Key Issues in the Implementation of Learning

Management Systems in Schools: A Generalised

Framework.
In recent years the evolution of Learning Management Systems (LMS) has significantly changed
the way that educational institutions manage their approach to 21st century administrative and
content management. Traditionally, this type of software has been predominantly associated
with tertiary institutions and e-learning providers and has become an integral reality in higher
education (Klobas and McGill, 2012, p115). In recent years however, the software has increased
in popularity in primary and secondary education with its ability to promote a blended approach
to managing the classroom learner. Not only can the software organize and regulate the
administrative tasks of schools, it continues well beyond the classroom through emails,
discussion groups, studentteacher questionandanswer sessions, and the posting of course
content (Nasser, Cherif& Romanowski, 2011, p40).
With the continued growth and popularity of these systems, it is more than likely that most
schools are either adopting LMS for the first time; in the process of implementation; or
evaluating their current software for future decisions on the selected brand of software. As a
result, it is important for educational leaders to understand the key issues surrounding the
implementation and use of LMS as an educational tool for learning. As a casual and temporary
teacher who is currently seeking permanent employment, my main objective for this discussion
is to develop a generalised understanding of LMS and to identify the key issues surrounding its
integration into schools to perhaps assist in decision making in a technology team in the future.
The research is not intended to explore deeply technical elements but to generate the more
practical considerations for an executive team.
Perhaps the first issue in developing an understanding of LMS is standardising a conceptual
definition for the term. The literature at times uses terms such as CMS (Course Management
System) and LCMS (Learning Content Management Systems) interchangeably with LMS (for
example Picciano, 2011, p153). Watson (2007) suggests that these terms may be too loosely
used in place of LMS creating confusion over the specific functions of LMS. He references his
own Google Scholar search of Blackboard lms with over 36 articles referring to Blackboard as
an LMS (P6). In contrast, however, he notes that the Blackboard company itself refers to the
software as a CMS. Iqbal (2011) further examines the difference between the two and concludes
that CMS is more focused on the contents and delivery of the course, whereas an LMS is more
focused on the learning need and achievement of a person (p207).
A further term that has emerged in the research is Learning Content Management System
(LCMS). The literature tends to complicate a definition of the term creating some confusion for
the less technically-oriented. Mahnegar (2012) defines LCMS as software for authoring, editing
and indexing e-learning content (p148), Watson focuses on the delivery of learning content
and Ellis (2001) claims that LCMS combines the learner administration capabilities of an LMS
with the content creation and storage capabilities of a CMS. Nevertheless most of the research
concedes that the three systems are more effective if integrated together. In my experience, most
teachers including some executives are not really aware of the terminology and refer more to the
1

product names such as Blackboard, Sentral and Moodle. Although it seems that the industry is,
for the time being accepting of a more generalised definition of these systems; when interacting
with technicians, IT personnel and educational software companies, it would certainly be
beneficial to understand the specific functions of each type of management system. For the
purposes of this discussion however, I will predominantly reference the issues with LMS, but
will identify the others where necessary.
One of my stated objectives for this discussion is to identify the key issues surrounding the
integration of a learning management system into a school with the idea of assisting an executive
or technology team in its decisions. Once a number of the key issues were identified, I found it
helpful to construct a conceptual framework that could be used to represent them in a more
meaningful way. The framework as outlined in the table below categorises the issues into
implementation components and factors that should be considered throughout the planning
process. This is not intended to be exhaustive and it is envisioned that it will be the starting point
for future development. Unfortunately the constraints of this task make it impossible to discuss
every individual identified issue in detail and some will be only minimally referenced during the
discussion.
Table 1: Generalised Framework for considering key issues in the implementation of Learning Management
Systems in Secondary Schools.

Components of
implementation

Factors in
implementation

Content
Decisional
Technical
Relational
Human
Support
Organisational
Logistical
Institutional

Areas of Issue to be considered in implementation

Types of LMS packages (open source, commercial)
Determining needed features
Hardware and software
Adaptability and interoperability
Consultation
Attitudes and acceptance
Staff, student and parent training
Internal/ external help and support
Staff Roles
Committees/ Teams
Policies
Evaluation and ongoing management

The first component in the framework involves the initial decision making process in the
selection of an LMS. The Content factor addresses the need to determine what aspects of
administration, management and content the school will need and the technical aspects of its
integration. This can be a difficult process and Cavus (2013) identifies issues such as hidden
costs; unclear user, developer and administration manuals; and limitations with regard to
interoperability, integration, localization, and bandwidth requirements (p421). In my
experience, when first implementing LMS, schools tend to focus on a minimum financial
commitment, purchasing basic software that does not double up on already existing management
software they may have already purchased rather than spending the money on a streamlined
package. Whilst working at School A for example there were three different commercial
packages for managing administration, reports and parent-teacher interviews. This was
confusing for staff and eventually they purchased a system that incorporated all of these features.
2

