This article was downloaded by: [Northwestern University]On: 20 December 2014, At: 17:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Interactive Learning EnvironmentsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20
An evolving Learning ManagementSystem for new educationalenvironments using 2.0 toolsMiguel . Condea, Francisco J. Garca-Pealvoa, Mara J.Rodrguez-Condea, Marc Alierb, Mara J. Casanyb & Jordi Piguillemba Computer Science Department, Science Education ResearchInstitute (IUCE), GRIAL Research Group, University of Salamanca,Salamanca, Spainb Services & Information Systems Engineering Department, UPC -Campus Nord, Building Omega, Barcelona, SpainPublished online: 03 Dec 2012.
To cite this article: Miguel . Conde, Francisco J. Garca-Pealvo, Mara J. Rodrguez-Conde, MarcAlier, Mara J. Casany & Jordi Piguillem (2014) An evolving Learning Management System for neweducational environments using 2.0 tools, Interactive Learning Environments, 22:2, 188-204, DOI:10.1080/10494820.2012.745433
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745433
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
An evolving Learning Management System for new educationalenvironments using 2.0 tools
Miguel A. Condea*, Francisco J. Garca-Penalvoa, Mara J. Rodrguez-Condea,Marc Alierb, Mara J. Casanyb and Jordi Piguillemb
aComputer Science Department, Science Education Research Institute (IUCE), GRIALResearch Group, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain; bServices & Information SystemsEngineering Department, UPC - Campus Nord, Building Omega, Barcelona, Spain
(Received 19 January 2012; final version received 6 August 2012)
The tools used in learning processes are in a continuous state of flux. One of themost significant changes is the application of Information and Communicationstechnologies (ICTs) to educational contexts. This provides new possible ways tocarry out learning activities, new learning services, the possibility to use new kindsof contents and activities, etc. However, ICTs have not provided as manyadvantages as they were supposed to, so changes are necessary. In this context, anew set of tools, Web 2.0, offers a new way to understand the Web, in which theuser is the centre. Further, users can cooperate in order to define contents. Thisconcept is also applied in technology-mediated learning but there are importantproblems when one tries to integrate such tools and concepts with existingsystems. This paper explores the integration of these tools in traditional learningenvironments, the various possibilities and their advantages and drawbacks. Afterthat, an interoperability scenario is described and two experiences are presentedto show how 2.0 tools can be integrated in learning activities, and its effect ineducational process.
Keywords: Learning Management Systems evolution; Web 2.0; interoperability;learning tools; personal learning environments
The introduction of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) inlearning processes involves a shift in the set of tools used for learning purposes(Garca-Penalvo, 2008). These tools are not always suitable for the task to which theyare applied and they are not always used properly for a specific purpose (Chadwick,2001). Learners and teachers have used the media they can obtain in their context inorder to carry out learning activities and also to improve their results. They have gonefrom using books to using social networks and 2.0 tools by means of Internetapplications. These tools condition the way in which learning and teaching is carriedout and therefore they are one of the causes of changes in teaching practice.
Taking into account this learning evolution, the application of ICT was thoughtto be important, because it was going to provide new ways to improve learning,
*Corresponding author. Email: email@example.com
2012 Taylor & Francis
Interactive Learning Environments, 2014Vol. 22, No. 2, 188204, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745433
based on the use of the Internet and computers. However, it did not have theexpected success (Mott & Wiley, 2009; Trucano, 2005). The reasons for this include:(1) institutional resistance to change regarding the introduction of certaintechnologies in formal environments (Mott & Wiley, 2009; Piscitelli, Adaime, &Binder, 2010). (2) Trying to apply this technology even though it is not required orseen as a solution (Chadwick, 2001). (3) A need for digital literacy amongst teachersand students, many of whom are digital immigrants when the younger students arealready digital natives (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008; Prensky, 2001b). Thisimplies a confrontation and a gap that makes it difficult for them to take advantageof new technologies. (4) Additionally, the most representative ICT tool applied inlearning context, the Learning Management System (LMS), is focused on theinstitution and the course rather than on the learner, which means that they do notsatisfy one of the final learning stakeholders. This makes difficult to adopt and usesuch technologies (Downes, 2005; Mott & Wiley, 2009).
In order to address these problems, there is a trend related with technology-enhanced learning, focused on the personalization of learning, which states thatlearning institutions need to change their strategies. They must provide environ-ments that will be more adapted to the students and open to the inclusion of the newset of Web 2.0 tools, which are under the students control. The rationale for the shiftof this locus of control is that personalization can improve learning byempowering students to manage learning at their own pace (Attwell, 2007). Theycan do so with their own technology within the context of the activities of their dailylives, which are also managed by the same technologies.
The most important element in this new paradigm is the user, and a user that isgoing to participate in the learning process as a prosumer, that is to say, not only aconsumer of learning contents but also a producer (Schaffert & Hilzensauer, 2008).She is going to use a set of tools that complements the institutional learningenvironments, often known as 2.0 tools. The Web 2.0 rises as a new way to use theWeb (and not as a technology), supported by a set of technological applicationsintended to facilitate cooperation between their users (Segaran, 2008).
There is a number of factors that contribute to the success of Web 2.0 tools, suchas the new role of the user, that participates as a content producer; tools that are notbound to a context, since they reside in the cloud; software that can be used as aservice in different environments; the cooperation with others to use and build theweb, etc. These factors are reflected when applying Web 2.0 tools in learningprocesses since it involves defining new communication styles, new roles, newlearning scenarios, and wide set of new learning activities, that is to say, new learningchallenges (SCOPEO, 2009). This does not mean, however, that all those factors arenecessarily made available. Through the use of 2.0 tools, learners begin to participateactively in classes using very different kinds of tools and devices, enabling pedagogicapproaches sometimes known as eLearning 2.0 to be adopted (Downes, 2005).
Learning by using 2.0 tools has an enormous potential, as evidenced byexperiences such as those carried out by Jenkins (2006) or Downes (2005), and it isincreasingly expanding in different areas of education (De Pablos, 2007). However,despite all this potential, it is necessary to take into accou