Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Learning management systems form an integral part of the learning environments of most universities and support a wide range of diverse activities and operations. However, learning management systems are often regulated by institutional policies that address the general use of Information Technology and Communication services rather than specific learning management system policies. Hence, we propose that learning management system environments are complex techno-social systems that require dedicated standalone policies to regulate their operation. This preliminary study examined a selection of learning management system policies from twenty universities in four countries to identify some of the elements that are considered necessary for inclusion in policy documents. Seventeen individual elements of learning management system policy documents were identified from a synthesis of the policies. These were classified into six policy categories: Accounts, Courses, Ownership, Support, Usage, and Protection. The study also identified three additional qualities of learning management system policy documents: standalone comprehensibility, platform-neutral statements, and contemporary relevance. The findings of this study will serve as a useful template for developing dedicated standalone policies for the governance of university learning management systems.
Keywords: Learning management system, LMS policy, Virtual learning environment, Online learning policy, University digital policy
Learning management systems (LMS) are online software systems used to support various instructional, learning and assessment activities, and are central elements of many university course delivery systems (Turnbull et al., 2021; Weaver et al., 2008; Yueh & Hsu, 2008). The management and administration of LMSs is usually a centralized function in universities and other higher education institutions. Like other critical aspects of university operations, the effective administration of institutional LMSs depends on creating and communicating effective policies governing their use (Naveh et al., 2010). However, many universities do not have explicit policies dedicated to defining the parameters of LMS operations, such as acceptable codes of conduct for users engaging with these systems (Mohammadi et al., 2021). Instead, many institutions rely on generic policies covering Information Technology and Communication infrastructure. These policies do not necessarily cater to the LMS environment's unique characteristics as a complex, interrelated social system that technology-focused, infrastructure-heavy regulations cannot efficiently govern. Hence, there is a need for the development of dedicated LMS policies that not only address the technological environment of LMS platforms but also consider the human factors associated with people-to-people exchanges within this environment. This paper examines a cross-section of twenty LMS policies in universities from four countries with the aim of discovering some of the contemporary elements of policy development that emphasize the unique nature of LMS environments. In essence, this preliminary study is a snapshot of a cross-section of LMS policies in some of the world’s prominent higher education institutions.
The function of policy in an organization is to formally promulgate standard approaches to managing essential issues for its diverse stakeholders. A policy document is the tangible manifestation of rules and protocols that convey specific messages to various parties (von Solms & von Solms, 2004). A policy can best be understood in the context of the institutions and social relationships that give them purpose (Mosse, 2004). However, policy formation processes in organizations are often criticized because they lack consultative approaches that adequately consider the interests of the intended recipients of policy documents. Moreover, effective policies should recognize the changing and uncertain characteristics of the phenomena they address and be sufficiently malleable to accommodate substantial change. For universities that often exist and thrive in a perpetual state of flux, particular care must be taken to ensure that policy documents can survive technological and pedagogical upheavals that may impact their communities. The advent of COVID-19 has laid bare the necessity for universities to develop contingency plans to deal with major operational disrupters such as global pandemics (Rodrigues et al., 2020). LMS technology, associated pedagogical practices, and instructional design are proving to be critical elements in adapting to the post-COVID learning and teaching landscape. A key question that merits attention is whether the policies that drive the administration and operation of LMSs are up to this challenge?
An LMS learning environment is a complex techno-social system that requires institutional guidance from many diverse perspectives. At the core of an LMS’s existence is the technology that facilitates the functions necessary to carry out educational activities. These functions include learning material dissemination, stakeholder communication, student grading, progress monitoring, and records maintenance (Fathema et al., 2015; Turnbull et al., 2019). In choosing an LMS, universities can outsource their requirements to an external provider (such as Canvas) or adapt an open-source solution (such as Moodle). Open source LMSs offer the advantage of freely available source code that universities can adapt to suit their specific circumstances, and are unencumbered by recurring license fee expenses (Dobre, 2015). Conversely, proprietary solutions come bundled with ready-made quality tested modules, are relatively easy to deploy, and are supplied with ongoing technical support (Breskich et al., 2021). In either case, universities would need to develop appropriate policies to govern critical aspects of LMS use, such as mandatory adoption of an LMS platform by lecturers, the dissemination of learning materials, online announcements within the LMS, the establishment of discussion forums, the conduct of quizzes and tests, and the provision of feedback to students (Rafi et al., 2015).