More currently School B at first used the DET hosted SBSR reporting system, along with an
LMS and a CMS that lacked appropriate interoperability and placed strain on effective
management processes within the school. It was decided that a financial commitment to a more
streamlined package would be a better long term investment and Sentral is currently being
integrated into the school.
When determining the specific LMS, CMS or LCMS to integrate there are numbers of
considerations regarding content and technical features. Hall (2004) lists a number of deciding
factors including: ease of use, delivery platform, compliance with standards, and interoperability
(p36). zdaml (2007) evaluated administrative tools and curriculum design features in 72 open
source LMSs and amongst other features outlined the importance of authentication,
authorisation, student tracking, instructional design tools and the look and feel of the interface.
Iqbal (2011) believes that an effective LMS should integrate technical and design specifications,
support, user-friendly GUI, course repository and administration capabilities, interaction, student
profiles, evaluation and feedback (pp208-210). In almost every school I have taught in, the most
common criticism of LMS I have encountered is ease of use by teachers, parents and students
and this should be the key consideration when deciding on which software program to use.
Further to the more specific features, Ion (2012) classifies three types of LMS software that need
to be considered by executives; in- house developed, commercial and open source under a
General Public License (p123). In house developed packages are less common in schools, who
generally purchase commercial packages and may combine with open source software. Sentral
for example integrates Moodle for its course management package and hosts it on their server.
There are also numbers of teachers who individually use free web based LMSs such as
Edmodo. These are restricted in their features and often monitored only by the classroom
teacher which can create accountability issues.
The Human component of the framework refers to the involvement of staff, parents and
students in regard to their interactions with the software and its features. The Relational Factor in
particular attempts to involve all of the stakeholders in the school in creating a shared vision for
21st century schooling. Geer, Barnes and White (2008) suggest the need for teachers to develop a
vision for the use of technology to enhance learning outcomes (p152), however this vision may
also need to be extended beyond staff at the school. Many of the Learning Management Systems
contain features that can involve collaborative interaction with parents and students particularly
in terms of feedback from assignments and planning and management of assessment tasks.
Principals need to develop strategies to initiate parental and student interest, and a number of
schools I have worked in have held consultation meetings to assist in inspiring a whole school
transformative vision (Afshari et.al, 2012) to encourage all of the stakeholders to use the
software as effectively as possible.
Despite the engagement of the whole school community, teachers will initially be the key drivers
of technological change as Grey-Bowen (2010) states: Teachers attitudes toward technology
and beliefs in the instructional benefits present a significant barrier to technology integration
(p3). In my observations, a number of teachers use the features of LMSs (such as Sentral) for
purely administrative purposes and CMSs (such as Moodle) primarily for accessing resources
and uploading assignments. Wald (2013) claims that Moodle was designed to support learning
through a set of tools incorporating a social constructivist learning approach (p2). A further
study by Zarkoskie, found that Moodle forums were a tool that may have helped students
3

increase their participation and improve their level of detail in responses (p2). Yet in a number
of schools I have worked at I rarely observe these features being used in pedagogically valuable
ways.
To determine some key factors affecting the usage of CMSs such as Moodle, it may be of benefit
for the school to examine the issue of attitudes and acceptance towards the use of the software
using an adaptation of the model of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT) suggested in Hsu (2012). This would be beneficial; however it is most likely that
support factors such as lack of training and centralised support systems/ help desks would be key
contributing facets to the issue. Prestridge (2013) claims that ICT professional development is
perceived as an avenue for pedagogical change (p2). The use of Moodle at School W has been
in place for a number of years and I am not sure if the staff received any direct training in the
features of the package. Certainly I observed that no formalised instruction was given for the use
of the Sentral reporting feature due to unforeseeable circumstances, and the school needs to
address this with a systematic and organised approach which may need to be extended to parents
and students who wish to access features relevant to them. Further to this, Sentral does provide a
helpdesk for IT administrators, however as they are only a host for Moodle, they do not
administer support or advice regarding issues with the software and will direct any enquires to
the moodle.org website.
There are a number of logistical issues in the implementation of any new system in a school and
these can be considered in relation to Organisational and Institutional factors. Organisational
factors consist of the distribution of prescribed roles of individuals in the planning,
implementation and management processes of technology within the school. It is most likely that
implementation of LMS will be a micromanaged issue in an already existing technology team
structure. At School A I observed that they had a technology team consisting of upper
executive staff that was predetermined by the principal. There was no consultation with other
staff and exclusion often caused morale issues in regards to teachers acceptance of technology
in the school. Whilst some roles need to be appointed to particular staff, research by Early et.al.
(2002) concluded that good school leaders also share their leadership responsibility with other
members of staff (in Lewis and murphy, 2008, p131). In contrast, School W does have a cross
KLA technology team, however the head teacher of IT tends to make the bulk of the decisions. It
would be beneficial for this school to implement a structure that allocates specific support roles
within the team, similar to Utechts (date unknown) division of Informational Technologists
(IT), versus Educational Technologists (ET) (p14).
Institutional Factors are those for which the specific educational institution is accountable for
on different levels. These may involve legal and ethical responsibilities as in the case of policies
and guidelines. As Picciano suggests, on many occasions the importance of a policy is realized
only when a problem, breach or violation has occurred (p242). There appears to be little advice
in the literature on the elements of policy construction for Learning Management Systems.
Picciano, however, outlines a number of technological policy issues with elements such as
equity, access, cyber bullying, etiquette, privacy, copyright and use of material that could be
adapted into an LMS policy. Further to this he suggests adding a procedural framework for the
more technical needs involving the practical maintenance of hardware and software and the
ongoing management and evaluation of its use. With a lack of clear guidance in the literature, it
would be beneficial for schools to either examine a number of openly available policies from
4

