The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

ext archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/1065-0741.htm

CWIS
22,2 Steps towards personalised
learner management system
(LMS): SCORM implementation
56
Jason Watson
School of Information Systems, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
Glenn Hardaker
University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK

Abstract
Purpose – Seeks to show that the software development process is based on the premise to provide
an enhanced e-learning environment by supporting individual learning styles and preferences through
the use of emerging adaptive technologies that also enable performance evaluation in the context of
meeting agreed learning outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach – The design methodology adopts a case study approach that
follows the design and implementation of a learner management system.
Findings – Web-based intelligent tutoring systems, aimed at compensating for the absence of a real
world tutor have to date mostly concentrated on providing assistance in a particular subject domain
and not focused on the problem of utilising content represented as learning objects across
multi-subject domains. This paper describes the creation of a non-dictatorial tutoring system that has
been developed at NTP Information Solutions Ltd. A visualisation tool has bee4n created called
“learning navigator” to help learners to visualise the best path through assignable units extracted from
a learning repository.
Practical implications – The system is currently able to suggest new paths that take into account
learning styles through learner performance, learner previous experience and learning objectives.
Future work will include extending this criterion to take into account further individual learning
preferences.
Originality/value – The sharable content objects (SCOs) approach to the software solution extends
the internationally recognised SCORM development standards. As a consequence the paper
contributes to international e-learning standards development but also extends current knowledge of
the role of adaptive technologies in supporting learning styles and preferences.
Keywords Computer based learning, Learning styles
Paper type Case study

The collaborating company

Campus-Wide Information Systems
Vol. 22 No. 2, 2005
pp. 56-70
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1065-0741
DOI 10.1108/10650740510587074
NTP Limited is the largest multi-occupational training organisation in the UK,
managing more than 25,000 trainees within diverse environments in industry. They
provide a range of services to 20,000 trainees, 13,000 modern apprentices in over 120
national organisations and 30 occupational sectors. These services include funding
access, centralised contract management, and training and assessment. NTP is heavily
involved in the delivery of NVQ training within the workplace environment and
The authors would like to thank J.J. Kuisma, a graduate student at University of Huddersfield,
for his support with this project.
provides training solutions to a very diverse audience. Customers of NTP come from Learner
every occupational sector and include companies such as BMW, Arcadia Group PLC, management
Going Places, Orange, Defence School of Transport, Dixon Motors PLC, Stylo Barratt
Shoes Ltd, and Poundstretcher. system
It is NTP’s strategy to deploy e-learning content through an online learning
management system in workplace environments of every occupational sector.
Training is often a major investment for their customers and it is critical for NTP to 57
prove that the solutions it can provide give a high rate of return on investment (ROI).
This ROI can be measured by weighing evidence of improved revenues, customer
satisfaction and retention, increased productivity and competitive advantage against
the money spent on training. Naturally, these factors are directly linked to how
effective the training is.
Conventional e-learning consists of static content that does not take into account the
diversity of the audience. Learners come from different backgrounds and have a great
variety of differing profiles, learning styles, preferences and knowledge hooks. NTP
does not believe that a “one size fits all” approach will be effective considering the
diversity of its trainees. As a consequence, NTP have embarked on developing a
learning management system, in collaboration with Huddersfield University, that uses
the latest technologies for learning object re-use and adaptive sequencing to deliver an
individualised learning experience. It is believed that this approach will vastly improve
the effectiveness of training delivered through the system and have a positive impact
on ROI for their customers.

Introduction
The development process based on individual learning styles and preferences through
adaptive technologies has been a successful approach towards training that enables
real time performance evaluation through behavioural and attitudinal measures.
Learning is clearly influenced by the context of the environment, and the internet for
many has added a new dimension into exploring the importance of designing a
learning environment that supports the creation of a ubiquitous educational landscape.
Sadler-Smith (1997) made this point in identifying that a principle objection to notions
of learning style tools is their limited consideration to the social context within which
learning takes place. At present we need to build on work in particular in the area of
computer aided learning (CAL) and current developments from first generation learner
management system (LMS) software. User-based research into learning through
technology has been primarily driven through content driven applications and more
recent shifts towards more collaborative work solutions. Research into the effective
development of “next generation” LMS applications in terms of personalised content
management and learning experiences is only just beginning to emerge. This paper in
particular contributes to international e-learning standards development but also
extends our current knowledge of the role of adaptive technologies in supporting
learning styles and preferences.
The importance of the learning context has been illustrated by numerous authors.
Reynolds (1997) identified the importance of learning context through the study of an
educational programme for 5-15 year-old Navajos Indians. For technology-based
learning Reiber (1992) specified that in the design of learning content consideration
needs to be given to the following:
CWIS .
supporting a meaningful learning context;
22,2 .
intrinsically motivated and self-regulated learning;
.
establishing learning paths where the learner is able to move from the known to
the unknown;
.
balance between inductive and deductive learning;
58 .
emphasising the usefulness of errors; and
.
anticipating and nurturing exploratory learning.
With specific reference to CAL, it is viewed material that failed to understand learner
requirements produces limited improvement in learning. Such a viewpoint is re-enforced
through further research into CAL learning environments that suggest the way in which
information is structured (Clark and Craig, 1992; Alexander, 1995; Bahar and Hansell,
1999) and presented to learners (Molich and Neilsen, 1990; Ford, 1999) affects the quality
(Armstrong, 1999) and its lasting nature of what was learnt. Too often technical
expediency and market demands for on-line courses via distributed learning routes drive
the design of digital learning content rather than pedagogical considerations. Paterson
and Rosbottom (1995) suggested that there was a need for a change of emphasis from
instructionalist programmed learning to constructivist “intelligent tutoring” CAL
approaches. Since the unprecedented speed of growth of the internet the importance of
cognitively well-designed learning environments have become even more apparent
through the development of on-line courses emerging in various forms. A key feature of
this was the notion of cognitive ergonomics. Ford (1999) stated:
. . . just as an ergonomically designed chair is well adapted to the physical requirements of its
user, so a cognitively ergonomic learning resource is well adapted to the learning
requirements of its user (Ford, 1999, p. 188).
Research would suggest that communications and information technology (C&IT) has
the potential to exploit different learning styles and preferences through the use of
adaptive technologies thus being more sensitive to learning style differences. Various
tools are available to support the analysis of learning styles and for the learner
identifying an individual learning style that is to some extent innate to the learner.
Depending on the learning styles inventory tools used varying degrees of consideration
are given to the specific learning context.
Although terminology used to describe learners has differed across the various
cognitive/learning styles inventory models (Honey and Mumford, 1992; Felder and
Silverman, 1988; Riding and Rayner), each tool has identified comparable and
significant character differences between each category of learner.
Primarily through CAL and earlier internet development projects it is viewed that
individualised presentation and order of delivery based on learning style should be
leading the focus adopted by educational designers and internet-based architects of
learning materials. The individual approach has been directly adopted in the software
development process described below.

