A Model for Research into Course Management Systems: Bridging Technology and Learning Theory

Course management systems (CMSs), such as Blackboard, Desire2Learn, or WebCT, have become a common resource at universities, colleges, and distance learning organizations. Research into how these systems are used for learning is in an early state. Currently, this research focuses on technical features in a CMS more than research about how people learn. This article recommends a model for CMS research that equally considers technical features and research about how people learn. Technical features and learning research are diverse topics. The model was developed by reviewing literature from each topic and should provide a conceptual middle ground. Findings from current CMS research are presented using the model, to show its relevance and adaptability. This model should also ease the process of synthesizing research in CMSs created by different vendors, which contain similar features but label them differently. Implications for developing learning activities in a CMS are also described.

[1]  Judith Borreson Caruso,et al.  Students and Information Technology, 2005: Convenience, Connection, Control, and Learning , 2005 .

[2]  Linda Lohr,et al.  Psychology of learning for instruction , 2005 .

[3]  I. E. Allen,et al.  Growing by Degrees: Online Education in the United States, 2005. , 2005 .

[4]  EDUCAUSE CENTER FOR APPLIED RESEARCH 73 Faculty Use of Course Management Systems , 2003 .

[5]  John R. Anderson.  Cognitive psychology and its implications, 2nd ed. , 1985 .

[6]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer-based instructional technologies: Part I , 1989 .

[7]  Linda Bennett,et al.  A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training program , 2003, Internet High. Educ..

[8]  W. H. Ware,et al.  Learning by any other name: Communication research traditions in learning and media , 1996 .

[9]  Simon Hooper,et al.  The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction , 1991 .

[10]  Howard K Wachtel,et al.  Student Evaluation of College Teaching Effectiveness: a brief review , 1998 .

[11]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology : A Project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology , 1996 .

[12]  Marcy P. Driscoll,et al.  Psychology of Learning for Instruction (3rd ed. , 2005 .

[13]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Constructivism: Implications for the Design and Delivery of Instruction , 1996 .

[14]  David Passmore,et al.  Impediments To Adoption Of Web-Based Course Delivery , 2000 .

[15]  H. Marsh,et al.  Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. , 1997 .

[16]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer-based instructional technologies: Part II , 1989 .

[17]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Learning with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective , 1998 .

[18]  Eldon J. Ullmer,et al.  Work Design in Organizations: Comparing the Organizational Elements Model and the Ideal System Approach. , 1986 .

[19]  J. Burton,et al.  Behaviorism and Instructional Technology. , 2004 .

[20]  Cathy L. Bruce-Hayter,et al.  A review of Computer Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom , 1995 .

[21]  Michael D. Williams,et al.  The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on high- and average-ability students , 1993 .

[22]  Robert M. Fano.  Computer-Mediated Communication , 1985, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[23]  W. Dutton,et al.  An Ecology of Constraints on e‐Learning in Higher Education: The Case of a Virtual Learning Environment1 , 2004 .

[24]  Peggy A. Ertmer,et al.  Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective , 2008 .

[25]  Wellesley R. Foshay,et al.  Writing Training Materials That Work: How to Train Anyone to Do Anything , 2003 .

[26]  E. Allen,et al.  Entering the Mainstream: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United State , 2004 .

[27]  Jason D. Baker,et al.  Hybrid structures: Faculty use and perception of web-based courseware as a supplement to face-to-face instruction , 2004, Internet High. Educ..

[28]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom , 2006 .

[29]  Dee H. Andrews,et al.  A comparative analysis of models of instructional design , 1980 .

[30]  Leslie J. Briggs,et al.  Principles of Instructional Design , 1974 .

[31]  Simon Hooper,et al.  Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction , 1992 .

[32]  Gary J. Anglin.  Instructional technology : past, present, and future , 1995 .

[33]  Gerald Friedland,et al.  Educational Multimedia , 2008, IEEE MultiMedia.

[34]  John R. Anderson.  Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications , 1980 .

[35]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperation and the Use of Technology , 2007 .

[36]  James R. Layton,et al.  No Significant Difference Phenomenon , 1999, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[37]  Simon Hooper,et al.  Cooperative CBI: The Effects of Heterogeneous versus Homogeneous Grouping on the Learning of Progressively Complex Concepts , 1988 .