Research Project #

Report: Project #15
Independent Instructional Delivery vs. e-Learning Platforms
With Initial Observations Regarding Blackboard 5

Project Director: David Swanzy
(First Draft: Feb. 28, 2001; Second Draft: March 10; This Draft: March 13)

The purpose of this short narrative is to organize my thoughts as I compare various platforms for instructional delivery. This has been beneficial to me, not just for making a decision to expand, for instance, from a no "commercially-designed" platform to Blackboard integration, but for taking a step toward shaping a "hybrid" approach--that is, a mixture of an independent approach and a commercially-designed platform. In this process of organizing my own thoughts, I also hope I am able to provide some useful suggestions for others.

The information presented in this narrative is dynamic in that conclusions are subject to constant adjustment, even over short periods of time. The dynamic nature of the technology is evident, not only because software evolution is immeasurably fast but because users gain new information every day about instructional delivery systems.

For two years I have been delivering instruction through the web (actually, a web/CD-ROM approach) without a commercially-designed platform. There are many advantages in this independent approach, including "hands on" control, total flexibility without externally-determined limitations, graphic freedom, and barrier-free access to software such as Macromedia's Authorware and streaming audio/video enhancements.

Challenges related to this independent approach include the need to have good command of an html text editor, a higher risk (than with a standardized e-learning platform) of making structural programming errors, and more time committed to the jobs done routinely in, for instance, Blackboard or WebCT. In addition, these e-learning platforms provide services, such as roster development, grade book, testing framework, and interfaces with University student records systems--all valuable and most easy to use.

A variety of communications possibilities, too, are provided for easy use. Among the best of these tools are "discussions threads," a technique which provides flexibility to the otherwise static "communications world" dominated by voice- and e-mail.

During the past six months, evaluation of a broad spectrum of available e-learning platforms followed their presentation on campus, resulting in the selection of two possibilities for campus endorsement. After Blackboard and WebCT were identified in that way, I attended a two-day WebCT workshop in Columbus, Ohio, having been earlier convinced that it was more sophisticated, if not more difficult, than Blackboard.

During the course of that workshop, I was very impressed with what such a system could provide for me, but I also came to realize that both platforms were offering the same level of quality and service--one a bit more flexible (WebCT) and the other (Blackboard) quite a bit easier to use. It was also obvious that these two leading companies were constantly upgrading, mainly, it seemed, to match the strengths of its opposition. In effect, then, they were rapidly becoming somewhat of a mirror of each other.

When both companies were brought back to campus for a final round of demonstration and promotion, Blackboard's presentation was much more professional and functional, bringing resolution to the choice in their favor, both in my mind and in the minds of the University's decision makers.

Using Blackboard's free service on their server, I explored its capability by structuring the framework for two different courses. Although this free service uses an earlier version of Blackboard and lacks some capabilities of its commercial counterpart, I was able to confirm its ease of use and valuable capabilities. I also identified production adjustments necessary for me to present my previous work within their structure.

Recently, I attended an orientation session for the newly acquired Blackboard 5 system for Loyola University, expertly presented by a Blackboard representative and including hands-on use. I also had the opportunity to discuss some of my initial observations with the representative.

The following is a list of my present observations, undoubtedly subject to adjustment as I use the Blackboard platform more extensively. I have purposely ordered the list, with placement of the more technical observations at the end.

In its most rudimentary use--for example, the delivery of lecture notes and traditional hand-outs by uploading them for student viewing or retrieval--the use of Blackboard is amazingly simple. Such use may be mastered even without a training session because of the user-friendly guidance Blackboard has provided.

Blackboard's communication tools are first rate, especially the "Discussion Threads."

Blackboard Level III (the installation for Loyola is Level I) is necessary for the direct transfer of student data between Loyola's Student Record System and Blackboard. This directly affects how students will be "registered" in Blackboard courses and how grades will be entered/delivered.

