WHERE DO I PUT MY COURSE MATERIALS?

The National Center for Educational Statistics reported that during the 1997-1998 academic year, 58% of all postsecondary institutions offered Web-based courses. Moreover, 82% reported plans to increase their Web-based offerings over the following 3 years (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1999). A major rationale for offering Web-based courses is to broaden the resources available to teachers and students in an effort to increase students’ knowledge bases and prepare them for a workplace that is becoming increasingly technological (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). In response to the growing interest in providing online instruction, various online course management systems (CMS) have been developed, including Blackboard, E-College, WebCT, Symposium, and Virtual-U (Firdyiwek, 1999). The major characteristics of these CMSs are “to convert lecture materials to Web presentation, linking course Web sites to related Web sites, constructing online examinations of knowledge acquisition, and providing some form of conferencing system to enable student questions or feedback” (Colaric & Jonassen, 2001, p 165).

According to Jung’s research on building a theoretical framework for Web-based courses, the obstacles to providing Internet- and Webbased courses are not completely new. Even the pedagogy of instruction using this technology is not innovative. Web-based courses share many characteristics with other styles of instruction integrated with technology, such as TV courses and videoconferencing instruction. What makes the Web-based course unique from other integrated instructional technologies is its ability to provide a learning environment that integrates text, pictures, video, and audio into one system, providing easy accessibility to huge databases, and offering a relatively simple and flexible interaction between user and technology (Jung, 2001).

There are numerous discussions in the literature about building learner-centered online learning environments. These discussions center primarily on the design of Web-based courses. For example, Barron (1998), in her research on designing Web-based training, mentioned several considerations for Webbased training, most of which focused on interface design, such as “limit the size of graphic files,” “differentiate among the hyperlinks,” or “limit the length of Web pages.” In their research on evaluating a multimedia course package based on pedagogical design, Bhattacharya, Akahori, and Kumar (1999) also focused on the virtual display of the multimedia package. Vrasidas (2002), in her research on a systematic approach for designing hypermedia environments for teaching and learning, also stressed the importance of interface design in developing a Web-based course.

Although much of the literature to date has focused on the design of Web-based courses, there has been little investigation into the placement of instructor course materials in CMSs. In addition, there is no classification system for the organization of instructor course materials on CMSs. Most of the CMSs are designed with areas or sections that have generic preset labels (such as “Course Documents”) with options for instructors to label sections themselves. Instructors can then determine where to place their specific course materials (such as syllabi); under the preset labels, instructor generated labels, or using a mix of both preset and instructor set labels.

Moore, Downing, and York (2002) investigated the organization of instructional content for Web-based courses by the comparing instructor and student satisfaction with how instructor course materials were organized on a CMS (Blackboard™). Using a mixed method research design, they found no difference between instructors’ and students’ overall satisfaction with the placement of instructor course materials on the CMS. However, they did find a discrepancy between instructors’ notions of the appropriate sections of the CMS for various ICMs and students’ expectations about the sections in which various course materials might be found. Drawing on the work of Estes (1993), Moore et al. (2002) concluded that instructors generally organize course materials based on their own organizational schemas and interpretations of course section labels, implicitly assuming that students operate with similar schemas.

Although there are several studies about general design issues for Web-based courses, there is little systematic investigation into how individual instructors interpret general design principles when using the structure of CMSs to organize their course materials. As Web-based courses become more prevalent, there is a need to provide guidelines and assistance to instructors using course management systems to deliver these courses.

Where instructor course materials are placed on a CMS is an important element of effective and efficient online course navigation and student satisfaction (Moore et al., 2002). Boshier, Mohapi, Moulton, Qayyam, Sadownik, and Wilson (1997) investigated what they termed “the best and worst” design of Web-based courses and found that the biggest challenge for Web-based course designers was the conceptual differences between the users and the designer (Boshier et al., 1997). Similarly, Moore et al. found discrepancies between instructors’ and students’ perceptions of the appropriate placement of some instructor course materials. The purpose of this study was to: (1) examine and categorize where instructor course materials (ICMs) were placed on one widely used course management system, Blackboard; and (2) develop a preliminary classification matrix for ICM placement. Blackboard was chosen as the course management system for this study because of its ease of use, as well as being a widely-used CMS in a variety of contexts such as higher education, K-12 education, and, corporate training systems.

Five hundred twenty-five instructors at a midwestern research-extensive university who had course accounts for Blackboard were contacted for permission to examine their course sites in order to identify where their ICMs were located within the organizational structure of the CMS. One hundred forty-seven provided permission to access and examine their courses. In addition, instructors were asked to indicate the level of the course using three level categories: (1) Level I—CMS supports a face-to-face course; (2) Level II—the CMS is part of a combined face-to-face and Internet course format; and, (3) Level III—the course is completely Web-based with no face-to-face meetings.

