline mode, but you need to periodically go online to get updates.

An offline service that delivers material might look like the postal service. But even that has online components, e.g., tracking packages. So I do not know how an “offline” LMS is supposed to create and deliver curricula without strategically going online.

It is secure, easily accessible and allows for student-teacher interaction.

Claims of security should always be questioned. An LMS is only as “secure” as the log-in system of an institution and the user behaviours.

The ease of accessibility might rest on the platform each user has. Internet access being equal, LMS tend to be more “accessible” on laptops and desktops than on smaller mobile devices, e.g., phones. The latter typically require specific apps because LMS tend to not be built with mobile-first principles. Such apps are lite versions of full LMS, so users can forget about, say, submitting essays for plagiarism checks before revising and resubmitting on mobile.

As for “student-teacher” interaction, don’t get me started. Correspondence courses of old were secure as the postal service, accessible to anyone with an address, and allowed student-teacher interaction.

For starters, all users are authenticated before they are granted access.

Yes, with a standard username and password combo, preferably linked to a school’s or university’s single sign-on (SSO) system. I do not know of any SSO that requires two-factor authentication that is tied to a person’s identity. This means that a student can share log-in information with someone else to access materials or to take a quiz.

Authentication is not the same as identity confirmation. The latter is what is required for strict access to materials or the taking of critical tests or exams. Is our PSLE or GCE assessments online? No, because while authentication is possible, identity confirmation is not.

A reliable LMS uses cryptographic protocols and encryption to ensure the confidentiality and security of user data.

Good news, right? At no point did the author say where the data is stored (the company’s servers) or what happens to that data (it should be in Terms and Conditions; data could be anonymised and repackaged for the company or third parties to use).

With standard compliance regulations for data integrity and confidentiality in place, institutions can opt for certified LMS service providers for maximum security.

See my comment on anonymisation of data. Providers use student and teacher data. There are legitimate uses like improving services, but there are less clear cut uses too.

Data integrity, confidentiality, and security are important, but they should not be conflated. For example, if data is kept purely intact, it cannot be anonymised for confidentiality. If it cannot be anonymised, it should be used for other purposes.

Some LMSs integrate live streaming capability in a seamless manner.

As do other platforms, mobile or desktop. YouTube and Twitch can also do this more efficiently and effectively than university lecture capture systems. But such systems are not in walled gardens like LMS (which could be a plus) and such capture systems tend to be fire-and-forget for lecturers (another plus).

All that said, the seamlessness might be convenient, but this also means that teachers and lecturers do not learn the skills of how to do such work themselves. This has been and continues to be evident whenever e-learning days or a lockdown like the current one places pressure on content delivery.

The LMS market is already booming.

So is the market for fast foods. This does not mean that they have products that are good for their consumers/users, or processes that are good for the environment/education system.

The regional market here might be “booming”, but that does not mean the same is happening elsewhere. Anyone thinking of buying into an LMS should investigate why it might be waning elsewhere before subscribing to a service that creates dependence.

According to a report by Market Research, the Asia-Pacific region is expected to be the fastest-growing LMS market in the coming years…

This might be true depending on your sources. It is a trend that might last a while. Why? Decisions to buy into LMS are made my policymakers and administrators, not educators and students. The latter groups are rarely consulted, if at all. If they were, I bet on the trend bucking.

Increasing computing power and rich features on these devices make for a dynamic and holistic learning experience.

This was in reference to mobile devices like phones. Despite their increased power, they still deliver subpar experiences compared to devices with larger screens and multitasking.

The one size fits all approach that has dominated education for so long does not work anymore.

How ironic. An LMS is designed to fit many tools into one container.

The diversification of tools and platforms based on context and need should drive adoption and innovation. When you buy into an LMS, you get a walled-off area but you trade it with practices that are constrained by tools that might not suit your needs.

Consider the oft dreaded threaded discussion forum. It is the go-to tool for interaction because thoughts are externalised, captured, and sometimes graded. Discussion threads can get so long and confusing that they put off discussion to all but the most persistent.

Users need to be taught new and more disciplined ways to discuss online. This is not a bad thing, but the structure can be off-putting or unnatural. Instead, users might prefer to share their thoughts on Twitter, Instragram, or some other social platform. However, an LMS cannot integrate every possible tool, be it designed for education or for general use.

I called the article an insidious LMS advertisement (and titled my reflection so) because a respectable news agency saw it fit to pass a long advertisement off as an article. It was a piece that was not challenged for evidence or subject to critique. Caveat emptor.

