Stuart Mattingly and Ivana Moric Uzelac, doctoral candidates in our Learning Design and Leadership program, have recently completed the following comparative analysis of CGScholar and other Learning Management Systems (LMSs).

It would be a mistake to call Common Ground Scholar (CGScholar) a learning management system. The name “learning management system” or LMS is exactly what it suggests; it was made for management. The original, or “legacy,” LMSs were created for student administration, which included delivering content, uploading assignments, recording grades, tracking grade point average, and monitoring student attendance.

With each new update, features were added to accommodate the needs of distance learning and unfortunately the systems were populated with a pedagogy that replicated traditional classroom management. Test and quiz scoring along with posting learning materials were added to mimic pedagogical ideas that were created before computers existed. The groundwork that many LMSs are built upon were based on technology and practices from Web 1.0 in 1997 when Blackboard was first created. Unlike the legacy systems Blackboard, Moodle, and Canvas, CGScholar is so much more.

CGScholar is a next-generation, student-centric system that goes beyond didactic/mimetic learning to incorporate communities of practice, project-based learning, multimodal curation, peer-to-peer collaboration, and customized learning for each individual. Students are guided by analytics that employ machine and artificial intelligence to provide daily formative feedback while simultaneously providing instructors with actionable data and students with authentic assessment.

When it comes to the comparison of LMSs, it is common to see technical, compliance, and business features. Seldom do we see a comparison of pedagogical affordances. Most LMS design is geared toward turnkey operation which promotes the textbook, quiz, and test format that is so prominent in traditional education. Very little thought is given to the student experience and the science of teaching which has shown that students who participate in a more active system with a collaborative and social component have better retention and stronger cognitive development.

By comparison:

Blackboard, 1997

Blackboard was founded on 1990s file-shuffling technology which was slow and cumbersome. Due to demand, Blackboard continued to build on its existing technology and incorporate add-ons that were needed for more functionality. Blocks of code were stacked on old blocks until the stability of the system was in question. Many users associate Blackboard with crashes, lag-time, and an unpleasant school experience. Since 2015 Blackboard has seen a continuous decline in users and was overtaken by Moodle in 2018 while still holding on to a second-place market share worldwide.

Moodle, 2002

At first glance, Moodle can be appealing. The interface is simple, it is open-source, and other than large scale hosting it tends to be less expensive than other proprietary systems. However, once again Moodle was designed with traditional education in mind. It is a content delivery system that is geared toward reading, testing, and enrolment management. There are many available plug-ins that can extend the ability to incorporate other learning modules, however very few instructors dive into the complexities of system add-ons. Learning analytics continue to be limited and social interaction and peer-review is not integrated in a way that mirrors familiar social media platforms.

Canvas, 2008

One of the main differences of Canvas, and the reason it is steadily gathering market share, is that the designers have given in to the idea that instructors want a simple attractive operating system, but one that still utilizes standard, didactic pedagogy. It has a dashboard that mimics a traditional blog which includes a calendar side-bar. The other main focus of this LMS is the emphasis on modules, outcomes, and quizzes. Similar to other LMSs, the discussion area is a separate menu item and module. One of the biggest points of advertising for Canvas is the “speed-grader” function which clearly indicates that the system is designed as an instructor-centric program.

CGScholar, 2011

In development since 2009 and in production since 2011, CGScholar today has several hundred thousand active accounts. It was developed with the support of major research and development grants from the Institute of Educational Sciences in the US Department of Education, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Science Foundation. Ongoing grants continue to extend CGScholar functionality and deepen its learning analytics. There will be a 2020 release of CG Scholar 2.0 with a newly designed interface. CGScholar has been developed by a team of educational researchers and computer scientists at the University of Illinois led by Prof. Bill Cope and Prof. Mary Kalantzis, and is licensed for distribution by Common Ground Research Networks, a self-sustaining, not-for-profit, public benefit corporation registered in the State of Illinois

Unlike the essentially transmission models of traditional LMSs, CGScholar is a social knowledge space. It is similar to social media but designed with student-centric learning in mind. The landing page for CGScholar includes an activity stream of updates, discussions, and dialogues that are taking place in the classroom community. The middle navigation pane displays a student’s publications along with that student’s recent participation and learning resources. The left side provides community navigation, and a space for peers which helps students to form a community of practice. The top navigation bar has the tools to create, publish, and see other works. In addition, you will find a link to analytics that provides recursive feedback from both humans (peers, self, teacher) and machine. What that means is that every datapoint can (indeed, must) provide immediate and constructive feedback to the learner so they can improve their work, for instance analytics include:

• A computer suggestion, such as a writing suggestion that includes an explanation of the reason for that suggestion.
• A peer idea offered in response to a rigorous rubric.
• A coded self-annotation that allows for specific peer review feedback.
• A comment in a virtual class discussion that is directly linked to the learning material.
• A response to a question that has a right or wrong answer.
• An encouragement to revise work for grade improvement and reflection.

LMS developers emphasize grade functionality that is supposed to shorten and simplify the process of assessment. Usually, they are simply referring to the standard calculation of weighted test scores and quizzes. CGScholar’s grading system, however, reports a more realistic and authentic look at the whole student by examining their knowledge, focus, and collaborations while giving feedback that is updated several times a day.

Unlike the traditional LMSs, with CGScholar you don’t need to rely on subscriber services with product features such as single sign on, direct links to internal platforms, deep linking, grade syncing, and course copies. In addition, time and resources are saved on technical implementation because CGScholar is self-contained and doesn’t require product integrations with features such as Learning Tools Interoperability and various partner clouds.

While it is important to recognize CGScholar’s differences from other LMSs, its underlying architecture is pedagogically agnostic. Traditional content delivery, assessment and ‘didactic’ transmission pedagogy is still possible. CGScholar suggests a future of learning without mandating it.

• More information about CGScholar here.