Chapter 1. Introduction
1.3 Thesis Organization
Chapter 2 briefly describes the background materials, literature review, and related works. In Chapter 3, we conduct a feasibility study then show and discuss its results.
In chapter 4 the system’s architecture is revealed and discussed. The system implementations and system’s various scenarios & prototypes are covered in Chapter 5. In the last chapter (Chapter 6) all the concluding remarks of this research, possible
future work, and continued research in this field are included.
Chapter 2
Literature Review and Related Work
There are many research areas related to the work done in this study. Such areas include E-Learning [1-4], the Growing Book [5-6,], SCORM [7, 10] and the comparisons of some LMSs [8, 25, 28]. This chapter introduces some literature review work of these topics and how they are related and involved in this research.
2.1 E-Learning
In these current days, new technologies come about quickly and on a daily base.
People need to learn much more and retain a lot more knowledge than before to operate the new inventions and technologies available. Therefore, one of the issues we face now is how to provide an easier way for studying and also make it more interesting! Although the traditional ‘in classroom’ learning is still the most beneficial and perhaps most interesting way of learning because it is able to provide the full learning process of hearing, seeing, reading, writing, and speaking, language barriers for subjects thought in other languages than the native language of the students have created problems for both students and teachers. So E-learning evolved as a learning method for students with various needs and it seems to be more practical when students study a course in a language other than their native one [4].
E-learning can be done over a computer via CD-ROM, Internet or satellite broadcasting and can provide either a group or an individual learning experience.
Some students like verbal interaction and want to ask questions in class but are too
shy and feel embarrassed to do so in a ‘in classroom’ environment especially if the course is not in their native language. But may they have no problem asking questions if the other students don’t know who they are or cannot see them. So a live online course can be set up by itself, or combined with an ‘in classroom’ course. Unlike ‘in classroom’ learning, it can easier adapt teaching to the various needs of a student.
E-learning (live or recorded) can also be used completely in a course or it can be just a part of a course in a combined learning system of ‘in classroom’ and E-learning. A student may use E-learning as an introductory course to a more difficult ‘in classroom’ course he/she must take to complete the degree requirements.
In the traditional system, a teacher needs to teach one course for few or many students at a time. A teacher plays the main role during the class. He/she decides the way of teaching and also controls the process of studying. Though some teachers will consider the degree of the students’ learning to modify their teaching methods and speed, they still cannot fit the needs of all the students. After all, the level of the students in one class is not the same, and the time of the teacher is limited. With Multi-level E-learning, some situations can be changed and adjusted. The students are able study the courses anytime they want and can control the learning progress because this type of learning can be either individual & group, and the teaching is adaptable. In many cases, however, people supporting traditional education have focused on transferring existing courses using traditional teaching methods on the web. They just made the non-individual and non-adapted teaching more easily and widely available.
Current ‘in classroom’ and online learning systems provide the same content for all the students. This means that the students may not learn efficiently so new implementations and changes must be made. Students should be able to choose what they feel is appropriate for them to learn rather than learn more content than they can
understand or content that is unrelated to their particular study objective. Although, it is much easier to make changes and implement different levels to online learning contents, Multi-Level Usage can be used in both environments, online and ‘in classroom’ [33].
2.2 The Growing Book
A Growing Book is an electronic book co-developed by a group of teachers who are geographically dispersed throughout the world and collaborate in teaching and research. The Growing Book must be constantly updated and expanded, as it is necessary. The Growing Book is used by every one of the teachers involved both in the local classroom as well as in the worldwide Distance Learning environment. The contents of the Growing Book are owned by different authors who may utilize and/or provide different tools for Distance Learning, ‘in classroom’ learning, self-learning, and assessments. The Growing Book should support the Multi-Level, Multi-lingual and Multi-modal shared content co-developed by the many teachers and also it must have comprehensive material. Multi-Level Usage means that the ‘same course’
materials can be organized in different ways to be used in a regular semester course, a short course, a introductory exposition, an advanced seminar, etc. Multi-lingual Usage means that the same course materials can be translated and used by different languages. Multi-model Usage means that the same course materials can be used by people with different perceptual preferences and various handicaps. The Macro University is a framework made in such a way, that many virtual universities could pool their resource together.
2.3 SCORM
SCORM was launched by the ADL, an initiative sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in the USA. The SCORM is built upon a common Web-based “Content Aggregation Model” and “Run-Time Equipment” for its learning content. SCORM is a collection of specifications and standards that have been bundled into a collection of “technical books.” These technical books are presently grouped under three main topics: 1) the “Content Aggregation Model (CAM),” 2) the
“Run-time Environment (RTE),” and 3) “Sequencing and Navigation (SN)”. The features of the SCORM are accessibility, adaptability, affordability durability, interoperability and reusability. As shown in Figure 2.1, the Content Package is composed of Manifest File and Physical Files. The Content Package uses Manifest File to arrange and pack Physical Files as the framework of the course.
