Concept Involved With Information Technology

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Abstract

This study proposes a company based project on the design and implementation of a course management system for Emerging Trees LLC. An overview of the concept involved with IT is firs presented, followed by the backgroung of Emerging Trees LLC. Current organizational business processes are then identified and the reasons why the organization needs to improve its services and existing systems are noted. The study then points out its objectives and significance to the organization, public and academic environment. Literature review is provided about the issues involved in the design and implementation of a course management system. It considers two prominent models used in design and implementation of a course management system; the MyUni model proposed by University of Adeleide (2002), and the Malikowski model proposed by Steven Malikowski (2007). A plan is then provided to realize the project. This plan consists of the scope of the project, project schedule timeline, and risk identification, assessment and management.

CHAPTER 1: Project Background

This chapter presents an overview of the concept involved with information technology. It also provides the company background information, the area of study and overview of existing system that is in place. Finally, it presents the role and importance of information technology to this project study.

1.0 Introduction

Information technology can be described as the study, design, development, implementation, support or management of information systems, particularly software applications and computer hardware (Mills, 2003). It refers to the concept used to create, gather, process, store, present and disseminate data and information. Without information technology, information is just a sequence of characters and numbers with no apparent value.

But how is this concept applied to information?

Information system (IS) is a system that collects, processes, stores, analyzes and disseminates information for a specific purpose (Mills, 2003). An IS is composed of several components including software, hardware, data, procedures and people (Mills, 2003). To be able to determine the IS ideal for this project, it is essential to review the company’s background and existing system.

1.1 Company background

Emerging Trees L.L.C is a multinational company that was incorporated in Kaduna State. It has over 30 emplooyees and 2000 clients all over Nigeria (Agaga, 2010). The firm offers IT training, marketing and consulting services as well as a one-stop shop for IT books and training materials (Agaga, 2010). Furthermore it provides diverse IT certification exams as they are an authorized testing center on the ETS Prometric and Pearson VUE platforms. The firm’s current objectives are to

Provide better learning experience for its numerous clients

Provide better course administration experience for its tutors.

Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the services offered.

Currently, the firm uses mostly traditional means in performing its business processes. The following are the key business operations performed by employees.

Student registration

Announcements

Student – Tutor communication

Grading

1.2 Problems

The firm currently has no system put in place to support any of these business processes (Agaga, 2010). Student registration is done manually on pen and paper. Course content creation is done using traditional means. Announcements are printed on paper and pinned on paper boards, grades are recorded on grade books and relayed in-hand to the student. Student-Tutor discussion outside the class room is done through email messaging. In order to improve on the level of satisfaction for its services, the firm has sought for a solution that will enable it better achieve its objectives. After analyzing current system capabilities, a list of of its needs have been gathered (Agaga, 2010).

Existing System:

The manual system needs to store student registration information in electronic form.

The manual system provides very little security for saving data;

some data may be lost due to mismanagement.

Using the Email system can sometimes be tedious, especially when the tutor is not available to reply a message sent by a student or vice versa.

The manual system needs to relay announcements in a more convenient way to students.

The system does not have the facility of tracking student progress from the commencement of a course upto its completion.

The manual system needs to provide a more convienient way for enrolling for courses.

Proposed System:

The development of the proposed system will contain the following features

The system will provide information about students registered for any course.

The system will enable students to enroll for a particular course from any given location.

enable upload and sharing of course notes, exercises and articles.

Enable online discussions and chat.

Enable Quizzes and surveys online.

Enable tutors review exercises through online means.

Enable upload of syllabus by tutor using the web.

Enable video conferencing for inter-student and tutor communication.

Enable tutors to keep track of student progress online.

1.3 Objectives

The objective of this project is to use the concept of information technology to improve the administration of courses provided by the firm, and learning experience for the students. This will involve the design and development of an Information system that provides the firm’s clients with a richer and more interractive learning experience, and its employees with a more innovative approach in delivering training content and examination to their clients.

1.4 Significance of Study

This study accumulated beneficial and pertinent information for individuals intricate and concerned in this research:

The Company: This study will give both employees and top management convenience by giving them a platform where they can effectively administer their respective duties, leading to a better working experience.

The Clients: through this study, clients will get a better learning experience and quality of service for the services provided.

The Schools/Universities: The findings of this research will make students aware of the importance of information technology in the educational sector and how it can be implemented to improve the students learning experience. It will also encourage them in furthering research in other ways of integrating IT in the field of learning.

