Research Article Evaluation--"Web 2.0, Personal Learning Environments, and the Future of Learning Management Systems," by Niall Sclater

The research article written by Niall Sclater (2008) provides an overview of learning management systems (LMSs), highlights the use of LMSs (including personal learning environments (PLEs)), and articulates the need for evolution of the current LMS and impact as it relates to higher education.

He states that universities and other agencies of higher education should question whether the particular learning management system their institution uses incorporates the “benefits of e-learning,” and whether the LMS used “remains an appropriate medium for which to facilitate,” learning. He states that most do not incorporate all of the benefits of social software or other Web 2.0 tools to provide an effective personal learning environment for effective communication and learning within realm of higher education. Instead, institutions manage LMSs that remain inflexible due to technically challenged faculty, software restrictions and management issues, and license restrictions providing features that simply act as a host or holding area for information that does not allow for collaboration or innovation creating restricted personal learning environments.

Sclater transitions to discuss the PLE concept providing an analysis and evaluation of three views on how to incorporate and implement e-learning tools into institutions of higher education. The first view incorporates the development of student owned client software that can be accessed without an internet connection and operates independently only interfacing with web-based access as the students upload and download information. The second view incorporates free Internet resources without development of additional software. Institutions incorporate and use the best from every e-learning environment reducing the possibility of mass software failure and inability to access information by the learner. Concerns on this perspective include necessity to remember a large number of URLs/passwords/user names, the necessity of students to master a number of different media environments to effectively learn, and the potential for this perspective to be ineffective for larger institutions where LMSs and the management of them are critical to assess learning. The last view presented argues that PLEs are already present. Institutions must effectively incorporate and customize a system that learners are already using to broaden and enhance learning. Students already own computers/software, maintain internet access, and use web browser tools whether it be an institutional LMS or free content based programs as their prime learning tool both personally and professionally. Proponents state that this type of learner will resist client software that restricts the learning environment and stifles learning opportunities currently utilized daily. Regardless of the PLE concept adopted, Sclater (2008) states that the concept itself is a way for institutions to harness and categorize the large number of tools and resources available on the Internet as a learning platform.

Upon completion of elaboration of PLEs, Sclater (2008) provides an in depth assessment of what this means to higher education. Regarding PLEs, he focuses on the client software approach and articulates that any system that does not incorporate a web browser is extremely risky providing a number of problems to both the institution and the learner from installation and configuration problems to software maintenance and support problems. Sclater discusses the interoperability concerns between the client PLE and the institutional LMS by both the software vendors and the developers, and that learners must have the technical expertise to manage and maintain a system of this type (backup requirements, hardware failure issues, information loss, hacking). Regarding LMSs, he states that they will remain due to a continued administrative need, online assignment submission and feedback requirements, student access only access to course information and materials, rapid communication and information dissemination requirements, consistency of service from centrally hosted software, and lower costs associated with the maintenance and update of centrally owned institution LMS software. Integration of these items into a centrally managed LMS allows instantaneous contribution between the learner and the teacher where the user interfaces have already been approved for access and functionality and lowers vulnerabilities associated with open source products. Additionally, the LMS decreases the software engineering management requirements and database replication needed to access various programs or information across multiple systems and affords the teacher and learner ease of tracking changes and usage from a single source rather than accessing multiple e-learning systems particularly.

Sclater (2008) concludes with the fact that LMSs must evolve into systems that provide learners with access to multiple e-learning tools through the access of a single system providing specific examples of such tools. He further states that institutions can incorporate any Web 2.0 tool for learning but that the smaller the use of that system the lower the usefulness, and elaborates that it is not really what or how these systems should be incorporated but rather what is the appropriate use for the learner in direct correlation to the information being presented. Thus, institutions must move forward to evolve the current course-based LMS. The LMS of the future must become more flexible while remaining a single access point of information for the student. Institutions must develop software that incorporate e-learning standards to manage data transfer and interoperability between the LMS and other systems, incorporate the learner in forum development and utilization of collaboration tools, afford offline and mobile access to learning services and content, and explore the use of social networking sites. Institutions that incorporate these will enhance the ability of the learner. He does warn that the institution must evaluate the utilization and incorporation of these e-learning tools particularly the use of social networking sites that are not under the direct control of the institution. Commercial advertising, loss of personally identifiable information (PII), and phishing issues are a few of the concerns that are discussed. Sclater states that regardless of the incorporation and evolution of LMSs, some students do not want e-learning tools incorporated into their learning environment and that institutions must be careful when incorporating these resources so that the educational system does not lose the ability to track and record how students are doing and the effects of such tools on learning. This loss of student tracking will detrimentally impact the educational system by limiting the ability to improve courses and align them with the needs of the learner.

Overall, this article is well organized. The strengths revolve around Sclater’s ability to articulate and provide examples of LMSs and PLEs as they relate to the current educational environment. He provides a basic understanding and knowledge of each while including current examples and accounts to enhance each point. The weaknesses identified are in his views of educators and his focus on the PLE as client software. At the beginning of his article, he implies that the educator is technically challenged and maybe unable to adapt to incorporating e-learning tools within the realm of higher education. However, at the end of the article, he does agree that the current institutional construct of LMSs must evolve to suit the needs of the learner without further addressing the need for evolution of the instructor. Finally, he does not address all aspects of the PLE concept focusing only on the client software approach to LMS incorporation and the cons to such views of this as a PLE.

Regardless of the weaknesses of e-learning tools and Web 2.0 resources, technological advances and the increasing demands of the workforce require educational institutions to incorporate and improve LMSs to keep up with the demands and needs of the adult learner. It is imperative that educators keep abreast of technology and the needs of their students as it relates to the course content. Evolution and incorporation of e-learning tools into LMSs and course curriculum must directly correlate with the learning environment. The use of such resources in future courses regardless of the scope or complexity of the material presented can only enhance the learning experience. However, the educator must remember for educational and learning activities to be most effective they must match the characteristics and needs of the learner particularly as it relates to the psychosocial characteristics. The e-learning tools should not be so complex that it detracts from the overall goal—to learn.