Tags: , , ,

The context for this slide: It was 2013 and I was presenting to an audience more used to US English spelling (hence the spelling of “decentralizing”). More importantly, I was on the same mission of advising people to not make the same unnecessary mistakes that others had already made.

Fear Factor: e-Learning Edition Part 3

The advice I gave was simple. A teaching solution that is often presented before considering the learning problem is a vendor-provided learning management system (LMS). This creates lock-ins of platforms and tools, pedagogy, and finances.

All three lock-ins can have hidden elements. For example, you might already be invested a particular tool but that same tool is not compatible with the LMS. If you wish to get the equivalent tool or a new one, this is likely to come with additional cost. In any case, the likely end result is teaching to the whims of the tool instead of letting good pedagogy lead.

Today, that same advice might be recontextualised to not relying almost solely on a content management system (CMS) like our Student Learning System (SLS) or a video conferencing platform like Zoom.

One fear of having multiple platforms and tools is the loss of administrative and IT systems control. This is the top-down approach which is largely non-consultative and does not create ownership or empowerment among its users.

To be fair, you can rationalise the need for such an approach because users might not know what to use in a situation like COVID-19 lockdowns and home-based learning (or more accurately, emergency remote teaching). Having just one (or very few) tools and platforms also allows for system managers to provide more focused support.

However, this presumes that teachers and student have no idea what to do and use. This is not the case. Practically any system has its technology leaders, laggards, and those somewhere in between. The first group is likely to already be using some technology tools without sanctioned support. This can be a boon or a bane depending on how it is planned and managed.

The recent phenomenon of zoom-bombing — trolls joining and disrupting Zoom-based video conference calls — could be used as evidence of why the command-and-control approach works. If people try different tools and managers know that some tools are better and safer than others, why let those people use inferior and unsafe tools?

However, that question is a flawed premise because a small group of administrators and IT folk do not and cannot know as much as a large group of users trying and testing different tools. If just a small portion of active users manages to identify flaws with a platform like Zoom (and there are many), they are a valuable source of testing and information. They could — and have — advised on NOT using Zoom in the first place.

Why rely on actual users instead of administrators and IT folk for testing, analysis, and critique? They are actual users who will use and “abuse” the tools for teaching, learning, and unanticipated ways. They will not think and operate along the lines of spreadsheets, policy, security, etc. They will use the tools authentically.

So the issue is not the loss of control in decentralising technology initiatives. It is the coordinated planning, evaluation, and sharing of such tools and their practices. The fear of losing control is misplaced and misguided. The energy that is wasted here could be channeled to coordinated decentralisation.

Every now and then I revisit my growing list of thoughts on LMS.

At best, LMS are necessary evils. They house announcements that can automatically be disseminated to students in a variety of ways. This is convenient and effective from an administrative point of view. Whether students actually act on the announcements is separate matter.

Modern LMS often have add-ons that compare student-submitted assignments to a large database (created by generations of students). While touted as anti-plagiarism tools, they are mislabelled. They are comparison and matching tools. Whether someone has plagiarised or not is often a human decision, not a computer-generated number.

So why am I mostly anti-LMS?

Instructors and students will most likely point out the poor usability of most LMS. Navigation is confusing, organisational logic is administrative instead of pedagogical, and it is generally not mobile-friendly.

But I have deeper concerns.

The first is bad experiences. LMS are a function of policies and the people who police them. I have had an account and several years worth of content deleted without notice. Export-import processes between semesters or versions of LMS are inconsistent and unreliable.

My second is research. In my previous work capacity, I conducted studies of how educators used educational technology to enhance or enable learning. One of my findings was how the pedagogically most innovative were not constrained by LMS.

My third concern is how the implementation of LMS might counter institutional missions. One partner I work with has a mission of promoting lifelong learning. However, this is not possible if learners do not have lifelong access to resources and ideas which are either trapped in or removed from LMS.

These are admittedly rushed and brief thoughts on LMS. I only revisit my archived reflections after writing my current thoughts. I try to give LMS providers the benefit of changing for the better. However, I find myself being remarkably consistent over the years. Perhaps I am getting more narrow-minded as I get older. Perhaps LMS are not getting better.


Today I resume facilitating a Masters course that I designed. In the weeks I spent preparing for it, I was reminded why I prefer semi-open online platforms over closed LMS.

The institutional LMS is the default for most instructors, but not for me. Why? LMS are designed by programmers and sanctioned by administrators, neither of whom are likely to empathise with teaching and learning.