The Public: to realize the there are more innovative ways in which learning can be conveyed from tutor to student.

The Readers: to understand why interactive learning is the essence of this study. They will also be able to understand the issues plaguing existing and non-existing problems current course management systems, how they have affected the efficiency of these systems, and how the systems can be improved.

Future Researchers: this study will serve as a sourse of reference for those researching in this area of study.

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

Introduction

The literature review was undertaken to provide information into the use of Technology in of the issues associated two of the most prominent course management system models currently being used. It also reviews previous studies into how much course management systems implementing such models have improved learning outcomes. These two models were specifically chosen as subjects of analysis because they are implemented by about 70% of all course management systems currently in use (Malikowski, et al., 2007).

A MODEL FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION AND SUSTAINABILITY OF A COURSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (2002)

Background

Over the past decade, a number of structural changes have occurred in the sector of Higher education. These changes include the increase in number of entry points for students, the shift from a small set of highly focused prerequisites to a more open system and an expansion in demand for modular programs with numerous entry and exit points (Crisp, 2002). In addition, with the increase in number of part time learners, student numbers has increased dramatically in an attempt to balance employment by further education with the necessity to work from home (Crisp, 2002). Institutions are now implementing strategies directed at attracting students by providing a series of articulation points into degree programs as a result of government based funding cuts to other institutions. This has led to a shift in emphasis from that of teaching to that of learning, resulting in a shift in fundamental role of teaching staff.

It is for these reasons that University of Adelaide sought to combine existing practices and experience in learning and teaching with the development and use of educational technology for the purpose of improving the learning experience for the students.

Purpose

During early 2002, The University of Adelaide conducted research into the implementation of course management systems with the outcome of determining how a course management system can be used as an essential tool for improving student learning (Crisp, 2002), rather than as a specialized activity of a few enthusiasts (Crisp, 2002). The emphasis was to shift from innovation and individual projects to integration and use of course management systems for learners and a demonstrated evidence of student learning (Crisp, 2002). During the initial stages of the research, they came up with a trial legacy course management system. The purpose of this system was to deliver static digital content (Crisp, 2002). However, the system didn’t provide any interactive features for the students. It also had no framework meant for online discussions (Crisp, 2002).

Instrument/Methodology

The research also gathered feedback from both students and teachers of the university on the trial course management system and it was discovered that they were both seeking for a richer, more interactive and productive environment in which to learn and teach (Crisp, 2002).

In order to improve the learning experience provided by the legacy course management system, the University formed a small committee to review the issues that were apparent in the system (Crisp, 2002). The two groups that composed the committee were the Information Technology services (ITS) and Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) (Crisp, 2002). Amongst these issues summarized were;

The need for the course management system to accommodate the fact that staff were involved in research and teaching (Crisp, 2002).

Resources need to be provisioned to support any changes to staff or student work and study patterns (Crisp, 2002).

Emphasis should be placed on a devolved model of responsibility for course content and use (Crisp, 2002).

Realization that a shift associated with learning and teaching vision would be an evolving process (Crisp, 2002).

PLATO (Providing Learning and Teaching Online) was then established to implement a course management system that puts all the above issues into consideration. PLATO gathered experiences and recommendations from institutions all over the world and came up with three commercial products to choose from, they are Blackboard, WebCT and Lotus TopClass (Crisp, 2002). Blackboard was eventually chosen because it could be integrated more effectively with the existing university administrative (LTC) and support systems (ITS) (Crisp, 2002). PLATO then developed a model that can be used by any Higher education institution (Crisp, 2002). This model was called MyUni course management system model.

Source: Fig. 1 - MyUni Course Management System Model proposed by PLATO *.

The ITS provides the hardware, software, online helpdesk and initial staff training, expertise for creation of content resides with staff in the Faculties, while expertise in content formatting packaging and delivery, staff development and evaluation reside in Learning and Teaching development unit (LTDU) (Crisp, 2002). In essence, the main idea conveyed by the model is that all online programs should be a partnership between technical aspects of advance computer systems, the library and educational ideas responsible for content creation, staff development and evaluation.

The model encompasses one or more of the following patterns in all course management systems:

Digital enhancement to essential face – to – face teaching (Crisp, 2002).

Mixed mode delivery of short intense face – to –face sessions with extended periods of resource based learning (Crisp, 2002).

Fully online programs with little or no personal contact between teacher and student (Crisp, 2002).

* Figure 1 – MyUni Course Management System Model proposed by PLATO 2002 cited in Crisp (2002).

