Talk:Learning management system: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:29, 8 January 2011

CHARACTERISTICS

I notice in the Characteristics section of the article that eight items are listed re “characteristics more specific to corporate learning.” No problem with the listed items but I notice the items are then repeated in the same listing but done so in Bahasa Indonesia. Why introduce Indonesian into the article? Nothing in the topic would indicate the need for Indonesian and Indonesian is not used elsewhere in the article.

Should the items be repeated in Indonesian? Rpcarroll (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should not. Whenever you find non english content like that on the english Wikipedia, please remove it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SCORMTM

SCORMTM stands for Shareable Content Object Reference Model. There is a standard for web-based E-learning. It defines how the individual instruction elements are combined on a technical level and sets conditions for the software needed for using the content. The standard uses XML and it is based on the results of work done by AICC, IMS, IEEE, and Ariadne. E-learning most often means an approach to facilitate and enhance learning by means of personal computers, CDROMs, Digital Television, Mobile Devices and the Internet. This may include email, discussion forums, and collaborative software.

Can anyone see any reason why this page shouldn't be merged into Managed learning environment, which says all this and much more? seglea 17:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MLE term not standard (in US?)

I work in the eLearning field and have never heard the term 'MLE'. It may be common in Britan (?) but the international colleagues I've spoken with regarding eLearning have also used the term LMS.
I wonder where the term MLE comes from in any 'official' capacity. Anyone have a reference?
In my *strong* opinion, the MLE should redirect to LMS - it is by far the more dominant term in my experience.

I agree that LMS is better. It's commonly called CMS also, Course Management System, but that's often confused with Content Management System for websites. Sue Maberry 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that LMS is probably the best and most common term. I also agree that CMS is not a good term because of the possible confusion. MLE is also another term but less common. The term VLE for Virtual Learning Environment is another possibility but less common. They should all be closely linked under LMS.

I do feel, however, that a distinction should be made between corporate/business LMSs and education LMSs. Although some LMS are marketed to both, they are usually quite different. Corporate LMSs often include the management (registration and set-up) of instructor-led, classroom-based learning as well as e-learning which education LMSs do not. This is presumably because registration systems already exist in education. Education LMSs include course authoring capability which corporate ones do not (where needed it is an add-on). Education LMSs are stronger on the set up of collaboration tools such as email, discussion groups, etc. Education LMSs assume the presence of an instructor who creates the courses and is accessible via email; corporate LMSs do not assume the presence of an instructor and often focus primarily on asynchronous, self-directed learning. 209.121.92.190 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi from Daddy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.227.101 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article page

The following comment was added to the article itself. I'm moving it here --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Other than the most simplistic, basic functionality, all LMSs cater to, and focus on different educational, administrative, and deployment requirements."

I believe that the writer meant simple, not simplistic, in the preceding sentence (Second-to-last paragraph). These two words are not interchangeable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.46.198.231 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Another possibly wrong word in the first paragraph of the article is "user learning interventions". I think this should be "user learning interactions" or something like that. However, I am not an expert in this field. -- DeweyQ 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Product List

Blackboard is a Course Management System, not a Learning Management System. If someone can make a case otherwise (I've worked for them and for an LMS vendor) I am inclined to remove the link.

Not very clear

I was hoping for an actual explanation of what an LMS "looks" like, and did not find one. Could someone who has worked with a representative example add something which would give a better idea to an outsider? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.10.25.40 (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My Uni uses a LMS for most of it's subjects and for me (the student) it just looks like a webpage that students (and staff) can access that provides shared information such as lecture notes, course info and perhaps a discusssion board. It's not actually what it looks like that matters, it's the content. 58.161.113.157 09:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is outdated (last complete edit July 2008?). There is also no discussion of the difference between Learning Management System and Course Management System... recent usage seems to indicate a shift in definitions so that the same systems are now being more and more referred to as Learning Management Systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.116.100 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good source of information on different systems is http://www.bersin.com/

All the bersin links I tried cost $$$, should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.167.13 (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the only reason? Just the executive summary bring interesting information. (Note: I have absolutly not relationship with Bersin, but I use it professionally, and without buying reports, to get information about e-learning) --Nabeth (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LCMS redirect to Lutheran Church of Missouri

That is not useful in this context. How can we change it? does that mean there isnt a page on LCMS.--Kaveri 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate listings - allowed or disallowed?

A while back this page contained over 30 LMS vendors under the commercial applications list.

Today only Blackboard and a few others appear. Now LMS vendors all know Blackboard's attempts to trademark / copyright specific elements of core LMS functionality which they may or may not enforce.

But does that allow Blackboard to be the only vendor listed?

Wiki is not intended to be a commercial engine but if the header "commercial LMS" exists then it may as well be a complete entry.

Any thoughts?

66.222.224.231 14:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists such as these are notoriously prone to attracting spam and listcruft, which benefit nobody. The simplest thing to do is to limit these lists to only those items that are notable enough to have warrant their own Wikipedia article.

A simple test is to create an article for any item you're tempted to add (assuming you're not affiliated with the company in some way as that would be a conflict of interest). If it is deleted on grounds of "no assertion of notability", it's almost certainly not suitable for this sort of list.

