RAPID E-LEARNING CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: AN OVERVIEW Badariah Solemon & Rosnafisah Sulaiman University Tenaga Nasional Kajang, MALAYSIA Abstract The power of e-learning has transformed the way education is done. Nowadays, not only the so-called virtual universities but also many conventional universities provide courses partially or even entirely on or through the Internet. The interactive, recursive and iterative nature of teaching and learning make the courseware authoring, publishing and management particularly more complicated. However, one cannot deny the needs of universities, or other institutions to use a toolset or a system to support the whole process of rapid e-learning content management. What more if the time to prepare and publish the e-learning content is rather short but the quality and educational effectiveness shall never be compromised. This paper compares a few existing e-learning content management systems and using the result of this comparison, we propose a new system components, and system architecture. The system scope, benefits, and additional consideration, are also briefly discussed. The inspiration of the proposed system is to act as a better option to the available tools in the market. Introduction The borderless world of information technology and the need to acquire knowledge have affected teaching styles and trends adopted by academic institutions of higher learning. More institutions have embraced the digital world to be part of their learning and teaching tools. According to analyst of e-learning, large amount of expenditure allocated for this field has been channeled to technological facilities, hardware, and software needed to run the service [4]. One aspect of these technological requirements is a system for composing, editing, managing and distributing e-learning content. Different terms have been used to describe this system such as interactive management system, content management system, virtual learning environment, learning management system (LMS), and learning content management system (LCMS). This paper focuses on an LCMS rather than on an LMS. An LMS and an LCMS are complementary but very different systems that serve different masters and address unique business challenges [6]. LCMS provides authors, instructional designers (IDs), and subject matter experts the means to create e-learning content just in time to meet the needs of individual learners or group of learners. Rather than developing entire courses and adapting them to multiple audiences, IDs create reusable content chunks and make them available to course developers throughout the organization. This eliminates duplicate efforts and allows the rapid assembly of customized content. Reviews by Robbins [8] reveal the emergence of LCMSs as a platform choice for many companies seeking fast deployment of e-learning. The 4-stage revolution is depicted in Figure 1 below, while Table 1 summarizes the brief descriptions of each stage. Existing Systems Three content management systems and/or LCMS in the market were reviewed. They were Blackboard Learning System, TopClass Learner Support and WebCT Campus 34
Edition. The selection was based on the popularity of the software and, ones that were commonly used in the higher learning institutions. The study is important to help understand the common features offered by such systems. The features then later could be integrated in the proposed rapid LCMS, which aims at providing a better, practical solution to higher learning institution particularly in Malaysia. Generic content libraries Learning Management Systems (LMS) Outsourced e-learning platforms Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS) Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Figure 1: E-learning Revolution Table 1: Description of 4-stage E-learning Revolutions Stage 1 2 3 4 Descriptions Tool used to create e-learning delivered via CD-ROM or mainframe computers. Companies pioneer the development of web-based e-learning content libraries. LMS used to enrol learners in classroom-based events, manage face-to-face training and report on progress. The LMS typically launch a library of custom or generic e-learning courses. Companies provide outsourcing services to verify course content on their software platforms. Organizations using these platforms lack the capability to quickly change content and deploy proprietary content using internal resources. The corporate version of content management systems designed to enable subject matter experts, with little technology expertise, to design, cerate, deliver, and measure the results of e-learning courses rapidly. LCMS also can provide certification and tracking for individual learners, who need specific knowledge to certify for regulatory needs, professional licensure, or quality control. 35
