Running Head Learning Management ✓ Solved

Running Head Learning Management 1learning Management 7le

Georgia Tech Institute has taken a new focus to deliver quality online learning following the coronavirus-driven lockdown. The institute offers technically motivated degrees, with about 130 majors available. It has invested in procuring LMS services to add effort in driving innovation, expertise, and indomitability in learning. Georgia Tech is assisting students in achieving their education and intellectual goals by managing the progress of each learner using LMS. Thus, students will explore various programs based on their courses and competency through a dashboard that avails everything that a student needs to learn.

The need for shifting from one type of LMS to another is paramount because the institution may evolve periodically because of the changing needs of the educators, management, and students. Georgia Tech delivers both online and classroom learning, depending on the student’s preferences. This accord flexibility and cost-effectiveness to students, which allow them to earn degrees, update skills, and gain credentials from any location globally.

This has allowed the institution to reach out to international students from online courses and has decided to integrate LMS in online classes to manage the campus programs. The LMS has significantly advanced delivery by enabling students to learn at their pace, time, and location with minimum price. Administrators, including educators and teachers, can upload or download content and also distribute learning materials using an online platform.

The LMS infrastructure will be accessed by students, faculty, instructors, administration, educators, and technicians who will be responsible for LMS maintenance, support, and updating. Stakeholder involvement will be critical because they would all be consulted in the assortment of a customized list of features that would align with learning and interventional priorities. Learners, teachers, and instructors are trained to understand how the LMS operates, ensuring that everyone has sufficient technical know-how and skills required to efficiently access learning materials and relevant information.

The needs of each stakeholder are determined based on the necessity of making rational decisions associated with the maintenance of the infrastructure and human resource apportionment. The Policy Steering officials at Georgia Tech will oversee the integration of institute-level rules and will include the staff, faculty, and students. The administration analyzes the available administrative elements that identify procedures and policies that govern the changes necessary for supporting LMS implementation.

Instructors and teachers will propose the policy requirements and whether a revision of policies is editorial or considerable. Besides, they will facilitate communication between the administration and students, especially during policy review, and also pass information to make students conversant with policies. Although learners and faculty are the primary users, IT experts and system administrators will monitor the system, ensuring technical needs are met for effective learning.

The LMS will support the goals of Georgia Tech about platform implementation and learning. A user-friendly interface will be implemented in the program to enable learners’ access to educational materials. For instance, the institution will use broadband internet and remote access devices like mobile phones, laptops, and tablets with intermittent internet.

Additionally, the LMS will enable Georgia Tech to fulfill specific experiences for users. The interventions for learning will integrate the reference library, traditional training platforms, and micro-learning. The program may also encompass live interactions through virtual platforms, walk-through interventions, and question-answer calls. Understanding the needs of stakeholders and creating documentation for those needs in the LMS is critical for the selection of an LMS that accommodates specific user experiences.

Institution-learner communication will be facilitated by LMS. The university may decide to send information directly or indirectly using the system, saving significant time, primarily if the system automatically generates messages about newly uploaded course materials or events. Students will advance through collective experience and the ability to effectively communicate with educators. The institution can build forums or external resources that support group discussions.

Moreover, technical requirements such as sandbox environments could allow for single-sign-on when users intend to access multiple systems. This will allow students and educators to access multiple platforms in the university network with one sign-in. Additionally, various specialty needs will be achieved through LMS, including course customization, e-commerce capabilities, and leaderboards for increased student engagement.

Implementing or substituting an LMS requires a strategy to determine investment returns across the learning environment. The investment cost is critical for selecting an open-access or proprietary LMS. The chosen LMS should be based on the financial capabilities of the institution alongside human resources and purchasing departments. Cost evaluation becomes fundamental when considering technical services to support LMS.

However, both short- and long-term impacts should be assessed when evaluating open-access and proprietary LMS. While a proprietary system may pose risks due to merger disruptions, an open system presents lower risks since access is granted to everyone, and multiple developers can address issues quickly and effectively. Open-access LMS also offers significant cost benefits that can be distributed across numerous users.

In conclusion, the article highlighted various considerations that Georgia Tech should assess during the selection of LMS services. Implementing LMS provides flexibility and cost-effectiveness for students globally. A user-friendly interface will be essential for easy access to educational materials, while live interactions through virtual platforms will enhance learning. The advantages of open-access systems, including cost-effectiveness and collective knowledge optimization, position them as the preferable choice for Georgia Tech in their future LMS selection.

References

• Berking P., & Gallagher S. (2013). Choosing a Learning Management System. Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Co-Laboratories.
• Ölker, D., & Yılmaz, Y. (2016). Learning management systems: Comparison of open-source and proprietary LMS.
• Almarashdeh, I. (2016). The role of e-learning in an educational context. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(8).
• Shen, J., & Wang, L. (2016). E-learning platforms and tools: The future of the educational process. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228.
• Study, N. (2015). Learning management systems and their benefits. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(1).
• Smith, R., & Jones, T. (2019). The evolution of learning management systems. Tech Trends, 63(1).
• Cox, M. J., & Marsh, D. (2019). Learning management systems: An overview. Journal of Learning Design, 12(2).
• Harris, L. (2020). Analyzing user feedback for the optimization of educational technologies. Educational Technology, 60(3).
• Thurmond, V. A. (2015). Teaching and Learning with Technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3).
• Shen, Y. (2015). Understanding the impact of LMS on student learning: The case of Moodle. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(2).