WK1 Response #2- Joe Huber

Joe wrote:

One of the more astounding and surprising aspects of course management systems (CMS) is that most anyone who is associated with them, or have used them, are not about to answer whether or not they work at keeping students engaged, or if they are an accurate measure of mastery (Carmean & Brown, 2005). Faculty members embrace them for use in their classes because higher education students embrace the new modes of learning, so little effort is extended to determine their success.

According to Carmean and Brown (2005), the individuals that claim that CMS is a success are doing so based on the notion that any of inclusion of technology is beneficial, but more often than not “[w]hat is missing is assessment “(p. 3). McGee, Carmean, and Jafari (2005) posit that students and faculty alike began to use the CMS with the unexpected result of it becoming a learning management tool. This led to some difficulty with the functionality of the CMS, which in turn caused some frustration. Those individuals that were closely involved, and consequently directly impacted by this frustration began to voice the changes that they wished to see occur in CMS. McGee, Carmean, and Jafari documented their desires. Participants wished to see the CMS become more social, involving more feedback and interaction, they wished them to become more engaging to accommodate all learner preferences, and students had to be able to take some ownership of their learning. In investigating these aspects, it became apparent that the end users must become directly involved in the design process.

This raised other issues, and as McGee, Carmean, and Jafari mentioned, administration must find a way to balance the economic realities of the situation. As Walker (2010), points out, the Great Recession has left its impact on schools who will now be hard pressed to stay within budget. School systems now faced with diminishing budgets must look at ways to implement CMS in an open-source environment, taking advantage of applications that they can use for free. Sources such as Moodle are becoming the norm in areas where schools were not able to afford Blackboard. Open source systems such as Moodle and Google apps make it easier for both the students and the teachers to access what would otherwise be expensive and unaffordable programs.

What all the experts agree upon is that the development of the CMS is an evolutionary process that does not remain static. If the CMS is to continue to succeed, it will require the input of all involved in its use.

I commented:

Joe,

I liked how you included the simple fact that there was not a whole lot of researching into whether or not CMS's work, because everyone prefers them and uses them through their own common SENSE!!...i do not need an Action Research Project to tell me that peanut butter and raspberry jelly on white wonder bread with a glass of milk is mother's MILK!!...it's delicious, and every moment I ponder whether or to what degree it is delicious keeps me from developing an even more delicious snack sandwich!!...

anyway, I personally feel that current CMS's together with the current technology are pretty darn good. They can be confusing sometimes and consequently you may feel cut off, but for what is out there right now, it works. I don't necessarily agree with the notion that the student needs to mold the platform mainly because I can't come up with one way realistically and logistically to make current CMS's better unless you usher in new tech.