Architectural and functional design and evaluation of e-learning VUIS based on the proposed IEEE LTSA reference model

Abstract A comparative analysis is presented of the architectural and functional design of e-learning delivery platforms and applications, e-learning course authoring tools, and learning management systems (LMSs), with a view of assessing how their functionality meets the requirements of a comprehensive e-learning Virtual University Information System (VUIS). The reference model used as a basis for the comparative analysis is the Layer 3 (system components) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Learning Technology Standards Committee's (LTSC) P1484.1/D9, 2001-11-30 Draft Standard for Learning Technology — Learning Technology Systems Architecture (LTSA) (chap. 20), with some modified version thereof. The modification proposed is considered appropriate and necessary so as to more accurately reflect the architectural and functional attributes of existing products and also to better reflect, and contribute to, the authors' own vision for the architectural and functional design of an effective VUIS structure [Ganchev, I., O'Droma, M., & McDonnell, F. (2002). Component-based platform for a Virtual University Information System. In V. Mladenov (Ed.), Recent Advances in Computers, Computing and Communications (pp. 185–190). Electrical and Computer Engineering Series of Reference Books and Textbooks (ISBN 960-8052-62-9). WSEAS Press; O'Droma, M., Ganchev, I., Stojanov, St., & McDonnell, F. (2002, April 1–9). UML design approach to a Virtual University Information System. Proceedings of 13th Annual EAEEIE Conference, B-7, York, UK (ISBN 1-85911-008-8).]. A novel comparative performance evaluation methodology is proposed and used to reflect the capabilities of 10 commercially available e-learning systems back onto the modified IEEE LTSA reference model and onto a proposed novel major functional classes (MFCs) model developed as an aid to a VUIS design. The results demonstrate the strengths and the inadequacies of existing products, as gauged from the products' “demo” models and from published literature (i.e., product reviews, others). The comparative evaluation exercise is useful also in that it implicitly draws out in a systematic and detailed way, a range of strengths and attributes one would like to see in the architectural and functional design of a minimal comprehensive VUIS.