Food for thought: literally
Monday, March 23rd, 2009This morning I came across an interesting post from Chris Brogan entitled “say what you want” and it bought to a head a thought/question that I have had for a while…
Why do Learning Management Systems (LMS eg. Blackboard/WebCT) bother to include social media elements such as inbuilt wikis, blogs etc. I could surmise a gamut of sceptical responses, along with some practical responses such as the ability for teachers to manage collaboration undertaken using such applications.
However I always thought that the inclusion of such applications actually inhibits the LMS from being recognised/understood for what it does well. As a consequence it is very easy for us to confuse an LMS with the wider notion of e-learning. For example, a teacher may say “Im using Blackboard…I’m doing E-Learning, why should I consider anything else?”
The answer to this question will vary depending on what the teacher is aiming to achieve with his/her students, however as the LMS continues to build in collaborative applications (eg. blogs/wikis etc), I suspect this question may become even more common place. The tools are there (at least in name…depending on the system), however do they provide the scope for the same educational outcomes possible with the (often externally hosted) application that has gradually become popular in an educational setting?
This is why I particularly liked the McDonalds analogy raised in Chris Brogans post. McDonalds now offers healthy alternatives just to get us to continue visiting, but are we actually eating the healthy alternatives? or are we simply sticking with the Big Mac?
Citing a range of sources, Siemens & Tittenberger in the recently released Handbook of Educational Technology (2009) believe that most learning has four broad components:
1. Social: Learning is a social process. Knowledge is an emergent property of interactions between networks of learners.
2. Situated: Learning occurs within particular situations or contexts. Both “learning and cognition…are fundamentally situated”, raising the importance of educational activities mirroring actual situations of use.
3. Reflective: Learners requires time to assimilate new information. Learners require the “opportunity to reflect on, defend, and share what they have learned if it is to become part of their available repertoire”
4. Multi-faceted. Learning incorporates a range of theory, engagement, “tinkering” or bricolage, and active construction.
An LMS used in isolation, (especially in distance ed settings) cannot aim to provide teachers with a platform that facilitates learning encompassing all the aforementioned components. Will the addition of inbuilt social media tools provide such scope? I don’t think this will be the case, however they may function in a transitional type way for some teachers….although I think we may end up with a McDonalds type scenario.
With UB currently reviewing its LMS, we should be also thinking about developing a greater understanding of what is acceptable use of externally hosted services and applications. Otherwise if an application is available (at least by name) as part of an LMS, teachers can be tricked into thinking that the embedded example (that may not be flexible enough to achieve the desired educational aim) is representative of what can actually be achieved.
Food for thought, I wonder if Hungry Jacks has healthy alternatives?
