JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.

ORG

78

Learning Management Systems from Popularity to Decline: Success, Failure and the Future Use
Abdulsalam K. Alhazmi, Azizah AbdulRahman
Abstract Learning Management Systems (LMS) is the most web-based system that has been widely used in higher educational institutions throughout the previous period because of its diverse features in managing course contents and facilitating teaching and learning process. The widely increasing use of the system creates opportunities for the researchers to study different aspects of LMS development and use. In spite of the features LMS supports, there are also problems associated with the system design and implementation. Relaying on the results of various studies in this field and from the experience in the academic field using the system for a long time, this paper arises to summarize the success aspects of the system and its failure. Furthermore, based on the structure and the beneficial aspects of the system, the paper gives suggestions regarding the future use of these systems in higher educational institutions.

Index Terms Accreditation, Instructional Design, Learning Management System (LMS)/Course Management System (CMS), Learning Outcomes, Pedagogical.

1 INTRODUCTION
ith the benefits of using web techniques and its different services, many of the educational institutions, especially higher educational institutions, have adopted LMSs to organize many administrative and academic tasks. The learning features tools of LMS help in managing course content and activities and making communication easier between the learner and the teacher from one side and the learners among themselves from the other. Despite the heavy investing [1], [2], [3] and wide adoption of the system [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [3], [11], [12] since the early time of adoption, until now, the benefit of these systems on learning is still debated between large numbers of researchers. Some researchers find LMS a unique recourse that has the potential to innovate higher educational learning [13], [14] because it creates interactive environment for the students; it makes communication easier between the learner and the teacher, and among the learners themselves regardless of the time and place. Other researchers find it doubting that the system can change the pedagogical practices or improve learning outcomes [4], [5], [7], [15], [9], [11], [16], where many studies have criticized the system from many aspects like the content management, the courses' design, and assessment aspects. Some claim that most of LMS

studies focused on the technological aspects [17], [18] and ignore the other aspects in the learning process which associates, in one way or another, with the curriculum, the learner and the teacher as one whole complete system. Regarding the system features, most researchers stated that the administrative features were more widely used while the interactive functions are often unused [4], [7], [9], [14], [10], [12], [19]. Regarding the further development of LMS, some issues have been raised, such as evaluating the efficacy of LMS on learning based on an empirically tested model [11], integrating pedagogical principles into LMS features [20], [19] more development in the technological aspects [21], [8], assessment and evaluation tools [22]. Moreover, the quality and accreditation requirements in HEIs should be emerged and integrated to these systems. Based on results of many studies in this field and the practical use of LMS, it is obvious that the system has many successful and unsuccessful aspects, which are associated with the theoretical basis, designing principles and implementation issues.

2 METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the success and the failure aspects of LMS. Hence, the search was conducted by studying and summarizing the results of many relevant Abdulsalam K. Ahmed is a PhD student in the Department of Information published papers and reports in the field of LMS/CMS. The Systems, Faculty of Computer Science & Information Systems, Universiti paper has discussed the success and failure aspects in terms Teknologi Malaysia, 81310, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia. of the level of using LMS features and the usage purpose Dr. Azizah AbdulRahman is an Associate professor in the Department that reported in many studies. LMS contains many tools and of Information Systems, Faculty of Computer Science & Information Sysfeatures that are common among different vendors, those tems, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia. features are the same but under different names [14]. The

