Reflection of the article “Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems”

The article was written by Christian Dalsgaard from Institute of Information and Media Studies, University of Aarhus, Helsingforsgade Danmark. Its purpose is to discuss the potential of social software to move  e-learning beyond leaning management systems (LMS). It also raises the question of whether the tools should be used intergratedly or separately.

LMS can be understood as a single system that offers all necessary tools to run and manage an e-learning course. All learning activities and materials in a course are organized and managed by and within the system. LMS typically offer discussion forums, file sharing, management of assignments, lesson plans, syllabus, chat, etc. This system is claimed to cover only administrative issues and be unable to support a social constructivist approach which emphasizes self-governed learning activities of students. It is argued that LMS are well suited for managing student enrolment, exams, assignments, course descriptions, lesson plans, messages, syllabus, basic course materials, etc.

On the other hand, social networks are said to be able to stimulate students’ self-governed learning processes and advised to be provided as personal tools for students so that they can utilize them to obtain better learning results. Social networks here refer to weblogs, wikis, RSS feeds and social bookmarking etc.

The writer is right to say that using a management system, personal tools and social networks differs from the sole use of an integrated LMS. In my opinion, the use of  the tools should be very flexible and appropriate to the purpose of the learning. LMS, for example, can be of good help for a course’s administration work. In addition to this, to boost the leaner’s self-governed learning process,  they should be  provided with social networks for their self-governed and problem-based activities.


2 thoughts on “Reflection of the article “Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems”

  1. cyberplacebo November 20, 2012 at 4:35 pm Reply

    Absolutely, Lua, you are right in saying that the tools should be flexible and aligned iwht the learning outcomes, like any tasks given to the students to complete.If the tool doesn’t serve the purpose of higher learning outcomes then it is a waste of energy for both the students and the teacher. however technology integration is about taking risks, it is about innovative ideas that demand testing before becoming fully implemented as a channel of input/output in the course outline 😉 Judging whether a tool is useful or not is the challenge for any innovator! You are all pioneers in the making!

    • vtlua November 21, 2012 at 9:01 am Reply

      Thanks a lot, Edith. I like your idea that teachnology integration is an innovative job and tools needs to be evaluated before becoming fully implemented.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: