INTERACTION WITH A DIGITAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
OF A UNIVERSITY
Emily Bagarukayo and Theo P. van der Weide
Faculty of Computing & IT, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Keywords: Digital Learning Environment, Blooms Digital Taxonomy, Interaction, Higher Order Cognitive Skills.
Abstract: We discuss the position of the Digital Learning Environment (DLE) in a general architecture for an
educational institution, and discuss its efficiency and effectiveness. Then we discuss the related generic
educational approach in terms of the architectural model of competence and Blooms Digital Taxonomy
when using a DLE. We discuss the completeness of such a methodology by relating the DLE to the
methodology framework. As a case study and proof of concept we look at the DLE of Radboud University,
Nijmegen by studying how it was implemented and how it has made the learning process more efficient. We
show some figures that give an impression of the effects of the DLE on learning.
1 INTRODUCTION
Digital learning environments (DLEs) are technical
solutions for supporting learning, teaching and
studying activities (Suhonen and Sutinen, 2006).
DLEs offer features like chat rooms, discussion
boards or forums, digital testing, online grading,
virtual classrooms, feedback, authentication,
collaboration tools and content areas to
communicate, interact and collaborate. DLEs are
interactive, engaging, stimulating and assess
students, therefore, impact on teaching and learning.
DLE effectiveness is dependent on information
presentation, learning process, learning methods and
instructional strategies supported, and not on
information or technology itself (Khalifa and Lam,
2002). Instructional strategies supported should be
examined to choose the best strategy for learning.
The DLE is responsible for facilitating students’
ability to interpret the multiple perspectives of the
domain context, be guided to conduct and manage
their personalized learning activities, and encourage
collaborative and cooperative learning for critical
thinking and problem solving (Liu and Sun, 2002;
Sun et al., 2003). We investigate the impact of the
DLE on teaching, learning and assessment processes
to give recommendations for other institutions.
2 DLES & THE ENVIRONMENT
Students’ perceptions showed that the interactive
environment offered a more enjoyable, active,
interactive, explorative learning process, more
effective in supporting the learning methods and a
higher level of learning was achieved (Khalifa and
Lam, 2002).
The need for Higher Order Cognitive Skills
(HOCS) is acknowledged (Bagarukayo et al., 2011).
The number of learners is expected to continue
growing; therefore an effective way to handle this is
imperative. The DLE enables instructors to quickly
and easily develop online course material, interact
with students, monitor their progress and learning at
a distance. If well founded on a learning
methodology, the DLE enhances performance of
users. A learning solution independent of student
numbers for course delivery, content management,
and community engagement is needed. A DLE
embedded in an organizational environment is the
perfect solution to meet the student demands of
ubiquitous learning.
Given the changing landscape, the institution
should offer an efficient, auditable, highly accessible
training facility for a broader audience to support
hybrid learning. The strategy is a well equipped
DLE to play a central role as main facilitator for
distance education. During DLE implementation,
visions, goals, principles and objectives, expertise,
259
Bagarukayo E. and P. van der Weide T..
INTERACTION WITH A DIGITAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT OF A UNIVERSITY.
DOI: 10.5220/0003956802590264
In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2012), pages 259-264
ISBN: 978-989-8565-06-8
Copyright
c
2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
digital learning materials and ICT infrastructure of
the institution have to be in balance (Kennisnet,
2010). Cooperation, support of staff, leadership and
pedagogical use of ICT for learning are needed
(Tondeur et al., 2010).
2.1 DLE Benefits and Measures
“ICT is very suited to offering subject matter in
multiple ways, e.g. visually, with audio, and
interactively” (Kennisnet, 2010). Providing content
via a variety of channels makes learning more
effective. The DLE benefits in this context include
the following: DLEs are built to support different
learning styles and preferences since they use
multimedia; it provides material in different forms.
DLEs make the teaching and learning process
flexible coz of access of content and information
from anywhere, at anytime and pace.
DLEs are interactive, collaborative, simulative,
and adaptive for communicating and sharing digital
content. DLEs provide real time assessment of both
formative and summative courses. One DLE goal is
to cater for increasing student numbers therefore it is
a success measure. DLEs usage involves quality of
the delivered product. The success on adaptation,
improved student performance, learning habits,
communication, interaction, are success indicators.
Surveys determine how students rate DLE
success at Radboud University (RU). The teacher
sees added value like change in users behavior. By
looking at functionalities used, DLE success can be
measured e.g. changing from easy to complex
functionality, shows DLE interaction improvement.
DLE success can be measured by analyzing
questions teachers ask; complex questions indicate
improved DLE use. The growth of DLE usage at
course level can be monitored by viewing how depth
and richness of content increases. The more the
number of active courses the more successful the
DLE is. An engaged student is likely to be more
successful therefore a measure of DLE’s success.
The popularity and high adoption rates of
collaboration, interaction and communication tools
can be used to measure DLE success because they
impact significantly on students’ engagement.
An important measure is availability of education
with similar / less resources i.e. more efficiency. The
quality assurance / control and information
embedding is an important DLE success measure.
3 BUILDING COMPETENCES
WITH DLE
The educational approach aims at building
competencies, which are the ability to perform a task
adequately and deliver the desired outcomes
(Bartram & Roe, 2008). We identify the role DLEs
play in building competencies, which relates to
Blooms Taxonomy (BT) since it aims at developing
Knowledge, Skills and Attitudes (KSA). Students
cannot gain competencies without putting KSA into
practice by learning by studying, practicing and
doing. The KSA represents BT’s domains that
categorize cognitive processing levels of learning;
which have to be built from a solid infrastructure. In
Roes architecture we see how personal qualities
relate to competences via KSA.
3.1 Learning in Relation to DLEs
Learning is a process where students interaction with
learning materials, peers and lecturers results in
change in behavior and thinking. The learner retains
information within their own knowledge base when
the relationship between information, learner and
environment, created by learning theories in
educational design, occurs (Jones and Jo, 2004). We
concentrate on BT, an effective learning theory that
can be applied in many different LEs and situations.
It categorizes learning behavior to assist in the
design and assessment of educational learning
(Bloom, 1956). The rationale behind BT is that it is
the most widely accepted educational taxonomy
(Parham, 2009) and has been used by many
researchers to evaluate students’ development of
HOCS required at the work environment. Finally,
there is a revision Blooms Digital Taxonomy (BDT)
incorporates new advances in technology for
learning purposes and therefore ties in very well
with our research on the DLE integration and
interaction (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001).
3.2 BDT and the DLE
Students need to put KSA into practice and therefore
educators need to raise the level of learning
effectiveness based on BT (Bagarukayo et al.,
2011). BDT uses tools to facilitate learning to let the
learning process benefit from modern technology
and new insights, since technology is important for
realizing learning skills in today's knowledge
economy (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). We aim
at discovering how DLEs help students to improve
learning, in particular HOCS. For the creative
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
260
teacher, a LE has the opportunity to encourage
student inquiry from knowledge to evaluation level.
For example at the creating level of BDT, Sites that
encourage cooperative learning activities that use a
variety of materials to create new products can be
used as the resource, and an example is Think Quest
for creating interactive, content-rich Web sites, Web
Quest is inquiry-oriented activity designed to use
learners’ time well, to focus on using information
rather than looking for it, and to support learners’
thinking skills. Collaborative wikis, blogs,
workshop, assignment based uploads, mind maps,
upload video, pod casts, publish documents, lesson
plan.
3.3 BDT as Solution for Changing
Landscape
Today’s students are accustomed to digital
technology, therefore with the available tools,
instructional designers can create lesson plans that
integrate modern technology with BT (Hobgood et
al., 2011). BT offers a way for both learners and
instructors to systematically analyze levels of
understanding into a hierarchy of thinking levels that
indicate progress towards content mastery. It gives
the teacher a method of student work evaluation that
allows them to differentiate for student needs. The
teacher can outline both objectives and activities for
each level of BT with regard to the lesson, to give
students clear expectations Therefore, since digital
native learners can outine learning objectives and
outcomes using the BDT, it is relevant for the DLE
as a guide for learning outcomes and assessment
methods that teachers can use.
With recent advances in technology, assessment
of understanding has become a necessary part of
these trends in new LEs. In particular, learners need
to conduct self-assessment of their own learning to
monitor their progress, in addition to instructor
feedback.
3.4 DLE as a Support for Learning
Process
The DLE supports the learning process by providing
support for students to set their own learning goals,
manage the content, learning process, and
communicate with others to achieve learning goals.
DLE tools encourage students to share knowledge
ideas and experiences thereby enhancing
development of critical thinking, problem solving
and decision making skills which are at the higher
levels of BT i.e. HOCS. The teacher acts as a
facilitator and the students take responsibility for the
learning process, thereby promoting active learning.
The higher levels of BT emphasize ability to apply
skills in a novel situation; therefore students can
attain HOCS by taking charge of their learning.
4 THE METHODOLOGICAL
FRAMEWORK AT RU
The methodology framework (Seligmann et al.,
1989; Proper, 1994) distinguishes the following
aspects of a methodology: way of thinking, way of
modelling, way of working, way of controlling and
way of supporting. We consider the learning strategy
in the context of the methodology framework and
evaluate whether all the relevant aspects of the
methodology are addressed sufficiently well and
discuss to what extent these aspects are covered. We
then relate the learning methodology to the various
aspects of the methodology framework. We position
the approach at RU from the methodology
framework point of view.
The way of thinking for a learning methodology is
its general idea of knowledge and skill transfer in a
broader context. It describes obtaining competencies
as the essential part of knowledge and skill transfer,
where enhanced ICT’s enable the requested
separation of time and place in the educational
process. The way of modelling is not clearly
communicated to Bb participants. Courses focus on
getting hands-on experience and presenting best
practices. We see BDT as the way of modelling.
The way of describing at RU, the LE is looked at
from an educational perspective. What makes
students happy and how to improve in educational
sense.
The way of working management checks the
quality by letting students evaluate the teacher. In
our context, the implementation of the learning
program into the DLE, leading to the composition of
teaching material, is described by the way of
modelling. Courses for introducing teachers to use
Bb exist.
The way of controlling at RU, the teacher
determines how they teach and management steers
the process at a general level.
The way of learning consists of special trainings
derived from the way of modelling to empower
teachers to use the LE. The best practices and
information sharing is how learning can
continuously take place, taking benefit from past
experiences. Learning focuses on the best way to use
modern technology in a changing society.
We conclude that from a methodological point of
INTERACTIONWITHADIGITALLEARNINGENVIRONMENTOFAUNIVERSITY
261
view, a DLE per se should be seen as a way of
supporting. The DLE acts as the way of supporting
for the learning method, where teachers upload
instructional materials and content that students
access. It enables students to achieve competencies
and KSA by supporting the learning process. The
DLE addresses the new demand of anywhere
anytime learning and educating masses. The ease of
use, support, global standards, open systems, high
scalability and implementation options are key
selection criteria for any DLE. The educational
processes like posting notes are left under teachers’
control. The entire process is automated, so teachers
do not have to request for courses to be setup.
The university policy may be seen as a
decentralized top-down approach trying to gradually
define this view in a field of emerging philosophy
and technology as a result of experiments from its
teachers.
5 USAGE EXPERIENCES
Radboud University Nijmegen (RU) introduced
Blackboard (Bb) as its DLE in 2000. Bb offers
digital testing, discussion forums, advanced statistics
tracking, wikis, and chat rooms, among others.
Initially, it was introduced as a tool to support
teachers with tasks in the learning process such as
distribution of teaching material, providing
assignments and results submission to improve the
teaching process. The initial expectations of Bb from
the administration were that it provides easier
administration, proper documentation, information
sharing, and a close interaction system to improve
communication. The Bb and other administrative
systems, such as student administration were
integrated to improve functionality and user
friendliness. New requirements were formulated
such as guaranteeing security of data in Bb and
privacy over the systems. The management is
satisfied that initial expectations are met. The
students’ expectations are determined by surveys, to
determine if they are satisfied with the system.
The infrastructure itself is no guarantee for
successful ICT introduction in the educational
process (Kennisnet, 2010). For a successful DLE,
the institution policies and how they are effectuated
is essential. But at the time of DLE introduction
these policy issues were still very open. Teaching
models and material were hardly available, and
mostly had to be developed from scratch. Teachers
were seen as pioneers in this emerging educational
landscape, and were encouraged to share their best
practices to learn from teachers close to them which
lead to answers about the new way of thinking.
Bb usage is not compulsory from a central level;
the actual policies vary over various faculties.
Teachers have different degrees of freedom per
faculty to decide whether to use Bb but some basic
use is mandatory. The university expects results that
assume the advantages of Bb. DLEs usage for
interactive and collaborative teaching can be used to
handle large student numbers with few resources.
5.1 The Central Infrastructure System
RU has chosen the general infrastructure as
displayed in figure 1. There is no central system at
RU; there are sub systems interconnected for
information sharing. The central administration is
automated, and therefore management observes the
way instructors and students use Bb, to determine if
it is successful. The systems in the figure are:
RBS is relationship management and administration
system where new staff and students are created.
ISIS contains all course information and students
enrolled. The information from RBS and ISIS is
stored into Bb.
Bb Content System stores all the content that can be
accessed and used by students in the system.
LDAP/IDM contains the authentication protocols
used to ensure that the right users access the system.
The central infrastructure system is connected to the
Bb server.
Figure 1: The central infrastructure system.
Bb is synchronized with administrative systems
issues at the central level like course, examination,
and programs registration. Bb accounts and courses
are automatically created for new users. Teachers
use Bb for communication since they can access
information disseminated and are automatically
enrolled for courses they intend to teach. All Bb
courses have basic student information and often
contain announcements, posts, etc. The university
encourages teachers to use modern methods such as
digital testing especially for big classes.
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
262
5.2 Usage data from Bb
We present some data to give an indication of the
usage of Bb at RU.
5.2.1 Participation
An overview of participation in Bb shows increase
in usage by both students and teachers (Table 1).
The number of students and instructors actively
using the grading center increased from 2008/9 and
2009/10; therefore successful DLE implementation.
There was a general increment in the number of
courses from 2008/9 to 2009/2010, and therefore
increased DLE usage.
Table 1: Students and instructors actively using Grade
Center.
Faculty
students
2009/10
instructors
2009/10
courses
2008/09
courses
2009/10
FU-aggo 448 64 156 148
FU-awfi 580 38 74 83
LETT 4.100 482 786 865
FdR 3.294 230 198 207
FSW 5.338 579 499 465
FdM 3.356 261 330 328
FNWI 2.293 568 459 522
UMCN 1.877 931 172 156
5.2.2 Activity
In table 2 over the period 2008 – 2010, there was an
increase in announcements per course, indicating
activity increase, hence communication increase in
the DLE.
5.2.3 Conclusion from Data
Unfortunately data on collaboration, interactivity
and performance was not available. However, the
performance on the educational process may be
measured by increase in fraction of students passing.
The results aid in measurement of DLE efficiency.
By looking at the statistics on the number of active
courses, we state that number of courses, students,
instructors and announcements posted are increasing
annually and indicate increase in communication,
interactivity, collaboration, which improves HOCS.
6 RECOMMENDATIONS &
FUTURE RESEARCH
Based on the study and universities’ experience, we
recommend the following for successful DLE
implementation. The four building blocks of vision,
educational software and content, ICT infrastructure
and Knowledge skills and attitudes
(professionalization) need to be well balanced for
the DLE to work efficiently and effectively
(Kennisnet, 2010). Teachers’ cooperation is very
important for DLE efficiency to share experiences
and ideas with other universities to inspire and learn
from one another (Tondeur et al., 2010).
Cooperation, leadership and pedagogical use of ICT
for learning are needed for efficient use DLE.
The technical team should incorporate tools with
features and services that users want to use to make
courses more effective and work easier e.g. digital
testing and automatic grading.
Students’ requirements should be put into
consideration by giving them an opportunity to
request for services that make their study effective
and successful. Polling functionalities can be used
by students to exchange ideas, rate DLEs importance
and give feedback to plan for its future use. Students
can run the portal and give their opinion on their
needs, to create an online community as an
opportunity to change the institution through the
system’s online polling capabilities for motivation.
Students can use the system to ensure efficiency and
effectiveness in running the institution processes.
Experience has shown that use of collaborative
tools for communicating, interacting and team work;
groups and forums can enhance HOCS to improve
their critical thinking skills through creating,
reviewing and providing feedback. Forums are a
creative way of engaging students to critically
evaluate information and get them enthusiastic in
discussions to increase learning interest motivation.
