Running Head: EDID 6510 LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

EDID 6510- Learning and Knowledge Management Systems

Name: Genevieve Cox

Assignment 1: Differences between LMS, LCMS and CMS

Course Facilitator: Dr. Laura Gray

University of the West Indies Open Campus

Date June10, 2017

EDID 6510 ASSIGNMENT 1 2

Timeline of Major Developments in the LMS : (Please see Gantt Chart for detailed timeline)

1960 2000 Emergence of Talent

Emergence of PLATO Management Systems
Precursor to First Course supporting full integration
Management System using with HR software and
ILS technology on expands LMS functionality
mainframe computer for corporate training.

1990 Emergence of First

Class by SoftArc ,
running on a personal
computer using
Client/Server technology.
First Modern LMS
1990's saw emergence of
LCMS and CMS

Introduction

The timeline artifact of the History and Evolution of Learning Management Systems

depicted in the attached Gantt Chart, shows that almost a century of ideas, inventions and

innovative technological advancements have taken place, in the development of managing

learning with machines. Since early theorists, and inventors in the field such as Thorndike and

Pressy conceived of the idea of automating and managing learning with machines, advances in

technology and education have given rise to tools that have changed the delivery of education,

training, and the facilitation of e-Learning. The development and future of managing learning by

machines is in a constant state of evolution. Educause (2003,16) states E-learnings growing

presence in higher education will continue to accelerate support requirementsinstitutions that

strive to create the optimal mix of e-learning support resources discover that this goal is

elusiveinstitutions must constantly adapt their resources to meet evolving support

EDID 6510 ASSIGNMENT 1 3

requirements. This paper will outline the history, evolution and differences between LMS,

LCMS and CMS platforms for managing learning.

Throughout the decades, beginning in the 1920s, there were attempts to connect

outcomes with instruction. Development of programmed instruction in the 1960s, invention of

computers in the 1970s and advances with the microcomputer in the 1970s through the 1980s,

coupled with development of the Internet and World Wide Web in the 1990s, provided

enabling technologies that advanced the development of modern learning management systems.

(Coates, James and Baldwin , 2005, p.20) states, LMS grew from a range of multimedia and

internet developments in the 1990s they combine a range of course or subject management and

pedagogical tools to provide a means of designing, building and delivering online learning

environments. LMSs have benefited from, evolved, and matured, with each decade of

technological advancements to become, what we now know of them today.

History and Overview of Teaching Machines

The development of the first LMS was influenced by principles used in many early

predecessor inventions, and most notably from the insight of many early thinkers in the field of

education, psychology and technology. (Benjamin, 1988) In 1924, Sydney Pressy, a psychology

professor at Ohio University, developed the first drill and practice machine. The device

administered multiple choice quizzes, and was based on behavioural learning principles. Pressy

published the first paper on the use of a teaching machine in School and Society in 1926. In this

paper, he posited that automated instruction facilitated learning by providing for immediate

reinforcement, individual pace setting, and active responding. Further, he wrote in the final

chapter of his 1933 book, entitled Psychology and the New Education
EDID 6510 ASSIGNMENT 1 4

There must be an "industrial revolution" in education, in which educational science and

the ingenuity of educational technology combine to modernize the grossly inefficient and

clumsy procedures of conventional education. There will be many laborsaving schemes

and devices, and even machines--not at all for the mechanizing of education, but for the

freeing of teacher and pupil from educational drudgery and incompetence (pp. 582-583).

Cited in (Benjamin, Sept. 1988)

Development of Early Course Management Systems

As can be seen from the timeline, Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching

Operations (PLATO) was invented nearly 40 years after Pressys drill and practice teaching

machine. It was the first machine to utilize Integrated Learning System (ILS) technology in the

1960s, and pioneered online forums and message boards, email, chat rooms, instant messaging,

remote screen sharing, and multiplayer games. Developed by the University of Illinois, in

Champaign- Urbana, the system enabled the effective delivery of computerized measured,

monitored content that was maintained by assessment management tools.(University of Illinois,

n.d.)

