[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

[school-discuss] [IIEP] Is David's approach a possible solution to Cameron's concerns?



[I've been receiving a lot of messages to the schoolforge-discuss mailing list from the IIEP mailing list.  I forwarded the first few of them, then stopped, as there were just too many.  I don't know it cross-posting between the two lists is a good idea.  Thoughts?  Doug]

I am trying to figure out how to best address the concerns about open =
source learning management systems (OSS LMS) mentioned by Cameron Nichol =
(Cameron's posting is shown below).

Cameron's main concerns with FOSS LMS are two: i. centralization of =
administrative and reporting functions and ii. lack of integration with =
other systems. Cameron is of the view that OSS LMSs appear not to be =
designed to support complex organizations where training delivery needs =
to meet often ideosyncratic organisational structures.=20

I am wondering whether or not the interesting approach described by =
David Jones can be used to address Cameron's concerns (David's posting =
is also shown below). David is part of a 2-4 group that supports the =
ideosyncratic needs of a university. The approach adopted by David's =
group does not use the OSS LMS mentioned in Cameron's or my e-mail. =
David's approach builds on the concept of a minimal website per course. =
A professor uses a simple process to build a minimal website and then =
requests one or more tools to be added to it as needed.  The support =
group to which David belongs makes available the tools to the minimal =
website upon request.=20

I am wondering to what extent David's approach can address the two main =
problems with FOSS LMS identified by Cameron: i. centralization of =
administrative and reporting functions and ii. lack of integration =
between systems.

HELP.

Tony


Cameron's posting
The OSS LMSs at present appear to be designed for primarily simple =
single campus academic institutions rather than complex organizations =
where training delivery needs to meet often-idiosyncratic organizational =
structures.  My main concern is the administration functions tend to be =
very centralized placing the control of the system and workload in very =
few hands.  I think the 3 main issues are:
1. In an organization training thousands of people this is a significant =
workload that one area has to cover.

2. It also has the potential to create political problems by taking =
control away from Dept heads - this problem would be greater in =
organizations with a preexisting decentralized management structure or a =
distrust of/disbelief in the central management.

3. Access to the reporting functions provided also tends to be =
centralized limiting a manager's access to information about his staff/ =
trainees.  The number and types of reports also tend to a bit too =
limited to meet the needs a large, dispersed organization.

The other major concern I have is they tend to be designed as stand =
alone systems.  There does not appear to be much work put into =
developing applications to aid integration with other management =
systems. =20

I think these are areas the developers of more mature OSS LMSs (eg =
Illias, Atutor, Moodle, Manhattan) should be considering.

cheers,

Cameron Nichol



David's Posting=20
The local system we use is designed to integrate the widest possible
range of software.   The intent is that the choice of the software to
use should not be constrained by a particular system.

I'm guessing this approach shares some common ground with the
work described by Richard Wyles.

Our system infrastructure is built on FOSS including: Apache, =
Perl/mod_perl,
MySQL, Linux.

Some of the software we've integrated into the system includes
- Bulletin boards
  A range of systems.  We've upgraded as different systems
  have become available and requirements change.    The list includes
  YaBB http://yabbforum.com/
  WebBS http://awsd.com/scripts/webbbs/
- Mailing lists
  Majordomo and Mailman for delivery.  Mhonarc for web-archives
- Copy Detection
  copyfind - http://plagiarism.phys.virginia.edu/software.html
  moss - http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~aiken/moss.html

Some of this software is FOSS, some of it is shareware and some
of it could have been commercial but we've never had the need.

More detail and explanation of the rationale is available from
the following papers some of which I've mentioned before.

http://cq-pan.cqu.edu.au/david-jones/Publications/Papers_and_Books/ISDT/
David Jones, Shirley Gregor, Teresa Lynch, An Information Systems Design
Theory for Web-based Education
<http://cq-pan.cqu.edu.au/david-jones/Publications/Papers_and_Books/ISDT/=
>,
Proceedings of the IASTED International Symposium on Web-baesd Education
<http://www.iasted.org/conferences/2003/greece/cate.htm>.

http://cq-pan.cqu.edu.au/david-jones/Publications/Papers_and_Books/edmedi=
a99/
David Jones, Webfuse: An integrated, eclectic Web authoring tool
<http://cq-pan.cqu.edu.au/david-jones/Publications/Papers_and_Books/edmed=
ia99/>,
Proceedings of EdMedia'99 <http://www.aace.org/conf/edmedia/index.html>,
Betty Collis, Ron Oliver (editors), June, 1999, pp 1799-1801

> When answering this question please give a brief description of how
> you are implementing e-learning in your institution.


We were a small group of developers (2-4) located within a specific =
Faculty
(school/department).   We were responsible for developing information
systems for all of the needs of the faculty.   This was based on the
assumption that the roles of teaching, research and administration =
within
our faculty are all interconnected and that there is benefit from =
enabling
and leveraging off that interconnection.

Implementation of e-learning specifically was based around the notion of
minimal course sites e.g.
   http://www.infocom.cqu.edu.au/Courses/2004/T2/

Features of this approach
- Every course has a minimal website that is constructed automatically.
- The features of a minimal course site build on existing processes
  and services within the University with the intent of providing
  maximum benefit for staff and students with minimal effort
- The look, structure and content of the minimal course site can be =
changed
   Default look and structure (2004)
       http://www.infocom.cqu.edu.au/Courses/2004/T2/COIT11133/
   Course specific look and structure (2003)
       http://www.infocom.cqu.edu.au/Courses/2003/T3/COMM11009/
- The systems provides a range of services which staff can add to their
  course site depending on their needs.   e.g. group work, quizzes etc.
- Staff can make a related "real" course site if they wish to move out
  of the supported system
- By default most sections of course sites are world readable but
  staff have the power to restrict sections

This process seeks to enable individual academics to continue
innovating and through a process of "mining" the appropriation
of useful innovations throughout the system.

The early thoughts on this process are described in the following
paper.

http://cq-pan.cqu.edu.au/david-jones/Publications/Papers_and_Books/webe99=
/

David Jones, Teresa Lynch, A Model for the Design of Web-based Systems
that supports Adoption, Appropriation, and Evolution
<http://cq-pan.cqu.edu.au/david-jones/Publications/Papers_and_Books/webe9=
9/>,
Proceedings of the 1st ICSE Workshop on Web Engineering
<http://btwebsh.macarthur.uws.edu.au/san/icse99-WebE/>, Murugesan, S. &
Deshpande, Y. (eds), Los Angeles, pp 47-56

While the basics of this work started in 1997 it is only since 2002 that
we have really incorporated all of these factors (and others I have
probably forgotten).  The following usage statistics give
some insight into how the situation has improved.