Running head: EVALUATION

Evaluation:
Literature Review

S. Behrendt and C. Teller

EDMT 653: Issues and Emerging Educational Technology
Dr. McVey
20 July 2016
Literature Review

EVALUATION
1

The understanding of both the learning and acquisition of content knowledge today has
undergone many changes in the past few decades. Understanding the history of Aristotle,
Socrates and other philosophers truly demonstrate effective methods for displaying content
knowledge. Socratess specialized school is designed around one premise: students content
knowledge is based on their prior knowledge and personal background; and, this knowledge is
further developed through learning from others in collaborative or cooperative settings that take
place in synchronous or asynchronous formats (Polly & Hannafin, 2010; Lawless & Pellegrina,
2007).
Since studies (Polly & Hannafin, 2010; Lawless & Pellegrina, 2007) show that students
are able to form deeper, more meaningful understandings when they construct meaning that
builds off of prior knowledge and personal experience, teachers should have a common goal of
finding connections to students prior knowledge. However, research (Polly & Hannafin, 2010)
also suggests that knowledge is obtained from three components: 1) content knowledge, 2)
technological content knowledge, and 3) content-specific knowledge. Having an understanding
of these three components will simultaneously develop teachers knowledge of content and
content-specific pedagogies (p. 563). Additionally, while content knowledge pedagogy allows
for the development of young minds, there must be collaboration as well for development to
reach its full potential; cooperative learning allows cognitive growth to be a continuous, ongoing
event as students encounter new perspectives that help to strengthen and change their knowledge.
Collaboration comes in a variety of different forms, from meetings before, during or after school
to online video conferences; such virtual means of communication found within internet-based

EVALUATION
2

communities, such as learning management systems, have been found to be effective means for
collaboration (Polly & Hannafin, 2010).
Despite research (Edelstein & Edwards, 2002) evidencing that learning management
systems (LMSs) are most effective when they are used to create student-centered online learning
environments that promote active learning and collaboration, many of todays pre-service
teachers do not choose to assess content knowledge through the use of online collaborative
activities. Reasons behind this decision vary and are important to consider as studies (Polly &
Hannafin, 2010; Wepner and Mobley, 1998) show that communication or collaboration is critical
to the knowledge development for learners of all ages. If we are to create a tool for data
collection that is designed to assist in providing further explanations on this topic, we must first
look at literature related to it. Specifically, we will review research that analyzes the following:
1) teacher attitudes towards LMSs as a pedagogical tool,
2) how teachers utilize different features of a LMS, and
3) reasons behind these pedagogical decisions for online learning
Through synthesizing these findings, we will be able to determine the important role
collaboration has in making the utilization of a LMS into an enhanced learning experience for
students. Additionally, in performing this review, patterns may emerge that possibly provide
answers to the questions we seek to solve in regards to the strategic decisions pre-service
teachers make when developing assessments for online modules; for those questions not yet
answered, the literature may provide direction as to how we may locate them through our own
study on this topic.

EVALUATION
3

Issues With Utilizing Collaboration in a LMS

Misconceptions Regarding a LMSs Pedagogical Value
Despite LMSs becoming more common as long-distance learning gains more ground,
instructors teaching in-class or hybrid courses will often demote a LMS to a supplemental
resource for in-class instruction (Emelyanova & Voronina, 2014; Lai & Savage, 2013; West et
al., 2007). For instance, when Natayla Emelyanova and Elena Voronina (2014) surveyed 23
teachers and 109 students on their experience and attitude towards a LMS, it was found that 67%
of the teachers used the LMS for uploading materials and publishing home assignments while
44% used the online testing and gradebook features; contrastingly, student survey results showed
that no instructors used the LMS to promote collaboration or interaction with students.
Given that the LMS was found to be strictly used as a supplemental resource for
information learned in-class rather than a resource to guide students to new learning and insights
through collaborative activities and assessments, it is not surprising that only 2% of the surveyed
students perceived learning through the LMS as enjoyable while no students reported the LMS to
increase interest in learning. What appears to be a negative effect resulting from a lack of
collaborative activities is also reflected in the survey results which showed that the proportion of
teachers who said the LMS enhanced the learning process was two times higher than that of
students who felt that the chosen LMS features did little to enhance the learning experience
(Emelyanova & Voronina, 2014). This last finding displays a lack of teacher understanding on
not only the importance of collaboration and interaction in an online learning environment but
also the idea that the LMS can be used as more than just a supplemental tool for storing learning
resources and the occasional formative assessment created through an online quiz.