A categorization matrix for ICMs and their placement within the Blackboard structure was developed based on the work done by Moore et al. (2002). The preset course sections within Blackboard (e.g., Announcements, Course Information, Staff Information, Course Documents, Assignments, Books, Communication, Discussion Board, External Links, and Tools), and those labeled by instructors (e.g., Syllabus, Projects, Lectures) were listed as columns, and 26 possible instructor-developed course components (e.g., Syllabus, Required Course Readings, Grading Policies, Assignment Information, Supplemental Course Reading, etc.) were listed as rows in the matrix.

A content analysis of ICMs using the matrix described above was conducted on each course offered by each instructor who provided permission to access their course sites. Nineteen courses were instructor identified as Level III (completely Web-based), 11 courses as Level II (combined Web-based and face-to-face ) and 117 courses were identified as Level I (the CMS supported a face-to-face class). Of the 117 courses that were identified as Level I, only 90 were included in this study as 27 of the courses had no ICMs included in the Blackboard™ course site. (Note: Instructors had apparently requested course sites and then not utilized them.)

After conducting the content analysis, ICMs were categorized into two groups: (1) administration and management materials; and (2) content materials. Included in the course administration materials group were course syllabi, information about assignments, and grading criteria. Content documents included material such as lecture notes, supplemental elaboration materials, lab notes, templates, and so forth. Percentages of ICMs within each component of the administration and management, and content groups, were determined. Finally, tables were developed listing the course section labels for the ICMs.

The preset label, Course Information, was most commonly used for the four types of administration and management ICMs. Of the 120 courses in this study, 98 (82%) included a course syllabus on their CMS site. Course syllabi were found in 75% of Level I courses, and 100% of Level II and III courses. Across all levels of courses, the two preset labels, Course Information and Course Documents, were used for course syllabi in 72% and 12% of the courses respectively. One instructor set label, Syllabus was used in 16% of the courses (see Tables 1A and 1B).

Of the 120 courses in this study, 88 (73%) included overview information about course assignments. Assignment overview information was included in 67% of Level I courses, 82% of Level II courses, and 100% of Level III courses. Across all levels of courses, three preset labels—Course Information, Course Documents, and Assignments—were used for assignment overview information in 59%, 18%, and 3.5% of courses, respectively. Two instructor set labels—Syllabus and Projects— were used in 18% and 1% of courses, respectively. It should be noted that when assignment overview information was found, it was typically part of the course syllabus. The exceptions were as follows:

• Four Level I courses had separate assignment overview information under the Course Documents preset label;

• One Level II and two Level III courses had separate assignment overview information under the Assignments preset label;

• One Level III course had separate assignment overview information under an instructor set label titled Projects.

Of the 120 courses in this study, 46 (38%) included specific information about assignments on their CMS sites. Specific information about assignments was included in 18% of Level I courses, and 100% of Level II and III courses. Across all levels of courses, the three preset labels—Course Information, Course Documents, and Assignments—were used for specific assignment information in 20%, 33%, and 41% of courses, respectively. One instructor-set label, Syllabus, was used in 7% of the courses.

Of the 120 courses in this study, 99 (82.5%) included course grading criteria on their CMS sites. Grading criteria was included in 79% of Level I courses, 82% of Level I courses, and 100% of Level III courses. Across all levels of courses, three preset labels—Course Information, Course Documents, and Assignments— were used for grading criteria in 69%, 13%, and 9% of courses respectively. One instructor-set label, Syllabus, was used in 8% of the courses.

Of the 120 courses in this study, 74 (61%) included course content materials on their CMS sites. Course content materials were included in 53% of Level I courses, 64% of Level II courses, and 100% of Level III courses. Across all levels of courses, course content materials were found under five preset labels: Course Documents (80%); Course Information (4%); Assignments (3%); Books (1%); and External Links (1%). In addition, four instructor-set labels were used for course content materials: Lectures (7%); Syllabus (1%); Labs (1%); and Course Materials (1%).

Of the 120 courses in the study, 35 (29%) included supplemental readings in their CMS sites. Supplemental readings were identified in 30% of Level I courses, and 73% of Level II courses. None of the Level III courses examined included supplemental readings in the CMS course site. Across the Level I and II courses, supplemental reading information was found under five preset levels: Course Documents (51%); Course Information (15%); Assignments (9%); Books (9%); and External Links (6%). One instructor-set label, Syllabus, was used in 11% of the courses.

Of the 120 courses in the study, 54 (45%) included Web resources in their CMS sites. Web Resources were included in 36% of Level I courses, 55% of Level II courses, and 84% of Level III courses. Across all levels of courses, Web resources were found under four preset labels: External Links (72%); Course Information (7%); Course Documents (4%); and Announcements (2%). Web resources were also found under four instructor-set labels: Resources (6%); Websites (6%); Supplemental Readings (2%); and Course References (2%).