Enhancement to face –to –face delivery:

This pattern is the most common form. In this form, the model emphasizes convenience and flexibility for learners by providing access to course content (Crisp, 2002). Also teaching staff has full control over their content and format for course delivery to students, making the model inappropriate for fully online or mixed mode delivery of courses (Crisp, 2002). The main improvements in this framework are use of email, online discussions and online assessments (Crisp, 2002).

In this pattern, the online help desk functions as the initial point of contact for staff and students, either by phone or email (Crisp, 2002). It also provides advice on appropriate file formats, downloadable file size reduction and file conversion service. However, it does not interpret university policy, comments on online content nor perform evaluations (Crisp, 2002).

Mixed mode delivery:

Courses in this pattern are collaborative in nature (Crisp, 2002). They consist of learning resources, joint assignments and online discussions (Crisp, 2002). In this pattern, the course contents are largely determined by individual and group student activities. The staff role is also more extensive compared to the first pattern of the model because course content is created each time the course is delivered through discussions and activities (Crisp, 2002).

Evaluations made on courses in this pattern have stressed the need for professional assistance in formatting and packaging of course content for the online environment, the need for support by online help desk and requirement for professional evaluation of courses with timely feedback to students (Crisp, 2002).

Fully online delivery:

Courses in this pattern are also collaborative in nature (Crisp, 2002). They consist of learning resources, joint assignments, online discussions and student feedback (Crisp, 2002). Here, the course contents are fully determined by student activities. The staff plays a less active role as compared to the first and second patterns of the model (Crisp, 2002).

As at the time of writing this literature, this pattern of the model was still under evaluation, although the results from student feedback so far seemed mostly positive (Crisp, 2002).

Conclusion

On the overall, the feedback obtained from both students and teachers in using the model for an online course management system (in this case Blackboard) were very positive (Crisp, 2002). The most valuable features are described below:

Personalized portal interface (Crisp, 2002).

Ease of navigation for students accessing course material and staff uploading materials (Crisp, 2002).

Integrated nature of software like email, discussions, forums, Course materials, chat rooms, announcements etc. are all accessible within one package (Crisp, 2002).

The university’s research came to the conclusion that for any course management system to meet the learning goals of any educational institution, it must integrate IT supporting mechanisms and institution’s service team in its design (Crisp, 2002).

Limitation of the MyUni Model for developing Course Management Systems

The study also exposed the limitations of the MyUni model designed by PLATO. They are

The model can only be used in designing course management systems meant for universities, particularly research-based universities (Crisp, 2002).

The model is only appropriate for course content creation, asynchronous online discussions using email, on online help desk capability, it does not currently support synchronous online discussions like video chat, text chat, quizzes and surveys (Crisp, 2002).

2.1.5 Suggestions for further research

Integration of the model with library information system to form a unified learning environment for the students (Crisp, 2002).

Integration of interactive features so that students can engage with research quality data (Crisp, 2002).

Provide students with the option of choosing different learning paths (Crisp, 2002).

A MODEL FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A COURSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (2007): BRIDGING TECHNOLOGY AND LEARNING THEORY.

Course management systems like Blackboard, Design2Learn and WebCT are playing more vital roles at colleges, universities and distance learning institutions. This prominence comes as a result of the increasing use of course management systems in enhancing resident courses, offer online courses and combine resident courses with online courses to form hybrid courses (Malikowski et al., 2007).

On analyzing current systems, Malikowski and Thompson’s research in course management systems in 2007 discovered that the systems focused on the use of course management system features to provide information to students rather than for creating interactive activities for students, for instance the course management system designed using the proposed MyUni Model. This study focuses on two issues; the technical features provided by current course management systems with the goal of determining the level of implementation of the features by the systems in providing a truly interactive experience for the student, and how these features are inter-related to achieve learning outcomes (Malikowski, et al., 2007).

Many course management systems are currently available, possibly as much as five thousand (Malikowski, et al., 2007). But just a few out of this amount have become prominent in educational institutions. For instance, most universities and colleges use Blackboard or WebCT (Ansorge & Bendus, 2003; Dutton et al., 2004; Morgan, 2003; Woods, et al., 2004) with just a few using LotusLearningSpace or Prometheus (Malikowski, et al., 2007). A new competitor in the market place is Desire2Learn which was adopted by Minnesota State University System (Malikowski, et al., 2007).

The study shows that most technical features present in most course management systems are quite noticeable in other systems regardless of their numbers (Malikowski, et al., 2007). It also classifies technical features into web tools, they are;

A set of web based tools used for learning and course management.

