Architectures and Models

Within a framework, there exist some components that must be related to each other. The architectural aspect of the framework would have to deal with its components and how they are related to each other in order to serve the overall purpose of the framework. In frameworks related to e-learning, the case would not be different. According to Tortora et al (2002), there are three basic components of e-learning framework. They are: 1- Learning management systems, 2- Content composition and integration systems, and 3- Learning content metadata (Tortora et al, 2002). Many researchers have tackled the area of developing or proposing frameworks and/or

architectures for e-learning. Examples of such efforts can be found in the work of Ubell (2000), Burger & Rothermel (2001), Anido-Rifón et al (2001), Saddik, Fischer & Steinmetz (2001), Tortora et al (2002), Atif, Berri & Benlamri (2003), Huang, O‘Dea & Mille (2003), Kazi (2004), Trifonova & Ronchetti (2004), Ronchetti & Saini (2004), Brusilovsky (2004), Apostolopoulos & Kefala (2004), Zhang et al (2004), Koohang & Plessis (2004), Kawamura, Nakatani & Sugahara (2005), Keil-Slawik, Hampel & Eßmann (2005), Dara-Abrams (2005), Liu & Dafoulas (2005), Hasegawa & Ochimizu (2005), Anane et al (2005), Broisin, Vidal, Meire, & Duval (2005), Hameed, Badii & Cullen (2008), Hameed, Fathulla & Thomas (2009), (Hadjerrouit 2009).

However, most of them have concentrated on limited or focused issue, and for specific purpose. Burger & Rothermel (2001) propose a framework focuses on special form of content in the area of distributed systems and computer networks. Within this context, the main focus is on student‘s requirements for learning material and animation applets, and on teacher‘s requirements. The architecture is extensible and consists of simulation and animated visualization. The simulation model can be run automatically through a predefined script or by the user in an interactive mode. However, as the authors state, the focus has been on applets; and more concepts are needed for integration into a set of learning materials in multimedia form (Burger & Rothermel, 2001).

To support web-based collaborative applications; Anido-Rifón et al (2001) present a framework for developing interactive and collaborative web-based applications – ‗SimulNet‘, and test it through the implementation of a web-based distributed educational platform. It is a layered architecture consists of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) services and standard Internet protocols as the lower layer, then services layer, followed by components layer, and on top of that the application layer (Anido-Rifón et al, 2001). Services of the framework include communications layer, virtual room

user management, auditing tool, email, bulletin board, chat, whiteboard, agenda,

project management, event deliverer, and producer-consumer manager. Despite the

good evaluation results, the framework suffers from performance problems when overloaded because it is 100% Java, and also the server‘s multitasking model is based on Java threads where the operating system considers that there is one ―large server process running one thread for each component‖ (Anido-Rifón et al, 2001).

In addressing some of the problems in multimedia-based e-learning systems, Zhang et al (2004) propose a concept called ‗Virtual Mentor‘ influenced by constructivist learning theory, and consists of six principles. These are: Multimedia-integration; Just-in-time knowledge acquisition; Interactivity; Self-directivity; Flexibility; and Intelligence. A

prototypical Virtual Mentor system called ‗Learning By Asking LBA‘, was then developed and tested, and the results show that students in the e-learning group outperformed traditional classroom groups (Zhang et al, 2004).

Kawamura, Nakatani & Sugahara (2005) have presented a ―novel framework for asynchronous web-based training‖ (Kawamura, Nakatani & Sugahara, 2005), and they claim that ―the proposed system has solved the problems of scalability and robustness that the existing WBT systems have‖ (Kawamura, Nakatani & Sugahara, 2005).

Keil-Slawik, Hampel & Eßmann (2005) proposed ―a framework for pervasive eLearning‖ in a distributed knowledge space, using executable learning objects (Keil- Slawik, Hampel & Eßmann, 2005).

In their work, Koohang & Plessis (2004) propose a framework for e-learning usability properties. Their framework is a five-category one based on usability properties which is based on ―Looks Great‖ and ―Works Well‖ paradigms. The five categories are Presentation [concerned with Looks Great paradigm], navigation, communicative enablement, technical functionality, and learner support [all concerned with Works Well paradigm]. The framework is based on the usability attributes of a usable product as

defined by several experts and organizations. These attributes are, within e-learning context, ―effectiveness, efficiency, flexibility, learnability, memorability, operability, understandability, attitude & satisfaction, and attractiveness‖ (Koohang & Plessis, 2004).

Others have talked about Learning Environment (LE), such as (Cristea, & Tuduce, 2004), (Siqueira, Braz & Melo, 2003).

