In addition to a counterintuitive organizational scheme, integrated commercial systems have a built-in pedagogy, evident in the easiest-to-use, most accessible features. The focus on presentation (written documents to read), complemented by basic “discussion” input from students, is based on traditional lecture, review, and test pedagogy. This orientation is very different from the development of knowledge through a constructivist, learner-centered, or inquiry-based approach, which a number of faculty use successfully in the classroom. In constructivist pedagogy, the instructor’s role is to provide a rich learning environment, which often includes extensive social interaction, self-assessment, and independent projects. These techniques are better supported by Web 2.0 applications or by learning management systems that encourage such pedagogy at the novice level. The more a CMS promotes traditional pedagogy, the more likely it will limit faculty creativity—and flexibility and creativity are the foundations of academic freedom and good teaching.

Source: EDUCAUSE Quarterly

Course management systems, by virtue of their intent and design, create limitations on faculty independence of instruction. Since such systems are simply products marketed to institutions in order to integrate resources, they are the equivalent of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and thus reflect a move toward standardization as a way to ease management issues (Danaher et al 2004, Katz 2003). Decisions about which systems to use are often made by campus technologists and administrators, rather than faculty. According to Katz, “The CMS has shifted from being based on the bottoms-up energy of a small cadre of inventive faculty to being the embodiment of a top-down institutional strategy”. These programs “automate and standardize”, and “although the CMS does not dictate either a discipline or a pedagogy, it does posses a structure that threatens faculty hegemony” (Katz 2003). This is because the pedagogy of Blackboard/WebCT is based on managerial and administrative tasks centered on instructor efficiency: gradebook, test creation, threaded discussion, rosters, and instructor-student messages. Indeed, “Faculty adopt course managment systems principally to manage the more mundane tasks associated with teaching, especially teaching large classes” (Morgan 2003). Many of them never move beyond these basic uses, despite the many interactive features now offered. Why?

Source: Lisahistory.net

Online Course Lady explains how she tricks Desire2Learn , the LMS she has to use for teaching online courses, into displaying dynamic content.

Using javacript lets me create and maintain the content at a real website (SchoolhouseWidgets.com) on the real Internet, while also displaying it inside the prison cell that is Desire2Learn. Ha: Desire2Learn may want to close itself off from the Internet, but we can sneak the Internet in through the backdoor, thanks to the power of javascript.

A few years ago, I got into a polite discussion with an administrator about the necessity of the college supporting a variety of Course Management Systems, rather than restricting faculty to only one CMS. At the time, I was pretty naive. I assumed that anyone with any sense would realize that the freedom of faculty to teach in their own way was a primary consideration at an educational institution. My naivete evaporated as he explained to me that the CMS was like my physical classroom; it created basic limitations on my teaching and embodied parameters I could not change. I wouldn’t ask to move the walls of my classroom, would I? or expect the college to move the chalkboard, windows or doors?

Source: Lisa’s Online Teaching Blog

Moving towards a PLE from the current model in which formal learning is very thoroughly entrenched in Learning Management systems will require considerable evolution of ideas and technologies and adoption of innovation. Innovation guru Everett Rogers noted that relative advantage is the largest factor in the adoption of innovations. Of course the relative advantage is contextualized and dependent upon the perspective and need of individual users (learners, teachers, technical support, administrators etc). Thus, the listing of advantages and disadvantages below needs to be contextualized from these and other particular viewpoints.

Nonetheless, I attempt to overview the major advantages and disadvantages of an educational system based on the familiar LMS versus an emergent one based on a PLE

Source: Virtual Canuck

I have just created College 2.0. a Ning social network to discuss Online Learning, CMS, PLE, Web2.0 and Open Learrning for Highered. We welcome University students, faculty, alumni, and administrators to join the College 2.0 Network network.

Find and Stay in Touch with New Friends.
Features of the College 2.0 Network include:

1- Discussion Forum with RSS:
Start and tag a discussion.
Add discussion posts and reply to those posts.
Click through the personal profile pages of other members engaged in the discussion.
View all discussions across your social network.
2- Member “chatterwall” for others to leave chatters.
3- Member Profile Page with photo
4- Member Blog with RSS:
Create blog posts with photos, files, and moods.
Manage blog posts and moderate comments.
5- Access the Network’s Blog Posts (from all members) via RSS
6- Easy access to all your friends in the network
7- Networking. Its easy to make new friends
8- Photo Sharing
9- Video Sharing

The views of faculty, students, and administrators regarding the advantages and shortcomings of current L/CMSs fell into three key areas: compatibility and interoperability, usability, and smartness/dumbness.
In envisioning a future e-learning environment, the stakeholders—faculty, students, and administrators—talked about desired features in the areas of smart systems, environment, archives and storage, multi-modal/multimedia communication channels, collaboration tools, and mobile computing.

Source: Educause Review

But can Web 2.0 tools truly replace something as big as a CMS? In my analysis, the answer is a resounding yes. Whereas Blackboard was designed for instructors, wikis were made for everyone. Blackboard is big, and has more features than most people will ever use. Wiki is small, and has one feature that’s simple enough to be applied to any use. The fundamental difference between the two is this: Blackboard is something designed to do everything, and the wiki is something that can do everything because of its design.

Source: ZDNet.com via Educational Technology