Figure 2.1 The Conceptual Content Package
2.4 Comparison of some Learning Management Systems
Table 1 shows our comparison of Learning Management Systems between Fu Zi College, MIT Open Courseware and Cyber Link CTMS. Fu Zi College [34] is a web site used for E-learning and sharing teaching materials between teachers in Taiwan. It has an Account Management System but it is only used to keep users’ information. It
does not provide any assessment to help someone know what kind of material he/she should learn. One can choose what he/she prefers to study. It does not implement any standard of E-learning or the concept of Multi-level.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Open Courseware (OWC) [35] is a free and open educational resource for faculty, students, and self-learners around the world. OCW supports MIT's mission to advance knowledge and education, and will continue to serve the world in the 21st century. OWC is a publication of the MIT course materials, not a degree granting or a certificate-granting program. It doesn’t require a registration process or provide any assessments for a user, and also, it doesn’t follow E-learning standards but it provides Multi-level courses for students.
Lotus LMS is a product of IBM which provides a solution of E-learning for the enterprise to train their employees. It is a web-based system that also provides account management. It follows SCORM E-Learning standard but it doesn’t provide Multi-level application.
Table 1. Comparison of Some Learning Management Systems
Fu Zi College MIT OpenCourseWare Lotus LMS
Web-based Yes Yes Yes
Account
Management Yes No Yes
Assessment Yes No No
Standard No No Yes
Multi-level No Yes No
Chapter 3
Feasibility Study
We performed a feasibility study to find out about the benefits teachers can get from using Multi-Level Usage in their teaching. For analyzing ingredients and related concepts in developing our Multi-level learning system, we requested the developers to fill out the questionnaires we prepared so we can later evaluate them and make some system implementation decisions.
The developers are participants of the survey who have the goal of editing the teaching materials while combining teaching experience with knowledge, expertise, and devotion. There were 12 participants in our sample size used as developers of our system and its implementation. Half of them are teaching in colleges and technology schools in Taiwan. The other 6 are teaching undergraduate and graduate programs in universities around Taiwan.
Table 2 shows the features of our research and what the teachers can use and benefit from. We provide a Learning Management System (LMS) based on some of the concepts of the LMS’s previously discussed and compared, which can help teachers to easier implement a Multi-level course with as many levels as they prefer.
We use a section as our basic unit when setting up the levels of a course. We don’t provide the re-indexing function (used to arrange the index of the chapters and sections) because we think if we change the index, the students cannot easily refer to the original course, which is more complete. We use SCORM as the basis of our Multi-Level E-learning system and we get the SCORM-based course package as an
input for our system. This will help teachers to save time when build a digital course.
We also implement a tool for teachers to easier transfer their digital content to a SCORM-based course.
Table 2. Features of a Multi-Level System
Easy to implement Multi-level Usage? Yes
Number of levels Decided by teachers
The basic unit of a Multi-level courses Section
Re-indexing No
Supporting E-learning standard SCORM
Provide an easy to use tool for building a course package Yes
Get a shareable digital course for modifying SCORM-based course
3.1 The Contents of the Questionnaire
We provided 15 questions (Appendix A) for the 12 participating teachers to find out their needs while teaching a course. First, we needed to know if the participating teachers could see any uses or benefits of a Multi-level system in their courses. Then we asked them several different questions to see the needs they encountered from various difficulties or obstacles that a course may present.
3.2 Analysis of the Questionnaire
Each figure contains the 12 participants and their preferred choices. Figure 3.1 shows the needs for Multi-level courses in three different situations. We can see that most participants have a high requirement (8 chose high) for Multi-level courses for different levels of a course situation. If different classes of the same course are offered
at the same school (‘in classroom’ and online), most teachers (6 responses) didn’t see much use for more Multi-level courses to be implemented. They felt the students would benefit enough from the same course being offered in two environments (online and ‘in classroom’). For different students’ abilities in the same class, the teachers that chose Multi-level for a course (5 participants) are almost the same in number as the teachers chose not to use Multi-level (4 participants). The requirement for different level students in the same class situation is higher than for different classes being offered at the same school situation.
Figure 3.1 The need for Multi-level courses. If there is only one type of course offered (online or ‘in classroom), the teachers think there is a need for Multi-level use.
Figure 3.2 shows the scale of for Multi-level necessity that the participants might see for their courses in three different conditions or situations. Most of the teachers preferred three levels for a course, but some of these teachers felt they may require more or less levels depending on the kind of courses. For scenarios having different
0
For different levels of a course d ff l l f
For different classes in the same school For different students in the same class
class levels in the same school and having different level students in the same class, two or three levels are enough. For different type of schools and teaching in another language some teachers need more or less levels for a class and type of course.
