The Ups and Downs of CMS/LMS

Based on the mock iLearn forum and my previous experience, I feel like learning in CMS/LMS is difficult because the format doesn't encourage collaboration -- something that's essential in a discussion forum. I would say learning here feels forced. Who would be eager to contribute to such a dull, uncompromising forum when we have customizable alternatives like blogs? I haven't seen a sample of Palace, but it seems like the "distractions" mentioned in Coopman's article -- the text, audio, images -- could only promote and improve the interaction on iLearn. I accept that iLearn will never seem as engaging to me as an actual class because it doesn't have the face-to-face interaction I enjoy. We are no longer discussing literature in the way I am accustomed to: in the classroom, surrounded by other students and a teacher. In fact, the instructor seems to be missing entirely from our mock iLearn. Having experienced previous semesters of being forced to post an arbitrary number of comments on discussion forums, I have noticed that a majority of the instructors rarely post any feedback. So far, I have only noticed one instructor who ever posted on a forum, but he/she stopped before the middle of the semester.

I must agree, though, that CMS/LMS can potentially promote a more horizontal relationship between the instructor and the students. I enjoyed reading the feedback from my former professor, which also seemed to indicate that he/she was involved not only in teaching but in learning. Both Coopman and Kotkamp imply, however, that the hierarchal power structure of CMS prevents more of a horizontal relationship between teachers and students because instructors have little control over the interface compared to people like designers, administrative workers, marketers. As Kotkamp states, ". . . a teacher who is seen as a guide and coach in a flexible learning process should have the ability to alter the design of the course throughout the course to ensure this flexibility" (70). As a result, the students, who are ironically the lowest on the totem poll, are more restricted than anybody else.

Because students are limited to adding a new discussion topic or commenting on other discussions, they reluctantly involve themselves in the forums. So far, I haven't met a single student who enjoys posting on forums (although I haven't asked a vast number of people about it). I've noticed that many students participate to simply satisfy a number of posts required by the instructor, so the quantity may be there, but the quality is missing. In an extreme example, I remember a student in an undergrad class didn't even glance at the iLearn forum until the end of semester, at which point he proceeded to post five responses at once. How is that conducive to learning? How could this student possibly experience the continuity mentioned in Kotkamp's article when he probably skipped reading what other students had to say? As we discovered during last week's discussion, we feel like we need to be able to connect in order to learn, whether it's to other students or previous ideas; this connection, I would argue, is being disrupted by the lifeless format of iLearn and the way that some instructors assign participation.

At the same time, however, iLearn does attempt to create an open space where students should be able to connect with each other. While I prefer classroom discussions, some students may have an easier time with iLearn's forums because they may be more comfortable expressing their thoughts over the internet. We also have the luxury of proof-reading our assertions when we hold our discussions online, and because the discussion is asynchronous, we can choose to join the discussion whenever we have the time and motivation. Perhaps if iLearn were more customizable for both the students and instructors, we would be more eager to get involved.