=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1841/R02_109
|storemode=property
|title=From LMS to Open Learning Offerings and Back. One Open-Source Platform, Multiple Learning Scenarios
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1841/R02_109.pdf
|volume=Vol-1841
|authors=Monika Andergassen,Gustaf Neumann,Petra Oberhuemer
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/emoocs/AndergassenNO17
}}
==From LMS to Open Learning Offerings and Back. One Open-Source Platform, Multiple Learning Scenarios==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1841/R02_109.pdf
Proceedings of EMOOCs 2017:
Work in Progress Papers of the Experience and Research Tracks and Position Papers of the Policy Track
From LMS to Open Learning Offerings and Back. One
Open-Source Platform, Multiple Learning Scenarios
Monika Andergassen, Gustaf Neumann, Petra Oberhuemer
Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria
monika.andergassen@wu.ac.at
gustaf.neumann@wu.ac.at
petra.oberhuemer@wu.ac.at
Abstract. When Higher Education (HE) institutions decide to offer learning ma-
terial for the public, they share them on dedicated platforms, e.g. MOOC portals,
or they set up their own platform. Building and maintaining a different platform
for on-site and off-site students is cost-intensive. In this paper a research-in-pro-
gress is presented, which follows a modular approach to identify different needs
for on-site and off-site learning. This might be used for developing hybrid
LMS/MOOC solutions which provide a seamless integration of on-site and off-
site learning offerings. The case of the Vienna University of Economics and Busi-
ness is described as an example.
Keywords: Open Learning Offering, LMS, MOOC, e-Learning Infrastructure
1 Introduction
For improving its “Third Mission” (OECD, 2011), the Vienna University of Economics
and Business (WU) is currently working on the development of open learning offerings,
i.e. learning materials and modules intended for the public. In order to have the full
control over the development of the learning design, but also due to WU’s more than
15 years of experience with the operation of one of the largest e-learning platforms
(Mödritscher, Neumann, & Andergassen, 2013), the demand was expressed to find an
in-house solution for hosting the new offer. Since both the creation of the learning ma-
terials and the maintenance of the infrastructure can be very expensive (Dreisiebner,
Ebner, & Kopp, 2014), and due to limited resources, the question arose, whether a new
platform is needed to offer the modules or whether the existing Learning Management
System (LMS) infrastructure could be extended to serve both the traditional LMS needs
of the university and the needs of a platform open to the public.
The current paper investigates this option. Section 2 reviews the literature regarding
LMS and MOOCs, which are currently the most prominent examples for open learning
offerings. Section 3 lines out requirements for a platform which serves both as LMS
and as platform for open learning offerings. Section 4 describes how these requirements
are currently being implemented into the LMS of the WU. Section 5 concludes with an
outlook and next steps.
53
Proceedings of EMOOCs 2017:
Work in Progress Papers of the Experience and Research Tracks and Position Papers of the Policy Track
2 Comparison of LMS and Open Learning Offerings
The way e-learning is provided to the public has changed in the last years. Initiated by
efforts of the MIT OpenCourseWare project (Abelson, 2008), resources shared via pub-
lic platforms such as educanext (Guth, Neumann, & Simon, 2001) or Merlot (Orhun,
2004) were created, mostly for making open educational resources publicly accessible.
With the development of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), the focus shifted
from sharing resources towards providing online classes, typically equipped with op-
tions for the learners to acquire certificates. Today, the term MOOC is used for a variety
of public learning offerings, which go beyond the bare learning material provision. So
the term MOOC is sometimes a misnomer, since many courses are not really “massive”,
and some learning offerings have smaller granularity than typical university “courses”.
Nevertheless, we use the established term MOOC to refer to such offerings.
