TOWARDS AN ONTOLOGY OF LMS

A Conceptual Framework

Gabriela Díaz-Antón, María A. Pérez

Universidad Simón Bolívar, Laboratorio de Invesigación y Sistemas de Información, Caracas, Venezuela

Keywords: LMS, Ontology, Elearning , Elearning Standards, LMS evaluation, LMS deployment.

Abstract: Learning Management Systems (LMS) are used widely to support training in an organization. Selecting and

implementing an LMS can have an impact in cost, time and customer satisfaction in the organization. Due

to the existence of a variety of definitions on the subject of elearning and LMS, it is necessary a conceptual

framework using an ontology. This article presents a research in progress whose final objective is to develop

a method to select, deploy and integrate an LMS into an organization with a systemic quality approach. As a

first step, in this article is presented an ontology to conceptualize the terms associated to LMS, unifying

them thr ough their relations.

1 INTRODUCTION

Learning Management Systems (LMS) allow

important advantages oriented to keep tracking and

automate the administration of training events and

support the management of learning in an

organization (Hall, 2005a; Dean, 2002; Kaplan,

2005, Martin et al, 2005). An LMS integrates

educational resources, the learners and support tools

(Edutools, 2003).

In the last few years, there is an increased interest

in the process of selecting, implementing and

integrating an LMS in an organization (Fernandez,

2003; Piskurich, 2003; Papshew, 2005). Recent

studies (Howard, 2003) have shown that these

processes have an impact in cost, time and customer

satisfaction, and therefore in the organization. From

the Bersin&Associates study (Howard, 2003), it is

possible to infer that it is very common that

companies acquire LMS instead of developing it and

that once it is acquired, it turns out expensive to

implement it.

In order to get an insight into these processes, an

ontology on the LMS domain is proposed. This

ontology allows a better understanding of the LMS

concept as well as its characteristics and the latest

implications in educational, business and

engineering environment. This paper is part of a

more ambitious project in progress that aims to

estimate the systemic quality on the deployment and

integration process of an LMS into an organization.

For this purpose, descriptions of the concepts related

to LMS are presented, a unified concept model is

established, and finally, conclusions and future work

are presented.

2 LMS ONTOLOGY PROPOSAL

To specify the issues related to LMS in elearning, an

Ontology creation methodology was employed:

Ontology development 101 (Noy & McGuinness,

2001). Figure 1 shows a set of concept related to

LMS.

Elearning concept has evolved from earlier

concepts such as TBT (Technology-Based Training),

CBT (Computer-based training), and others

acronyms that had not agreed upon definition

(Piskurich, 2003). It can be found that CD-ROM

based learning, CBT, Web-based learning (WBL)

and, satellite, mobile and wireless learning can be

taken as elearning (Bowles, 2004). Bowles (2004)

defines Electronic learning as a learning experience

involving the acquisition or transfer of knowledge

delivered or transacted through electronic means. As

this definition is too broad for the purpose of

ongoing research, elearning can be defined as the

learning experience involving ‘the use of Internet

technologies to deliver a broad array of solutions

that enhance knowledge and performance’

161

Díaz-Antón G. and A. Pérez M. (2006).

TOWARDS AN ONTOLOGY OF LMS - A Conceptual Framework.

In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - HCI, pages 161-164

DOI: 10.5220/0002463901610164

 SciTePress

(Rosenberg, 2002). This definition includes

computer networks or webs as the delivery or

mediation mechanism (Piskurich, 2003).

LMS is a software package that automates the

administration of training events and supports the

management of learning in an organization (Hall,

2005a; Dean, 2002; Kaplan, 2005). All LMSs

manage the log-in and registration of users, manage

course catalogs, record data from learners, and

provide reports to management (Hall, 2005a).

According to Brockbank (2003), an LMS ties six

elearning components: content, collaboration, testing

and assessment, skills and competency, e-commerce

and Internet video-based learning in a framework

that tracks, supports, manages and measure

elearning activities. Kanahele (2003) states that an

LMS provides the infrastructure that centralizes

several components associated which each phase of

the learning cycle. WCET-Edutools (2005) proposes

two set of tools that have to be present in a LMS:

Learner tools and support tools.

