Page:The battle for open.pdf/204

Rh

The open policy example gives a broader indication as to the response that educators need to take to openness if it is to continue to be successful and meet their needs. We can also look at a recent example which offers a cautionary tale to help inform this direction. This is the Learning Management System (LMS), or the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE).

In the late 1990s elearning was seen as a novel approach to education. It was subject to much of the same promise, hype and anxiety that we now see with MOOCs. It could variously offer a cheap way of providing education (Noam 1995), make lecturers redundant (Noble 1998), provide a route to innovative ways of teaching (Weller 2002) or remove the barrier of distance (Mason 2000). While many in education embraced the possibilities of elearning by adopting innovative pedagogies and using a range of media and tools, there was reluctance and resistance from many. A combination of the perceived efficiency benefits, flexibility for learners and ability to reach new audiences meant that elearning was soon on the agenda of most senior managers in universities.

The early stages of elearning adoption were often characterised by a mixed economy of technologies, with different departments adopting different systems, usually driven by champions and early adopters. The early ’00s saw an inevitable consolidation phase; the maintenance of so many disparate systems became problematic and, in order to gain the perceived benefits of elearning, a uniform approach was required. This is when the LMS became a dominant solution, for instance, in the UK by 2003, 86% of higher education institutions had one (Brown and Jenkins 2003). The LMS provided a convenient suite of tools, and with a standard system, it allowed universities to implement staff development