The Application of Learning Theories Into The Design ...

The Application of Learning Theories into the Design of Course Management Systems Afendi Hamat Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Mohamed Amin Embi, Ph. D. Faculty of Education Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Abstract Course Management Systems (CMS) are increasingly used by Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) to spearhead their institution-wide forays into the world of e-learning, so much so that the ‘face’ of e-learning in these IHLs is represented by such systems. But how much ‘learning’ is there in these systems? Although scholarship in this area is still in its infancy, one good question that should be asked is who decides what makes up the systems and how? If the vendors are the ones deciding things, are we allowing ourselves be led by people whose primary consideration is financial gain? Should educators take comfort in vendors’ assertions that they are ‘merely providing the platform’, and we should just pour contents into these platforms? That would merely result in accidental pedagogy as educators scramble to fit their contents into the platforms. This paper intends to present another way of doing it. It discusses what we know of human learning, viewed through the three major theories of learning, and how we could apply the principles from these theories into the design of a CMS. The learning-driven approach to the design of CMS would hopefully be more beneficial to the students and teachers using such systems. Introduction Course Management Systems (CMS) are systems that provide facilities for teachers and students to engage in teaching and learning activities online by helping to manage various functions like course content preparation and delivery, communication, assessment, administrative functions and collaboration (Ellis, 2001; Nichani, 2001). Other terms have also been used to describe CMS: online learning environment, virtual learning environment and course-in-a-box (Collis & De Boer 2004). A review of the list of CMS available at www.edutools.info shows that CMS are designed with various levels of functionalities but the primary role remain to facilitate interactions between teachers and students. No matter what it is called, CMS are increasingly used by institutions of higher learning around the world (Sausner, 2005) so much so that they are the ‘face’ of elearning for many in these institutions. CMS are built by both business entities, which charge for their products, and under open source initiatives, which normally provide the products for free. But how much learning is there in these products? Hubscher and Frizell

(2002) argue that CMS provide little or no support for effective design of web-based instruction. It is tempting to point to the fact that these products are only tools to help teachers and it is up to them to make effective use of these tools. This is the line of argument used by Carmean and Haefner (2002), “CMS do not provide a pedagogical platform any more than chalk, chairs, and tables provide the classroom learning experience.”. This kind of argument sadly misses the important and obvious fact: CMS are very different from chairs and tables. They are an environment for learning, normally embedded within a larger environment – the web, which itself offer much potential for teachers and learners. If we are to stick with the analogy of chairs, it would make sense to ask what if the builder of the chairs did not take into account how people sit, but only the materials and his carpentry skills? Do we go ahead and tell the users (teachers and students), it does not matter how the chair is designed as long as you learn how to sit on it? Such an argument would be a boon for commercial CMS developers for as long as they can come up with new features and ‘improvements’ without taking into account how people learn (even when the point of their products is learning), business is assured. On the bright side, there are open source CMS like the famous Moodle, which claimed to be grounded in social constructivism. This paper argues that learning should be central to the design of a CMS, although various requirements from teachers, institutions and students themselves would mean that there would be other factors to take into account when designing CMS. The paper will suggest design features that could be incorporated into a CMS based on the three major theories of learning: behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism. It will do so in a concrete manner, keeping in mind what is already possible with technology today. This will be more useful in the long run than presenting the features in abstract terms that do not help with the implementation of such features. This paper represents an initial part of a PhD project that aims to create a learning-driven course management system specifically for language learning and teaching. Behaviorism Much maligned, often misunderstood and simplified in a postmodernist world, behaviorism nevertheless remains influential in educational practices (Burton et al., 1996; Kozloff, 1998; Smith-Gratto, 2000) . Various models of instruction have their roots in behaviorism such as Personalized System of Instruction (PSI), Mastery Learning, Direct Instruction and other ‘explicit teaching’ models and practices (Rosenshine, 1986). Early computer-assisted instruction programs are heavily influenced by behaviorist practices, not surprisingly since they appear during a period dominated by behaviorism. Tomei (2005) cited programmed instruction as an enduring and most significant contribution of behaviorism to education. Programmed instruction is the careful, deliberate organization of learning contents into a sequence of events to lead learners through specified instructional steps (Donaldson & Knupfer, 2002). Students are presented with segmented materials, with each segment presenting questions at the end. Students will provide responses to the questions and appropriate feedback given. They will then proceed to the next segment, or not, depending on their answers. The process is

