Talk:Learning management system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] SCORMTM

SCORMTM stands for Shareable Content Object Reference Model. This 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

"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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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).

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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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 is 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)