Depending on the didactic setup of a MOOC, “xMOOCs” and “cMOOCS” have
become prominent terms. The x in xMOOCs refers to an “extended” version of a tradi-
tional university course, while the c in cMOOCs refers to a constructivist/connectivist
didactical setup (Siemens, 2013). Key features of a typical xMOOC include a specially
designed platform software, video lectures, computer-marked assignments, a shared
discussion space, badges or certificates and some learning analytics. To date, most
MOOCs could be classified as xMOOCs, for instance the MOOCs offered by compa-
nies such as Coursera and edX. The scope of the WU open learning offerings comes,
according to the definitions given above, closer to xMOOCs. Therefore, the following
sections will mainly focus on how to integrate a traditional LMS, which could be de-
scribed as a centralized platform to administer, plan, facilitate, assess and monitor stu-
dent learning from a teacher-centric view (Wright, Lopes, Montgomerie, Reju, &
Schmoller, 2014), and xMOOC functionalities.
Existing approaches describe the use of Open-Source LMS for MOOC delivery, for
instance (Meinel, Totschnig, & Willem, 2013) who evaluate Canvas LMS for MOOC
usage. Other approaches include the delivery of open-source variants of MOOC plat-
form software, such as Open edX, for public operation (Ruiz, Díaz, Ruipérez-Valiente,
Muñoz-Merino, & Kloos, 2014).
The novel approach of the current paper is that one software installation is used to
serve both LMS and open learning offerings under one hood, in an all-in-one approach.
3 Requirements towards an LMS / xMOOC platform
Figure 1 shows a generic model of online collaboration from a user perspective. It is
not exhaustive but is intended to highlight some central aspects which need to be con-
sidered when discussing requirements towards an LMS compared to an (x)MOOC plat-
form. In this model, requirements and features are organized concentrically around the
user, departing from a personalized portal interface, basic requirements such as user
management and an underlying knowledge model. Around these core functionalities,
additional aspects such as features for learning management, collaboration, communi-
cation and personal workspace tools are arranged. Finally, requirements such as user
54
Proceedings of EMOOCs 2017:
Work in Progress Papers of the Experience and Research Tracks and Position Papers of the Policy Track
registration and role-based permissioning are considered. The following requirements
were identified for a platform which offers LMS and MOOC platform functionality in
an all-in-one approach.
Fig. 1. On-line collaboration model, reproduced from (“xowiki - OpenACS Proposal - Sam-
ple,” n.d.)
1. User Management: Two types of accounts need to be digested. Regular students of
the HE institution are usually enrolled according to a complex admission procedure.
Their accounts are processed via a campus management software and synchronized
with the LMS. The public users of the MOOC platform, by contrast, require the
option to register directly on the platform with little hurdles. Regular students
should have access to the MOOC platform with their existing student account, with-
out any additional registration.
2. Personalized Portal Interface: The LMS personal portal page usually includes a list
of course memberships, aggregated information from these courses, and some cur-
ricular information. In a xMOOC platform, usually a student might not attend many
courses in parallel such as in a study program. Instead of aggregated news, in this
context it is more important to give the user an easy way to resume the course where
55
Proceedings of EMOOCs 2017:
Work in Progress Papers of the Experience and Research Tracks and Position Papers of the Policy Track
he left at last login, and since he doesn’t follow a strict study program, recommen-
dations about new and follow-up courses are important. An overview of earned
badges and certificates might enhance the motivation to go on studying with
MOOCs.
3. Communication hub and collaboration tools: Regardless whether a course is offered
via an LMS or a MOOC platform, having a time-based or self-paced course sched-
ule is a decisive factor regarding the need for communication and collaboration
tools. Only time-based courses demand for a communication hub for synchronous
communication and for collaboration tools, while for self-paced learning scenarios,
such as the open learning offerings of the WU, they might be of less relevance.
However, asynchronous communication channels such as email or feedback might
make sense also in self-paced settings.
