National Cooperation in Applying Technology for VET
Computer managed learning is a term whose definition is not universally agreed. It is used by some to refer only to learning support related to obtaining, completing and marking assessment items, while others use it to encompass many aspects of the process, including provision of learning materials and interaction between students and teachers in various ways. For the purpose of this paper, the following definition has been adopted.
Computer Managed Learning involves the use of computers to manage the delivery of learning, automating much of the assessment and administration that is associated with teaching or training programs. CML is distinct from computer based instruction, in that the computer is not generally used as the primary medium of delivery. Rather, it is used to manage the progress of students through a learning program.
Courseware authoring tools have been excluded for the purposes of this paper.
CML may be used by individual learners or groups, in a self-paced classroom or laboratory, in the workplace or at home. It may include facilities for draw-down assessment items, computer or tutor marking of assessment, interaction between teachers and students, access to learning materials and records of students' progress, and enrolment.
The definition above allows for CML to be used both on line and in stand-alone forms which are offered, for example, by the use of CD-ROMs. Full interactive functionality assumes online use. It is noted, however, that users in remote areas where communications infrastructure does not easily support online activity may find stand-alone forms of CML useful.
The ANTA National Flexible Delivery Documentation Project (SA02), Functional Requirements: Online Delivery Platform for Australian VET Providers Part 2 (Draft April 1998) (referred to as ODP) includes much valuable material which will assist the development of functional specifications for CML.
CML is particularly useful in supporting flexible delivery objectives in the following ways:
CML may be used as part of a course delivered wholly or in part online, or it may be used in conjunction with distance learning materials in other media, or as an adjunct to face to face teaching, especially in self-paced classrooms and learning centres.
Security is an issue of concern to providers. The possibility of cheating (an important issue) is constantly debated in relation to all aspects of online delivery. For commercial reasons, too, access to much material should only be available to enrolled students and staff. Password protection and user authentication are therefore important, though public access may be given to some material, for example where online enrolment or registration is permitted.
Issues of security and privacy are important to learners as well: that is (given that CML allows for multiple attempts at a given level), what detail of successful and failed attempts is recorded on learners' transcripts? Even if this detail is not recorded on official documentation, is it possible for outsiders to find out this detail by legal or illicit means?
Security also requires adequate firewalls between CML and other online delivery devices accessible to students, and administrative and other confidential data held by the provider.
| NSW | Institutes make their own decisions. OTEN has its own Virtual Campus using WebCT but this does not integrate with existing business systems. Functional specifications are likely to suit the needs of NSW. |
| SA | Pockets of CML exist in laboratories. ‘Manager’ and ‘Smart’ are used. These are not web compatible by manage tracking of outcomes, assessment and communication. ‘WebCT’ is also used. This tracks by modules. It is a statewide initiative and is accessible to all through the Web. It is password protected and offers different levels of logins. It needs further management features to be developed. An identified issue is to what extent should student management be built into ODP specifications, and to what extent into the student management system? The current view is that CML should focus at the classroom level. |
| WA | The SA model was adopted some years ago, but developed in different directions. A statewide SMS model exists but a variety of CML products are used which are not linked to it (except for the Joondalup system). The ‘competitive/collaborative’ model in quasi autonomous colleges has produced a willingness to cooperate but practical difficulties in doing so. |
| ACT | |
| TAS | |
| Vic | The Virtual Campus and the VET Management Information System are about to be launched. A statewide initiative to develop a student records system is in progress. In some Institutes several systems may be in use. ‘The Learning Manager’ and ‘WebCT’ are used by some; others have developed their own systems. A key issue will be the ability to interface with the Virtual Campus. |
| QLD | At present all 16 Institutes feed enrolment information into the CAP program. This is currently under review. FlexiSAS links to CAP for distance enrolments. CAMS was developed by VEATT for use at the classroom level. VETTWEB is the online equivalent of these programs. Consideration is now being given to how these four (which are sets of processes rather than software solutions) can be combined into one. |
| NT | NTETA does not provide CML functionality, though it may be used by NTU and schools. Office systems about to be introduced are expected to provide better levels of support with up to 120 desks for training across NT. |
Figure 1 (below) provides a simplified depiction of the current context of relationships of CML and student management systems.
AVETMISS standards are clearly important in this context. These form the subject of recommendations for data interchange in the paper on Database Standards.
The required standards for interface to the world wide web are defined under Internet Standards.
As training organisations expand their horizons beyond their traditional geographical catchment areas, the number of learners who are enrolled (at one time or over a period) at multiple providers is increasing. Such learners will often wish to accumulate credits from these organisations to obtain an eventual credential from one organisation. Records that are both accurate and easily transportable will be vital. This reinforces the need for systems that can interwork successfully.
Increasingly, CML products are web-based. This offers increasing opportunities to integrate administration of learning, learning delivery and support, assessment and credentialling. As yet, most organisations make use of some but not all these possibilities. For example, in many cases registration can be done online, but enrolment confirmation and payment must be completed by more conventional methods.