LMS also suffer from feature bloat. As parallel, consider just how many Microsoft Word features has versus the ones you actually use. LMS vendors are in an arms race to offer as many services as possible and to charge by subscription. Very few users, if any, take advantage of all the tools. As a result, LMS try to please many and end up satifying none.

The bewildering user interfaces of most LMS are developed mostly by programmers. They seem to not have learnt the three-click rule (perhaps shortened to two clicks now) of finding what you need. The main navigation also tends to run down the old-school side instead of at the top (like most applications) or be “accordioned” behind the newer “burger” or three dot menu.

But my major complaint is that I cannot access the previous semester’s resources. This is because of administrative policy to remove them by default. This means that neither I nor my students have long-term access to learning resources.

I make that last point clear to my students at the start of any course that I facilitate. A university might operate by semesters, but human learning does not. I might be ready to teach you something, but that does not mean you are prepared to learn it at that time or in that short space of time. They need access beyond a semester.

ADL551 Google Site

So I tend to use platforms that run on a wiki engine, e.g., Google Sites. These are free, managed by me, have only features I need, and are visually and cognitively sensible. They even auto-adjust to mobile screens so there is no need to double code.

As sites like these are still linked to university courses, they are semi-open. As I have granular control of who accesses the site, I opt to allow view access by email authorisation. This recreates the LMS walled garden. However, I leave the resources online and do not deny previous batches of students the right to return to the sites when they need a refresher.

We have all probably experienced this and our reaction might be similar. But the effect and impact of clicking on a paywalled article is not that simple.

The experience and reaction is shared if you consider only your perspective and what is immediately obvious.

It is not if you consider the possible metrics for the newspaper, e.g., clicks (successful or not; which headlines work better), insidious ads (e.g., those running in the background or whitelisted by your adblocker), records of paying and non-paying visits, cookies that track what grabs your attention (e.g., op pieces over fluff), etc.

In the longer term, the newspaper gets something out of you — data about your habits and preferences and maybe even some ad revenue — even if you do not get what you want from a click.

That is why one of my concerns of late is our digital rights and privacy [1] [2]. I am even more concerned when the target audience is school-aged kids and young adult learners in institutes of higher education. They are tracked as they access content and learning management systems.

Some of the tracking is necessary, e.g., to take note of where the learners were last at and where they might need to go next. But some tracking is not, e.g., if data is mined by third parties without the knowledge of the learners or their parents.

Clicking on a link to get what you want (or to be denied access) might seem like a simple transaction. However, there are insidious transactions that we might not know or care about. This is like throwing plastic bags away and not knowing or caring where they end up.

We need to know and act better. We need to be more digitally and information literate. If the agencies that guide us do not have compasses that point north [example], we need to teach and police ourselves.

I have avoided reading and reviewing this opinion piece Analytics can help universities better support students’ learning. When I scanned the content earlier this month, my edtech Spidey sense got triggered. Why?

Take the oft cited reason for leveraging on the data: They “provide information for faculty members to formulate intervention strategies to support individual students in their learning.”

Nowhere in the op piece was there mention of students giving permission for their data to be used that way. Students are paying for an education and a diploma; they are not paying to be data-mined.

I am not against enhancing better study or enabling individualisation of learning. I am against the unethical or unsanctioned use of student data.

Consider the unfair use of student-generated data. Modern universities rely on learning management systems (LMS) for blended and online learning. These LMS are likely to integrate plagiarism checking add-ons like Turnitin. When students submit their work, Turnitin gets an ever-increasing and improving database. It also charges its partner universities hefty subscription fees for the service.

Now take a step back: Students pay university fees while helping a university partner and the university partner makes money off student-generated data. What do students get back in return?

Students do not necessarily learn how to be more responsible academic writers. They might actually learn to game the system. Is that worth their data?

Back to the article. It highlighted two risks:

First, an overly aggressive use of such techniques can be overbearing for students. Second, there is a danger of adverse predictions/expectations leading to self-fulfilling prophecies.

These are real risks, but they sidestep the more fundamental issues of data permissions and fair use. What is done to protect students when they are not even aware of how and when their data is used?

This is not about having a more stringent version of our PDPA* — perhaps an act that disallows any agency from sharing our data with third parties without our express consent.

It is about not telling students that their data is used for behavioural pattern recognition and to benefit a third party. While not on the scale of what Cambridge Analytica did to manipulate political elections, the principle is the same — unsanctioned and potentially unethical use of a population’s data.

*I wonder why polytechnics are included in the list of agencies (last updated 18 March 2013) responsible for personal data protection but universities are not.


Usage policy

%d bloggers like this: