Really? This article provides a useful intro to REconsidering the options available for institution-wide commitment to a LMS. The article would be even more useful if it explained
- how proliferating free Web-based alternatives are already being used by many faculty members and students instead of - or in conjunction with - the institutionally-provided LMS
- how decisions about LMS selection, integration, support, and policy are made
- how faculty members and students could be more effectively involved in those decisions
For more, see the entire article... here are 2 more excerpts:
" Not all faculty members embrace the notion of an LMS
evaluation."
"Because the LMS is the central technology component of teaching and learning, a review of it is more faculty-driven than that of other campus-wide systems. The examination of the LMS forces an institution to take a hard look at its teaching practices, to educate the faculty that the LMS can be more than a “course website,” and to invite them to use the full spectrum of teaching tools it provides. In so doing, it keeps the instructional environment fresh and spurs competition in the marketplace. Many colleges and universities have made their LMS evaluations public, posting rubrics, reports, and data freely online. This has allowed those undertaking a similar evaluation to use the institutional experience of their peers to improve their own processes, enabling the kind of collaboration that reinforces collegial relationships within the academic community. Regardless of the triggering mechanism for an LMS evaluation—whether the institution is experiencing administrative changes or an application contract is up for renewal—the process inspires a reexamination of the instructional goals the system is designed to support. At the same time, it brings careful scrutiny to the features currently employed and those that may be used more extensively in the future."
" Not all faculty members embrace the notion of an LMS
evaluation."
"Because the LMS is the central technology component of teaching and learning, a review of it is more faculty-driven than that of other campus-wide systems. The examination of the LMS forces an institution to take a hard look at its teaching practices, to educate the faculty that the LMS can be more than a “course website,” and to invite them to use the full spectrum of teaching tools it provides. In so doing, it keeps the instructional environment fresh and spurs competition in the marketplace. Many colleges and universities have made their LMS evaluations public, posting rubrics, reports, and data freely online. This has allowed those undertaking a similar evaluation to use the institutional experience of their peers to improve their own processes, enabling the kind of collaboration that reinforces collegial relationships within the academic community. Regardless of the triggering mechanism for an LMS evaluation—whether the institution is experiencing administrative changes or an application contract is up for renewal—the process inspires a reexamination of the instructional goals the system is designed to support. At the same time, it brings careful scrutiny to the features currently employed and those that may be used more extensively in the future."
No comments:
Post a Comment
What do you think?