In only a few short years, course management systems (CMS) have become an essential feature of instructional technology at institutions of higher education. After all, these complex software packages assemble multiple Web-based technologies into a single, coordinated suite of instructional services. Online discussion and messaging forums, calendars, syllabi, automated testing and grade posting, class and workgroup e-mail distribution lists, and student portfolio pages are among their most used features. Importantly, these systems provide Web page templates and text editors that significantly lower the HTML-editing barrier to putting course materials online. Now, the leading CMS products even make it possible to blend multimedia and other digital content into the basic delivery system. Speaking of the advance of technology!

On most campuses, CMS products supplement traditional classroom courses—proving effective for keeping up communication with and among students outside class hours. But CMS has also established itself as a means of delivering online courses, providing communications, lectures and readings, and roster and gradebook management. Not surprisingly, these systems have facilitated the development of “hybrid” courses that meet once or twice per week in a classroom, and then move into the online mode.

According to the 2002 Campus Computing Project survey (www.campuscomputing.net), nearly one-fifth of college courses use a course management system, and three-quarters of IHEs have adopted a standard system for the campus. A new study by the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR; www.educause.edu/ecar) looked at CMS usage in the University of Wisconsin system and found that faculty like the ability to pass class materials to students electronically, communicate with them (particularly in large-section courses), and return grades to students online. Content presentation tools are the most favored features of the CMS. The discussion and quiz tools and the gradebook are less widely used, perhaps because they appear more complex to master, but they are used intensively by faculty who do adopt them. The choice to use the CMS, according to the ECAR study, is driven mostly by an instructor’s interest to solve a particular pedagogical problem and by experience gained from product training sessions.

The challenges of managing digital information for instructional purposes are also strengthening IHEs’ commitment to the course management system. John McFadden, assistant VP for Technology Services at Loyola College (MD), says the publishing industry’s practice of bundling electronic content with textbooks is driving the need for a presentation environment. Moreover, the growing amount of digital information being used in the curriculum is pushing universities to find a way to store, retrieve, and deliver those materials. McFadden sees in the CMS a good tool to cope with the growing needs in academic content management.

Course management systems can be inexpensive to acquire and use on a small scale, but quickly add up to a substantial investment once beyond the pilot stage of usage. Still, entry-level systems from the major vendors can be purchased for $5,000 or less. But full-featured packages start at around $50,000 and range through the six figures, depending on institutional enrollment and the advanced features selected. Total cost of ownership entails costs for servers and staff to provide technical support and training. Some vendors also offer ASP service, where they host the application and deliver it to campus via the Internet.

Carol Vallone, CEO of WebCT (www.webct.com), says that improved learning, higher retention and graduation rates, more efficient use of classroom capacity, and increased revenue through new instructional programs for an expanded enrollment of students can be achieved with course management systems. She cites the experience of the state university system of Tennessee, where five new degree programs for previously underserved populations have generated millions in new revenue. Then there’s Georgia, where 34 IHEs use WebCT’s Vista product, served from a central site (but customized for each campus), for considerable savings in operating costs. The full value of these systems is realized, Vallone says, when they are connected to ERP and library information sources. What’s more, the student-tracking and learning-management data accumulated in the CMS can be mined to get an aggregated view of learning outcomes, trends, and feedback on the effectiveness of instructional methods.

Fred Siff, VP and CIO at the University of Cincinnati, says the school uses the CMS in all courses with more than five students. Faculty acceptance of the CMS has been strong, he says, and is actively encouraged by the academic administration. The students’ ability to return to course materials at will is viewed as an important spur to learning retention.

Blackboard Inc. (www.blackboard.com) claims over 2,000 educational institutions using its Blackboard Learning System. Version 6.0 of this system introduced a “building blocks” architecture that facilitates integration between Blackboard and other software, including student information systems, and security and authentication systems. According to Darrell Ward, Blackboard accounts manager at the Ball State University (IN) Center for Teaching Technology, integration of Blackboard’s Learning and Community Portal Systems with the campus data warehouse and LDAP systems dramatically reduced the number of faculty seeking assistance in setting up their courses and using the CMS. At Wabash College (IN), Database Administrator Jason Boley says administrators find the Blackboard CMS environment cost-effective and easy to use and support.

WebCT (www.webct.com), with over 2,200 customers in 80 countries, is the co-leader in market share and in the development of highly integrated systems. At the Stanford University School of Medicine (CA), all course content for the MD degree is Web-enhanced and kept available online for student reference in WebCT’s CMS. Colorado State University reports that 1,130 or 4,000 courses are active in WebCT. Distance learning for several masters degree programs is now available online, as are multiple “technology core” certifications in fields such as fire science and pesticide application. Drexel University (PA) delivers 3,000 courses to its students via the campus wireless network using WebCT’s Campus Edition. Drexel is upgrading to the Vista product and also plans to support 6,500 students at three independent colleges in the Philadelphia region.

CyberLearning Labs Inc. (www.cyberlearning.com) develops and markets the Angel CMS, which was originally developed by Indiana University and Purdue University (IN). In February 2003, Collegis Inc. (www.collegis.com) adopted Angel for creation and delivery of certificate and degree programs in the blended classroom and online learning environment. CyberLearning is also collaborating with Ohio State University in a learning research project with the twin goals of building learning objects for interdisciplinary learning and personalizing the learning experience for students. Stephen R. Acker, director of OSU Technology Enhanced Learning and Research, says they will use Angel’s content import and management capabilities to share and re-use instructional materials.

In April 2003, the Cisco Learning Institute (www.ciscolearning.org) introduced the CLI Virtuoso E-Learning Platform. A 501(c)3 organization, the Institute provides the CLI Virtuoso license to nonprofits at substantial discounts. The product is a development of Cisco’s experience in online training for worldwide delivery.

Jenzabar (www.jenzabar.net), provider of a suite of ERP products, offers its Learning Management System in the CMS arena. Its features include integration with Jenzabar student information systems and storage “Banks” for previously used URLs and files of course materials.

AU+ Course Management System is eCollege’s entry in the CMS market (www.ecollege.com). Instructors can choose between sequential or features/categories, or can combine elements of the two for the organization of their materials. The system is available in variants for online courses, on-campus, and blended solutions.

The EduTools project offers an extensive listing of CMS providers, including product specifications, update news, and reviews on its Web site (www.edutools.info).

The full-fledged implementation of a CMS is an expensive, support-intensive enterprise. Yet there’s no doubt that as faculty use the system over many semesters, they value the ability to store, retrieve, share, and re-use course materials.

Still, the best return on investment comes with widespread use of the CMS on campus. The cost of the system is diluted to very favorable levels when nearly all courses and students are served by it. Best yet, the learning materials and student progress data that accumulate through use of the CMS become an ever-increasing source value to institutions of higher education.

Tom Warger is a consultant for Edutech International (www.edutech-int.com).