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

79

discussion theme based on the two main categories, administrative, and interactive features regardless the vendor or the type of software, open source or commercial. This classification is associated with most of the problems mentioned in the previous studies where the level of use and type of use of any of the two categories effect directly or indirectly the way of using the system to facilitate learning or to improve learning outcomes. Research processes can be summarized as follows: 1. Data collection for published journals and reports indexed by Google Scholar and Scopus, such as Journal of Internet and Higher Education, Journal of Computer and Education, Educase Quarterly, and Educause Center for Applied Research (ECAR). 2. Data analysis for the literatures results and findings. 3. Creating success and failure themes, such as content, features, pedagogical, assessment, and learning outcomes. 4. Conclusion. Table 1 and table 2 illustrated an example of how research processes were conducted TABLE 1 RESEARCH PROCESS STEPS 1&2
Step 1 (examples of se lectedpapersandreports) 1. Morgan(2003):Edu causeECAR 2. KoszalkaandGanesan (2004):JournalofDis tanceEducation 3. Jafarietal.(2006):Edu cause Step2(examplesoftherelatedissues) ThevarietyofLMSfeaturesandtools. Usagepatternsforadministrativeandinteractivefeatures. NoevidenceofhowLMScansupportlearning. Theneedforinstructionaldesignmodelstobeembeddedinto onlinecourses. ThevarietyofLMSfeaturestofacilitateteachingandlearning. AdvantagesandshortcomingsofLMSs. Inflexibilityofuserinterfaceandsystemfunctions. Stakeholdersdissatisfactionwiththespeed,andefficiencyof currentL/CMSs. LMSpotentialtoimproveteachingandlearning. VarietyofintegratedfeaturesandtoolsLMSssupport.

features, its components, its uses and the problems related to its application. It is obvious that the system has many advantages that can be summarized as follows: 1. Singleaccesstomultiplelearningtools 2. Managingadministrativetasks 3. Coursecontentstorage 4. IntegrationwithotherInformationSystems

3.1 Single Access to Multiple Learning Tools

The main advantage of LMSs is that multiple learning toolsintegratedtooneconvenientsystem[14],[12].With a single access, users can use a variety of administrative andinteractivelearningtools,suchascoursecontent,dis cussionboards,forums,chatrooms,quizzes,gradbooks, etc.

3.2 Managing administrative tasks

The most successful aspect of LMS is that LMS is being used as an administrative tool [4], [7], [9], [12], [19]. In structors can store and manage course contents, course syllabus, presentations, making announcement creating groups, assigning roles, tracking students activities, and organizing students results automatically. The other rea sonisthatfacultymembersaresatisfiedwiththeadmin istrativefeaturesrelatedtothesimpleandconsistentLMS structure.

3.3 Storage course content

Courses resources and materials, including different typesofinformationcanbeuploaded,storedandshared easily in LMS. Students can access course materials re gardlessthetimeortheplace.Althoughtheresourcesare managed based on a centralized structure [12], students canaccessanduseasetofcollaborativefeaturestoshare resourcesandtocollaborateonline[2].

4. Malikwoski(2008): JournalofInternetand HigherEducation 5. Lonn,2009:Journalof ComputerandEduca tion. 6. Kemberetal,2010: JournalofComputerand Education

StudentsreportedthattheprimaryusageofLMSisfordocumen transmission,whiletheinteractivefeaturesnotused. Furtherstudiesareneededtoidentifythemosteffectivewaysto useLMSstoimproveteachingandlearninginhighereducation UsingLMShasnoimpactinimprovinglearningoutcomesin blendedlearning. TheneedfordevelopmentofinstructionalmodelsforCMS. Thereisaneedforempiricallytestedmodelsfortheeffective waystouseCMSinblendedenvironments

3.4 Integration with other Information Systems

LMScanbeintegratedwithotherinformationsystemsin the academic environment [12], such as registration, li brary, performance evaluation system, etc. This helps to facilitate data and information transformation among relevant managerial and academic units and to increase overallperformance.

TABLE 2 RESEARCH PROCESS STEP 3

Step 1&2 No Step3(e.gResultsThemes)
Content Features Pedagogical Learning outcomes Others

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Trainingandsupport Usersprofile,social motivation

LMS FAILURE ASPECTS

LMS SUCCESS ASPECTS

Looking at the system as a tool to develop the process of learning, not as a goal itself, by studying the systems

Despite the wide adoption and many learning features and tools LMSs support, eLearning Guild report showed that LMSs is on a decline [23] and many studies confirmed no significant impact of LMSs to change teaching and learning practices or to improve learning [4], [2], [11], [16]. It is clearly concluded that LMSs failed to achieve radical change in learning process or in learning outcomes. The current LMS structure limits the learning op-

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

80

portunities to a set of static predefined tools surrounding with many technological problems. The common LMSs problems are related to following aspects: 1. ContentManagement 2. FeaturesUtilization 3. TeachingandLearningProcess 4. LearnersEngagement 5. Assessment 6. LearningOutcomes

