Advertisement

TechTrends

pp 1–8 | Cite as

Designing for Networked Collaborative Discourse: An UnLMS Approach

  • Bodong Chen
Original Paper

Abstract

Supporting collaborative discourse with discussion forums in a typical Learning Management System (LMS) remains challenging. This article reports on a design case of an “unLMS” approach, which aimed to devise a networked learning environment not based on an LMS for collaborative discourse in an online course. To support such discourse, four design principles were proposed based on the literature and then used to guide technological and pedagogical designs. Following the principles, a networked learning environment was configured by harnessing emerging technologies of open textbooks, web annotation, and team communication. The designed environment was piloted in the online course. A survey was distributed at the end of the course to investigate student perceptions of the design. Student perceptions of the environment was overall positive in terms of usefulness and ease of use, despite several suggested refinements to improve the tool integration and to personalize student discourse experiences.

Keywords

Collaborative discourse Networked learning Design case Learning environments LMS 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was partially supported by an NSF Award (# 1657009). I thank Ramya Sivaraj for her assistance in setting up the survey and Dr. Stian Håklev for commenting on an earlier draft of this paper.

Funding

This study was funded by NSF (grant # 1657009).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80–97 Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890/1826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, M., Dehoney, J., & Millichap, N. (2015). The next generation digital learning environment. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli3035.pdf.
  5. Carpenter, J., & Green, T. (2017). Connecting and engaging with students through group me. TechTrends, 61(1), 89–92.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0149-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Downes, S. (2015). Commentary on ‘LMS is the minivan of education (and other thoughts from #LILI15)’. OLDaily. Accessible from http://www.downes.ca/post/63849.Google Scholar
  8. Feldstein, M. (2017). A flexible, interoperable digital learning platform: Are we there yet?. e-Literate. Accessible from http://mfeldstein.com/flexible-interoperable-digital-learning-platform-yet/.
  9. Goodyear, P., Jones, C., Asensio, M., Hodgson, V., & Steeples, C. (2005). Networked learning in higher education: Students’ expectations and experiences. Higher Education, 50(3), 473–508.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6364-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haslhofer, B., Simon, R., Sanderson, R., & Sompel, H. V. de. (2011). The Open Annotation Collaboration (OAC) Model. In 2011 Workshop on Multimedia on the Web (pp. 5–9). IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MMWeb.2011.21.
  11. Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hill, P. (2015). LMS is the minivan of education (and other thoughts from #LILI15). e-Literate. Accessible from http://mfeldstein.com/lms-is-the-minivan-of-education-and-other-thoughts-from-lili15/.
  13. Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., et al. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Irvine, CA, USA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.Google Scholar
  14. Lang, L., & Pirani, J. A. (2014). The learning management system evolution. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2014/5/erb1405-pdf.pdf.
  15. Morris, S. M. (2013). Decoding digital pedagogy, part 1: Beyond the LMS. Hybrid Pedagogy. Accessible from http://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/hybridped/decoding-digital-pedagogy-pt-1-beyond-the-lms/ Google Scholar
  16. Mott, J., & Wiley, D. (2009). Open for learning: The CMS and the open learning network. In Education, 15(2). Retrived from https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/113/.
  17. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5.
  18. Rosé, C. P., Ferschke, O., Tomar, G., Yang, D., Howley, I., Aleven, V., et al. (2015). Challenges and opportunities of dual-layer MOOCs: Reflections from an edX deployment study. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2015). Vol. 2 (pp. 848–851). Gothenburg: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  19. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building environments: Extending the limits of the possible in education and knowledge work. In A. DiStefano, K. E. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 269–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1–8 Retrieved from http://er.dut.ac.za/handle/123456789/69.
  21. Siemens, G. (2011). Orientation: Sensemaking and wayfinding in complex distributed online information environments (PhD thesis). In University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17.Google Scholar
  23. Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351–366.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.03800.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thorpe, M. (2010). Rethinking Learner Support: The challenge of collaborative online learning. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 17(2), 105–119.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510220146887a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhang, J., Tao, D., Chen, M.-H., Sun, Y., Judson, D., & Naqvi, S. (2018). Co-organizing the collective journey of inquiry with idea thread mapper. Journal of the Learning Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1444992.

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations