Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 3–24 | Cite as

Faculty recommendations for web tools: Implications for course management systems

  • Kevin Oliver
  • John Moore
Article

Abstract

AGAP ANALYSIS OF WEB TOOLS in Engineering was undertaken as one part of the Digital Library Network for Engineering and Technology (DLNET) grant funded by NSF (DUE-0085849). DLNET represents a Web portal and an online review process to archive quality knowledge objects in Engineering and Technology disciplines. The gap analysis coincided with the development of DLNET to identify Web tools that faculty or students might use to help process information in the portal. Products of a two-phase online Delphi process with a panel of 65 Engineering and Technology faculty include: 51 tool suggestions rank-ordered by need, categorized in ten groups, and sub-ranked by faculty in four Engineering disciplines. Gaps between desired tool features and actual tool features currently available in online course management systems were identified to aid in improved software systems. Recommendations are provided for new tools. Faculty ratings suggest a preference for instructor-centered tools consistent with previous studies of course management systems. Findings imply new tool systems better aligned with pedagogical strategies are needed, as well as innovative models of faculty peer-to-peer support in order to move from standard tool use to student-centered tool use.

Keywords

course management system learning management systems Web-based instruction online instruction faculty training 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Caruso, J.B. (2006),Measuring student experiences with course management systems. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. (Research Bulletin, Vol. 2006, Issue 19).Google Scholar
  2. Chamberlain, C. (2001). VisIT the net: New tool makes Web search a graphic experience.Inside Illinois, 20(22), 1–2.Google Scholar
  3. Berkman Center for Internet & Society. (n.d.).Annotation engine. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/projects/annotate.htmlGoogle Scholar
  4. Boettcher, J.V. (2003). Course management systems and learning principles: Getting to know each other.Campus Technology, 16(12), 33–34.Google Scholar
  5. Brakels, J., Van Daalen, E., Dik, W., Dopper, S., Lohman, F., Van Peppen, A., Peerdeman, S., Peet, D.J., Sjoer, E., Van Valkenberg, W., & Van De Ven, M. (2002). Implementing ICT in education faculty-wide.European Journal of Engineering Education, 27(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruce, B., & Levin, C. (1997). Educational technology: Media for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 79–102.Google Scholar
  7. Carmean, C., & Haefner, J. (2002). Mind over matter: Transforming course management systems into effective learning environments.Educause Review, 37(6), 26–34.Google Scholar
  8. Chamberlain, C. (2001). New tool makes Web search a graphic experience. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.news.uiuc.edu/II/01/0621/0621visit.htmlGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, I., Willis, J., & Mahoney, S. (2005). WebCT and its growth as a type II application.Computers in the Schools, 22(1–2), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. deBoer, W., & Collis, B. (2001). Implementation and adaptation experiences with a WWW-based course management system.Computers in the Schools, 17(3/4), 127–146.Google Scholar
  11. Farmer, L.S.J. (2004). Investigating a process of change influenced by technology.Assessment Update 16(3), 4–6.Google Scholar
  12. Fullan, M. (1991).The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Glass, G. (n.d.).Marginalia Web annotation. Retrieved November 9, 2006, from http://www.geof.net/code/annotationGoogle Scholar
  14. Gommer, L., & Visser, G. (2001, October).Implementation of a digital learning environment: The real results. Paper presented at WebNet 2001, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  15. Hannafin, M.J., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: Volume II (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. IEEE Learning Technologies Standards Committee. (2006).IEEE Learning Technologies Standards Committee. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from http://ieeeltsc.org/Google Scholar
  17. Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. (2006).Concept map software: A knowledge construction toolkit. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from http:// cmap.ihmc.us/Google Scholar
  18. Intel®. (2006).Intel ® Teach to the Future Workshop on Teaching Thinking with Technology. Retrieved January 11, 2006, from http://www97.intel.com/education/teach/workshops/index.aspGoogle Scholar
  19. Joint Information Systems Committee. (2006).JORUM. Retrieved January 22, 2006, from http://www.jorum.ac.uk/Google Scholar
  20. Katz, R.N. (2003). Balancing technology and tradition: The example of course management systems.Educause Review, 38(4), 45–59.Google Scholar
  21. LAMS Foundation (2006).Learning activity management system. Retrieved November 9, 2006, from http://www.lamsfoundation.org/Google Scholar
  22. Morgan, G. (2003). Faculty use of course management systems (Vol. 2). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.Google Scholar
  23. National Learning Network. (2006).National learning network. Retrieved January 22, 2006, from http://www.nln.ac.uk/index.aspGoogle Scholar
  24. Oliver, K.M. (2007). Teaching frameworks for context-rich instruction: Design objects. In P. Northrup (Ed.),Learning Objects for Instruction (pp. 119–139). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Oliver, K.M., & Moore, J. (2006).Gap analysis of Web tools in Engineering and Technology. Retrieved September 22, 2006, from http://kevoliver.com/pdf/delphi.pdfGoogle Scholar
  26. Oliver, K.M. (2001). Recommendations for student tools in online course management systems.Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 13(1), 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quintana, C. (2004, April).IdeaKeeper: Extending digital library services to scaffold online inquiry. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from http://hi-ce.org/downloads/QuintanaAERA04.pdfGoogle Scholar
  28. Richardson, W. (2005-2006). The educator's guide to the read-write Web.Educational Leadership, 63(4), 24–27.Google Scholar
  29. Santilli, S., & Beck, V. (2005). Graduate faculty perceptions of online teaching.The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 155–160.Google Scholar
  30. Stephens, T. (2002). First UCSC course offered entirely online emphasizes student involvement.UC Santa Cruz Currents Online,7(11). Retrieved November 9, 2006, from http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/10-14/online_course.htmlGoogle Scholar
  31. Weborganic Systems. (n.d.).Collaborative document life cycle solutions. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from http://www.weborganic.com/default.htmGoogle Scholar
  32. Woods, R., Baker, J. D., & Hopper, D. (2004). Hybrid structures: Faculty use and perception of Web-based courseware as a supplement to face-to-face instruction.Internet and Higher Education, 7, 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curriculum and InstructionNorth Carolina State University Raleigh
  2. 2.Educational TechnologiesVirginia TechBlacksburg

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options