Static web based tools used to transmit information like syllabus, announcements, materials and assignments.

Tools that let students inter communicate using synchronous or asynchronous means.

Interactive tools used to provide quizzes and surveys.

Statistical tools that act as dashboards used to display student progress information.

Despite the features provided by current course management systems, a survey conducted in 2004 showed that instructors who use these systems were just beginning to make use of them to transmit information such as syllabus or assigned reading were much. Other features that allowed instructors create interactive learning activities for the student, such as quizzes and discussions, were not frequently used (Malikowski, et al., 2007). This implies that instructors use an incremental approach in administering course management system features, since they were only familiar with the transmitting information feature of these systems. They were not so conversant with the use of computer based interactions like synchronous and asynchronous discussions or creating quizzes. As a result of this, it was discovered that learning goals are scarcely met as very little amount of features a fully utilized.

The Malikowsky model considers technical features in course management systems and conceptual issues about how the implementation or non-implementation of these features affects the learning goals of educational institutions (Malikowski, et al., 2007). The model divides technical features in course management systems into categories, they are

Transmitting course content

Creating class discussions

Evaluating students

Evaluating courses and tutors

Creating computer based instruction.

CATEGORY 1: Transmitting course content

This category consists of features that are most commonly used by both students and instructors. These features are:

Content/files

Announcements

Grade book

Course content can be transmitted in the form of electronic files uploaded to the course management system. These files could include .doc files, .pdf files, hypertext files etc. (Malikowski, et al., 2007). It can also be transmitted in the form of Announcements, also called News items (Malikowski, et al., 2007) which are messages displayed after students sign into a course management system site. The last most common form of transmitted course content is the grade book which is used in transmitting information about grades to the student. It is used to calculate student performance in a particular subject matter (Malikowski, et al., 2007). Below is a survey of how often these features are utilized in transmitting course content.

Source: Table 1- Level of course management system adoption for transmitting course content, 2007 *

It can be deduced from the table above that Announcements are utilized slightly more often that content file upload, but the complexity and value of these features to the user must be put into consideration when implementing these percentages (Malikowski, et al., 2007). File content transmission also seems to be more valuable and complex than Announcements.

The study also highlighted further research done to identify the educational theory applied by a set of course management system websites that are transmitting course information (Malikowski, et al., 2007). One such research involves the media format for uploading content files which represent information to be transmitted to the student. Below is a summary of the outcome of the research.

Author: Russell, T.L. (1999), No Significant difference phenomenon, North Carolina State University

Purpose: To determine if one media is better than another media for a particular learning goal.

Findings: There are "an overwhelming number of no significant findings".

Conclusion: No particular media technology is best suited for a specific learning goal.

Suggestion for future research: Perform meta-analysis of the outcomes to better evaluate each media technology.

* Table 1 – Level of course management system adoption for transmitting course content 2007 cited in Malikowski (2007).

The outcome above shows that any media format can be used in transmitting course content to obtain positive gains in learning outcomes (Krendl, et al., 1996).

Another study undertaken by Boekaerts (1997) argues that integrated features used in transmitting course content are often underutilized. This goes against the findings shown in Table 1 above. The study further points out that the underutilization may not have direct impact on the learning experienced by in-class students, but it may negatively affect distance learning students enrolled into fully online courses (Boekaerts, 1997). The study then concludes that course management system neither scaffolds the students’ autonomy, nor does it encourage their initiative for managing their own learning process (Boekaerts, 1997).

Pairio (1986) presented a possible reason for the underutilization in course management systems, this reason was reported to be related to the Dual Coding theory, which states that multiple content representations enhance memory calls (Pairio, 1986). The theory explains that whenever information is presented in form of pairs like picture-picture or text-text, answering time to a question is shortest when information was presented as picture-picture pair and longest for text-text pair (Pairio, 1986). He also states that many instructors present content only as text-text pairs which in no way promotes interactivity, engagement and learning, but rather reduces student interest (Zhang et al., 2004).

CATEGORY 2: Creating Class discussions

This category encompasses features that enable synchronous or asynchronous interaction between members of the class. In this category, discussions can be in two forms; email based interactions which are asynchronous in nature as they are not conducted in real time, and chat based interactions which are synchronous in nature because they are conducted in real time (Malikowski, et al., 2007).

Source: Table 2 – Levels of course management system adoption for creating class discussions, 2007*

From table 2 above, it can be seen that email (asynchronous) based discussions are being utilized by just over one quarter of instructors (Malikowski, et al., 2007).