Blackboard Learning System (BLS) was developed by Blackboard Inc. based in Washington DC. The primary target for this company is a solution for e-education. It is an industry leading course management system based on a third-generation enterprise technology platform. It consists of curriculum-driven content management and content sharing, restructured assessment management system, designs based on client s feedback and usability, discussion boards, and Virtual Classroom tool and data management system [1]. TopClass LCMS (TC) is a robust and scalable platform that offers e-learning content management and assembly, personalized content delivery, learner collaboration, learner tracking and assessment, web-based training administration, and database administration. [9] TC is distinguished from other e-learning products through its usability with easy installation, easy administration, and its user-friendly features. What further distinguishes TC from other e-learning products is its support for rapid conversion of existing learning content to the web, and its unique Learning Object architecture. TC facilities for students include coursework, reading/sending of messages, discussion list, and class announcements [10]. WebCT Campus Edition (WCE) is a global market-leading course management system that enables the efficient delivery of high quality online education [12]. WCE have a large number of instruction and communication tools. The system provided instructor control over the look and the feel of the course, assessment tools and control of students access to the course. For example, students must pass a certain grade for quiz before they are allowed to advance to the next chapter. It also provides students with web authoring environments. It is also useful for individual or group work and it allows students to access their own progress report information. WCE gives better student tracking and group management, more flexibility for students to follow their own progress and better administrative tracking of course use. The features of WCE include conferencing system, on-line chat, student progress tracking, student self-evaluation, grade maintenance and distribution, auto marked quizzes, electronic mail, course calendar and student homepages [11], [12]. The Comparisons The elements included for comparing capabilities of existing content management system and/or LCMS were based on the characteristics proposed by Marshall University's Center for Instructional Technology [2] and EduTools [3]. These characteristics are divided into six categories; Developmental Features, Instructor Tools, Instructional Features, Student Tools, Administrator Tools, and Administrative Features. The comparisons were shown in the tables 2 to 7 below. Table 2 shows that the three systems support most of the development features except that TCdoes not support online chatting. 36
Table 2: Comparisons on Development Features Development Features 1 2 3 Content format will allow for simple transfer to/from another vendor s platform Platform uses open data standard so that it can communicate with existing university database applications Platform utilizes standard HTML for content creation Platform is structured so students can view all of their current courses when they log on Questions can be created with platform s authoring software Platform has built-in threaded discussion list capabilities Platform has built-in chat capabilities / X / Platform allows author to view course as student without logging out Platform supports question database for management of test questions Platforms supports reporting features for test questions Vendor provides development services Management component will create reports for tracking student progress Table 3: Comparisons on Instructor Tools Instructor Tools 1 2 3 Course planning, managing, fast course revising and monitoring Instructional designing Presenting information in format Online testing and grading Instructor can assign specific course material to individual or group of students Generate random set of questions Allows developer to preview course as a student / X X Managing records Customization of student curriculum X / / Student tracking Multiple choice self test tutorial questions provide automatic marking Fill in the blank" self test tutorial questions provide automatic marking Customized feedback to tutorial questions X / / Redirect path of tutorial depending on question answers X / X 37
Table 3 shows that the three systems provide support course management features such as monitoring, planning, revising, instructional design and presenting the content in a proper format. TC and WCE do not allow the developer to preview the courses as a student. All functions for the instructor tools supported in TC and WCE are quite similar. However, BLS lacks in curriculum customization and does not provide customized feedback to tutorial questions. For redirect path of tutorial towards the question answer, both BLS and WCE do not support this feature. Furthermore, these systems do support student tracking through self-test tutorial question. The systems support multiple choices and fill in the blank with automatic marking. This is to encourage the student to test their understanding on certain topics. Table 4: Comparisons on Instructional Features Instructional Features 1 2 3 Faculty to student asynchronous communication is possible Faculty to student synchronous communication is possible Faculty can make their own changes to content Courses can have consistent interface Online help is available to help student use library resources / X X Platform has e-mail management capabilities for students and faculty / X / Platform supports multiple instructors for a course / / X The comparison on instructional features in Table 4 shows that the three systems support asynchronous and synchronous communication between faculty and students. Faculty is allowed to make updates or changes to the content but the courses will still have consistent interface. In addition, the online help services that assist the students in using library resources is inclusive to BLS solely. Meanwhile for email management capabilities, only BLS and WCE provide such services. Lastly, only BLS and TC support multiple instructors for single courses. 38