A few researchers have investigated instructors’ placement of course materials in a CMS course site. These studies have suggested that there may be conceptual differences between instructors and students in ideas about where course materials might be placed in a CMS site that may present a challenge for students navigating through a Web-based course (Boshier et al., 1997; Moore et al., 2002). The results of our analysis of the placement of instructor course materials on one CMS indicated that there are some trends to where instructors place their materials, but still variation in where those materials might be found on any course site. In addition, there was a general tendency, across all levels of courses, for instructor materials to be placed under the preset labels of Blackboard rather than under labels set by instructors (e.g., 72% of the course syllabi were placed under the preset label Course Information, and 80% of instructors placed course content materials under the preset label Course Documents).

Further analysis of the data indicated that the higher the level of course use, the more likely instructors may be to place administration and management documents under instructor-set labels (e.g. 10% of Level I instructors placed their course syllabi under a Syllabus label, whereas 32% of Level III instructors placed their course syllabi under a Syllabus label). The same trend was not found in the placement of course content documents. These spread across a variety of both preset and instructor set labels. This finding may be explained by the research of Moore et al. (2002), who found that instructors generally organize course materials based on their own organizational schemas and interpretations of course section labels. Placement of similar course materials under a variety of labels would seem to indicate different notions between instructors and students about appropriate CMS sections for course materials. In a face-to-face course, there is a level of predictability and consistency for students in how they receive course materials; the instructor hands out a syllabus, provides resource handouts, and so forth. In a Web-based course, those materials must be found somewhere in the course management system’s “files.” An analogy might be a face-to-face classroom in which there was a file cabinet and an instructor wheels in the file cabinet when a class begins and indicates that all the needed materials for the course might be found in that file cabinet. For each class, the folders are labeled slightly differently and various materials are found across a variety of folders. A student’s initial focus is on searching out the materials that he or she needs to for the course, rather than delving into the course content and processes. The longer this process of searching out course materials—due to conceptual differences between instructors and students in their organization schema for course material organization—the longer students’ foci are shifted from the course content to the course organization. These differences may cause students to experience frustration in Web-based courses, particularly as they initially become familiar with the course and course organization on the CMS. The work of researchers such as Boshiers et al. (1997) and Moore et al. (2002), as well as the current study, emphasize the usefulness of a classification system for the placement of course materials as a guideline for instructors delivering courses on CMSs.

Table 3 contains a matrix of the various course materials components examined in the study and the corresponding CMS labels under which they were found. This matrix provides the classification on which instructors might make decisions regarding placement of course materials. In addition, examination of the results yielded four recommendations regarding the placement of four major course components: the course syllabus, the course content materials, specific information about assignments, and Web resources. No recommendations are made regarding assignment overviews or grading criteria, as they were often found in course syllabi, or supplemental readings, as they were often found in course content material.

Course syllabi were most likely to be found under the preset label Course Information across all levels of courses. However, as the course level of the CMS course site increased from supplementing a face-to-face course (Level I) to entirely Web-based (Level III), an increasing percentage of course syllabi were found under the instructor-set label Syllabus. Based on the findings of this study, one recommendation might be to place course syllabi under the Course Information preset label as that is the characteristic placement for this type of document. However, a concurrent recommendation would be for instructors to set a label title Syllabus for the course syllabi following the tendency of many Level II and III instructors who rely on a CMS site for many or all of their course materials. In addition, since course content material was most often found under the preset Course Documents label across all levels of course, it is recommended that course syllabi not be placed under this label.

As mentioned above, course content material was most often found under the preset Course Documents label. Other preset and instructor-set labels were also used for course content materials, although in very small percentages across eight various labels. Given the high majority of courses that used Course Documents for course content materials, and the number of other labels for a small number of courses across the labels, it is recommended that course content materials be placed under the Course Documents preset label.

A similar trend was found for the identification of Web resources as for course content materials. Web resources were most often found under the preset External Links label with Web resources also found in small percentages under seven other preset and instructor set labels. For the same reason as given for course content materials, it is recommended that Web resources be identified under the External Links label.

When specific information about assignments was found in Level I courses, it was most often found under the preset Course Documents label. Interestingly, assignment information was most often found in Level II courses, under the Assignments or Course Documents labels, and in Level III courses most often under the Assignments label. Using Level III courses as a form of template for Web-based courses (since they are entirely Web-based), it is recommended that specific information about assignments be placed under the Assignments preset label.

The classification system proposed based on the results of this study is intended to provide suggested guidelines for the placement of four major course components: the course syllabus, the course content materials, specific information about assignments, and Web resources. These four components are characteristically found in courses in general, and in Web-based courses in particular. Through this proposed classification system, we hope to initiate opportunities for collaboration with possible partners interested in investigating other CMSs related to the same topic.