A study was conducted to review the use of email based (asynchronous) discussions in current course management systems. It focused on issues involving student participation, online community development, and how these discussions have similar outcomes with face-to-face discussions (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). It was conducted by Romiszowski in 2004. The outcome of the study is summarized below:

Author: Romiszowski, A & Mason, R. (2004), Computer-mediated communication.

Purpose: To determine the impact of internet based asynchronous discussions on cooperative learning.

Instrument/Methodology: Learning style questionnaires and Background questionnaires were passed to student population at beginning of course by post and email.

Dependent variables: Communication mode.

Instrument/Methodology: student participation using course management system website activity.

Findings:

Faster assignment return

More immediate feedback

Increased interaction with tutor and other students

Increased appreciation of learning experiences gained at end of course

Lack of cultural experience in learning how to communicate in an asynchronous environment.

Conclusion: Internet based asynchronous discussion provides learners with a fast paced and convenient medium of communication that can bring about increased interaction with fellow students both inside and outside their tutor groups.

If asynchronous discussions provide all the benefits in the research outcome above, why is the feature seldom used by both students and instructors of higher institutions?

Nelson (2003) points out that of all the tools used in asynchronous discussions, the email tool is most frequently used, but it is mostly used for personal correspondence among students (Nelson, 2003). Instructors also only use the tool for communicating course management issues rather than relaying instructional tasks to students. It is for these two reasons that the features in this category are rarely used (Nelson, 2003).

*Table 2 – Levels of course management system adoption for creating class discussions, 2007 cited in Malikowski (2007).

From Table 2 above, it can be seen that synchronous discussions are also seldom used. Morgan (2003) provides an explanation for this low percentage. His study explains that it is difficult most times and sometimes impossible to measure the extent of using synchronous features in a course management system because, unless system logs are saved, there is no other way of determining whether or not synchronous features are used by system users (Morgan, 2003). This has constituted a great challenge in course management system research (Morgan, 2003).

CATEGORY 3: Student Evaluation

The most prominent tool used for student evaluation is the quiz tool and drop box (Malikowski, et al. 2007). Typical types of quiz tools are multichoice tests and quiz generators (Malikowski, et al., 2007). The features highlighted here are technologically very similar to those described in category 4, which are tools for evaluating instructors and courses, the only difference being the subject of evaluation (Malikowski, et al., 2007). Category 3 tools apply only to students while category 4 tools apply to both courses and their instructors (Malikowski, et al., 2007).

In this category, research issues discussed are related to the goals and objectives of learning. Issues discussed here will be centered on two main areas; issues related to educational theory of evaluating students, and issues related to technological evaluation of students (Malikowski, et al., 2007). Educational theory of evaluation has been divided into three parts; Cognitivism, Constructivism and Behaviorism (Malikowski, et al., 2007). Based on the study of the past and present issues with Behaviorism, Behaviorism stresses the need for observable changes in learner behavior, where any process that is unobservable be discarded, for instance cognitive processes (Burton, et al., 2004). Behaviorism theory states that learning goals and objectives are determined by instructors instead of learners (Burton, et al., 2004). They state the behavior expected in the lesson. In relation to evaluating students, Behaviorism emphasizes a 3 step sequence;

Learners are given a discriminative stimulus (Burton, et al., 2004).

Learners generate a response (Burton, et al., 2004).

Learners are given a contingent stimulus which encompasses both positive and negative reinforcement depending on the outcome of step 2 above (Burton, et al., 2004).

A typical tool in this category that implements the Behaviorism theory is multiple choice questions with feedback (Burton, et al., 2004). This feature, when implemented in a course management system, has shown drastic improvements in student motivations as reported by a study into a Computer based Learning System designed by Rowe and Gregor that uses the World Wide Web for delivery (Rowe & Gregor, 1999). This was due to the fact that students enjoyed the use of web browsers for distance learning (Rowe & Gregor, 1999).

From the outcome of the study, students wanted to see a question, their answers and the correct answer on the screen simultaneously together with feedback of why the answer was right or wrong (Rowe & Gregor, 1999). Since the Computer based Learning system was supporting traditional lecture and lab sessions, learners found it motivating. This doesn’t mean that the system improved the rate of assimilation of knowledge, but rather it reinforced the process of learning (Rowe & Gregor, 1999).

The question here is since tools that implement Behaviorism theory work well in a course management system, why are they no longer utilized by current systems?