Table 5: Comparisons on Student Tools Student Tools 1 2 3 Authentication Bookmark management X / / Multimedia support Private e-mail X / / Threaded discussions Course Chat rooms / X / Progress tracking Automated glossary tool X / / Automated index tool X X / Search tool for course content Allows students to view all current courses in which they are registered after logging in X X X File submissions Whiteboard / X / Image database X X / Table 6: Comparisons on Administrative Tools Administrator Tools 1 2 3 Server Client/web interface Authorization tools Logout feature / / Resource and remote access tools Crash recovery tools Student support tools Instructor support tools Administrator support tools / / X Guest account creation Table 5 shows that these three systems support standard authentication, multimedia support, threaded discussion among faculty and students, progress tracking through student performance in quizzes, search tool and file submission for extra notes or assignment. BLS and TC do not have functions that can support automated index tool and image database. TC also lacks the whiteboard feature. Finally, all the three systems do not allow students to view all current courses that they have enrolled after logging in 39
into the system. Table 6 shows the comparisons on administration tools and states the three systems support all of the features listed except for WCE that does not provide the administrator support tools. Table 7 shows that the systems vary in terms of administrative features offered to the university. All three systems give sole ownership of course content to university, however only WCE allows the university to solely own the custom code used to create the courses. BLS leads the other systems by providing the majority of the administrative features. However, it does not use the pricing structure that is based upon number of students within the course. Table 7: Comparisons of Administrative Features Administrative Features 1 2 3 University will have sole ownership of custom code used to create courses X X / University will have sole ownership of course content Platform provider will provide technical support to University / X / Platform provider will host courses on their server / X X Platform provider will advertise courses / X X Platform provider can provide documentation and contacts to demonstrate a positive track record with higher education Pricing structure is based upon number of students within the course X / / Platform is focused on locally developed courses Generally, all the three systems require start-up costs and ongoing costs. However only TC does not charge the university any site pricing cost. As for hardware and operating system requirements, the three systems may run on UNIX server, NT server, Sun Solaris machine or Linux operating system. However, only TC is made suitable for the Macintosh operating system. BLS and WCE could be viewed using Java-enabled Web browser, while only TC could be viewed using the CGI-enabled web browser. Rapid LCMS The rapid e-lcms is a proposed system that caters the e-learning needs of any Malaysia s higher learning institutions in general, and Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN) in particular. Currently, a team of researchers at the College of IT at UNITEN is designing and strategizing some parts of the system. The proposed system aims at combining distance/online learning scenario, the most promising web 40
technologies and the emerging standards. The target is to attain a highly competitive e- learning environment including innovative and/or state-of-the-art features to implement reusability, portability, scalability, heterogeneous database, security, and integration [5]. Minimally, it should provide support for creating, editing, consuming, discovering and persistence of learning objects in a web-based learning environment. The system includes the following key features: 1. Dynamic and contains the right content. The learning objects and related expertise about any subject must be current and relevant. 2. It should operate in real time, making the best use of the technology and the resources should come from both inside and outside the organization. 3. Provide increased personalized services and an individual approach to the learner. Learners activities should pertinent to their background, job, and career at that very moment. 4. Learning events should come from many sources (of media) enabling the learner to select a favourite format of learning method. 5. Present simulated, real-life situations, and make the learning engaging and interactive. 6. Adapt meaningful assessment and testing (pre and post) available to the learner. 7. Maintain links to current articles and readings for the community. 8. Provide a variety of content delivery or learning modes to the learner. Expected benefits of the system includes: Fast production and deployment Reduce production and deployment cost Supporting innovation Security and privacy Increased return on investment Increased security and privacy More time and focus to learning The Framework The framework of the proposed system can be divided into three main tiers presentation, services and data, each with a series of modular components. These three tiers are depicted in Figure 2. The presentation tier allows users to interact with the service or application. Ideally, the subject s context should be delivered through different choices of media and technology. Media could be chosen for their specific characteristics and include combinations of print material, computer-mediated communication such as email, bulletin boards and chatrooms, CD-ROMs or web sites. The services tier contains two major services - common and e-learning. Common services provide common facilities from the typical LMS only model including: User Management manage users, groups and roles account registration and information. Also, provides the backbone for the user authentication, authorization and entitlement of services. 41