4.1 Content Management

The features of managing content in LMSs are relatively inflexibleastherulesofteacherandlearnerhavebeenli mited to transmit the course materials. No linking struc ture to align course content, course activities and assess mentwithlearningoutcomes.Althoughdifferenttypesof informationcanbeaddedtothecoursedirectlyorlinked with other external resources in the web through hyper links [5], the dominant rule of using LMSs is for storage facilities [9], [24]. On the other side, students can access and download these materials within the course time. LMS tools should be more dynamic to allow faculty to create interactive content and aligned with learning out comes in different levels. In addition, students must be involvedindevelopingandevaluatingcoursecontentand activities.

engagementinlearningactivitieshasagreaterimpacton the level of acquiring knowledge [26]. Engaging student in LMS activities is one of the challenges in online envi ronment [11]. Even though students are obligated to use LMS, universities struggle to encourage students to par ticipate in LMS. Maxwell and Angehrn [27] reported that high level of obligation will contribute to LMS success; however,studentscanbeengagedmoreiftheycanorgan ize their preferences and needs, contribute content, and engageinlearning[28],[21],[24].Transformthecoursein toanelectronicformwithsupportedlearningactivities,it is a timeconsuming task, and this explains why instruc tors limit their use of LMS [29], [10]. Govindasamy [1] suggested that faculty member need to be rewarded for engaginginLMSactivities;however,theintangiblebene fits of the system can play the major rule to enhance the levelofengagement.

4.5 Assessment
Assessmentisanessentialpartinlearningandhasama jor impact on student learning [30], [1], [22]. However, LMShasasetoftoolstomanageonlineassessment;users reported that assessment tools are inflexible and difficult touse[4],[21].UsingLMSsforassessmentstillintheear ly stages from different perspectives [22] as the current usage of the assessment tools focuses on converting the paperbasedprocessintoanonlinegradingsystem.Based on technological advantages, the assessment process can playacentralroleforoverallevaluationanddevelopment of distinctive levels, programs, curriculums and learners. Therefore,thereisaneedforeffectivemethodstoorgan izecoursecontent,activitiesandassessmentwithlearning outcomes.

4.2 Features Utilization

Many studies confirm that the primary usage of LMSs is to upload lecture notes, PowerPoint presentations and to transmit information between lecturers and students, whilecollaborativeandinteractivefeaturesarepoorlyuti lized and used [4], [12], [9], [7], [19], [2], [10]. Many stu dies have discussed this issue in terms of what, while there is a need to investigate why LMS is being used for thispurpose[19].Themainreasonbehindthisisreferto the teachercentered structure which limits the rule of learnerandthelevelofinteractivitytothecentralizedba sis.

4.6 Learning Outcomes

Many studies have questioned the benefits of LMSs in learning[4],[9],[11],[12]asnoclearevidenceorempiri callytestedmodeltoapprovethat[11].Thisissueishigh lyhighlightedbytheresearchersinthefieldasLMSisbe ing used as an administrative tool [4], [7], [10], and very littleisknownaboutwhenandhowthesesystemsbenefit learning[5].LMSisbeingusedforstoragefacilitiesnotas a tool to enhance learners engagement or to allow them to construct knowledge and effectively participate and collaborateonline.Inarecentstudy,[11]investigatedthe effectiveness of course management systems in terms of learningoutcomeson21coursesand595studentstaking these courses.The results showed that using the Internet forpresentinginformationinablendedenvironmentdoes not seem to help students achieve learning outcomes ef fectively.

4.3 Teaching and Learning Process

Traditional teaching and learning process depends on oneway of delivering information and knowledge. LMS asaneducationaltechnologyissupposedtohelpinfacili tating learning toward learnercentered approach and to innovate the pedagogical practices. Morgan [4] reported in his study that there is a little empirical evidence that LMSs improved pedagogy. This was confirmed by [15] and[16]thattheprocessoflearningandteachinghasnot changed as faculty members in LMS environment are managingtheoldprocessinnewways.

