Reading Time: 6 minutes
The semester started last week and I have been building out my course materials in our online learning management system (LMS). Our university uses Blackboard but I expect that users of Thomson Reuter’s TWEN or Blackboard’s competitor, Canvas, have been going through a similar experience. I’ve been surprised how much duplication is involved even when there is some degree of integration.
I was glad to find I was not alone. This piece over on The Conversation hit on the exact issues I was experiencing: a paper-based set of processes was requiring two digital copies for many course-related outputs. It meant the LMS may be an effective way to reach students but it was also creating an additional layer of overheard.
Before the pandemic, teachers typically submitted hard copies of lesson plans to administrators. However, once school systems introduced learning management systems, some teachers were expected to not only continue submitting paper plans but to also upload digital versions to the learning management system using a completely different format.
Technology is supposed to decrease teacher burnout – but we found it can sometimes make it worse, David T. Marshall, Teanna Moore, Timothy Pressley, January 7, 2025
My interest is particularly acute because my operations role at the law school includes oversight of our instructional technology. As I am using Blackboard, I am trying to leverage it as an instructor but also understand what it—and other licensed instructional technology—offers for course (and expectation) management.
Format First
I picked up this course at short notice so I was developing my syllabus based on guidance from people who had developed the original course. Since I had a clean slate, I started with the Blackboard syllabus module, which is a content management system-type template for putting together key parts of a syllabus.
I found this a bit of a challenge. Normally, I would expect a syllabus to flow from a lesson plan, which itself is built out from the learning objectives for the course. There is also a lot of modern thinking on what a syllabus might look like, beyond the bare skeleton of class overviews and rules. In my faculty orientation, I had attended some initial training that I am starting to incorporate.
There was a syllabus template but it was formatted for paper, designed to be printed. Additionally, it was missing components and language that I was wanting to reflect in my own syllabus based on the training. Given this divergence, I decided to build out my more comprehensive syllabus on the LMS and worry about the template, which was filed administratively, afterwards. At least in this way, I could bring them into alignment by trimming down the longer, more detailed syllabus.
Once I’d completed the online syllabus, I opened up the offline template and dropped in the appropriate elements. I filed that administratively and moved on. But, like the article points out with lesson plans, it was a duplication of effort. Additionally, a paper-based orientation results in documents that are likely to be in PDF rather than using native LMS resources. One thing I am trying to avoid is requiring a student to access a PDF for a document that I can present within the standard web interface of the LMS.
Filing Cabinet
I don’t think there is a strong argument against using the LMS functionality. I know that, based on my past teaching experience, I will be able to manage communication demands by using the LMS. I explained to the students in my class that they would find it perhaps over-wordy, but that the Blackboard pages should contain everything they need to complete assignments and prepare for classes. My operational goal is to eliminate the need for 60 students to email me for a password or another piece of information I can publish in advance.
I was a bit surprised to find the current course set up largely as a file repository. Each class session was broken out but the LMS was used primarily to share files. There was no clarification about what the file was, how it was expected to be used, and so on. An LMS will typically allow you to provide additional explication or metadata so that someone looking at an LMS object will be able to understand its role before opening any attached file.
On reflection, I think this use of an LMS as a filing cabinet reflects an offline approach to teaching, similar to the paper orientation for the syllabus. Files are created in Word or PowerPoint and then either uploaded in their native format or converted to PDF. But the LMS is the repository, not the development point.
As I’ve been considering my own approach, I know that I will not be uploading anything beyond a PDF unless the purpose of the document is to be editable. So, for example, any document that is solely for reading is converted into HTML or a web object. Any PowerPoint slide decks are saved as PDFs. The only reason to share a PowerPoint in a native format is because you are leveraging the animation functionality. If the PowerPoint contains flat presentation slides, a PDF is a more versatile document, especially since mobile devices may require Microsoft apps to see a PPTx file.
