IntroductionCourse management systems (CMSs) are systems that provide facilities for teachers and students to engage in teaching and learning activities online by helping to manage various functions like course content preparation and delivery, communication, assessment, administrative functions and collaboration (Ellis, 2001; Nichani, 2001). Other terms have also been used to describe CMSs: online learning environment, virtual learning environment and course-in-a-box (Collis & De Boer 2004). A review of the list of CMSs available at www.edutools.info shows that CMSs are designed with various levels of functionalities but the primary role remains to facilitate interactions between teachers and students.No matter what they are called, CMSs are increasingly used by institutions of higher learning around the world (Sausner, 2005), so much so that they are the 'face' of e-learning for many in these institutions. CMSs are built both by business entities, which charge for their products, and under open source initiatives, which normally provide the products for free. But how much learning is there in these products? Hubscher and Frizell (2002) argue that CMSs provide little or no support for the effective design of web-based instruction.It is tempting to point to the fact that these products are only tools to help teachers and it is up to them to make effective use of these tools. This is the line of argument used by Carmean and Haefner (2002): CMS[s] do not provide a pedagogical platform any more than chalk, chairs, and tables provide the classroom learning experience.. This kind of argument sadly misses the important and obvious fact: CMSs are very different from chairs and tables. They are an environment for learning, normally embedded within a larger environment - the web - which itself offers much potential for teachers and learners. If we are to stick with the analogy of chairs, it would make sense to ask what if the builder of the chairs did not take into account how people sit, but only the materials and the builder's carpentry skills. Do we go ahead and tell the users (teachers and students) that it does not matter how the chair is designed as long as you learn how to sit on it? Such an argument would be a boon for commercial CMS developers because, as long as they can come up with new features and 'improvements' without taking into account how people learn (even when the point of their products is learning), business is assured. On the bright side, there are open source CMSs like Moodle which claim to be grounded in social constructivism.This paper argues that learning should be central to the design of a CMS, although various requirements from teachers, institutions and students themselves would mean that there would be other factors to take into account when designing a CMS. The paper suggests design features that could be incorporated into a CMS based on the three major theories of learning: behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism. It does so in a concrete manner, keeping in mind what is already possible with technology today. This is more useful in the long run than presenting the features in abstract terms that do not help with the implementation of such features. This paper represents an initial part of a PhD project that aims to create a learning-driven CMS specifically for language learning and teaching.BehaviourismMuch maligned, often misunderstood and simplified in a postmodernist world, behaviourism nevertheless remains influential in educational practices (Burton, Moore & Magliaro, 1996; Kozloff, 1998; Smith-Gratto, 2000). Various models of instruction have their roots in behaviourism such as the Personalized System of Instruction (PSI), Mastery Learning, Direct Instruction and other 'explicit teaching' models and practices (Rosenshine, 1986).Early computer-assisted instruction programs are heavily influenced by behaviourist practices, not surprisingly since they appear during a period dominated by behaviourism. …
Read full abstract