Learning Management Systems: The wrong place to start learning

Learning Management Systems (LMS) are often viewed as being the starting point (or critical component) of any elearning or blended learning program. This perspective is valid from a management and control standpoint, but antithetical to the way in which most people learn today.
LMS' like WebCT, Blackboard, and Desire2Learn offer their greatest value to the organization by providing a means to sequence content and create a manageable structure for instructors/administration staff. The "management" aspect of LMS' creates another problem: much like we used to measure "bums in seats" for program success, we now see statistics of "students enrolled in our LMS" and "number of page views by students" as an indication of success/progress. The underlying assumption is that if we just expose students to the content, learning will happen.
Godfrey Parkin states: "But an LMS, as available today, is not a universal solution for a corporation’s e-learning problems. In fact, an LMS is often the albatross around the neck of progress in technology-enhanced learning". The issue is not that an LMS is not needed for learning (though that point in itself could be argued). The real issue is that LMS vendors are attempting to position their tools as the center-point for elearning - removing control from the system's end-users: instructors and learners. Unfortunately, beginning learning with an LMS is often a matter of wrong tool for wrong purposes (which results in failed elearning implementations, ineffective learning, and unnecessary expenses). Implementing an LMS as part of a holistic learning environment gives the end user flexibility and control to move in various paths (driven by learning needs, not by LMS design).

Drawbacks to Learning Management Systems
Certain learning tasks are well suited for an LMS (centralized functions like learner administration and content management). Learning itself is different - it is not a process to be managed. Learning is by nature multi-faceted and chaotic. Organizations that now lock into enterprise-level systems will be able to do an excellent job of delivering courses. They won't, however, be positioning themselves well for informal learning, performance support, or knowledge management. The concept is simple: one tool can't do it all without losing functionality. The more feature-rich an individual tool becomes, the more it loses its usefulness to the average user. Connected specialization, modularization, and decentralization are learning foundations capable of adjusting to varied information climate changes.
The following are some of the more glaring weaknesses of an LMS:
▪ The tools we use define the manner in which we undertake learning tasks. Using a structured tool like an LMS drives/dictates the nature of interaction (instructors-learner, learner-learner, learner-content).
▪ The interface - generally, the initial reactions to the interface is confusion for many learners. I've instructed with various platforms, and the most difficult/disorienting challenge for new learners is figuring out how the interface works and where to get the information she/he needs. This confusion is due to two flaws in the LMS: 1) LMS' try to do everything - simpler tools, with the intent of performing one task seem to be easier for end users to understand, 2) LMS' are designed as a learning management tool, not a learning environment creation tool ( interface design explores the importance of social considerations: the key criteria in interface design is obviously "what does the end user want/need to do". Current LMS interface design relies too heavily on "what do the designers/administrators want/need to do").
▪ Only recently (and in limited ways) have LMS vendors started extending tools and offerings beyond simple content sequencing and discussion forums. WebCT and Blackboard have recently formed partnerships with synchronous tools to allow for easy integration across platforms. It's progress, but still within a "locked-down, do-it-our-way" platform.
▪ Large, centralized, mono-culture tools limit options. Diversity in tools and choices are vital to learners and learning ecology. Over the last several years, I've encountered many instances where an instructor was not able to achieve what she/he wanted with course design due to the limitations of WebCT. In essence, the LMS determines what an instructor could do. It should be the other way around - instructor needs first, tool selection second.
When content is viewed as the most valuable contribution to learning, an LMS will suffice. When interaction and
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License