Figure 3.2 Three levels is what most teachers want for a Multi-level course
Figure 3.3 A section is the preferred unit for Multi-level courses 0
For different levels of a course
For different classes in the same school For different students in the same class 0
For different levels of a course
For different classes in the same school For different students in the same class
We are also interested in the issue of what we should use as the basic unit for a Multi-level course. Should it be a chapter or a section? As shown in Figure 3.3, most of the teachers would like to choose a section as the basic unit for the course.
Figure 3.4 The Necessity for Re-indexing. If the course has different levels, most teachers think it should be treated as a normal course, and therefore it should have the same content or topics as the original. Only the degree of difficulty should vary.
A Multi-level course may be a sub-set of the original course. After we re-organize the course, should we treat it as a new course or just as a sub-set of the original one? If we treat it as a new course, should we change the index of outlines?
Figure 3.4 shows the opinions of teachers regarding the need to change the index of outlines after building a new level for the course.
0 2 4 6
# of Participants
Very High High Normal Low Very Low Re-Indexing?
For different levels of a course
For different classes in the same school For different students in the same class
Figure 3.5 The Difficulty of Making a Digital Course
Figure 3.5 shows how the participants feel about the difficulty for making a digital course. Most of the teachers felt that making a digital course is quite difficult.
Since making a digital course is difficult, can we get the shareable digital content for reuse purposes? Must teachers build the contents by themselves? As shown in Figure 3.6, most teachers consider that it is helpful if they can get shareable digital contents.
Figure 3.6 Usefulness of Getting Shareable Digital Contents
0
3.3 Summary and discussion
Because of increased globalization in recent years, various international programs at different universities and higher-level institutions around the world have strived to attract students from various countries and different backgrounds hoping it would make the institution more competitive. Moreover, an international program is thought to improve and benefit the studying environment through more diversity in knowledge and thinking and a greater variety of research projects conducted at that particular school. But learning dilemmas in a traditional ‘in classroom’ environment caused by language barriers between students (local or foreign) and professors (local or foreign) and also extra money being spent on such programs are raising the issue of efficiency and benefits of such programs to both the students and educational institutions. Multi-Level Usage as shown by this survey can be one way of dealing with situations as above. It can be used in educational systems to reduce various problems created by certain teaching barriers and also improve a student’s learning.
Based on the results of this survey we will built the architecture and system implementations in the following chapters.
Chapter 4
System Architecture
Our Multi-level Learning System is composed of the Account Management System, the Course Management System, and the Assessment System as shown in Figure 4.1. The Account Management System is used to manage the account’s authority to control what a user can or cannot do. It includes Login(), Logout(), AddUser() and DeleteUser(). The Course Management System is used to manage the courses for these various purposes: to register for a course, view a registered course, import a course, and set up the Multi-level system of a course. The Assessment System provides an exam for a user to help him/her to choose the appropriate level of a course and also assess if he/she can go to the next level.
Figure 4.1 The Architecture of Multi-level Learning System
4.1 Account Management System
The Account Manage System is used to manage the authority of a user. It keeps the user information and defines what he/she can or cannot do. As shown in the Figure
4.2, the users may be separated into two groups. One group is the learner (student), while the other is an administrator. When a user logs into the system, the Account Management System will provide the functions according to the role or title of user.
An administrator can login the system, logout the system, add a user, and delete a user for various purposes. If a student logs into the system, then the system will provide the course to be learned according to the student’s registration. Usually, an administrator would be a teacher or a teaching assistant. He/she can add the students to a class and assign the courses to them. Then it could be treated as a virtual classroom for a course. As the number of courses increase, it becomes a macro university.
Figure 4.2 The Diagram of Account Management System.
4.2 Multi-level Course Management System
The Course Management System has the functions as shown in Figure 4.3. An administrator can import a course, delete a course, and define the Multi-level of a course. An administrator can also register as a student if he/she wants to study or complete a course but he/she must be admitted as a student first. A student can register
a course that has already been imported by an administrator and then view the registered course. He/she can register for many courses, ‘in classroom’ or online courses in the same way students register for a traditional ‘in classroom’ learning environment. The course management system will record the status of a student and his/her progress or accomplishment in this course.
Figure 4.3 The Diagram of Course Management System.
An administrator may be an expert teacher or a program director and he/she can organize a course into different levels according to the needs. He/she can determine if this course would be an ‘in classroom’ or online course based on the information available from the system (course has adequate resources for either ‘in classroom’ or online environment). The system can provide an easy way for the administrator to do this so that he/she can only concentrate on classifying the level and/or type of course and not spend too much time on other aspects. As shown in the Figure 4.4, the course management system loads a course into a Multi-level course definition web page.
The teachers just need to classify the level and type of course (‘in classroom’, online, or combined) for each chapter by clicking the radio button on the web page. After
he/she finishes the process, the ClassifyCourse() will generate a Multi-level course package of SCORM. The Learning System can load this Multi-level course package for a Multi-level course purpose.
Figure 4.4 The Model of Generating a Multi-level Course
Figure 4.4 The Model of Generating a Multi-level Course