Collaboration Management - supports multiple forms of interaction such as e-mail, threaded discussion, whiteboard, and chat and, Event Management capture all interaction between users and services. User Common Content Meta data E-learning Assessment Administration Presentation Services Data Figure 2: Framework The e-learning services include the learning content management service that provides: automated authoring services create the reusable learning objects that are accessible in the learning object/ content repository. The services automate development by providing authors with templates and storyboarding capabilities that incorporate instructional design principles. learning management and administration services manage learners records, launch e-learning courses from course catalogue, track and report the progress of learners, and provide other administrative features. assessment services measure learners performance against specific learning goals. Assessment includes multiple choice questions, multiple right answer, short answer and true/false, and dynamic delivery interface services serve up a learning object based on learner profiles, pretest, and/or user queries. Also allow authors to localize the look and feel of courses. The resource tier contains learning content repository that uses meta-data to store and manage individual learning objects, learning assessment repository that contains qualityassured assessment questions, learning administration repository that contains the administration data and modules, and user repository that includes the user s profile, assessment and transcript information. Additional Considerations There are several additional considerations that are worth considering when strategizing, designing, and implementing e-learning platforms: 42
Learners and Learning style different learners will have different learning styles and needs, therefore the e-learning instructional goal should be to maintain a healthy balance between the teacher-centric and learner-centric. Bandwidth-friendly design e-learning platform ought to be flexible enough to deliver multiple types and file size content at the user s discretion. Integration with existing LMS or enterprise system and linkage with business needs beforehand researchers must ensure that the e-learning fits into an organization s overall business plan otherwise the e-learning will be an expensive curiosity and potentially an expensive failure. Enterprise security the system must contain robust security and encryption mechanism to protect content and user data. Legal issues copyrights to the content of the subject must be crystal-cleared to avoid unexpected situation. Conclusions and Future Work The proposed architecture aims at building an updated and competitive solution by incorporating various administration and management facilities, appealing user interfaces and innovative and/or state-or-the-art methodologies to implement reusability, portability, and scalability. The prototype of the system is yet to be developed tentatively by leveraging the Macromedia MX Studio, ColdFusion MX and Flash Communication Server products. The complete prototype will then support the teaching and learning activities at College of IT, UNITEN during the second half of academic year 2004/2005. References [1] Blackboard Learning System http://company.blackboard.com/product/is/index.htm, [4/15/04 ] [2] [2] Comparison of Online Course Delivery Software products, [14] http://www.marshall.edu/it/cit/webct/compare/comparison.html [3] EduTools, http://www.edutools.info [05/22/04] [4] International Data Corporation, Incorporate Worldwide Corporate elearning Market Forecast and Analysis 19902004, IDC #W23904, April 2001. [IDC] [5] J. Redol, D. Simoes, A. Carvalho, H. Pascoa, P. Coelho, P. Grave, R. Luis, N. Horta, VIANET A New Web Framework for Distance Learning, Proceedings of the 3 rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 03), 2003. [1-1] [6] L. Greenberg, LMS and LCMS: What s the Difference?, http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/dec2002/greenberg.htm [6/17/04] [2-1] [7] Miami University Blackboard System http://www.courses.miami.edu [04/05/04] [5] [8] S.R. Robbins, The Evolution of the Learning Content Management System, http://www.learningcircuits.org/nr/exeres/483f426a-bea4-4e32-8080- 01FC7AA26DED.htm [6/17/04] [3-1] 43
[9] University of Limerick, WBT TopClass Learner Support, [7] http://www.iei.ul.ie/pages/topclass.htm#intro [05/04/04] [10] WebCT Courseware System Tools http://workbench.webct.com [04/15/04] [12] [11] WebCT Product, http://www.webct.com/products/viewpage [04/15/04] [11] [12] WBT TopClass, http://wbtsystems.com/products/topclass [04/15/04] [10] 44