In OLTD 502 course I looked at the Technology Acceptable Model (TAM) originally proposed by Davis (1989) as a way of framing my planning of training materials. TAM simply says that the perceived usefulness (PU) and the perceived ease-of-use (PEOU) of a technology affects how and when it is adopted by users. In my mind, the heart of the LMS / non-LMS discussion comes down to PU and PEOU –what are the capabilities of the systems and are they easy to use.

Capabilities (PU)

Web 2.0 tools, used in a non-LMS system, are highly attractive because if instructors are willing to look around and try different services, the possibilities are nearly endless. If one tool isn’t working the way instructors expected or hoped, they can try another one later in the course, or the next time they run the course. LMSs tend not to have that same flexibility – tools cannot be easily substituted for one another unless instructors start using systems outside the LMS.

However, LMSs are capable of providing a standardized, safe space for instructors and students. Students know what to expect and know where to go. Instructors know that their material can be kept secure behind an authentication wall. Commercial LMSs can also offer robust analytic and management tools that non-LMSs simply can’t.

Ease of Use (PEOU)

LMSs tend to have a very low PEOU. Most LMSs have a plethora of tools available, and in trying to provide all possible tools to instructors they become complex and overwhelming. Unless the instructors have a desire to use the system, they likely will avoid it. In most post-secondary cases, however, there is a technical team available to help instructors through learning the LMS and troubleshooting any issues with its use.

In contrast, a non-LMS based on Web 2.0 tools generally has a high PEOU, as many of the available tools are used by students and instructors in their personal lives. Most tools are generally used for a singular purpose, such as microblogging. While they can be used for other purposes, they do not have an overwhelming number of possibilities. It is much easier to focus on what tools instructors want to use in a non-LMS system, and completely customize a tool set. If a customized set of tools is used in a non-LMS system, however, instructors need to be prepared to be the technical support for their students, which can be challenging for some.

I don’t really believe there is a black and white answer to the LMS/ non-LMS discussion. An LMS can serve as a great dashboard and content storage area, and then direct students outward to the best hand-selected Web 2.0 tools. The tools that best support student learning and that align with the instructor’s philosophy of teaching should be used. The likelihood of the “next generation” LMS described in “Managing Courses, Defining Learning: What Faculty, Students, and Administrators Want” is very low, so instructors should become comfortable breaking the mold of their current LMS (if they are using one) and making use of the best non-LMS tools out there.