Studies have revealed that the reason for the absence of such tools is most likely because Behaviorism had not been taught for many academic generations, and also most people in area of course management system design never read original behavioral sources; nor had the professors who taught them. This has led to a poor interpretation of Behaviorism (Bloom, 1984; Guskey, 1985).

Source: Table 3 – Levels of CMS Adoption for Evaluating students, 2007 *

Cognitivism has been described as the most influential psychology in the area of instructional design (Driscoll, 2005; Foshay, et al., 2003; Winn, 2004). Unlike Behaviorism, Cognitivism has a set of theories applied to cognitive processes that cannot be directly observed (Malikowski, et al., 2007). Cognitivism emphasizes student value of an idea as compared to student behavior in ways that reflect these values (Malikowski, et al., 2007). In relation to evaluating and teaching students, Cognitivism stresses processes cognitive in nature as much as behaviors (Malikowski, et al., 2007). An example of a tool in this category that implements Cognitivism theory is the quiz tool.

To determine the effect of cognitive evaluation tools on current Course management system, a study was conducted on the development of an Authoring system for Cognitive Models within General – Quality Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) (Blessing, et al., 1998). This study focused on the design and creation of tools centered on cognitive model of an ITS. The study showed that learners who make use of ITS to learn can master course material on a third less time (Corbett, 2001). As a result, students had become more prepared for standardized tests (Ritter & Blessing, 1998). However, it takes about 100 hours or more to create a course material on an ITS (Murray, 1998). Due to this barrier, even with their capability to reduce learning time, very few of these systems have been successful till date (Blessing, et al., 1998). It can be seen from table 3 that 75% of instructors have never used Quiz tool for exams due to this flaw.

* Table 3 – Levels of CMS Adoption for evaluating students 2007 cited in Malikowski (2007).

The Last educational theory, Constructivism stresses on learning goal that originate from context in which learning will be applied (Malikowski, et al., 2007). Unlike Cognitivism or Behaviorism, Constructivism states that "learners should identify and pursue their own learning goals" (Driscoll, 2005). In terms of evaluating students, Constructivism stresses on the use of methods like "assessing performance, portfolios, authentic assessment, etc." (Driscoll, 2005; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). An example of a tool using constructivism methods is the drop box (Malikowski, et al., 2007). Drop boxes utilize authentic documents and portfolios. They are used to collect computer files from students (Malikowski, et al., 2007), files like graphs, sound, text, etc. Once a file is being dropped by the student into the drop box, a comment is added to the file by the instructor and the file is returned to the student (Malikowski, et al., 2007). The versatility of the drop box has made it a good candidate for studying the educational theory being applied to learning goals.

On reviewing the impact of constructivism, it has been seen that it brings about a more meaningful learning outcome, more problem-solving capability and more flexibility in design and instruction activities (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). However, the challenge posed by constructivism is that there is a small amount of concern for students’ novice skills, for efficiency and for certifying individual students’ competency level (Dick 1992). Since learning outcomes are individually built, it becomes very difficult to set standards to assess the meaningfulness of learning (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005).

This issue has led to the postulation that "not all learners will benefit from having unlimited control over their own learning goals" (O’Donnell, 2000)

CATEGORY 4: Evaluation of Courses and Instructors

The proposed course management system will allow students to evaluate a course they are enrolled to or instructors tutoring them either by making use of the quiz tool or survey tool.

In 2003, a survey on the use of the quiz tool by faculty members showed that they used the quiz tool for surveying and obtaining feedback from students to gauge their learning and experience (Morgan, 2003). Unfortunately, no information is available about the frequency of use of this technique (Morgan, 2003). Another study ranked "Surveying students" 16th of 17 items (Dutton, et al., 2004). So far, research into course management system surveys has yielded the conclusion that they are not often being used, despite their permanent presence in current course management systems. Literature reviewed on student evaluations from 1927 to 1995 (Wachtel, 1998) reported quite a number of issues that should be taken into consideration in the use of course management system surveys. (Wachtel, 1998) Some of these issues are:

Support and opposition to student evaluations.

Evaluation timing.

Size of the class, topic or level.

Gender of instructor, reputation, appearance and personality.

Gender of student, age and emotional state.

Further research into these areas should consider the description of validity, reliability and construct validation in surveying students about courses or instructors (Marsh & Roshe, 1997). This description argues that considerations should be made on the level of analysis, scrutiny, testing and revision used in formal research (Marsh & Roshe, 1997).