University administrators must also consider whether established policies on general university issues need to be adjusted to accommodate the operation of LMSs in their unique cyber environment. For example, LMSs are capable of generating, via automated processes, vast amounts of student data that can be stored, analyzed and repurposed. However, many universities lack privacy policies that specifically address how this data will be used to inform organizational processes at a broad level (Brown & Klein, 2020). Another area of concern is intellectual property and the rights afforded to individuals and institutions that host material online. For LMSs based on open-source solutions, determining ownership of learning materials could be a simple trade-off between institutional and personal interests. However, this could be problematic for proprietary systems because the provider may have hosting terms and conditions that require materials and courses to be created to meet their corporate objectives (Pierson et al., 2013). To overcome this, universities could negotiate specific clauses in hosting agreements that clearly define ownership rights of course materials and other considerations such as acceptable use of course content by end-users engaged with the system (Pierson et al., 2013). Other general policy issues that could impact LMS use include respectful communication, sexual harassment, discrimination, and plagiarism. Governing bodies at universities have a duty of care to ensure that a regulatory framework is appropriately represented in the policy documents created for LMS use.
This paper presents the preliminary findings of a cross-section of prominent universities in four countries. The following section outlines the methodology adopted to select a cross-section of university LMS policies and analyze their content. In the results section, each selected policy's major elements are presented and coded into seventeen policy elements, further consolidated into six distinct categories. Next, the analysis and discussion section considers these policy elements in the context of LMS policy practice. This is followed by an implication for future policy section that presents a strategy for universities to create adaptive policy documents governing the adoption, maintenance, and use of university LMSs. The final section encapsulates the main arguments for creating dedicated LMS policies, while recommending that future research could help overcome the limitations of this study and contribute to the identification of other important policy elements that could be included in LMS policy documents.
The main aim of this study is encapsulated in the following research question: What are the main elements of university policies on LMS deployment and use that regulate the management of LMSs and control user access? In answering this question, it was decided to select a sample of publicly available online LMS policy documents from universities. The approach taken was to examine five prominent universities in each of four English-speaking countries: the United States of America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, and Australia. The 2020 university rankings from the Times Higher Education World University Rankings publication were used to locate institutions in these countries. This annual publication ranks the world’s universities based on a weighted score comprising industry income, international diversity, teaching, research, and citations (Times Higher Education World University Rankings, 2020). Apart from the time and resource constraints required to keep the review manageable, these countries were selected because of similarities in the administrative structures of their universities and the policy-making processes that support the public dissemination of university policies. Another reason for selecting these universities was that their policies were available online in English.
Working down the list of universities in each of the four countries in order of ranking, we searched for publicly available policy documents governing LMS use. If a policy document was located, it was further examined to determine if it had sufficient detail and relevance to be included in this study. To be included, the selected policy documents had to address issues relating to general LMS use or focus on particular LMS platforms such as Moodle or Canvas. Policy documents created by LMS vendors and adopted by universities without alteration were rejected, as were documents that relied on general IT usage and acceptance without specifically mentioning LMS issues. All policies had to be accessible from university public websites. The advice from the Australian Law Commission is that information available on public websites that is not encrypted is a “generally available publication” (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2010). Prior studies of university security policies have successfully used this approach (Brown & Klein, 2020; Doherty et al., 2009). After a university was rejected, the next highest-ranking university in that country was selected for examination. This process continued until policy documents from five universities in each country were identified. In total, twenty policy documents were selected for analysis after rejecting ten policies that did not meet the selection criteria. Document analysis was primarily used to examine the content of the university policies. Document analysis involves the selection and appraisal of information from documents for synthesis into discrete categories (Bowen, 2009). In the context of this study, document analysis involved the systematic analysis of web-based policy documents and subsequent synthesis of policy elements into common categories. The results of this process are outlined in the following section.
Table Table1 1 outlines the significant components of each university’s LMS policy. A commonly used abbreviation identifies each university. The last column of the table, LMS, indicates the name of any LMS platform referred to in the policy. If there was no mention of a particular platform, ‘None’ is indicated. A graphic representation of the distribution of LMS systems by country is displayed in Fig. 1 .
University LMS policies and their major elements