Some other researchers have directed their work towards developing models for e- learning. Dewar & Whittington (2004) developed a model for the development of Blended learning called ―VASE‖. The model was drawn on the work of others, especially that of Hocutt (2001) who argues for a ―strategic blend that, and ensures: a) that components are appropriately interrelated; b) the transitions among components are smooth; c) there is consistency among the components in terms of message, language, and style; d) there is sufficient and appropriate redundancy among the components‖ (Shaw & Igneri, 2006). The Refinement of themes resulting from a workshop at Royal Roads University and considering Hocutt‘s model, resulted in the VASE model which is composed of: Build a Vision, Check Assumptions, Take a Systems View, and Expect Change. For each theme, there are a number of questions to be answered to guide the development of blended learning.

Carman (2002), while considering a blend of learning theories of Gagné; Keller; Bloom; Merrill; Clark and Grey, suggests five key ingredients of a blended learning process. These are: 1) Live Events based on John Keller‘s ARCS3

Model of Motivation; 2) Self- Paced Learning based on Gagné Nine Events of Instruction, Merrill‘s Component Display Theory, and Clark‘s Three Principles4

on the use of multimedia to promote

knowledge transfer; 3) Collaboration; 4) Assessment5; and 5) Performance Support Materials6 (Carman, 2002).

Derntl & Motschnig-Pitrik (2004-b) propose a model for blended learning called ‗Blended Learning Systems Structure – BLESS‘, which consists of five layers; Blended Learning Courses; Course Scenarios; Blended Learning Patterns; Web Templates; and learning Platform .

Those frameworks and models of e-learning and blended learning are summarized in Table 2.5 below.

Table 2.5: Summary of Frameworks and Models of E-learning and Blended Learning Framework/

Model Name

Author Main Concept Features Some Limitations

Burger & Rotherm

et al

(2001)

Focuses on special form of content in distributed systems and computer networks. Specifically it focuses on student‘s requirements for learning material and animation applets, and on teacher‘s requirements. Extensible and consists of simulation and animated visualizatio n

Focus on applets, more concepts are needed for integration into learning materials in multimedia SimulNet Anido- Rifón et al (2001) For developing interactive and collaborative web-based applications. It is a layered architecture, consisting of commercial off-the- shelf services and standard Internet protocols, then services layer, components layer, and application layer. Many services and components . Tested with good evaluation.

Suffers from performance problems when overloaded because it is 100% Java. Server‘s multitasking model is based on Java threads where the OS considers that there is one large server process running one thread for each component.

Carman (2002)

Five key ingredients of blended learning process Live events, self- paced learning, collaboratio n, assessment, and performanc e

There are many other ingredients, factors and elements not included. It looks at blended learning through those five ingredients only, which makes it questionable when considering a complete blended learning model that takes most, if not all, ingredients; elements; factors and dimensions into account.

5

Based on Bloom‘s six levels framework of cognitive learning: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, and Synthesis

Table 2.5, Continue Framework/

Model Name

Author Main Concept Features Some Limitations

Virtual Mentor Zhang et al (2004) Based on constructivist learning theory Consists of six principles: Multimedia- integration, Just-in- Time knowledge acquisition, Interactivity, Self- directivity, Flexibility, and Intelligence

Leaving all other dimensions/ factors aside, the model only takes one theory into consideration. Therefore, from pedagogical perspective, it does not take other theories into account like behavioral, and objectivist. This makes the model non-blended one from this perspective. Koohang & Plessis (2004) Framework for e-learning usability properties Five-category based on usability properties based on ―looks great and works well‖ paradigm. It is based on usability attributes of usable product.

This framework is for e- learning not blended learning as dealt with in the context of this research. It focuses on usability properties when constructing e-learning VASE Dewar &

Whittington (2004) For the development of blended learning. drawn on the work of others, especially Hocutt (2001). It is composed of Build a Vision, Check Assumptions, take a System View, and Expect Change. A number of questions for each theme to guide development of blended learning

It is not a blended learning model as such, rather it is a model to develop blended learning. Though it is a good attempt in this direction, it cannot be considered as blended learning model. BLESS Derntl &

Motschnig- Pitrik (2004)-b For blended learning, layered approach

Five layers: blended learning courses, course scenarios, blended learning patterns, web templates, and learning platform. Kawamura, Nakatani, & Sugahara (2005) Novel framework for asynchronous web-based training

Claims that it solved the problems of scalability and robustness that the existing WBT systems have

Focuses only on one aspect; that is asynchronous WBT. It does not even take synchronous into account. Not much of a blend is there. Keil-Slawik, Hampel & Eßmann (2005) Framework for pervasive eLearning In distributed knowledge space, using executable learning objects

This is a very specific / focused framework on one type of eLearning, in a given environment