Category 5: Creating Computer-based Instruction (CBI)

There is currently no research into the use of course management system based CBI (Foshay & Preese, 2005). This category was incorporated in the model because of the techniques it offers to the course management system for more than just content transmission (Malikowski, et al., 2007).

The feature included in this category is the quiz tool which is a simple form of CBI (Malikowski, et al., 2007). The tool comprises of several question types, feedback and question pools (Malikowski, et al., 2007). The tool is useful as an "instructional method for learning lower level procedures, skills, or concepts" (Hooper & Reinartz, 2002). Quizzes have also been reported to be used for controlling access to course management system content like video, text, graphics etc. (Hooper & Reinartz, 2002), hence, its use in creating adaptive instruction. Poss and Morison (2000) were early researchers of adaptive instruction and its benefits (Hooper & Reinartz, 2002). Another use of the quiz tool was seen in category 3, for evaluating students. This has constituted an issue still under discussion. The issue is determining when a quiz tool is used as a category 3 feature for student evaluation, and when it is used as a category 5 feature for adaptive instruction. Currently, little information is available on analysis in this area (Malikowski, et al., 2007). It has been argued that if its use is for evaluating students for a terminal objective, it would be placed in category 3. On the other hand, if its use is for an enabling objective instead of a terminal one, it would be placed in the current category (category 5) (Malikowski, et al., 2007). For instance a quiz without feedback would be place in category 3, while a quiz with feedback would be placed in this category. More conclusive study will arise as course management system based CBI is developed and researched (Malikowski, et al., 2007).

Just like assessments, CBI is structured by the educational theory of learning (Burton, et al., 2004; Jonassen, Peck & Wilson, 1999; Wagner & Gagne, 1988). Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism will be considered in this section.

For a lesson based on Behaviorism, CBI will show a stimulus, request for a response from the student, and post students another stimulus based on their response (Malikowski, et al., 2007). Lessons based on Cognitivism would make use of teaching methods like declarative, conceptual, and procedural or problem solving methods (Anderson, 1995; Driscoll, 2000; Wagner & Gagne, 1988). Finally, CBI based on Constructivism will provide learners with the problem to solve and resources to consider in solving those problems. These resources include information resources, course management system discussions, or cognitive tools (Hooper & Reinartz, 2002; Jonassen, et al., 1999). Currently, 25% of instructors using course management systems are making use of the quiz tool in this category (Malikowski, et al., 2007). But no data is available whether the tool has a positive or negative impact on current course management systems.

Besides analyzing literature on the use of course management system features achieving and improving learning outcomes, research has also been conducted to explore the relationships among course management system features and categories (Malikowski, et al., 2007).

Source: Figure 2 – Flow chart of course management system categories (Malikowski Model), 2007*

The purpose of the flow chart shown above is to propose a way that course management system instructors can adopt features to reach diverse learning outcomes using the five categories of course management system (Malikowski, et al., 2007).

The outcome of the study on feature and category relationships in the flow chart above shows categories having the most utilized features placed at the top of the chart and called ‘Level 1’, categories moderately utilized are placed in the middle and called ‘Level 2’, while categories least utilized are placed at the bottom of the chart and called ‘Level 3’ (Malikowski, et al., 2007). The levels and arrows are based on findings that have been summarized in the previous sections in this literature review.

The Malikowski model suggests that course management system users will use features in categories 4 and 5 (Level 3) only after they have successfully utilized features in Categories 1 (Level 1), 2 and 3 (Level 2).

* Figure 2 – Flow chart of course management system categories (Malikowski Model), 2007 cited in Malikowski and Thompson (2007).

Glenda Morgan (2008) conducted a study into limitations of course management systems with respect to the Malikowski model. The outcome of the study points out that the model should be improved to encourage cooperative learning among students. She suggested further research into incorporating video conferencing tools into the Malikowski model (Morgan, 2003).

Some researchers suggest it should be place in Level 2 of the model since it supports synchronous discussions just as the text chat feature. But there is currently no study supporting this. The proposed project could be a starting point in enhancing resolving this issue.

2.3 Summary of Literature Reviewed

This literature review analyzes two of the most prominent models used in the design and implementation of course management systems.

The MyUni model, which emphasizes integrating support mechanisms and service team in the design of course management system in order to stimulate its use as a powerful learning tool instead of a tool for delivering digital content. The support team should consist of Information technology services (ITS) while service team should consist of Learning and teaching committee (LTC). The model implements three patterns; face to face delivery which provides access to course content through use of email, assessments and online discussions; mixed mode delivery which provides collaborative features like joint assessments and online discussions; fully online delivery which provides joint assignments, online discussions and feedback. The model was most commended for providing a personalized experience, easy navigation, and an integrated environment. The limitation of the model is it can only be used in a university environment. Other educational institutions do not work well with model.