Students and tutors should be sensitized and
encouraged to use collaborative, interactive and
communication tools like the content area, formulate
groups, and participate in group discussions, chat,
and group email. They need to realize DLE
importance to benefit from learning process
incorporated. Instruments can be created to discuss
difficult concepts in DLEs, which students can
continue using at job placements. This teaches them
how to apply knowledge in novel situations in real
life. The existing DLE solutions should be
transformed into virtual LEs featuring course tool
shops that provide users with customized
information. The institutions should take advantage
INTERACTIONWITHADIGITALLEARNINGENVIRONMENTOFAUNIVERSITY
263
Table 2: Average number of Announcements per faculty.
Faculty available
courses
2009/10
number of
Announce-
ments
2009/10
Avg An-
nouncements
per course
2009/10
Ranking
FU-
148 244 1,6 8
FU-awfi 83 271 3,3 7
LETT 865 3.410 3,9 5
FdR 207 1.462 7,1 3
FSW 465 2.940 6,3 4
FdM 328 3.207 9,8 1
FNWI 522 2.031 3,9 5
UMCN 156 1.309 8,4 2
of ubiquity to deliver information to students’
mobile phones in case of emergency. The ability to
run the DLE on integrated PDAs, cell phones,
tablets should be explored to motivate students.
The institution should integrate assessment
solutions and capabilities which enable assessment
more broadly beyond the confines of a single course.
Teaching, learning and assessment should be
integrated in the DLEs, as a redefining tool that
enables creation of a very complex and rich
environment for interaction, communication and
collaboration. We recommend introduction of
podcasting building blocks so that students can click
and drag an icon to iTunes and subscribe
automatically to the course.
One of the challenges with introducing DLEs is
teachers are reluctancy to embrace it. Therefore they
should be encouraged that DLEs promote students’
learning and ease their work.
6.1 Future Research
The Implications on teaching is that stakeholders
determine the impact of technology on learning and
therefore introduce it willingly. If teachers and
students realise benefits of technology, they will
embrace it, impacting on instructional content
designers, who can design content suitable for
students learning and HOCS improvement. The
appropriate content and environment for teaching at
all levels will be determined to benefit both students
and teachers.
The DLE may enhance HOCS since the content
addresses students’ learning styles, preferences,
collaboration, interaction; and encourages anytime,
anywhere, and any pace learning.
This being a position paper we provided the data
that we have so far, in the next version we include
data on collaboration, communication and
interactivity, from which we will determine if the
DLE improves HOCS. We believe the DLE has
improved the learning process due to the increase
student numbers, courses and announcements;
therefore indicates improvement in communication
and collaboration, which improves HOCS. In future
we discuss how implementation may be applied in
low-infrastructure countries.
REFERENCES
Anderson, L., and Krathwohl, D. (2001). A Taxonomy for
learning teaching and assessing: A review of Blooms
taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:
Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Bagarukayo, E., Weide T. P. V and Lubega, J.T. (2011).
An Evaluation Strategy for the Moodle Learning
Environment Based on Blooms Taxonomy. 3
rd
International Conference on Computer Supported
Education (CSEDU2011) pp 422-426, the
Netherlands, ISBN: 978-989-8425-49-2
Bartram, D., and Roe, R. (2008). Individual and
Organisational Factors in Competence Acquisition. In
N. W.J., and N. L.F., The learning potential of the
workplace (pp. 71-96). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,
Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York:
David McKay Co. Inc.
Hobgood, B. E., Thibault, M., and Walbert, D. (2011).
Kinetic connections: Bloom's taxonomy in action. An
introduction to strategies for using the web to push
your students to higher levels of thinking.
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/778 (retrieved at May
24, 2011).
Jones, V., and Jo, J. (2004). Ubiquitous learning
environment: An adaptive teaching system using
ubiquitous technology. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath,
D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the
comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE
Conference. Perth, 5-8 Dec, (pp. 468-474).
Kennisnet. (2010). Four in Balance: ICT at Dutch Schools.
Zoetermeer: Kennisnet Foundation.
Khalifa, M., and Lam, R. (2002). Web based Learning:
Effects on Learning Process & Outcome. IEEE
Transactions on Education, Vol 45, No. 4 .
Liu, K., and Sun, L. (2002). Applying Semiotics in
Constructivist Learning. Keynote Paper, International
Conference on Teaching and English Translation
Marco Politechnique Institute, Marco.
CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
264