PLATO used Computer Based Instruction (CBI), which were based on behavioral drill

and practice principles, and is seen by many as the starting point in the development of Course

Management Systems. The software ran on a mainframe computer, and allowed authors and

instructors to interact to create course materials. The machine enabled students to complete

courses online, but was separate from the courseware and content free. (University of Illinois,

n.d.)
EDID 6510 ASSIGNMENT 1 5

The attached timeline also shows, that following PLATOs development, rapid advances

in the invention of enabling technologies, such as the personal computer and the internet,

propelled further innovative developments in the evolution of the early Course Management

Systems.(Wooley, 1994) With the advent of PLATO in the 1940s, what is considered by many

to be the first LMS did not emerge until the 1990s with the advent of First Class. Content

Management Systems (CMS), and Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS) both

emerged in the 1990s, as the e-learning landscape evolved and adapted to enabling and

emerging technologies. Talent Management Systems (TMS), which supports integration with

human resource management software, later emerged in the 2000s.

Early Emerging Systems in the Marketplace: LMS, CMS and LCMS

In contrast to PLATOs dependence on a mainframe system 30 years earlier, First Class

was the first LMS adapted for use on the personal computer, the Apple Macintosh. It was used to

deliver online learning by the Open University across Europe (Mindflash, n.d.). Juxtaposed to

the client/server platform of FirstClass, CourseInfos Interactive Learning Network launched in

1997, with various enabling tools, was the first LMS to use a relational MySQL database.

CourseInfo and Blackboard LLC merged in 1998 to become a leading supplier of academic LMS

systems in the higher education marketplace, in contrast to GeoMetrix Data Systems, which

specialized in supplying enterprise learning management systems to various businesses including

corporations, governments, and hospitals. (Mindflash, n.d.)

EDID 6510 ASSIGNMENT 1 6

LMS, CMS and LCMS: A Differentiation

An evaluation of the LMS, CMS and LCMS for comparing application capability for e-

learning will reveal that they all have capabilities and features in common. . (Irlbeck, Mowat,

Herridge Grp, n.d.) Each feature and variation on one system may have robust or limited

functionality for particular learning tasks on another system. (U. of Buffalo, n.d.) An

examination of all three systems shows that: in comparison to LMS and LCMS, CMS shares

robust functionality for managing content with LCMS, and LMS has no functionality for the

creation, or managing of content.

Moreover, CMS has limited functionality for creating content in contrast to the robust

content creation capability of the LCMS. Whereas, the CMS has no functionality for tasks such

as: managing learners, managing instructor led sessions, course catalogue, registration system,

competency management, launch and track e-learning, assessment creation, evaluation, and

feedback; the LMS has robust functionality for all of these features. (U. of Buffalo, n.d.) The

LCMS, in comparison to the LMS, and CMS, has no functionality for managing instructor led

sessions, but shares robust functionality in assessment creation, evaluation and feedback with the

LMS. (Irlbeck, Mowat, Herridge Grp, n.d.)

(eFrontlearning.com). notes, there are more differences than similarities in the function

of learning management systems. The main difference between an LMS and an LCMS is the

target user. While LMS has an instructional platform for administering training, and is designed

with the learners in mind, LCMS varies in function in that, users are the creators and

instructional designers of the content. When likening the LCMS to the CMS, both systems share
EDID 6510 ASSIGNMENT 1 7

common functions such as content tagging and content searches based on keywords. But have

very little in the functionality, otherwise existing between them. (Zarrabian, 2010).

Mowatt, Herridge Group, n.d.) notes the goal of a learning management system (LMS)

is to "simplify the administration of learning/training programs within an organization." the

organization I work at does not currently have a learning management system. Rather, the in-

house intranet based tax management system shares slight similarities with some rudimentary

capabilities, employing features such as managing content and taxpayers, and registering their

details. The P Dive which stores resources allows access to employees, and may be seen to have

rudimentary content management functions. My organization is of the view that it has no current

need for an LMS or LCMS, but, perhaps could consider the acquisition of a CMS in future.

Types of/Functionality of Learning Management Systems

In the event that my organization may purchase CMS or LMS software in the future,

consideration will need to be given to how it plans to deliver training materials to students.

