Kalema BM_Presentation Visuals

8/6/2019 Kalema BM_Presentation Visuals

1/13

Live your life. Create your destiny.

Course Management Systems Selection

Using AHP Method

By

Billy M. Kalema


2/13

Different Context of e-learning

E-learning in a developing world context

Course Management systems (CMS): e-learningtools for effective and real time delivery means of

supporting teaching

E-Learning


3/13

Different versions and packages

Blackboard Technology

WebCT Web course tools

MyTutorElectronic campus

ATutor

Moodle

FacebookANGEL

eFront

Claroline

etc.

Course Management Systems (CMS)


4/13

Course Management Systems (CMS)

Due to the diverse background, infrastructure and other conditions in

different CMS, many adopting institutions select CMS to use with no

proper guidelines.

Few framework for CMS implementation to guide in selection of CMS thatsuits an adopting institution.


5/13

Different universities implement different versions

and packages

Instructors want to use what is familiarNo clear policies in many universities

Mandatory usage

Poor academic performance and throughput

Selection Dilemma


6/13

WebCT

Electronic campus

ATutor

Facebook

CMS : Used for this Study


7/13

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).

AHP approach decomposes a complex multi-criteriadecision problem into a hierarchy (Saaty, 1980).

AHP is best applied in a situation where structuring,

measurement, and/or synthesis are required.

Goal - Select a suitable CMS

Criteria - Better factor consideration that leads to a

contextualized framework

CMS contextualization

What system fits a learner in a developing

country context?

Other factors rather than technical factors?


8/13

Factors Considered for the Study

Perceived ease of use : - degree to which studentsperceive a CMS as easy to use

Relative advantage:- is the degree to which an

innovation is perceived as better than the idea it

supersedesstudents belief that using CMS smoothen their learning process

Compatibility:- is the degree an innovation is seen

ccompatible or assimilated into an individuals life.

Social factors:- level of influence from other

important individuals or social surroundings

Individual factors:- personal beliefs, behaviour, difficulties,

understanding, education level, cultural and norms, and exposure


9/13

Hierarchical structure for selection of a

Contextualized CMS

Selection of a contextualized CMS

Perceivedease of use

4 Attributes

CompatibilityRelativeAdvantage

IndividualFactors

SocialFactors

MyTutor

5 Attributes 4 Attributes 3 Attributes 5 Attributes

Electronic

Campus

Facebook ATutor

Level 1: Goal

Level 2:

Criteria

Level 3:

Attributes

Level 4:

Alternatives


10/13

AHP Selection Criteria and Analysis

Evaluation of the criteria and sub-criteria

Establishment of the hierarchical structure

Formation of the pair-wise comparison matrix

Calculation of eigenvalue and eigenvectorEstablishment of the results for both the consistency

test and the consistence ratio

Estimation of the relative weight and their

calculations


11/13

Students prefer Electronic Campus to be easy to

use and more compatible than the three other CMS.

Facebook more frequently used for social

networking but its relative advantage was found tobe too low as compared to other CMS.

Interest on Facebook more inclined to chatting than

learning.ATutor was less preferred

Discussion of Results


12/13

Conclusion and Recommendations

Administrators should consider CMS relevantto the learners context

AHP approach found to be a better option

Different factors may be investigated for abetter framework

Consideration of moderating factors

Comparison of CMSs cross culturally is

important

Provoking change: Optimization of web 2.0

and FSS for teaching and learning


13/13

Live Your Life . Create Your Destiny

Documents

Kalema BM_Presentation Visuals