According to Hall (2005a), Content Management

Systems (CMSs) are used to store and subsequently

find and retrieve large amounts of data. CMSs work

by indexing text, audio clips, images, etc., within a

database. In addition, CMSs often provide version

control and check-in/check out capabilities. For

Nichani (2001) the smallest self-contained piece of

information in the CMS is the content component.

On the other hand, a Learning Content Management

System (LCMS), is an environment where

developers can create, store, reuse, manage, and

deliver learning content from a central object

repository, usually a database. LCMSs generally

work with content that is based on a learning object

model (Hall, 2005a). A LCMS combines the

administrative and management dimensions of a

traditional LMS with the content creation and

personalized assembly dimensions of a CMS. Thus,

the objective of a LMS and a LCMS is different: the

primary objective of a LMS is to manage learners,

keeping track of their progress and performance

across all types of training activities (Hall, 2005b).

Additionally, the main focus of LCMSs is on

achieving personalized learning on demand (LOD)

to drive performance in an organization by

delivering content to learners to solve business

problems (Brockbank, 2003). Understanding the

difference can be very confusing because most of

the LCMS systems also have built-in LMS

functionality (Hall, 2005b).

Elearning standards facilitate the description,

packaging, sequencing, accessibility and delivery of

educational content, learning activities and learner

information (Fallon and Brown, 2002). There are

presently several proposed standards but the most

prominent are the standards developed by the IMS

Global Learning Consortium that define the

technical specifications for interoperability of

applications. There are three levels of standards

support: compliance, conformance and certification

(Brockbank, 2003).

Before selecting the right LMS for the

organization, Brockbank (2003) proposes to

consider to analyze the organization’s current

training and learning environment, commitment,

technology and resources, to determine what needs

must be met by an LMS, to find out the existing IT

training that will need to be integrated into the LMS

and to know the schedule for the deployment of the

LMS.

Some organizations and researchers propose a

preselecting process before the evaluation and final

selection of the LMS that would be used in the

organization (Edutech, 2003, Edutech, 2005; COL,

2003; JOIN, 2005, Bershears, 2001, Hollander,

2000).

Most LMS evaluation includes the evaluation of:

LMS features or functional requirements,

Maintainability, Usability, Reliability and Technical

specification. (WCET-Edutools, 2005, COL, 2004;

Edutech, 2005; JOIN, 2005; ISO/IEC 9126

Brockbank, 2003).

Papshev (2005) recommends a methodology to

implement a LMS in an organization. It uses six

phases: project planning, data preparation, data

introduction, data migration, impact in the

organization, system training and system production.

3 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORKS

The selection of an LMS is a process that involves a

pre-selection process, an evaluation methodology

and a deployment process. A correct LMS definition

is needed to get a better understanding of what

features must conform an LMS to be considered in

the pre-selection list.

To make the correct selection, several aspects

should be taken into account even before starting the

pre-selection process: a study of the organization’s

current training and learning environment, the

existing IT infrastructure and the needs that must be

met by the LMS. Elearning standards play an

important role in the LMS selection, as well as

usability, customer satisfaction and the support that

ICEIS 2006 - HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION

162

the LMS suppliers can provide.

Therefore, this ongoing research is oriented

towards an establishment of a methodology to select

and deploy a LMS into an organization with a

systemic approach that includes a rigorous

description of the scope and conceptual framework.

Additionally, this first ontology would be applied to

a study case to validate the concepts. The model

would be formulated and validated applying the

method DESMET, which allows evaluating methods

and tools used in the subject of Software

engineering. The applicability and pertinence of the

model is expected to be around 75%.

REFERENCES

Beshears, F. 2001. Learning Management System

Evaluation Framework. Retrieved online June 15 2005

from

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~fmb/articles/lms_eval/

Bowles, M. 2004. Relearning To E-learn: Strategies For

Electronic Learning And Knowledge. Carlton.

