One of the challenges in developing learning management systems is that we are still looking at it as a system, a tangible environment that we can develop, control, augment, and arrange to facilitate learning from an insitution. And yet, we can barely agree on what type of environment is best suited for learning; one might even call in to question our ability to effectively evaluate that learning has occurred. A bit cart before the horse wouldn’t you say?
As Feldstein (2017) states, the consensus is that a digital learning environment means an environment that is conducive to learning. Feldstein (2017) supports one emerging idea that learning management systems are evolving from a system to a platform that supports educational programs, not simply a platform where learning tools are located, but one where educational platforms can function within. So I purpose this, can a learning management system be unique to the learner, a platform designed for the individual, not the program? Imagine a learning management system that is part of our ongoing resume so to speak where we contribute to it throughout our learning, one that is ours alone and not owned by an educational institution. This type of system could be carried from one educational institution to the next, supporting learners throughout their education and acting as an educational resume at the same time. This type of system would allow the learner to be the center of their own learning platform, supporting education systems from educational institutions and other sources, but housing them all in one place, for the benefit of the learner. I believe that a problem we need to look at is how we define education, and how do we make it accessible to the learner throughout their education. I believe we can all agree that education is not something we do once and never revisit.
Change is successful when people value the change, and when organizations are primed for change, change is more likely to be successful (Weiner, 2009). Given the radical changes to education caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, learning management systems have never been so ready for change. Agencies throughout education are crying for a better system, one that truly facilitates learning, not one that rewrites the same system in a different coloured shell. This could be the perfect time to unveil a radical new system all together, one that is no longer a ‘system’ at all.
Resources:
Feldstein, M. (2017, May 28). A flexible, interoperable digital learning platform: Are we there yet? [Blog post].https://eliterate.us/flexible-interoperable-digital-learning-platform-yet/
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67).https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
“This type of system could be carried from one educational institution to the next, supporting learners throughout their education and acting as an educational resume at the same time.” (Keating, 2022).
I love this idea Emma. I know that your thought is very “future-scope”, but do you have any vision of what it would look like, or how it would work? When i think of this “open” LMS or learning environment, i think about how useful it would be for learners to view and participate in many methods of learning, all under one umbrella. Maybe they learn an approach or tactic in a program in 2022, and are able to easily revisit it in 2025 when their learnings from a different program or opportunity may require a different lens.
While i love the idea, it also makes me think of the requirements on the institution. We have read much about how many traditional educational bodies hold their content and certifications close to their chest, in a secretive and proprietary manner. How do we get over that? OER has already been challenging to implement, and decision makers at more traditional centres seem to struggle getting on board. This idea seems to me like the OER Stanley Cup!
Thanks for this Emma!
Similar to the idea that Feldstein talked about, Cormier (2017) also talked about how computers are not education systems. He also talked about #techcharlatans who take advantage of systems that are trying to change. I agree with what you brought up about how we might use educational systems that are attached to the learner and are the learner’s creation, rather than attached to an institution (like an artist’s portfolio?).
My question to you is meant to provoke a bit: how can our BS detectors get better at recognizing which changes are worth making and which ones are change for the sake of change? I ask this from the perspective of your last paragraph where you talk about un-systeming the system. How do we avoid becoming the victims of slick marketing without research backing the effectiveness of the proposed change? Like Weiner said, “unlike individual readiness for change, organizational readiness for change has not been subject to extensive empirical study” (2009, p. 2). How do we know what the right choice is when we have been changing and changing for many years without actually studying whether we are doing it right?
References:
Cormier, D. (2017). Our schools aren’t broken, they’re hard – Dave’s Educational Blog. (n.d.). Retrieved February 13, 2022, from http://davecormier.com/edblog/2017/12/08/our-schools-arent-broken-theyre-hard/
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67).