repeated till the end of the instruction i.e. the last segment. Programmed instruction is used as the model for Skinner’s teaching machines. Discussions of the application of behaviorist principles in online environments usually centered around two components: content presentation and quizzes (Hung, 2001; Mishra, 2002). However, when it comes to CMS, this paper feels that the two should not be separated. In order to take into account the principles behind programmed instruction, we propose a slide-based content authoring tool that is similar to PowerPoint (see Table 1). However, the tool will consist of generic ‘content’ slides, ‘quiz’ slides and ‘discussion’ slides. The ‘content’ slides will be able to display information using text, video, animation and audio. The ‘quiz’ slides can be used to display short quizzes in several formats, with options for tracking, customized feedbacks and more importantly, branching back to other slides depending on students’ responses to the questions. The discussion slides contain the online discussion tool for the particular content, with the ability for integration to the central discussion component of the CMS. A teacher or a content author could use the tool for presenting contents together with quizzes for assessment. This integration better supports behaviorist learning principles than the separation of the content and its assessment component as is the normal practice in current CMS. Tools such as Toolbook and Authorware already have such capabilities, however, they are not web-based although they have the ability to export contents to course management systems. In order to better support behaviorist principles, the tool should also be able to generate navigation component for the slides, with the teacher having the option to make it linear or non-linear, or dependant on the responses given to system by students. Smith-Gratto (2000) argues that even though programmed instruction has been the preferred, and easy to adapt, model for computer-based instruction, it is not easy to implement on the Web because by nature, the Web gives less control to the designer compared to the traditional computer software. More research needs to be done in order to adapt programmed instruction to the web, but such research would need to use what we already know of programmed instruction as a starting point (Cruthirds & Hanna 1996). Table 1: CMS Design Features based on Behaviorist Learning Theory Learning Theory Behaviorism

Principles Programmed Instruction

CMS Design Features Slide-based Authoring Tool: a. Content Slide b. Quiz Slide c. Discussion Slide d. Integration: tracking, branching.

Cognitivism Unlike behaviorism, the cognitivist school emphasizes the mental processes. In essence, it offers an “information processing” view of learning, where the human brain works to create associations between symbolic concepts. It views thinking as manipulating these associations, creating ‘schema’ in the long term memory (Tomei, 2005; Ally, 2004; Bredo, 1994; Semple, 2000).

The use of concept maps is a well known cognitivist practice. Concept mapping postulates that as the duration of the working memory is short, visualization and orderly sequencing of concepts would help in retention of information and transfer to long term memory (Anderson, 1992). A compilation of 29 researches by the Institute for the Advancement of Research in Education (IARE 2003) on the use of concept maps (also termed graphic organizers) concludes that: 1. Use of graphic organizers is effective in improving students’ reading comprehension. 2. Students using graphic organizers show achievement benefits across content areas and grade levels. Achievement benefits are also seen with students with learning disabilities. 3. The process of developing and using a graphic organizer enhances skills such as developing and organizing ideas, seeing relationships, and categorizing concepts. 4. Use of graphic organizers aids students in retention and recall of information. 5. The use of graphic organizers supports implementation of cognitive learning theories: dual coding theory, schema theory, and cognitive load theory. Concept maps may also serve as an evaluation tool in addition to a learning tool (Novak & Gowin, 1984; Novak, 1990). Novak based his pioneering work on concept mapping on the work of Ausubel, and claims that the construction of knowledge is nothing more than high level meaningful learning which itself is about the assimilation of new concepts and propositions into existing concept structures. Carmean and Haefner (2003) calls for the inclusion of concept mapping tools in a CMS. This paper agrees with the suggestion as the use of concept maps have been shown to be beneficial for learning and fit cognitivist principles. The discussion will center on how such a tool should be implemented within a CMS (see Table 2). Concept mapping tools could be used as an individual information tool, an evaluation tool or a collaborative tool. When used as an individual information tool, the concept mapping capabilities of the CMS is used independently by a student to organize any information deemed relevant to his or her needs. In its role as an evaluation tool, teachers could require the use of the concept mapping tools by individual students to show their understanding of a particular subject or content. When used as a collaborative tool as suggested by Machinko (2004), the concept mapping tools act as interactive whiteboards that allow for collaboration among the users of the CMS. Programming the tools for creating concept maps within an online environment and integrating them into a CMS is not easy, but it is not impossible. Browser-based tools for manipulating images and creating charts online already exist, such as Ektron WebImageFX (http://www.ektron.com/webimagefx.aspx). They could provide the technical basis for designing concept mapping tools for CMS. Table 2: CMS Design Features based on Cognitivist Learning Theory Learning Theory Principles CMS Design Features Cognitivism Concept Visualization Concept Mapping Tool as: a. Information Tool b. Evaluation Tool c. Collaboration Tool