Melbourne University Press. Australia, 198 pp.

Brockbank, B. 2003. Learning Management System for e-

learning, in The AMA handbook of e-learning:

Effective design, implementation, and technology

solutions. Piskurich, G.(Ed.).AMACON. NY. USA.

COL, 2003. COL LMS Open Source, Commonwealth of

Learning, Retrieved online June 15 2005 from:

http://www.col.org/Consultancies/03LMSOpenSource.

htm

COL, 2004. LMS Evaluation Tool User Guide,

Commonwealth of Learning, 3waynet Inc. Vancouver,

Canada. Retrieved online June 15 2005

from:http://www.col.org/Consultancies/04LMSEvalua

tion.htm

Dean, C., 2002. Technology based training & on-line

learning: An overview of authoring systems and

learning management systems available in UK.

Retrieved online June 15 2005 from:

http://www.peak.co.uk/AuthoringSystem.pdf

Edutech, 2003. Evaluation of Learning Management

Systems, Retrieved online June 15 2005 from:

http://www.edutech.ch/lms/ev2.php

Edutech, 2005. Evaluation of Open Source Learning

Management Systems, Retrieved online June 15 2005

from: http://www.edutech.ch/lms/ev3/index.php

Fallon,C. and Brown, S., 2002. Learning Standards: A

Guide to Purchasing, Developing, and Deploying

Standards-Conformant E-Learning. CRC Press.256

pp.

Fernández, E., 2003. E-learning: Implantación de

proyectos de formación online. RA-MA Editorial,

Madrid, España.

Hall, B., 2005a. New Technology definitions. Retrieved

online June 15 2005 from:

www.brandonhall.com/public/glossary/

Hall, B., 2005b. LMSs and LCMSs Demystified.

Whitepaper. Retrieved online June 15 2005 from:

http://www.brandonhall.com/public/resources/lms_lc

ms/lms_lcms.htm

Hollander, N., 2000. A guide to software package

evaluation and selection: The R2ISC Method.

AMACON. American Management Association. New

York. USA.

Howard, C., 2003. Selecting a Learning Management

System.. Bersin & Associates. Retrieved online June,

15 2005 from:

http://www.bersin.com/presentations/Selecting_an_L

MS_OLLO_2003.pdf

JOIN, 2005. OS LMS evaluation. Retrieved online June

15 2005 from: http://www.ossite.org/join/es/lms/

Kanahele, C., 2003. Learning Portals, in The AMA

handbook of e-learning: Effective design,

implementation, and technology solutions. Piskurich,

G.(Editor). AMACON, New York. USA.

Kaplan, E. E-learning Glossary. Retrieved online June 15

2005 from:

http://www.learningcircuits.org/glossary.html

Nichami, M. (2001) “LCMS= LMS+ CMS [RLOs]”

ElearningPost. Retrieved online June 15 2005 from:

http://www.elearningpost.com/features/archives/00102

2.asp

Noy, N. and McGuinness, D. (2001). “Ontology

Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First

Ontology”. Retrieved online June 15 2005 from:

http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontolo

gy-tutorial-noy-mcguinness.pdf

Papshew A.., 2005. Implementing LMS Beyond the

Technology. In The LMS/LCMS Implementation &

Management Syposium. Retrieved online June 15 2005

from: http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/17/lms05_-

_702_-_papshev.pdf

Piskurich, G., G.(Edt), 2003. The AMA handbook of e-

learning: Effective design, implementation, and

technology solutions. AMACON, American

Management Association. New York. USA.

Rosenberg, M. (2001) “E-learning: Estrategias para

transmitir conocimiento en la era digital”.

McGrawHill, Bogotá, Colombia.

WCET-EduTools (2005). “Edutools: providing decision

making tools for the E-D-U community”. Retrieved

online June, 15 2005 from http://www.edutools.info/

TOWARDS AN ONTOLOGY OF LMS - A Conceptual Framework

163

Figure 1: Conceptual model for LMS.

ICEIS 2006 - HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION

164