other institutions, or select an LMS that provides an adaptable framework as a feature of the
product.
As the popularity and features of Learning Management Systems progresses, executives must
continually make decisions regarding its implementation and management in the school. There
are many more considerations than have been represented in this discussion, and in my
experience these will predominantly emerge as administrators and teachers physically explore
the systems in their everyday use. Nevertheless it is profitable to pre-empt general discussion of
these key issues in order to make effective evaluative decisions to support the 21st century
educational environment.
References
Afshari, M., Bakar, K.A, Luan, W.S., Samah, B.A & Siraj, S. (2012). Factors affecting the
transformational leadership role of principals in implementing ICT in schools. The Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (4), 164-176.
Cavus, N. (2013) Selecting a learning management system (LMS) in developing countries: instructors'
evaluation. Interactive Learning Environments, 21:5, 419-437, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2011.584321
Ellis, R. (2001). LCMS Roundup. Learning Circuits. (8). Retrived from
http://www.internettime.com/Learning/lcms/#whitepapers
Geer, R., Barnes, A. & White, B. (2008) Four ICT enablers in a contemporary learning environment: a
case study. Act on ICT in ACEC08 Refereed Conference Proceedings, Canberra. www.acec.2008
Grey-Bowen, J.E. (2010). A study of technology leadership among elementary public School principals in
Miami-Dade County (doctoral dissertation). St Thomas University, Miami Gardens, Florida.
Hall, S. O., & Hall, B. (2004). A guide to learning content management systems. Training, 41(11), 33-37.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/203415458?accountid=10499
Hsu, H. (2012). The acceptance of moodle: An empirical study based on UTAUT. Creative Education, 3,
44-46. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1321120844?accountid=10499
Ion, A. (2012). Compared analysis of representative learning and content management systems used in
education. Informatica Economica, 16(1), 123-131. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017921375?accountid=10499
Iqbal, S., & Qureshi, I. A. (2011). Learning management systems (LMS): Inside matters. Information
Management and Business Review, 3(4), 206-216. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/906002118?accountid=10499
Klobas, J. E., & Mcgill, T. J. (2010). The role of involvement in learning management system
success. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22(2), 114-134. Retrieved from doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-010-9032-5

Lewis, P., and Murphy, R. (2008). New directions in school leadership. School Leadership and
Management, 28 (2), 127-146.

Mahnegar, F. (2012). Learning Management System. International Journal of Business and Social
Science (Special Issue), 3 (12), 144-150. Retrived from
http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_12_Special_Issue_June_2012/14.pdf
Nasser, R., Cherif, M., & Romanowski, M. (2011). Factors that impact student usage of the learning
management system in Qatari schools. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance
Learning, 12(6), 39-62. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/985
Ozdamli, F. (2007). An evaluation of open source learning management systems according to
administration tools and curriculum design. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/61936073?accountid=10499
Picciano, A.G. (2011). Educational leadership and planning for technology (5th ed.). Columbus, OH:
Pearson Education. (Supplied through GradSchool)
Prestridge, S. (2013). Three key elements in ICT professional Development. International Society for
Technology in Education: Expanding horizons. Retrieved online from
http://www.isteconference.org/2012/uploads/KEY_70082891/threePD.pdf
Utecht, J. (date unknown). Planning for 21st Century Technologies in Schools. Retrieved from
https://uonline.newcastle.edu.au/courses/1/CRS.104891.2013.S2/db/_3414817_1/planning-for-21stcentury-technologies.pdf
Watson, W.R., (2007). An Argument for Clarity: What are Learning Management Systems, What are
They Not, and What Should They Become? TechTrends, 51 (2) 28-34. Retrieved from http://hal.archivesouvertes.fr/docs/00/69/20/67/PDF/Watson-2007.pdf
Wald, R. J. (2013). Understanding the use of social constructivist moodle activities within the north
dakota university system.(Order No. 1545130, North Dakota State University). ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses, , 79. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1442799346?accountid=10499.
(1442799346).
Zarkoskie, L. (2010). Using moodle forums to increase middle school student participation and level of
detail in student responses. (Order No. 1475261, Caldwell College). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, ,
41. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/276056857?accountid=10499. (276056857).