I found this article intriguing, particularly because we'll be starting a process to review our own LMS soon.
"When the LMS investment decision was made, there should have been a business case made to justify the investment. That business case likely changed over time but still requires monitoring to ensure the returns are being maximized. For some institutions there is a chance the LMS is still not producing enough value to offset the total investment (Ruh-Roh).”
For what it’s worth the original business case for LMS, back in 1998, was very simple: "Make it as easy as possible for instructors to use technology in their class, without them having to learn the nuts and bolts of technology itself.” …so our early focus was very much on the course management side of the accountability equation set up in the article. I think we've evolved to the point that instructor efficiency has translated into learning management gains – but as we take a good look at LMS at UNL, it might be helpful to revisit where our goal lies.
I think that context is very critical in all of this. The most consistent feedback I hear when talking to students about our own LMS is that their instructors don’t use it consistently, or well enough, etc. It’s often the case where “x" technology becomes a scapegoat for a lack of resources, process and infrastructure to support the problem that the technology is supposed to help solve. It's easier to throw funding at a technological bandage than to fix the underlying procedural or social problems.
The idea of governance and reports might be valuable to look at those bigger pictures and keep things on track (as well as managing expectations on the part of faculty leaders)… but governance presents its own problems including a lack of response, enthusiasm and flexibility (to name a few).
How does a school design a review of a technology to look at the solution in the right context (and/or use the review as a vehicle to address bigger underlying issues)?
No comments:
Post a Comment