Constructivism Constructivism is a philosophy that views reality as internal to the individual, and that each individual constructs his or her own reality. It shares similarities with cognitivism, however it differs from both behaviorism and cognitivism in the sense that it views reality as not being ‘out there’ but in the mind of the individual (Jonassen, 1991). Constructivism views learning as an active process of construction, and the purpose of instruction is to support this process (Duffy & Cunningham 1996). Incorporating constructivist principles into a CMS design means that the primary effort should be given to supporting the process of knowledge construction. Norton and Wiburg (2003) states that in a constructivist learning environment, all available communication tools should be used to explore concepts and meanings. Chen et al. (2000) describes the application of constructivist principles into computer-based learning environments as the “computer-as-a-tool” model. In order to support the process of construction, this paper proposes that CMS should include or provide an integrated ‘toolbox’ for students (see Table 3). The tools within this ‘toolbox’ can be used by students to conduct activities that help with knowledge construction. The ‘toolbox’ itself should be integrated to any thematic or logical organization of the contents for learning, for example, if the teacher divides the course into ten topics, the toolbox should be available for each topic while also offering an integrated ‘view’ for the whole course. The tools within could be journaling systems, portfolio systems (Morphew, 2000) and concept mapping tools mentioned previously. Journaling systems would allow students to document their explorations of a particular topic or subjects while also encouraging them to look reflectively at their progress and reconstructing their understanding based on any new discovery, a hallmark of constructivist learning (Duffy & Cunningham 1996). Portfolios are a means of organizing documents and information. Greenberg (2004) listed three types of e-portfolios: showcase, structured and learning. Of particular interest are the last two. Structured portfolios contain templates for organizing work that is to be done. In a learning environment, structured portfolios would be used to help students focus on the necessary tasks related to the topic and also ease assessment and evaluation since the requirements are visible to all. Learning portfolios are more dynamic and reflect learners’ intellectual journeys. Its organization is fluid and dependant on the learner. The essential component is communication, which a learner uses to interact with mentors and other learners. An e-portfolio system within the constructivist ‘toolbox’ for a CMS would enable learners to organize materials and information related to the topic in a convenient manner. The e-portfolio could be a combination of both structured and learning types, although in a less formal sense than the ones discussed by Greenberg (2004). Physically, it should be able to handle various file types: media, word processing documents and various archive formats. The portfolios should also be integrated i.e. a teacher should be able to view portfolios by student or by topics, and the portfolios created by a student could be compiled into a single portfolio for publishing. The contents of a portfolio might include a summary of reading materials, written arguments that include the use of hypothesis making and testing and other constructivist, learner-centered activities (Alesandrini, 2002).

Duffy and Cunningham (1996) divide constructivism into two facets: cognitive constructivism and social constructivism. Social constructivism differs from cognitive constructivism in that it views knowledge as socially constructed. This gives the premium on collaborative and corroboration works among the learners and the teacher (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Norton & Wiburg 2003). The ‘toolbox’ concept should be extended also to group oriented activities. For example, when a teacher poses an activity that requires group work, a space is created for those who are in a group. Each of these spaces will contain a forum\threaded discussion, a chat facility, a whiteboard and a publishing system to enable communication, collaboration and publishing. These tools will allow learners to interact and collaborate in a more efficient and contextualized environment. It will also reduce common logistical problems associated with online collaborative activities (Bennett 2004). Conclusion This paper has presented principles from the three major learning theories and their applications for design features of course management systems. Designing a CMS is a multifaceted task involving various issues and roles (Jafari, 2000). However, we believe that learning should be the primary reference, other issues such as technology, standards, usability etc., although important, should be secondary. Due to the focus of this paper and space limitation, one important aspect of a CMS is left out of the discussion: communication. Within online learning environments, communication is often the glue that holds the various components together. Design for communication in CMS should strive for integration i.e. making communication tools available throughout the CMS, instead of compartmentalizing the tools into their own sections References Alesandrini, K. (2002). Visual constructivism in distance learning. USDLA Journal, 16(1). Online: http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JAN02_Issue/article03.html Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson, & F. Elloumi (Eds). Theory and Practice of Online Learning.. Online: http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/pdf/TPOL_book.pdf Anderson, O. R. (1992). Some interrelationships between constructivist models of learning and current neurobiological theory, with implications for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(10), 1037-1058. Bennett, S. (2004) Supporting collaborative project teams using computer-based technologies. In Roberts, T.S. (Ed.) Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice. Melbourne: Information Science Publishing. Bredo, E. (1994) Reconstructing educational psychology: Situated cognition and Deweyan pragmatism, Educational Psychologist, 29, 1, 23–35.

Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M. & Magliaro, S. G. (1996) Behaviorism and instructional technology. In Jonassen, D.H. (Ed.) Handbook of Research For Educational Communications and Technology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Carmean, C. & Haefner, J. (2002) Mind over matter: Transforming course management systems into effective learning environments. Educause Review. November-December 2002, 27-34 Carmean, C. & Haefner, J. (2003) Next generation course management systems. Educause Quaterly. Number 1 2003, 10-13 Cates, W. M. (1993). Instructional technology: The design debate. Clearing House, Jan/Feb93, Vol. 66, Issue 3, 133-134 Chen, D., Hsu, J. J. F. & Hung, D. (2000). Learning theories and IT: The computer as a tool. In Williams M. D. (Ed.) Integrating Technology into Teaching and Learning: Concepts and Applications - An Asia Pacific Perspective. Singapore: Prentice Hall. Collis, B. & De Boer, W. (2004) Teachers as learners: Embedded tools for implementing a CMS. TechTrends, Vol. 8, No. 6, 7-12 Cruthirds, J. & Hanna, M. S. (1996). Programmed instruction and interactive multimedia: A third consideration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern States Communication Association in Memphis, TN. Online at: http://www.natcom.org/ctronline/96-97pro.htm Donaldson, J. A. & Knupfer N. N. (2002) Education, learning and technology. In Rogers, P.L. (Ed.). Designing Instruction for Technology-Enhanced Learning. Hershey, PA, USA: Idea Group Publishing, 2002. Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996) Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ellis, R. K. (2001). LCMS roundup. Learning http://www.learningcircuits.org/2001/aug2001/ttools.html

Circuits.

Online:

Greenberg, G. (2004). The digital convergence: Extending the portfolio model. Educause Review, Vol. 39, No. 4, 28–37. http://www.elearningpost.com/features/archives/001022.asp Hubscher, R., & Frizell, S. (2002). Aligning theory and web-based instructional design practice with design patterns. World Conference on E-Learning in Corp., Govt., Health., & Higher Ed., 2002(1), 298-304.

Hung, D. (2001) Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional technologies. Education Media International: Volume 38, Number 4/December 01, 2001, 281-287 Institute for the Advancement of Research in Education (2003). Graphic organizers: A review of scientifically based research. Online at: http://www.inspiration.com Jafari, A. (2000). Development of a New University-wide Course Management System. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 514. Kozloff, M. (1998) Constructivism in education: Sophistry in a new age. Online: http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/ContraConstructivism.html Machinko, J. (2004). The use of concept mapping software in the classroom. Media and Methods, August 2004. Online: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4145/is_200408/ai_n9465031. Mishra, S. (2002) A design framework for online learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol. 33, No. 4, 493-496. Morphew, V. N. (2000) Web-based learning and instruction: A constructivist approach. In Khosrow-Pour, M. (Ed.) Web-based Instructional Learning. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Nichani, M. (2001). LCMS = LMS + CMS (RLOs). Elearningpost. Online: http://www.elearningpost.com/features/archives/001022.asp Norton, P. & Wiburg, K.M. (2003) Teaching with Technology: Designing Opportunities for Learning. Canada: Thompson-Wadsworth. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52. Novak, J. D., & D. B. Gowin. (1984). Learning How to Learn. New York and Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rosenshine, B. V. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43(7), 60-69.

Sausner, R., (2005). Course management: Ready for prime time. University Business, May 2005. Online: http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?p=791 Semple, A. (2000). Learning theories and their influence on the development and use of educational technologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, Vol. 46, Issue 3, 21-27. Smith-Gratto, K. (2000) Strengthening learning on the web: Programmed instruction and constructivism. In Abbey, B. (Ed.) Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-Based Education. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Tomei, L.A. (2005) Taxonomy for the Technology Domain. Hershey, PA, USA: Information Science Publishing.