EVALUATION
4

In 2013, Alyssa Lai and Philip Savage reached similar conclusions to the previous study
(Emelyanova & Voronina, 2014) when they researched how a LMS might be pedagogically used
to enhance teaching and student learning. While interviewing college instructors, they found that
LMS discussion tools were rarely referenced as being incorporated into teaching strategies
designed to encourage cooperative learning; this was even the case for in-class courses in which
professors regularly had students engaged in discussion-based activities. Similarly, focus groups
of students explained that discussion boards often provided little enhancement to the learning
process as online forums were often dead, producing insignificant amounts of conversation
among students. In analyzing the interviews with professors and students, researchers concluded
that both groups viewed a LMS as being incompatible with active and cooperative learning
because such learning is accomplished through face-to-face interaction and hands-on activities;
according to participant beliefs, these can only be done in a physical classroom setting. As a
result of these teacher beliefs concerning the pedagogical value of the LMS, the online system
was utilized as merely a supplemental tool to in-class teaching rather than a main instructional
tool that could enhance both in-class and online learning. In concluding this study, it was
suggested that there is a need for teachers to learn that LMSs cannot be viewed solely in relation
to in-class pedagogy; rather, instructors must learn how to adapt in-class teaching strategies to
instructional approaches for online learning so that a LMS can stand on its own as a virtual place
for active learning that is not dependent upon in-class teaching.
Lack of Training
The final conclusion of the previous study (Lai & Savage,2013) is supported by findings
of another that also utilized instructor interviews and surveys as its main source of data. In 2007,
several researchers (West et al.) interviewed and surveyed 31 professors who worked at colleges

EVALUATION
5

that adopted Blackboard, a course management system (CMS) very similar in design and
capability to Moodle. During this study, it was found that instructors do not refuse to adapt to
online teaching simply out of a desire to resist change. In reality, teachers often struggle to find
their footing during the transition from a physical classroom setting to an online learning
environment. Interviews with teachers allowed researchers to see that teachers often do not have
the experience or technical and pedagogical competency needed to effectively teach online;
instead, the transition is often uncomfortable and causes teachers to become insecure in their
abilities as they are forced to reconsider many important ideas that include the following: 1) what
their role as instructors are, 2) what good pedagogy is, and 3) what strategies are necessary for
good online class management. For this reason, few professors chose to utilize Blackboards
online discussion board; the most common explanation found in the instructor interviews was
that they found it challenging to integrate discussion or collaboration features in ways that would
maximize student learning without taking up too much time on the instructors end.
Researchers further concluded the following:
They do not understand how to teach online, moderate discussions, integrate this type of
discussion into a typical face-to-face course, adapt their teaching strategies and styles to
accommodate online discussion, or make appropriate decisions about when an online
discussion can be an effective method. (p. 23).
The findings of this study display the importance of providing both technical and pedagogical
training specifically for online teaching. Researchers (West et al., 2007) further explain that indepth training is mandatory for a CMS or LMS that has features that do not have intuitive
usability (p. 31); if educators are left to experiment on their own, they are less likely to commit
themselves to learning the technical and pedagogical aspects of features that seem confusing or

