Journal Entry for Module Four Course Management Systems and Pedagogy
In “Toolbox or Trap? Course Management Systems and Pedagogy,” Lisa Lane (2008) argues that course management systems that are promoted as a toolbox to help instructors develop online classes can undermine good teaching practice because these systems have a built-in pedagogy. Lane (2008) states that “typical commercial CMS…encourages novice instructors to ‘plug in’ their content under the appropriate category instead of effectively translating their individual teaching styles into the online environment (p. 5). Her analysis suggests that instructors that prefer a more constructivist approach to instruction are often limited by the constraints of the CMS. The reasons for this may be their lack of understanding how to use the available tools to produce lessons that reflect their preferred orientation or that such add-ins often are available with commercial systems, but with additional costs to the institution. Obstacles are also built into the system because their primary design is based upon software designs to manage resources and organize information in much the same way that business or inventory applications do (Lane, 2008).
There are some assumptions that Lane (2008) makes that may not have anything to do with the quality or the capability of the course management system. First, she provides no information that would indicate what percentage of college instructors rely on traditional pedagogy (lecture, review, and test) compared with those who prefer constructivist approaches with social interaction, self assessment, and independent projects (Lane, 2008). She admits that these systems can be used for more creative teaching but suggest that most instructors who ask for more professional development want to know what the technology can do rather than how to achieve their teaching and learning goals (Lane, 2008).
Lane seems to assume that once one’s face to face class is online, it should have all the attributes of the original class. Anyone who has ever taught a class the first time knows that the first time is often rocky and the class is modified and improved over time. There is no reason to believe that the same process wouldn’t also be true in an online class. Good teachers will learn to use the available tools or seek out alternative means in Web 2.0 applications to accomplish their aims. Their efforts may not be perfect the first time, but neither was the first edition of their face to face class. Poor teachers will simply do what they have always done. As Garrison and Anderson (2003) point out that teachers have to pedagogically mindful about what constitutes a meaningful and worthwhile learning experience. A course management system will never be designed to ensure quality instruction.
Likewise any course management system will have its advantages and disadvantages. In many instances, the selection of a course management system is often influenced by considerations that have nothing to do with instruction. In larger systems like Blackboard, the learning applications are only one part of a package that also manages the course catalog, student support systems, and fiscal management. The instructor has to work with what is—wishing it were different is futile. One also has to remember that teaching is often very hard work. An instructor may have to seek out professional development opportunities in order to realize what he or she wants to accomplish. Good instructors have always kept up with changes in their discipline. The online environment in one sense is simply another change that they must learn about. Course management systems can automate many class management aspects of teaching that used to consume considerable time.
A course management system can be a toolbox or a trap. However, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Lane’s (2008) contention that the fault lies with the system may not be entirely correct. The instructor does not have to limit what he or she does simply because the right tool is not immediately available. There are numerous resources available on the web that the instructor could use to accomplish the same goal.
References
Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research and practice. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Lane, L. (2008). Toolbox or Trap? Course Management Systems and Pedagogy. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31 (2), 4-6.
Course Management Systems and Pedagogy
In “Toolbox or Trap? Course Management Systems and Pedagogy,” Lisa Lane (2008) argues that course management systems that are promoted as a toolbox to help instructors develop online classes can undermine good teaching practice because these systems have a built-in pedagogy. Lane (2008) states that “typical commercial CMS…encourages novice instructors to ‘plug in’ their content under the appropriate category instead of effectively translating their individual teaching styles into the online environment (p. 5). Her analysis suggests that instructors that prefer a more constructivist approach to instruction are often limited by the constraints of the CMS. The reasons for this may be their lack of understanding how to use the available tools to produce lessons that reflect their preferred orientation or that such add-ins often are available with commercial systems, but with additional costs to the institution. Obstacles are also built into the system because their primary design is based upon software designs to manage resources and organize information in much the same way that business or inventory applications do (Lane, 2008).
There are some assumptions that Lane (2008) makes that may not have anything to do with the quality or the capability of the course management system. First, she provides no information that would indicate what percentage of college instructors rely on traditional pedagogy (lecture, review, and test) compared with those who prefer constructivist approaches with social interaction, self assessment, and independent projects (Lane, 2008). She admits that these systems can be used for more creative teaching but suggest that most instructors who ask for more professional development want to know what the technology can do rather than how to achieve their teaching and learning goals (Lane, 2008).
Lane seems to assume that once one’s face to face class is online, it should have all the attributes of the original class. Anyone who has ever taught a class the first time knows that the first time is often rocky and the class is modified and improved over time. There is no reason to believe that the same process wouldn’t also be true in an online class. Good teachers will learn to use the available tools or seek out alternative means in Web 2.0 applications to accomplish their aims. Their efforts may not be perfect the first time, but neither was the first edition of their face to face class. Poor teachers will simply do what they have always done. As Garrison and Anderson (2003) point out that teachers have to pedagogically mindful about what constitutes a meaningful and worthwhile learning experience. A course management system will never be designed to ensure quality instruction.
Likewise any course management system will have its advantages and disadvantages. In many instances, the selection of a course management system is often influenced by considerations that have nothing to do with instruction. In larger systems like Blackboard, the learning applications are only one part of a package that also manages the course catalog, student support systems, and fiscal management. The instructor has to work with what is—wishing it were different is futile. One also has to remember that teaching is often very hard work. An instructor may have to seek out professional development opportunities in order to realize what he or she wants to accomplish. Good instructors have always kept up with changes in their discipline. The online environment in one sense is simply another change that they must learn about. Course management systems can automate many class management aspects of teaching that used to consume considerable time.
A course management system can be a toolbox or a trap. However, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Lane’s (2008) contention that the fault lies with the system may not be entirely correct. The instructor does not have to limit what he or she does simply because the right tool is not immediately available. There are numerous resources available on the web that the instructor could use to accomplish the same goal.
References
Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research
and practice. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Lane, L. (2008). Toolbox or Trap? Course Management Systems and Pedagogy. EDUCAUSE
Quarterly , 31 (2), 4-6.