LMS Choices: The Bad

A couple of days ago, I came across the following article in the Chronicle of Higher Education: What’s Really to Blame for the Failures of our Learning-Management Systems (LMS). In the first paragraph, Michael Feldstein writes: “Have you ever wondered why learning-management systems, which just about everyone on campus uses every day to keep classes running, seem destined to disappoint, year after year? I can tell you why. It’s because of a dirty word that academics don’t like to talk about: procurement.”

I checked the author’s credentials (found at the end of the article). He is a consultant who “helps schools, educational companies and policy-makers [to] navigate the new world of digital education.” Now, one might consider the article a way to drum up business by pointing out dissatisfaction with several major players in the LMS industry. Regardless, what’s interesting is the content – and for me at least, the author’s argument does explain my dissatisfaction with the LMS world.

Why isn’t there a killer app LMS? Innovative small-scale versions begin nimble and quick. If they capture some market share, there is an evolution to a larger-scale beast. More and more features get added on (Feldstein explains why) and once you’ve spent some time relying on your present LMS, it becomes very hard to switch. The big companies know this, and so landing a contract with an institution brings in millions of dollars. The cost of migrating to a new system, even one that is inexpensive is fraught with all sorts of glitchiness. Inertia kicks in. The next version of the LMS fixes some of your problems but introduces new ones, and things that made intuitive sense to you (probably because you were used to them) no longer does so. More time is spent complaining. Eventually some small band of entrepeneurs starts the cycle anew.

The person in charge of shepherding this process has a tough job, explains Feldstein. “None of this happens because the people involved with the selection are lazy. To the contrary, the entire selection process is time-consuming and thankless. The real problem is that it is difficult to gather real teaching and learning requirements, and the people in charge of doing it on campus have neither the time, nor the training, nor the resources to do the job properly.” Furthermore, “the makers of learning-management systems generally know this, but they are captive to the process. There is a strong incentive for them to say they can meet colleges’ needs in order to make sales.” (Feldstein provides examples.)

I have never liked any of the LMS used at the institutions I have worked with. This includes behemoths like Blackboard (what we currently have) to home-grown systems which grow to gargantuan and unmanageable proportions. Some of the “simple and free” versions could be appealing except that I started out hacking my own HTML code once university faculty had “home pages”. My pages constitute a bare-bones system with no fancy graphics but I have full control, and I primarily use it for providing information to student (syllabus, class readings, homework assignments, timetable and exam days, studying tips, links to relevant videos). Some of the content is password-protected, which can easily be set up with htaccess.

Other things however come in separate pieces. I used blogspot for class blogs and discussions (I did not like Blackboard) and right now because we’re using a Pearson general chemistry textbook we have the online Mastering Chemistry homework system (another gargantuan beast to be tackled in a subsequent post). It’s a bit annoying for students to set up accounts for these other sites and our university recently moved to a single sign-on. I think the “success” of Apple has convinced folks that tight integration and bundling is the way to go. But that’s not always the case. Sometimes it is better to keep systems separate and robust. Neither bundling nor unbundling is the magic bullet or the evil practice in itself.

It is interesting to see higher education institutions wrestle with this crisis of “which road to take”. As the competition gets fiercer, finances get tighter, the cult of assessment increases in strength, and the high costs of a university education are front and center in the news, institutions are having to think very carefully about how to position themselves in uncertain times. Some are trying to bundle more services in what I think might be a death spiral (unless you’re at the very top) from a cost-finances point of view. Others are rapidly unbundling to find new niches or a different ecosystem to survive (or perhaps thrive). These are interesting times to be in higher education!