The learning management system (LMS) is the educational technology most widely available to students, and it has been for some time. No matter how many times you slap the top of the LMS like a car salesman and tell the students and instructors, "You can get so much academic success in this bad boy!", it's not the sexy new thing on the block anymore. (As one expert recently put it, "It's more like the used minivan of ed tech."1) It doesn't matter how much we try to spruce it up each year with increasing options, cool new colors, or (cough, cough) reporting how using it could enhance student outcomes. It's just the good ol' reliable LMS, ready for our use. In this sense, the LMS is similar to basic utilities on higher education campuses, such as plumbing or electricity—functional, ubiquitous, with high levels of use and satisfaction for its most basic operations. And, of course, we expect that it can meet our academic or teaching goals if we use just the basic functions. It is these basic functions—such as submitting assignments—that students told us last year they were most satisfied with, rather than more complex tasks.2 Given the reliability, dependability, and near universality of the LMS, students' ratings of their LMS remain relatively unchanged from last year. Three-quarters of all students reported being either satisfied or very satisfied with their institution's LMS, and more than three-quarters of students said their LMS was used for most or all of their courses (see figure 4).

We found significant differences, however, in both student LMS use and satisfaction across Carnegie class. BA private students reported the highest use of the LMS across all institutions, while more students at public institutions (MA, BA, and AA) told us they did not use their institution's LMS for at least one course.3 Although increased access to and use of the LMS can serve all students, public institutions should aim to increase use of and access to the LMS, since they serve more first-generation college students, students eligible for Pell Grants, students with dependents, students who are married or in domestic partnerships, and black and Hispanic students. Higher numbers of students at public institutions, compared with those attending private institutions, work between 30 and 40 hours per week. Consistent and widespread use of the LMS and ensured access to it in public institutions can benefit students. Even the basic functions of the LMS, such as posting grades, have been found to contribute to a student's academic performance; access to grades allows for real-time monitoring of their course progress and the ability to make mid-course adjustments as needed.4 And the convenience of the LMS offers off-campus students much-needed flexibility in contacting instructors and classmates, accessing course content, or taking quizzes.

Does this high use of the LMS affect student learning environment preferences? Perhaps not. Sixty-nine percent of students who reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their institution's LMS also said they prefer completely or mostly face-to-face classes. This may reflect a desire for using the operational features of the LMS, along with a desire for in-class time with instructors, which students told us they wanted in their 2017 open-ended responses.5 The overall high levels of use and satisfaction with the LMS, but low preferences for mostly or entirely online courses across all students, may also reflect students' lack of knowledge of how online courses work or the benefits of blended learning. However, it may also stem from students' prior experiences with learning environments. As noted in this report, students' learning environment preferences depend on their previous learning environment experiences. So students who prefer face-to-face (based on past experiences) may still find functional aspects of the LMS useful and important to their courses, and they may not identify some of the LMS's limitations in a primarily face-to-face learning environment. Even face-to-face courses still rely on the LMS for distributing resources or as a means for communication, and students may be quite satisfied with the conveniences offered by the LMS in a face-to-face course. For example, in 2017 a majority of students reported higher satisfaction levels with functional aspects of the LMS—such as submitting assignments, accessing course content, or checking on their progress—than with the tasks that require more engagement, such as discussion boards.

However, this satisfaction with the LMS and the preference for face-to-face courses may also stem from how instructors are using the LMS. Since 2014, a majority of instructors have told us they primarily use the basic course management functions of the LMS, like circulating information such as the syllabus, handouts, and assignments.6 Students also reported that functional aspects of the LMS can enhance their academic success.7 Since students observe mostly the functional aspects of the LMS in action, their limited understanding of the LMS's more advanced capabilities, particularly in the context of online or blended learning, may reflect instructors' most common usage patterns.

So where do we go from here? Faculty are primarily using the most basic functions of the LMS; students are satisfied with that and report these functional operations are what assist them in their academic success. Perhaps the LMS does actually need an overhaul, but in a thoughtful and innovative manner that moves beyond using it to conveniently curate, package, and share content. We don't need to break the LMS. We need to acknowledge what it can (and can't) do and incorporate its best features into new models of digital learning: next-generation digital learning environments (NGDLEs). NGDLEs are not single, proprietary LMS applications. They constitute a digital learning architecture encompassing a confederation of learning applications, tools, and resources woven together by means of open standards that can be harnessed by higher education institutions for their own digital learning environment needs.8 NGDLEs include personalization; interoperability; collaboration; accessibility and universal design; and analytics, advising, and learning assessment. NGDLEs may or may not include an LMS as a component, and the LMS may be used solely as a supplement to these open-standard digital applications, tools, and resources.9 Incorporation of the LMS into a larger digital learning context may be the answer for students who want only a digital gradebook and shared drive for course documents. With the development and implementation of NGDLEs, we have the opportunity to take the used minivan of education technology and turn it into a high-performance, first-in-class vehicle for student success.