Coates, James and Baldwin (2005) identify/propose 5 drivers behind the adoption of LMS
- Means of increasing the efficiency of teaching
- Promise of enriched student learning
- The drive of new student expectations
- Competitive pressure between institutions
- A response to massive and increasing demands for greater access to higher education
- A culture shift towards the control and regulation of teaching
The questions around these include
- How many, if any, institutions have stated these explicitly?
- Have they attempt any sort of evaluation about how well their choice and implementation have achieved those goals?
- Can we evaluate the current crop of LMS and their ability to respond to those drivers?
The last point is potentially the most interesting. Some initial thoughts
- Do current LMS really provide the facilities that enable an institution to control and regulate teaching? How many actually use this facility?
- Do current LMS really provide scope to improve T&L, provide greater access, or reduce costs?
In a recent survey of CQU staff we found the following somewhat relevant results
- Enriched student learning/improved teaching and learning
When asked if adoption of Blackboard would assist CQU become a flexible learning leader (one of its strategic aims) responses included- 56% of staff didn’t know if this was the case
- 25% thought it unlikely
- 17% thought it likely
- Control and regulation of teaching
Which organisational unit should be responsible for quality of the LMS- 61% the relevant faculty
- 27% division of teaching and learning services
- 12% information technology division
“Do you believe that implementing Blackboard is a way to place additional controls on teaching and learning activities at CQU?”
- 44.5% yes
- 13.3% no
- 10% no response
- 32.3% no difference
