Assign 5

Introduction

According to Walker, Lindner, Murphrey, and Dooley, (2016), a Learning Management System, commonly abbreviated as (LMS) is a very crucial tool in the education sector. It is at the core of the process of determining education quality when effectiveness and efficiency is a matter of concern. Mostly, it is necessary when evaluated from time to time to seek improvements that can shine a light on the different areas of weakness, strengths, opportunities and the threats that come with its continued use. In this particular analysis, an interpretation of the provided reports will be done in order to make a logical sense of the existing Learning Management System. That will enable the determination of the areas that most engage us as students and those that do not. It will also provide a chance to note the critical areas of improvement and the recommendable changes to be made to the current Learning Management System based on a targeted report.

Engagement and Non-Engagement

When Learning Management Systems are formulated and used in manning how courses are taken by students and by how far they engage students, there is always a chance of greatness in them. However, there is always a chance that some of the areas might not engage us as students to the prospective level. Generally, it is easily observable from the reports that the current system is not as effective and efficient in channeling its mandate towards producing a well-baked lot of students in the particular courses as should be. That is because, despite, the system indicating the provision of significant time of interaction between tutors and students, it does not provide detailed information as to the extent of the significance of the assessments and it is not uniform. Thus, the system has some main areas that propel and engage students to the best of performance targets and skill development. These main areas include discussions boards during the different course learning weeks, assignment submission and assessments. The e-activity assessments are also presented as a major area that engages students and gets students busy. On the other hand, the main areas that I found during this analysis that do not engage students include mobile learning activity and the student center activities. Surprisingly, the career insights offered once in the course study are also shown to record poor student engagement which I think is an added plus especially for student that have yet to choose a career path.

Areas of Improvement

Significantly, the weak areas as identified in student reports of 2015 present the need to improve the entire Learning Management System. That is because a great Learning Management System will always fight to be completely all round (Daft & Marcic, 2016). According to Daft and Marcic, a great LMS will always bear aspects such as learner-centric experience, in-built reporting, and mobile capabilities. Furthermore, it should always bear the survey capabilities in which it can use survey tools to easily and effectively administer pre-training assessments. Thus, following the use of survey tools in the LMS, post-training evaluations would also be possible. When observing the reports provided as student reports, if given a chance, I would firstly improve the analytics area of the system and secondly, the flexibility of the LMS.

In this case, improving the analytics of the system would mean there is a possibility of the system capturing more advance data about the student usage. For example, the reports should document more data in regards to the discussion boards and login times. Capturing the specific time when discussions are held and when students carry out their e-activities would be a good indicator of the times when students are more active. This would be advantageous as it offers insights as to how to push more of the activities to such times as when the students are active. Improving the flexibility of the system would also be necessary, for example, in allowing students to use their mobile capabilities much more hence improving the students' engagements. That is due to the rising preferential usage of mobile devices as opposed to desktops and laptops (Daft & Marcic, 2016). The improvements promise the course uptake and the LMS functionality. Changes in The LMS

To enhance the student learning cycle and managing experiences of the stakeholders in the institution, numerous changes on the LMS are inevitable. Looking at the provided reports, it is frustrating to actually interpret and analyze the developed reports. That is because the data provided is seemingly clunky and thus, not easy to understand for the stakeholders. Such difficulty in comprehending the report signifies some sort of the inability of the LMS to even channel the required learning experience to the students. It would thus be recommended to change the schematics of the data recording and presentation in the graphs. Such might include changing the manner in which the activities are described to include some more details in regards to what exactly happens during a certain activity and the type of presentation tools used to visualize the extent of engagement of the activity.

Making such changes in terms of the description of activities and the presentation tool used would simplify the effort needed to interpret and analyze the LMS efficiency effectiveness. It further makes it possible to understand when an LMS switching is needed in a quest to take the student engagement and stakeholder a notch higher. Again, changing the activity description would provide prospects of more analytical data to be developed instrumental in reporting the success of the Learning Management System (García-Peñalvo et al., 2015). According to García-Peñalvo and his colleagues, in many occasions, such changes tend to boost the stakeholder satisfaction in the system and thus upping their willingness to even effect the recommended improvements that enhance their own experience in manning the student study cycles.

Targeted Reports

According to Postlethwaite, Wallace, Zboray, and Evans, (2015), there are numerous reports that indicate the efficiency and effectiveness of a Learning Management System for students and institutional faculties. However, for this particular case, the major targeted report that I would recommend is that the current Learning Management System could provide an opportunity for students or the faculty to make suggestions/or recommendations in order to boost understanding/or comprehension of student progress, monitoring the student activities and other interactions with the LMS as a report on the weekly performance trends of the students. A report on each student’s weekly score trends in their exams and assessments availed in a simple and easily understandable manner is a dire necessity most especially to the faculties.

Such a targeted report on the weekly score trends of all students is of dire necessity as it makes it easier for the stakeholders to improve their means of administering training activities. It shines a light on the areas students are performing better and the areas they are poor at (De Smet et al., 2016). In this case, a report indicating such strengths and weaknesses of students makes it easier for tailoring the activities in a manner that favor all students in their faculties. Such tailor-made activities usually give high prospects of improvement in delivering on the main agenda of a Learning Management System that is offering the best quality of education.

Again, a report on the satisfaction rate of the students with learning activities would also be necessary. Whether or not students are happy with the design of these activities matters a lot in determining whether to go on with the activities as they are or whether to change them to conform to the preferences of the students. Such is necessary in order to uplift the morale of students and their willingness to learn and garner skills.

Conclusion

This paper has been able to keenly interpret analyze the student Learning Management System reports (provided) of 2015. It has identified the main areas of strength and weaknesses prompting dire improvements. It has also suggested some of the recommended changes on the current system in regard the presentation tools, and the activity description. Additionally, the paper highlights some targeted reports such as the satisfaction rate report and weekly score trends of the assessments and exams of students that are dire in determining the effectiveness and efficiency of the Learning Management System.

References

Daft, R. L., & Marcic, D. (2016). Understanding management. Nelson Education.

De Smet, C., Valcke, M., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). A Qualitative Study on Learning and Teaching with Learning Paths in a Learning Management System. Journal of Social Science Education, 15(1), 27-37.

García-Peñalvo, F. J., Hernández-García, Á., Conde, M. Á., Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M. L., Alier, M., ... & Iglesias-Pradas, S. (2015, October). Learning services-based technological ecosystems. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 467-472). ACM.

Postlethwaite, D., Wallace, M. W., Zboray, D. A., & Evans, S. (2015). U.S. Patent Application No. 14/190,812.

Walker, D. S., Lindner, J. R., Murphrey, T. P., & Dooley, K. (2016). Learning Management System usage. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(2), 41-50.