Regards, Oli Filth 15:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Learning Management System" is the term that appeared because of some specific type of software was created. That is why this article description is based on features / principles of notable and famous learning management systems. Why not give a link to notable (never mind commercial/free) software of that type which exists in Wiki? Why this was recognised as spam? There were many LMS listed - not just one of them. I also agree with Behnam Ghiaseddin comments below in "notable LMS" discussion section.Interkrok (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous Learning Management

Continuous Learning Management is a systematised approach to measuring the application of learning on-the-job.

CLM differs from traditional LMS in that it seeks to assess the more challenging question of what happens before and after the formal learning (e.g. classroom, workshop, e-learning). As such it may feed data into an existing LMS, which typically focus on the learner course registration and completion.

These systems directly associate the incremental value achieved for both individual and organisation – against agreed performance criteria, as a result of personal and team application and refinement of knowledge (typically through on-the-job coaching, mentoring and self-assessment).

The ultimate goal of CLM is to directly associate the tangible benefits achieved as a result of the learner(s) improving their performance. As such CLM systems are most successful with performance-driven activities such as sales, process or quality improvement.

Quantifying of results – the return on the training investment – may well also aid the business case for new learning activities, using the data to evidence the potential for further individual and company improvement.

John Brennan (Red Edge UK) (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed newsrelease tag, still needs work

The blatant commercial self promotion which was part of this page has been toned down and eliminated by many contributors since June 2008. Now it reads more like a white paper:) Still a little stiff for my liking but definitely not a news release.--Rcollman (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Learning Management Systems

Please add a list of learning management systems like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_word_processors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.197.227 (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the idea of creating the list of LMSes as a separate page very interesting - that would be a good solution instead of the LMS list on this page...Interkrok (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List has been added at List of learning management systems, should consider removing the list on this page Brian.whitmer (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable LMS

this part is very useful. The only reason I come to this page is that. There are lots of page in wikipedia contain list of commercial products. Why people come to wikipedia? they come to find solutions not just waste their times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Behnam Ghiaseddin (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest at least noting what are commercial and what are opensource (free).Odestiny (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare LMS

Best known LMS comparing like Comparison of word processors would be also very valuable information for those who study and work with such systems. I personally would be glad to help and provide features list to compare LMSes.Interkrok (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of LMS

I have changed the first line of the deifnition of LMS that I have taken from an article from ASTD. The delivery of training is not included in this later definition. However in the article it is indicated that "LMS should be able to do the following: * assemble and deliver learning content rapidly".

Please feel free to reformulate the definition (and maybe reintroduce more explicitly the delivery of training). However, I would suggest not to have something too broad, and in particular not to have LMS including every e-learning system.

--Nabeth (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This articles requires some changes

I am a new wikipedian and am just starting. I have read the whole article and come across some bad data I had like to point out. First of all The section on new generation learning management systems is a personal interpretation of personal blogs as listed in references. I guess nobody bothered to check the references. Everybody is entitled to personal views but I believe not on wikipedia.I had like to further point out that the person who created that section has only made that change in wikipedia till now.

Another point I had like to make is that LMS and LCMS are completely different things.In fact LCMS can be a sub part of LMS. It is like trying to compare a computer and a hard drive. I think devoting a whole section on it does not make sense.

I hope I get some responses on this front as I feel I can make some good changes on this article. But as I am new and have no credibility I had like to get permission from the other editors. (Priyankgupta86 (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

comment I actually think it's worth having a section on new LMS's. There's a lot of energy going on right now in higher ed in this space, mostly because of the frustration everyone has with the Blackboard LMS. The edupunk movement is a good example of this. A lot of educational technologists have completely dismissed the viability of the LMS and are moving to blogs and wikis for their course material. There are a lot of new entrants, though, that are trying to bridge the gap. Where Blackboard hasn't listened, they're trying to. You can look at edu2.0, Scholar360, Eduset, Edmodo, Instructure, haikue learning, nixty, Agilix... it seems silly not to have some mention of all this energy in an article on LMS's. The blogs mentioned are not just anybody blogs, either, these are influential members of the ed-tech community. DISCLAIMER: I originally wrote the section, and am a co-founder of Instructure. That said, I think the arguments here stand for themselves. Maybe just need some better sources? Brian.whitmer (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Channel learning

This term is used twice, with no definition or description, which would be helpful for a general audience.

@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 :'''comment''' I actually think it's worth having a section on new LMS's.  There's a lot of energy going on right now in higher ed in this space, mostly because of the frustration everyone has with the Blackboard LMS.  The [[edupunk]] movement is a good example of this.  A lot of educational technologists have completely dismissed the viability of the LMS and are moving to blogs and wikis for their course material.  There are a lot of new entrants, though, that are trying to bridge the gap.  Where Blackboard hasn't listened, they're trying to.  You can look at edu2.0, Scholar360, Eduset, Edmodo, Instructure, haikue learning, nixty, Agilix... it seems silly not to have some mention of all this energy in an article on LMS's.  The blogs mentioned are not just anybody blogs, either, these are influential members of the ed-tech community.  DISCLAIMER: I originally wrote the section, and am a co-founder of Instructure.  That said, I think the arguments here stand for themselves.  Maybe just need some better sources? [[User:Brian.whitmer|Brian.whitmer]] ([[User talk:Brian.whitmer|talk]]) 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
+== Channel learning ==
+This term is used twice, with no definition or description, which would be helpful for a general audience.