There is very limited limited space available for instructor-prepared material. This lack of "real estate" is most evident in Blackboard 5 (more so than in earlier versions) and is rather inexcusable, in my opinion. It has been stated that this will be improved in the next version, but the space deficit is so extreme that an anticipated "minor" adjustment will not solve the problem. One stated reason for this deficit was that the designers were working on screens larger than most users are viewing.

For multiple reasons, prepare as much off line as possible and then bring copies into the Blackboard format. Not only will this approach provide back-up copies, it will facilitate editing and enhance the functionality of external links.

When previously-prepared files are so extensive and incompatible that their conversion for Blackboard would be prohibitive, they may be treated as external links. In addition, it is suggested that such presentation be made in a separate browser window (provided for in Blackboard's structure). This observation will be especially evident in Blackboard 5, where the lack of space for instructor-prepared material is inexcusably small.

The smallest screen resolution targeted by Blackboard seems to be 800x600 pixels. This requires a left/right scroll for 640x480 pixels (laptop computers). This characteristic compounds the problem already identified of having a limited amount of space available for instructor-prepared material.

One of strengths of Blackboard 5 is the inclusion of a function for off-line media use. This is especially valuable, since research reports indicate that, even in the year 2004, only 16.5% of households will have broadband connections. While the quality of audio streaming is not so dependent on broadband, such is not the case with video streaming. Off-line media access, then, will be an important function at least for the next several years.

In spite of the previous statement about the valuable off-line function provided to Loyola by Blackboard 5, it does not work as of March 10. (March 12: The problem has now been corrected.) While it has been stated that this glitch may easily be corrected by asking the system administrator to download a patch, it seems rather cavalier of Blackboard not to have addressed the known problem before installation for Loyola. Discovering the problem during an independent "hands on" session following the formal Blackboard briefing rather than from any written documentation or verbal disclosure only compounds the concern of how many more such problems may arise.

Instructor-installed navigation should be carefully planned, since traditional navigation requires space for a navigational bar or embedded buttons. This will undoubtedly become one of the most troublesome issues, since logical navigation is so important to well designed instructional modules.

There is a general lack of freshness and uniqueness found in the Blackboard template. The problem reflects the delicate balance between "user friendliness" and "user control." In this regard, Blackboard planners continue to come down on the side of user friendliness; their past success is based on that decision. One of the related characteristics is the use and choice of navigation buttons (as well as the "real estate" assigned to them.) It has been stated that future revisions will allow more flexibility of this portion of the template. More choices, though, mean more complexity within the desired user-friendly environment. We should expect no major changes here.

Presentation designs which use frames should be avoided if at all possible. This is necessary, since using them would partition, too extensively, the usable space when placed within the Blackboard template. Tentative suggestions include the use of invisible/visible layers, a floating layer, or simply a longer scroll of information, controlled as desired by the use of internal hyperlinks (anchors). Or, as suggested earlier, bringing in the information through the external links function would solve these and other problems.

When external files are incompatible with Blackboard frame structure, a special "break out" java script may be used in the first page of the target directory to release such capture. This script is free and may be obtained from http://wsabstract.com. Note that a more simple approach is provided by Blackboard, where external links may appear in a separate browser window. The two techniques seem similar but require entirely different approaches for returning to the Blackboard template.

Two other java scripts may be desirable in the first page of an externally-targeted directory. One eliminates empty-space borders around window content to make efficient use of the limited space provided by Blackboard, and the other automatically maximizes the browser window. (http://www.dynamicdrive.com)

Even when considering some of the problems I have identified, I am comfortable with Blackboard 5 as a suitable e-learning platform. However, I will use my own initiative to work around some of the perceived problems. This hybrid approach will be most obvious in the use, on the one hand, of Blackboard's services in communication, off-line media, grading, testing, and (eventually) exchange of necessary student records with Loyola's Student Record System. On the other hand, a stand-alone instructional system may easily be integrated through the external links function, especially when a separate browser window is employed.