I’ve uploaded a couple of Word DOCx templates that are meant to be re-used by students. The Word file gives them a formatted starting point, but I’m not thrilled with the format choice I think this would be something I would investigate as building in the LMS in future.
Accessibility
One thing I really like about the LMS is that it flags when an uploaded file is not accessible. In a way, this should be made easier now. The addition of accessibility checkers in PowerPoint and Word mean that, as I develop content offline, I can run a check before I upload it. But the real benefit of the LMS is that it has a constrained HTML editor that should inhibit the creation of non-accessible content.
It’s been interesting to see the collision of good web content management system choices with accessibility. A person using a web CMS will be thinking about how to create content that does not need to be reformatted each time the site is re-themed. Use of standard styles, whether in Word or PowerPoint or WordPress or the LMS, means that tools that are looking for hierarchical styles in order to present accessible content will find them.
This isn’t obvious or even something I’ve seen any training about so far. The feeling I get is that there is a certain amount of individuality allowed in the creation of course materials. This extends to choices of imagery, fonts and colors, and other layout choices. This lack of standardization, though means that students may or may not get accessible content. Additionally, changes in an LMS, like a migration to a competitive platform, may result in content becoming unformatted if the stylistic choices don’t carry over cleanly.
Systems Integration and Standardization
One thing that I thought would be cleaner was integration with campus administrative systems. There is always going to be some latency, and I have experienced that, with students appearing in class who are not yet on the roster. That’s understandable.
The roster itself, though, is duplicative of the LMS roster. They are separate documents. The LMS roster represents the students’ LMS accounts. If they have populated their accounts with a gravatar, then you can create a face book of your students. If they haven’t, you get default silhouette avatars.
The administrative roster comes with their student photos and names, but the names are backwards (lastname firstname). So the advantage of the photos is offset by the fact that the names are not how you would normally read them (firstname lastname) nor are they integrated with the rest of the LMS systems (like attendance or grading).
Attendance was another eye opener for me. I actually like the LMS attendance function but it is isolated. When I asked around, I learned that faculty used a variety of tools: their own spreadsheets, attendance apps that created spreadsheets, and so on. I may be an outlier with the LMS attendance chart. I can understand why, as there doesn’t seem to be a way for students to check-in for class on the LMS. It’s a startlingly big gap, if so. I am still exploring but it doesn’t seem very wise.
I read out every name in my first class but that’s a few minutes of time when you have 60 students. My inclination at this point is to use tools that (a) allow students to check themselves in and (b) that we are licensing anyway.

For now, I am using Microsoft Forms, an app that comes with our Office 365 license. It has two advantages for me. First, I can be assured every student has access to it. They do not need a third-party account to access it. Second, there is no app needed. It’s a web-based tool that can be sent via email or accessed via a web browser on phone, tablet, or PC. Since form responses can be exported into Excel, if I need to, I can dump them out and create an offline attendance book. It can also be used for quizzes, so it means I can drive students to the same tool for multiple purposes rather than driving them to different apps for each teaching need I have.
One thing I am already struck by, with a systems perspective, is that there are way too many choices and not enough standardization. What I don’t know is whether the lack of standardization is a choice (and a preference) or whether it reflects a lack of coordination. This inconsistent use of technology standardization is confusing to me but I think it also creates more overhead and lost productivity than is necessary.
It’s challenging for students, I expect, if an instructor can ask them to use a different platform (Google Workspace v. Microsoft Office 365, for example) for each class. But the challenge goes further each time you add an app. The reverse is true too. If an instructor has to consider a wide variety of technologies each time a lesson is planned, the overhead increases that much more. Contrast this to a more corporate environment where technology standards limit but also make knowable the technologies people will be using to access information or participate in activities.
These are all interesting problems to solve, though. I’m appreciating getting to know our systems as a user, as an instructor, because it will help me to make choices or promote adoption with hands-one experience. It also aligns with my preference to have done something before I start talking about how to do it.