Skip to main content

The Fault in our Systems: LMS as a Vehicle for Critical Pedagogy

TechTrends volume 64, pages 423–431 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Postsecondary instructors and students alike perceive the primary function of a learning management system (LMS) as a means of static information dissemination, particularly assessment-related information such as grades. Subsequently, the most-used LMS features are those that facilitate such information transfer. Perhaps because of these usage patterns and perceptions, a growing number of scholars and practitioners are calling for alternatives to the LMS. This article argues, however, that the LMS is not limited to (nor designed around) its current use as a grade delivery service, but can, rather, be leveraged as a vehicle for critical pedagogy and praxis through technology. Specifically, we seek to explore some of the current uses and perceptions of the LMS in higher education, as well as considerations and implications for faculty and educational technologists working with these systems in higher educational contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  • Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2015-16, 75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, N., Chapman, B., Dearden, L., & Dynarski, S. (2019). The US college loans system: Lessons from Australia and England. Economics of Education Review, 71, 32–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, A. C. (2017). Critical pedagogy and educational technology. In a. D. Benson, R. Joseph, & J. L. Moore (Eds.), Culture, learning, and technology (1st ed., pp. 8–27).

  • Bradshaw, A. C. (2018). Reconsidering the instructional design and technology timeline through a lens of social justice. TechTrends, 62(4), 336–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, C. D., & Pomerantz, J. (2017, 2018). ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, Research report. Louisville: ECAR.

  • Brown, M. (2017). The NGDLE: We are the architects. Educause Review, 52(4), 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M., Dehoney, J., & Millichap, N. (2015). Next generation digital learning environment. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI), Papers and Reports.

  • Cerezo, R., Sánchez-Santillán, M., Paule-Ruiz, M. P., & Núñez, J. C. (2016). Students’ LMS interaction patterns and their relationship with achievement: A case study in higher education. Computers & Education, 96, 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, B. (2019). Designing for networked collaborative discourse: An un-LMS approach. TechTrends, 63(2), 194–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D., Chen, G., Hauff, C., & Houben, G.-J. (2018). Activating learning at scale: A review of innovations in online learning strategies. Computers & Education, 125, 327–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSantis, N. (2012). Self-described “EduPunk” says colleges should abandon course-management systems. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved June 9, 2019, from http://www.chronicle.com/article/self-described-edupunk-says/130917.

  • EduAppCenter. (2019). Retrieved June 9, 2019, from http://www.eduappcenter.com/

  • Edutechnica. (2019). LMS data – Spring 2019 updates. Retrieved June 9, 2019, from https://edutechnica.com/2019/03/17/lms-data-spring-2019-updates/

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estriegana, R., Medina-Merodio, J.-A., & Barchino, R. (2019). Student acceptance of virtual laboratory and practical work: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers & Education, 135, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fichten, C. S., Asuncion, J., & Scapin, R. (2014). Digital technology, learning, and postsecondary students with disabilities: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(4), 369–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanek, J. D., Gierdowski, D. C., & Brooks, D. C. (2018). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2018. Retrieved from June 1, 2019, from http://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/ecar-study-of-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology/2018/introduction-and-key-findings

  • Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godlewska, A., Beyer, W., Whetstone, S., Schaefli, L., Rose, J., Talan, B., et al. (2019). Converting a large lecture class to an active blended learning class: Why, how, and what we learned. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 43(1), 96–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, K. R., & Tolman, S. (2019). Equitable means accessible: Using universal design for learning and student development theory to inform online pedagogy. In L. Kyei-Blankson, J. Blankson, & E. Ntuli (Eds.), Care and culturally responsive pedagogy in online settings (pp. 125–147). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hedtrich, S., & Graulich, N. (2018). Using software tools to provide students in large classes with individualized formative feedback. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(12), 2263–2267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, P. (2015). LMS is the minivan of education (and other thoughts from #LILI15) -. Retrieved June 9, 2019, from http://eliterate.us/lms-is-the-minivan-of-education-and-other-thoughts-from-lili15/

  • IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2019). Learning tools interoperability. Retrieved June 9, 2019, from http://www.imsglobal.org/activity/learning-tools-interoperability

  • International Futures (2016). Instructional design in higher education. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from http://intentionalfutures.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Instructional-Design-in-Higher-Education-Report.pdf.

  • Jarvis, W. (2019). A textbook giant is going ‘digital first.’ That might not be good for affordability. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from http://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Textbook-Giant-Is-Going/246717

  • Kowch, E. G. (2018). Designing and leading learning ecosystems: Challenges and opportunities. TechTrends, 62(2), 132–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legon, R., & Garrett, R. (2017). The changing landscape of online education (CHLOE): Quality Matters and Eduventures survey of chief online officers, 2017. Retrieved July 12, 2019, from http://www.qualitymatters.org/node/1040.

  • Li, L.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2017). Accessing online learning material: Quantitative behavior patterns and their effects on motivation and learning performance. Computers & Education, 114, 286–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MarketsandMarkets. (2019). LMS market worth $22.4 billion by 2023. Retrieved June 9, 2019, from http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/learning-management-systems.asp.

  • Morris, S. M. (2017). Critical digital pedagogy and design. Retrieved June 5, 2019, from http://www.seanmichaelmorris.com/critical-digital-pedagogy-and-design/.

  • National Digital Inclusion Alliance. (2019). NDIA: Definitions. Retrieved June 10, 2019, from http://www.digitalinclusion.org/definitions/

  • Pomerantz, J., & Brooks, D. C. (2017). ECAR study of faculty and information technology 2018. Louisville: ECAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puroway, A. W. (2016). Critical advising: A Freirian-inspired approach. NACADA Journal, 36(2), 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhode, J., Richter, S., Gowen, P., Miller, T., & Wills, C. (2017). Understanding faculty use of the learning management system. Online Learning, 21(3).

  • Richardson, J. C., Ashby, I. N., Alshammari, A. S., Cheng, Z. E., Johnson, B., Krause, T., et al. (2018). Faculty and instructional designers on building successful collaborative relationships. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzhaupt, A., & Kumar, S. (2015). Knowledge and skills needed by instructional designers in higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strommel, J. (2017). If bell hooks made an LMS: Grades, radical openness, and domain of one’s own. Retrieved June 5, 2019, from http://www.jessestommel.com/if-bell-hooks-made-an-lms-grades-radical-openness-and-domain-of-ones-own/

  • Tumbleson, B., Burke, J., & Long, J. (2019). Assessment, analytics, and analysis: Demonstrating the impact of LMS embedded librarians on student learning. Journal of Library and Information Services in Distance Learning, 13(1–2), 196–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitez, K. (2018) Open 101: An action plan for affordable textbooks (Student PIRGs report). Retrieved July 18, 2019, from http://studentpirgs.org/2006/08/01/textbooks-21st-century/.

  • Watty, K., McKay, J., & Ngo, L. (2016). Innovators or inhibitors? Accounting faculty resistance to new educational technologies in higher education. Journal of Accounting Education, 36, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • You, J. W. (2016). Identifying significant indicators using LMS data to predict course achievement in online learning. Internet and Higher Education, 29, 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, A. (2019). Framework + digital badges = online instruction for today. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 13(1–2), 235–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Kathryn R. Green

  2. Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA

    Haynes L. Chewning

Authors
  1. Kathryn R. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haynes L. Chewning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn R. Green.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Green, K.R., Chewning, H.L. The Fault in our Systems: LMS as a Vehicle for Critical Pedagogy. TechTrends 64, 423–431 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00480-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00480-w

Keywords

  • Learning management systems
  • Critical pedagogy
  • Higher education
  • Next generation digital learning environments