4. Learning Management: Signing up to courses at universities is usually connected to
a variety of selection criteria, while MOOCs do not apply such selection criteria or
participant limitation. An all-in-one system needs to handle course memberships via
an approval system for traditional LMS courses as well as approval-free access to
MOOC courses. Furthermore, in contrast to traditional HE courses, course comple-
tion is often not the main focus of attendees of MOOCs (Milligan, Littlejohn, &
Hood, 2016). To reward more granular learning strategies, MOOC attendees could
be rewarded, for instance, with badges for completion of single course units (Hadi
& Gagen, 2016). Thus, the LMS needs to allow to define new forms of “completion”
within courses in the MOOC context and to award badges. The transfer of badges
from the MOOC to the LMS context should be facilitated.
5. Knowledge Model: The creation of learning resources can follow similar principles
in an LMS and on a MOOC platform. In the all-in-one approach, the content devel-
oper is able to easily transfer resources from one context to the other. If quality
assurance measures are required by the institution, approval steps could be easily
integrated in the publishing workflow of a resource. Learning Analytics and Rec-
ommendations might be more marketing related in MOOCs than in an LMS context.
4 Case Study: LMS and Open Learning Offerings with
Learn@WU
This section gives insight to a research in progress at the WU, where its LMS
Learn@WU is adopted according to the requirements listed above to serve as an LMS
and a platform for open learning offerings. Learn@WU is based on the Open-Source
software OpenACS (Demetriou, Koch, & Neumann, 2006) and .LRN and has been in
university-wide productive use since 2002. In peak times, the platform is visited by up
to 17,000 users per day, with up to 4 million page views. The range of services includes
administrative tasks such as course and membership administration, syllabus, learning
material distribution, assignments, gradebook, forums, chatrooms and mail. In the last
years, the investigation into learning analytics has increased. Also, the focus has shifted
from the pure distribution of learning materials to an approach which focuses on learn-
ing activities (Andergassen et al., 2015).
56
Proceedings of EMOOCs 2017:
Work in Progress Papers of the Experience and Research Tracks and Position Papers of the Policy Track
For the current project, the subsite-awareness of OpenACS is the starting point. It is
the key concept which enables to run LMS and MOOC functionality parallel in one
installation. Thus, one subsite will serve the LMS and one the open learning offerings.
This allows to use one code base for both services, but with individual customization
of both.
While the LMS subsite will use the .LRN framework for handling all courses and
memberships, the open learning offerings will run on pure OpenACS, since the struc-
ture of the modules is more simple there.
The LMS subsite will be accessible only for enrolled students and teachers of the
WU. The open learning offerings will additionally be accessible by the public. The
subsite architecture allows regular students to log in to that subsite with their existing
student account.
The applications, in particular the learning activity applications, run on both subsites
with the same code base. An additional advantage is the possibility to easily transfer
learning materials from one subsite to the other via a clipboard in the web frontend.
Customization of design through different themes is possible. Particular the open
learning offerings needs to be attractive to visitors, since in comparison to the LMS all
users come on a voluntary basis. Responsiveness of design, lightweight and state-of-
the art design, user-friendliness are key issues.
5 Summary and Outlook
This paper has described an approach how to adapt an e-learning platform to serve
traditional LMS usage as well as open learning offerings for the public. The LMS
Learn@WU was described as example. The first implementation steps show promising
results. Furthermore, pilot studies with students for the quality assurance of the learning
materials have already started and the feedback is being implemented.
However, some of the features described above, e.g., the definition and implemen-
tation of badges management, still need to be tackled. A further future challenge in-
cludes the provision of sophisticated search and filter functions in order to provide easy-
to-find offerings for different target groups. Finally, the scalability of the system is an
issue since it is difficult to anticipate the response to the open learning offering when
rolled out for global use.
References
1. Abelson, H. (2008). The Creation of OpenCourseWare at MIT. Journal of Science Educa-
tion and Technology, 17(2), 164–174.
2. Andergassen, M., Ernst, G., Guerra, V., Mödritscher, F., Moser, M., Neumann, G., & Ren-
ner, T. (2015). The Evolution of E-Learning Platforms from Content to Activity Based
Learning. The Case of Learn@WU. Presented at the International Conference on Interactive
Collaborative Learning (ICL), Florence, Italy.