5
4.4 Learners Engagement
According to Astin [25] engagement is the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student de votes to the academic experience. The level of students

CONCLUSION

Based on the theoretical basis of LMSs as a teacher centeredtechnology,itsdesignanduses,itsclearthatthe systemeffectivelyhelpedinmanagingtheadministrative tasks that are related to the teacher and the institutional

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

81

level,butitfailedinmakingachangeinthepedagogical and learning aspects. Based on the technological advan tages,LMSsshouldplayanimportantroleincreatingin teractive learning environment that enhances the level of students engagement and collaboration tocreate and ac quiretheknowledgeinsteadofreceivingit. After this period of adoption, the main issue that needs to be raised is what the successful aspects that re ceivedtheuserssatisfaction,andhowtoimproveorlook foralternativesregardingotherweaknesses.Withempha sis that studying the problem and looking for its causes can help in improving the current LMSs or in adapting otherelearningsystems.Fromthispoint,benefitingfrom thestrengthpointsofthesystem,thesystemcanbeused as a Management Information System in the HEIs for managingtheadministrativeandrelatedacademicactivi ties more than facilitatingstudentsinteraction and colla borationonline. Moreover,withthecurrenttrendsofapplyingqual ityandaccreditationsystems,asanessentialrequirement in HEIs, the total benefit of LMSs is encouraging where thesystemcanparticipateindocumentingandmanaging different administrative activities related tothe academic programs and accreditation process. Focusing on further development on elearning systems, including technical aspectsbasedonusersrequirementsandneeds,integrat ing the concepts of instructional design in developing electroniccourses,andaligningcoursecontentandactivi tieswithlearningoutcomes,thesesystemscanbeusedas aneffectivetoolinevaluatingthedifferentaspectsofthe teachingandlearningprocess,includingcourse,teachers, andlearners.

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12] [13] [14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

REFERENCES
[1] T. Govindasamy, Successful implementation of eLearning Pedagogical considerations, Internet and Higher Education, vol.4,no.34,pp.287299,2002. H. Coates, Leveraging LMSs to Enhance CampusBased StudentEngagement,EDUCAUSEQuarterly,vol.28,no.1, pp.6668,2005. B.L.Hawkins,andJ.A.Rudy,FiscalYear2007Summaryre port,EDUCAUSEcoredataservice,2009. G. Morgan, Fculty Use of Course Management Systems, EducauseCenterforAppliedReserach,vol.2,no.2,2003. T. Koszalka, and R. Ganesan, Designing online courses:A taxonomy to guide strategic use of features available in course management systems (CMS) in distance education, DistanceEducation,vol.25,no.2,pp.243256,2004. S.R.Maliowski,M.E.Thompson,andJ.G.Theis,AModel for Research into Course Management Systems: Bridging Technology and Learning Theory, Educational Computing Research,vol.36,no.2,pp.149173,2007. Y. Vovides, S. Sanchezalonso, V. Mitropoulou, and G. Nickmans, The use of elearning course management sys tems to support learning strategies and to improve self regulated learning, Educational Research Review, vol. 2, pp. 6474,2007. A.Ioannou,andR.D.Hannafin.,CourseManagementSys tem:TimeforUsertoGetWhatTheyNeed,TechTrends,vol. 52,no.1,pp.4650,2008.

[19]

[20]

[2]

[3] [4] [5]

[21]

[22]

[6]

[23]

[7]

[24]

[25]

[8]

[26]