EVALUATION
6

difficult due to reasons, such as functioning differently than expected or having odd names that
do not match an expected functionality. This conclusion is supported by other findings in the
study which indicated that instructors were found to be unfamiliar with the differences between
asynchronous and synchronous communication tools and for which activities or assignments
these tools could best be used to accomplish.
Various Tools and Forms of Collaboration
In looking at the three previously mentioned studies (Emelyanova & Voronina, 2014; Lia
& Savage, 2013; West et al., 2007), another pattern emerges that points to the idea that another
possible misconception is that collaboration tools provided by a LMS are mainly used for 1:1
messaging to discuss basic class topics rather than group projects that involve three or more
participants. Students interviewed or surveyed in these studies reported that they prefer social
network or email to perform such tasks as daily messaging to instructors or classmates.
Discussion boards also appear to be a main topic of focus when discussing collaboration which
limits students to only asynchronous communication. This leads one to consider the question of
whether or not instructors choose to not use online collaboration as a means of assessment due to
the fact that tools such as discussion boards restrict students to asynchronous communication; as
a result, discussion is stilted rather than those discussions made possible through synchronous
tools that enable students to collaborate together as they make contributions in real-time. It is
important to note that these same studies also do not reference use of common Web 2.0 tools for
collaboration such as Google applications (docs, sheets, slides, etc.) that students might use to
perform collaborative activities or assessments assigned on a LMS. This appears to point to the
idea that instructors focus too much on asynchronous tools, such as discussion boards, rather
than synchronous tools that enable students to work together online to research, contribute,

EVALUATION
7

analyze, synthesize, and create. As a result, instructors that use a LMS fail to understand the full
extent as to how collaborative activities and assessments can be created and implemented online.
Conclusion
In looking at the previous literature, several patterns emerge in relation as to why teachers
choose to not utilize collaborative activities or assessments in a LMS. Firstly, there appears to be
an incorrect perception that a LMS primarily should act as a supplemental resource students use
to access materials that aid in self-study and review for in-class courses. There may also be a
second misconception concerning how different tools enable different formats of communication
(synchronous versus asynchronous) required for different types of online collaboration. These
incorrect assumptions often made by instructors appear to be due to a lack of knowledge
concerning pedagogical strategies best used in an online learning environment specifically; this
is especially the case for those newly making a transition from in-class instruction to online
instruction, who are very unfamiliar with the ways in which instructional strategies shift.
Additionally, there is evidence that supports the need for technical training of unfamiliar tools
and their pedagogical purposes. Lastly, as result of this lack of knowledge and experience, many
teachers do not appear to comprehend the extent to which LMSs are able to enhance learning
through collaborative assessments in ways that are not possible to achieve in a physical
classroom that does not have technological assistance. Using these findings, we now have a
broad but strong foundation of what areas to explore in further detail in our own research. Using
these main ideas, we will be able to assess the influence of more specific aspects of these areas
which will help to further research in this very important matter of educational technology.

EVALUATION
8

References
Edelstein, S., & Edwards, J. (2002). If you build it, they will come: Building learning
communities through threaded discussions. Retrieved from http://www.
westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51.html
Emelyanova, N., & Voronina, E. (2014). Introducing a learning management system at a Russian
university: Students' and teachers' perceptions. International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, 15(1), 272-289. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=Introducing
a Learning Management System at a Russian University: Students' and Teachers'
Perceptions&id=EJ1024359
Lawless, K., & Pellegrino, J. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into
teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and
answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.
doi:10.3102/0034654307309921
Lai, A., & Savage, P. (2013). Learning management systems and principles of good teaching:
Instructor and student perspectives. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,
39(3). Retrieved July, from http://eric.ed.gov/?q= Learning Management Systems and
Principles of Good Teaching: Instructor and Student Perspectives &id=EJ1029174
Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. (2010). Re-examining technologys role in learner-centered
professional development. Educational Technology in Research and Development, 58(5),
557-571.
Wepner, S., & Mobley, M. (1998). Reaping new harvests: Collaborative and communication
through field experiences. Action In Teachers Education, 20, 50-61.

EVALUATION
9

West, R. E., Waddoups, G., & West, C. R. (2007). Understanding the experiences of instructors
as they adopt a course management system. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 55(1), 1-26.