3. Demetriou, N., Koch, S., & Neumann, G. (2006). The Development of the OpenACS Com-
munity. In Open Source for Knowledge and Learning Management: Strategies Beyond
57
Proceedings of EMOOCs 2017:
Work in Progress Papers of the Experience and Research Tracks and Position Papers of the Policy Track
Tools. Idea Group Publishing. Retrieved from http://nm.wu-wien.ac.at/research/publica-
tions/b608.pdf
4. Dreisiebner, S., Ebner, M., & Kopp, M. (2014). Kosten und Wert von MOOCs am Beispiel
der Plattform iMooX. In T. Köhler & N. Kahnwald (Eds.), Online Communities: Technolo-
gies and Analyses for Networks in Industry, Research and Education (pp. 191–204). Dres-
den: TUDpress. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-qucosa-154214
5. Guth, S., Neumann, G., & Simon, B. (2001). UNIVERSAL - design spaces of learning me-
dia. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(p. 10 pp.-). Maui, Hawaii.
6. Hadi, S. M., & Gagen, P. (2016). New model for measuring MOOCs completion rates. In
M. Khalil, M. Ebner, M. Kopp, A. Lorenz, & M. Kalz (Eds.), Proceedings of the European
Stakeholder Summit on experiences and best practices in and around MOOCs. Graz. Re-
trieved from http://www.scoop.it/t/easy-mooc/p/4060273102/2016/02/25/measuring-com-
pletion-and-dropout-in-moocs-a-learner-centered-model
7. Meinel, C., Totschnig, M., & Willem, C. (2013). openHPI: Evolution of a MOOC platform
from LMS to SOA. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer Sup-
ported Education. Aachen: SciTePress. Retrieved from http://www.hpi.uni-pots-
dam.de/fileadmin/hpi/FG_ITS/papers/Web-University/2013_Meinel_CSEDU.pdf
8. Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Hood, N. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: A Comparison Study.
In M. Khalil, M. Ebner, M. Kopp, A. Lorenz, & M. Kalz (Eds.), Proceedings of the Euro-
pean Stakeholder Summit on experiences and best practices in and around MOOCs. Graz.
Retrieved from http://www.scoop.it/t/easy-mooc/p/4060273102/2016/02/25/measuring-
completion-and-dropout-in-moocs-a-learner-centered-model
9. Mödritscher, F., Neumann, G., & Andergassen, M. (2013). Dependencies between E-Learn-
ing Usage Patterns and Learning Results. In Proceedings of the 13th International Confer-
ence on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies. Graz, Austria.
10. OECD. (2011). Actor Brief: Higher Education Institutes (HEIs). Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/innovation/policyplatform/48373782.pdf
11. Orhun, E. (2004). Web-Based Learning Materials for Higher Education: The Merlot Repos-
itory - ProQuest. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(3). Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/openview/bd673e50482e3c2a80ee4ba45cf2cac5/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=1576361
12. Ruiz, J. S., Díaz, H. J. P., Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., & Kloos, C. D.
(2014). Towards the Development of a Learning Analytics Extension in Open edX. In Pro-
ceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhanc-
ing Multiculturality (pp. 299–306). New York, NY, USA: ACM. Retrieved from
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2669711.2669914
13. Siemens, G. (2013). Massive Open Online Courses: Innovation in Education? In R.
McGreal, W. Kinuthia, & S. Marshall (Eds.), Open Educational Resources: Innovation, Re-
search and Practice (pp. 5–16). Retrieved from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oer-
knowledgecloud.org/files/pub_PS_OER-IRP_web.pdf#page=31
14. Wright, C., Lopes, V., Montgomerie, T., Reju, S., & Schmoller, S. (2014, April 21). Select-
ing a Learning Management System: Advice from an Academic Perspective. EDUCAUSE
Review. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/4/selecting-a-learning-manage-
ment-system-advice-from-an-academic-perspective
15. xowiki - OpenACS Proposal - Sample. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2017, from http://open-
acs.org/xowiki/Sample_Proposal
58