N. Sclatter, Web 2.0, Personal Learning Environment, and theFutureofLearningManagementSystem,Educause,no. 13,2008. S.Lonn,andS.D.Teasley,Savingtimeorinnovatingprac tice: Investigating perceptions and uses of Learning Man agement Systems, Computers and Education, vol. 53, no. 3, pp.686694,2009. D.Kember,C.McNaught,F.C.Y.Chong,P.Lam,andK.F. Cheng, Understanding the ways in which design features of educational websites impact upon student learning out comes in blended learning environments, Computers and Education,vol.55,pp.11831192,2010. J.Mott,EnvisioningthePostLMSEra:TheOpenLearning Network,EDUCAUSEQuarterly,vol.33,no.1,2010. V. Lopes, Course Management Systems and CampusBased Learning,AcademiceLearningLiaison,SenecaCollege,2008. S. Malikowski, Factors relted to breadth of use in course management systems, The Internet and Higher Education, vol.11,no.2,pp.8186,2008. E. Black, K. Dawson, and J. Priem, Data for free: Using LMSactivitylogstomeasurecommunityinonlinecourses, The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 6570, 2008. G.Naveh,D.Tubin,andN. Pliskin,StudentLMSuseand satisfaction in academic institutions: The organizational perspective,InternetandHigherEducation,vol.13,no.3,pp. 127133,2010. C. Phelps, and Y. F. Michea, Learning management sys tems evaluation focuses on technology not learning, Proc. AMIAAnnualSymposiumProceedings,2003,pp.969. P.A.Danaher,J.Luck,andJ.McConachie,TheStoriesThat Documents Tell: Changing Technology Options from Blackboard,Webfuseand the ContentManagementSystem atCentralQueenslandUniversity,StudiesinLearning,Eval uation, Innovation and Development, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3443, 2005. S. R. Malikowsiki, A Three Year Analysis of CMS Use in President University Course, Educational Technology Sys tems,vol.39,no.1,pp.6585,2010. K. Georgouli, I. Skalkidis, and P. Guerreiro, A Framework forAdopting LMS to Introduce eLearning in a Traditional Course,EducaitonalTechnologyandSociety,vol.11,no.2,pp. 227240,2008. A. Jafari, P. McGee, and ColleenCarmean, Managing courses defining learning: what faculty, students, and ad ministratorswant,Educause,vol.14,no.4,pp.5070,2006. S. F. Tello., and L. Motiwalla, Using a Learning Manage ment System to Facilitate Learning OutcomesAssessment, Learning Management System Technologies and Software Solu tions for Online Teaching: Tools and Applications, Y. Kats, ed., Hershey:IGIGlobal,2010. B. Davis, C. Carmean., and E. D. Wagner, The Evolution of theLMS:FromManagementtoLearningDeepAnalysisofTrends ShapingtheFutureofeLearning,TheeLearningGuild,Sage RoadSolutions,LLC,SantaRosa:CA,2009. C. Vrasidas, Issues of pedagogy and design in elearning systems, Proc. ACM symposium on Applied computing, pp. 911915,2004. A.W.Astin,Studentinvolvement:adevelopmentaltheory for higher education, Journal of College Student Personnel, vol.40,no.5,pp.297308,1984. E. T. Pascarella and P. T. Terenzini, How college affects stu dents:athirddecadeofresearch:JosseyBass,2005.

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2012, ISSN 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

82

[27] K. Maxwell andA.A.Angehrn, A Study of Successful and Unsuccessful Online Learning Environment Experiences, Proc.WSKS(1),pp.375382,2010. [28] D.Zhang,J.L.Zhao,L.Zhou,andJ.F.Nunamaker,Cane learningreplaceclassroomlearning?,Communicationsofthe ACM,vol.47,no.5,pp.7579,2004. [29] M.Papastergiou,CourseManagementSystemsasToolsfor the Creation of Online Learning Environments: Evaluation from a Social Constructivist, International Journal on E Learning,vol.5,no.4,pp.593622,2006. [30] B.R.Synder,ed.,ThehiddenCurriculum,MITPress,1971.

Abdulsalam K. Ahmed is a Ph.D student in Information System Department at the University Technology Malaysia. He received his Bachelor of Computer Sciene in 2003 at University of Science and Technology (UST), Yemen, and Master of Information Technolgoy in 2008 at Open University Malaysia. He has worked as an IT instructor and Coordinator of Quality Assurance Unit in CS & IT department, UST-Yemen since 2004 until 2010. His research interests include e-Learning Systems, Personal Learning Environment, and Social Media.

Assoc. Prof.Dr. Azizah AbdulRahman is a Senior lecturer and coordinator of PhD IS program in the Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Systems, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. She received her PhD in computer science at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. She is a member of AIS. Her research interests including: Information Systems Management, Knowledge Management, e-Learning, and Social Network.