Leal and Querios notes The LMS plays a central role in any eLearning architecture. Choosing

an LMS can be a challenging task for an organization. (Mindflash, n.d.) Organizational needs

will be determined by a needs assessment to determine which LMS offers features that will

meet its emerging needs. While Proprietory systems are centralized, and are customizable, they

are expensive and have heavy dependence on the developer. When likened to Open Source

systems, which offers cost effectiveness, but depends heavily on a networked community of

users, Open source seems the best option. Cloud based systems, while similarly cost effective as

Open Source Systems that benefit from user innovation, are dissimilar, in the diversity of

personalized tools, and presents the burden of learning multiple tools to the users.
EDID 6510 ASSIGNMENT 1 8

(elearningpost, 2001, para. 3), LCMS allow online content to be stored, managed, and

reused through integrated database functionalitywhile, the goal of a CMS is to store and

distribute content. LMS is focused on the courses administered to learners, LCMS is focused on

developing, managing, maintaining, and delivering learning materials to learners, and CMS is

focused on content, stores, information and provide access to the information by learners.

All LMSs and LCMSs are not created equal, and some may have more advanced

functions. An LMS may have a CMS and LCMS incorporated within it. Examples of CMS

software include Drupal, Joomla and WordPress. Ninoriya, Chawan and Meshram (2011, p. 646)

description of the LMS notes that:

An LMS is an integrated set of software/programs that automate the administration,

tracking and reporting of online courses/programmes. It provides a centralized

organisational approach to learning for scheduling of courses and registration of learners,

and assessment of their learning outcomes.

(eFrontLearning.com, n.d) lists functions of the LMS which include: the management of

traditional, instructor led training, learner profile management, sharing of learner data with HR

and ERP systems, scheduling of events, learner competency mapping, prerequisites screening

and calculation notification. These functions can primarily benefit all learners in an organization.

However, these functions are not present in LCMS or CMS systems. (eFrontlearning.com).

The LMS is the instructional platform that learners interact with to access and complete

assignments, in comparison, the LCMS delivers modular personalized learning that is packaged

for the right learner at the right time. LCMS natively supports instructional design concepts and

schemasand the unique way in which the LCMS understands relationships between learning
EDID 6510 ASSIGNMENT 1 9

objects allows it to deliver content in specific ways to meet specific output learner needs.

(Zarrabian 2008, p.10). In contrast to the knowledge relationships exhibited by LCMS systems,

CMS organizes unstructured content in an organization giving users the ability to tag and

categorize the content.(Zarrabian, 2008, p11) A CMS may help my organization to catalogue and

tag content for easy retrieval by users, and such a system could benefit my organization.

Williams (2002) cited in (Irlbeck and Mowatt, Herridge Group, n.d.) describes,

LCMS as a complex piece of software that labels learning objects, then

organizes and delivers them in infinite combinations (Jones, 2001, p. 21). The core

components of a LCMS are 1) an authoring tool suitable for non-programmers; 2) a

dynamic delivery interface that delivers content; 3) an administrative component that

manages learner records, launches courses, and tracks progress; 4) a learning object

repository that is a central database that houses and manages content (Donello, 2002, p.

1). (Irlbeck and Mowatt, Herridge Group, n.d.). Instructional designers create reusable

content chunks that are available to course developers. This eliminates duplication in

development efforts allowing for the rapid assembly of customized content.

(eFrontlearning.com).

Future of LMS, LCMS and CMS

Limitations in the creation and standardization of learning objects currently hinder the

realization of the full potential of the LMS for the efficient management of e-learning. (Watson

& Watson, 2007) The incorporation of complementary Web 2.0 technologies to enable better

communication and collaboration among users is essential to further developing the LMS.

(Sherry, 1993) in (Watson & Watson, 2007). (Reigeluth & Garfinkle, 1994) cited in Watson &
EDID 6510 ASSIGNMENT 1 10

Watson (2007) notes, LMS needs to provide more constructivist-based instruction focusing on

flexible, learner defined goalsbetter address personalized assessment, progress tracking,

reporting and responsiveness to learner needs.

Conclusion

The implementation of features for more interoperability and integration for exchanging

content and learning objects is needed in the LMS. Other features that accommodate automated,

advanced analytics and learner personalization, in addition to Automatic Meta-data Generation

(AMG) and incorporation of authoring tools will enable emerging learning management systems

to evolve to meet the changing needs of the e-learning environment. (Watson & Watson, 2007).

In the Information Age, education in the 21st Century should allow learner to set up their own

pathways and enable collaboration outside of the course space. Incorporating enabling features

will allow LMS to move beyond inefficient Clumsy Procedures. (1933 Pressy), cited in

(Benjamin, 1988).