The Malikowski model, which lays emphasis on determining the level of utilization for features in a course management system to determine how well they support a learner-centered pedagogy, which are engagement in active learning, feedback, monitoring and evaluation of course materials, and interactivity among students and instructors (Abitt, 2005). The model divides course management system features into five categories;

Category 1: transmitting course content which was reported to be heavily utilized by Malikowski (2007), but argued to be highly underutilized by Boekaerts (1997), Pairio (1986) supporting this argument by stating that instructors transmit content only in text-text pairs (Pairio, 1986).

Category 2: creating class discussions which are underutilized because features in this category are only used for personal correspondence (Nelson, 2003), but they support learning goals (Malikowski, et al., 2007).

Categor 3: student evaluation which is also underutilized. Evaluation is based on three educational theories; Constructivism, which is the most common form, Cognitivism, which is too complex, and Behaviorism, which is too simplistic and obsolete.

Category 4: course evaluation which is also underutilized because no information is currently available about them.

Category 5: creating course based instruction which offers more than just content transmission and is underutilized.

The model also divides categories into three different levels of utilization, level 1 for highly utilized categories, level 2 for moderately utilized categories, and level 3 for least utilized categories. The model also shows that features at level 3 will be utilized only after features in levels 1 and 2 are fully utilized.

CHAPTER 3: Project Plan

3.0 Project Scope

This project presents the design and implementation of a course management system for Emerging Trees LLC. The system built will demonstrate capabilities in course administration, student administration, creating announcements, surveys, grade books, text chat and video conferencing. The project will not include the use of the course management system in creating course content as this can only be done by a learning content management system (LCMS) which is alot mor complex in design and implementation than the proposed system.

3.1 Project Timeline

The project implementation will commence in four main phases;

PHASE 1: This will involve interface design and coding of Email, course, student registration, Grade book and survey modules.

BETA TESTING: This will involve testing each module for bug and interoperability issues. Once all the modules are properly working, PHASE 2 will commence.

PHASE 2: This will include interface design and coding of Forum and Quiz modules. Modules in this phase may still be modified at a later stage based on feedback gleaned from teacher and student surveys during PHASE 1 beta testing.

TEST ONLINE: This phase involves testing all modules in phases 1 and 2 in an online test environment.

BETA TESTING: This will involve testing each module in this phase for bug and interoperability issues.

PHASE 3: This will involve interface design and coding of Video conferencing module. Modules in this phase may still be modified at a later stage based on feedback gleaned from teacher and student surveys during PHASE 1 beta testing.

BETA TESTING: This will involve testing each module in this phase for bug and interoperability issues.

FINAL IMPLEMENTATION: This phase is the final phase of the project, it will involve deploying the application in a production environment.

Figure 3 – Project Timeline

3.2 Risk Management

Hardware Defect: This can be caused as a result of hardware failures. There are two kinds of hardware failures that can occur on the proposed system; individual component failures like Disk failure, Network connection failure, Device defects etc., and overall system failure. The chances of this failure occurring is 30%. Perform the following steps to reduce the impact when this defect occurs;

Perform weekly disk defragmentation.

Maintain alternative standby network path for redundancy of network connections.

Perform backup of server data and configuration files.

Software Defect: This kind of failure is caused when the application as a whole or a portion of the application freezes or stops responding. This can be caused by components with the application or by external sources like disk failures, Network failures, Antivirus programs, etc. The chances of this failure occurring is 27%. Perform the following to reduce the impact of such defects;

Backup software data daily.

Monitor operating system activity and event logs frequently.

Evaluate the impact of Antivirus applications on the course management system software operation in a test environment before installing or upgrading antivirus software on the server.

Scope Gap: this defect occurs when there is a wide gap between the planned project scope and the scope of the working project. This can be caused when the project scope is not continually being updated as the project development commences. The chances of this defect occurring is 16%. To prevent such defects from occurring, weekly re-evaluation of project scope should be carried out at the end of each phase.

Integration Defect: This defect occurs when modules cannot communicate with each other. This can occur when modules are not tested for interoperability at the end of each phase. The chances of this defect occurring is 8%. To prevent such defects from occurring, each module should be tested for its interoperability with other modules at each stage of each phase.