Features such as multimedia learning materials and MOOs (multi-user domains, objected oriented) may be introduced in the future, but at present the bandwidth required means that such applications are at present feasible for only a minority of training organisations, and for few if any learners working from home or their workplaces with dial-up access.
Most CML products are either proprietary or custom-built. Open standards are not available, except in the sense that open standards exist for supporting functions such as HTML. It would seem, then, that standards for the VET sector may best be identified in terms of functionality. This functionality can form a subset of the ODP referred to above.
This section scopes functions required in CML products and issues for consideration in selecting products. Figure 2 identifies existing and desirable linkages between functions of CML and other systems, together with priority areas for action.
Hardware requirements
Bandwidth issues
Availability of client software (downloadable or distributable)
Password protection and authentication
Firewall issues
Customisation potential
Modularity of the package (to enable RTOs to select required features)
Provision of information in required detail about curriculum, modules, study paths, completion requirements, RPL, enrolment procedures
Security of transaction where online payment is permitted
Security of personal data
Compatibility with systems and procedures used for non-online enrolments
Security of transactions and personal data
Compatibility with requirements of training packages and competencies
Access for teachers and learners to learning materials in multiple media (online and support for non-online)
- dynamic allocation of access rights for learners to appropriate materials
- automatic bookmarking function to enable quick resumption of study on the next log-in
Access for teachers and learners to assessment activities in multiple media
Access for teachers and learners to assessment results (whether teacher or computer assessed)
Provision for resubmission of assessment activities
Communication facilities to support person to person and group
communications with teaching and other staff and learners
Enabling moderation by authorised staff of
communication facilities for groups
Security of communication between teachers and individual
learners for confidential interactions
Support for online library services and other learner support
systems
Support for online purchase of learning materials
Support for group working options
Easy export/import of data to/from spreadsheets, databases, word
processors
Security of organisational data where the product
is used through a LAN or otherwise hosted by the organisation's
server
Provision of information to teachers and other authorised staff
about students
Ability to flag learning events (such as non-submission of work
by a required date) for teachers' attention
Security of personal and organisational data
Provision of information to teachers and other authorised staff
on learners' progress compatible with requirements of training
packages and competencies
Provision of information to learners about their own progress
Support for updating and tracking of records
Facility to store results of multiple attempts at assessment
Provision of interface compatible with providers' existing administrative systems.
| (see recommendations for
explanation) P C1: Priority 1 (cost factor) P B1: Priority 1 (benefit factor) |
P B2: Priority 2 (benefit factor) P B3: Priority 3 (benefit factor) |
| * items which have been partly or wholly implemented | |
From the many characteristics identified in the previous section it will be apparent that assessment of value in relation to CML is a complex matter.
Players in the online value chain include content providers, RTOs, teachers/ trainers and learners (and their employers).
For content providers, the value of CML resides in its ability to make learning materials and support structures available in ways compatible with the content and presentation design.
For RTOs, the value is linked to the role of CML in providing better service to existing learners and reaching new markets by improving the quality of service and reducing time and place dependence; the potential for cost saving is also an important factor.
For teachers and trainers, the value lies in the ability of CML to provide delivery and learning support in ways which enhance both learning effectiveness and interpersonal communication. These criteria apply also to learners, with cost and access being additional factors.
The diagram below may be used to notionally assess the cost, benefit and value aspects of various CML products as an aid to decision-making about those which will best suit the needs of the organisation or situation.
The Priority B1 is that with the highest potential benefits. It is the first step in implementing CML systems and using the data within existing systems. It will also increase interoperability. The other benefit priorities are located in the same general region of the diagram.
The priority C1 will produce lesser benefits, but the cost of implementation is expected to be less, resulting in significant value.
1. All CML products acquired or designed should have a Web interface. Standards for this interface are covered in other standards areas, in particular those for Groupware and for Internet.
2. A significant subset of CML functionality is required over low capacity channels (content may be delivered over high capacity off line by means of CD or floppy disks).
3. Management of individual (self-paced) learners is required, as distinct from management of a 'class'.
4. Standards exist for transferring student competence data, but there is a need to define metadata. This should be the responsibility of AVETMISS.
5. Students should be able to access their own data, which must be secure. A policy decision is required to achieve this.
6. All CML products purchase should store data in a manner that is recoverable and transportable between systems. Proposed database standards include a recommendation for open standards for databases; this recommendation should be read to include databases supporting CML products.
7. While enrolment systems are partly implemented, action should be taken to complete their availability. (Item P C1)
8. Action should be taken to achieve a workable interface between CML and legacy systems such as student management, course management, human resource and financial management systems. (Item P B1)
9. Systems should be put in place to enable the more flexible use and management of staff resources as new forms of organisation develop. (Item P B2)
10. Systems should be instituted to link learning event management with staff and resources planning and management. (Item P B3)
Secure synchronisation of staff and student authentication data is required, so that authorised users may enter a system at any point and need only authenticate themselves once. The Internet Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP), which is a client-server protocol for accessing a directory service, is not sufficient for this purpose
[Home page] [Copyright statement] [Feedback]
Last modified on May 05, 1999.