When I envision, the next generation of learning management systems, I think of how

virtual reality environments can positively impact the learners experience. (Kluge & Riley,

2008), cited in (Yasar, & Adiguzel, 2010) states, The nature of these [virtual] environments is

generative, allowing users not only to navigate and interact with a pre-existing 3D environment,

but also to extend that environment by creating objects of their own. When learning

management systems move beyond the model of the industrial revolution for which they were

designed, to mimic the American, higher education system, and replace legacy systems with the

capacity to take advantage of enabling and evolving technologies, only then, would we move

beyond the industrial age practices, and experience an information revolution in education.
EDID 6510 ASSIGNMENT 1 11

References

Benjamin, L.T. Jr. (September, 1988). A history of teaching machines. American

Psychologist. Vol. 43. No. 9 pg. 707. Retrieved June 5th 2017 from:

http://aubreydaniels.com/institute/sites/aubreydaniels.com.institute/files/History%20o

f%20teaching%20machines.pdf

Coates, H., James, R., Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of

learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Retrieved

June 9th 2017 from:

http://uait.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/53312706/A%252520critical%252520examinatio

n%252520of%252520the%252520effects%252520of%252520learning%252520mana

gement%252520systems.pdf

Educause (2003). Supporting e-learning in higher education. Retrieved 9th June 2017

from: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0303/rs/ers0303w.pdf

eFront learning .com. (n.d.) LMS and LCMS, Whats the difference? Retrieved June

3, 2017 from:

https://www.efrontlearning.com/blog/2013/05/lms-and-lcms-whats-the-

difference.html

Irlbeck, S., Mowat, J. Herridge Group (n.d.).Learning Content Management Systems. Retrieved
EDID 6510 ASSIGNMENT 1 12

from:

http://www.herridgegroup.com/pdfs/LCMS_chptr_Aug29%202005_%20Final%20Sept%

206%2005.pdf

Leal, J.P., Queirs, R. ( n.d.). A comparative study on lms interoperability. Retrieved June 4th,

2017 from:https://www.dcc.fc.up.pt/~zp/papers/HEILMS.pdf

Mindflash (n.d.). History of learning management systems (LMS). Retrieved June 12,

2017 from: https://www.mindflash.com/learning-management-systems/history-

of-lms/

Ninoriya, S., P.M.Chawan.,B.B.Meshram (March, 2011). CMS, LMS and LCMS For eLearning.

Retrieved June 4th 2017 from:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bb52/8a972b3a12069cf342f37db2ab9100a5088e.pdf

University of Buffalo. Center for Educational Innovation. (n.d. ). Trends and the future of

learning management systems (lmss) in higher education. Retrieved June 10, 2017

https://www.buffalo.edu/content/dam/www/ubcei/reports/CEI%20Report%20-

%20Trends%20and%20the%20Future%20of%20Learning%20Management%20Systems%20in

%20Higher%20Education.pdf

University of Ilinois. (n.d.) PLATO history IT. Retrieved June 8th 2017 from:

http://people.ischool.illinois.edu/~chip/projects/timeline/1960won.html#brief document

history of PLATO
EDID 6510 ASSIGNMENT 1 13

Syberworks. (2010) Scorm and the learning management system (LMS). Retireved 6th June 2017

from: http://www.syberworks.com/articles/scorm-and-the-lms-article.htm

Watson and Watson (1997). An argument for clarity: what are learning management systems,

what are they not, and what should they become? Retrieved June 10th from:

https://www.buffalo.edu/content/dam/www/ubcei/reports/CEI%20Report%20-

%20Trends%20and%20the%20Future%20of%20Learning%20Management%20Systems%20in

%20Higher%20Education.pdf

Wooley. D.R. (1994). Plato. The emergence of online community. Retrieved June 8, 2017 from :

http://www.thinkofit.com/plato/dwplato.htm

Yasar, O., Adiguzel,T. (2010). A working successor of learning management systems. Sloodle.

Retrieved June 11th from :

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042810009687

Zarrabian M. (Sept. 2010), CMS VS LCMS . Retrieved 5th June 2017 from: http://www.cedma-

europe.org/newsletter%20articles/Training%20Magazine/CMS%20vs.%20LCMS%20(Oct%201

0).pdf