Theory and practice of cognitive learning styles

Cognitive style and learning style has been widely and frequently used
interchangeably by educational theorists, human resource management specialists,
and other management consultants over the past 50 years or more. Terminology has
varied and continues to evolve although many (Witkin, 1962; Goldstein and Blackman, Learner
1978; Tennant, 1988; Riding and Pearson, 1994) agree that cognitive style is a distinct management
and consistent way for an individual to encode, store and perform, and one that is
mainly independent of intelligence. Many view it, even though limited in system
understanding, that cognitive style differences between human beings were possibly
due to differences in left/right hemispheric specialisation of the brain. Such a viewpoint
is led through eminent research studies (Sperry, 1964; Luria, 1966; Bogen, 1969) 59
undertaken during the 1960s, which demonstrated that the left cerebral hemisphere
specialised primarily in analytic, rational and sequential information processing and
the right cerebral hemisphere specialised primarily in intuitive, holistic, and
simultaneous information processing (Armstrong, 1999). This could potentially
extended further through the co-evolution of psychology and neuroscience which
brings together the understanding of the relationship of what the system does and also
knowledge about how the underlying neural system operates (Sadler-Smith, 1997).
Various frameworks have been suggested in an attempt to de-mystify the
relationship between cognitive style and learning style and as an attempt to embed
“best practice” into both the research and practitioner orientated community. Curry
(1983) provides a useful framework through his suggested “onion” model in which
learning constructs are organised into three levels that overlay a central personality
dimension. These are as follows:
(1) The inner layer is the cognitive personality elements, such as the cognitive
style.
(2) The second layer is the “information processing style”, typically the learning
style.
(3) The outer layer consists of learning preferences.
From the research of Curry it is suggested that the nearer the surface the more
amenable a construct is to introspection and external influence. This framework was
extended further by Riding and Cheema (1991) who introduced the notion of “learning
strategies” which are viewed as being outside of the domain of cognitive processing
and frequently referred to as “style”. Riding (1991) extended the Curry framework by
introducing a “cognitive control model” consisting of an elaboration of the following
elements:
.
primary resources (knowledge, personality, gender, and cognitive history);
.
cognitive control (cognitive style dimensions of wholist-analytical and
verbal-imagery);
.
cognitive inputs (perception);
.
cognitive outputs (learning strategies); and
.
external world (experience and observed behaviours).
As research and development into cognitive style has continued to evolve our
understanding has become richer and as a consequence the terms used to describe
cognitive style groupings have become more elaborate and diverse. Messick (1984)
identified 19 different labels referred to as cognitive or learning style, and many
authors have since extended this further. Armstrong (1999) in evaluating relevant
literature towards cognitive styles identified 54 dimensions on which cognitive style
CWIS had been differentiated. Such diversity in terms and perspective supports a need for an
22,2 identification of key terms and also an outline of the most frequently used frameworks
and the relationship to each other. A useful starting point is Riding and Douglas’s
(1993) analysis of the multiplicity of constructs that concluded identified terms could
be grouped into two principal cognitive styles and various learning strategies. The
cognitive style dimensions are referred to as wholist-analytic as one cognitive style
60 family, and verbaliser-imager as the other cognitive style family. The wholist-analytic
style was defined as the tendency for individuals to process information in wholes or in
parts, while the verbaliser-imager style was defined as the tendency for individuals to
represent information during thinking verbally or pictorially. Even though a relatively
simplistic framework, in parts driven by research by Sperry in the 1960s, it is still
viewed as an important tool in the understanding of cognitive styles/learning styles
and learning strategies in particular.
To effectively integrate “cognitive learning styles” into the design process of a LMS it
takes significant time and a clear understanding of learning style theory that is specific
to the type of learning in a particular context. Being able to conceptualise and synthesise
the specific relevance of the learning style models and definitions has directly eased the
process of designing re-useable learning objects that directly address learner needs. The
“learning styles mix” from Dunn and Dunn (1975), Gregorc (1982) and
Grasha-Riechmann (1974) are outlined in Table I adapted from Ross and Schulz (1999).
A person’s learning orientation is viewed as one of the most important determinants
of their educational attainment and as a consequence such a viewpoint should be
fundamental to the software design process of a LMS. Intuition indicates, which is
supported by various studies, that greater the congruence with the teaching method
used, the greater the chance of success. The training manager provides an essential
gateway towards embedding such an approach into the LMS. As a basis for
understanding different learning styles authors have also attempted to identify the
overall learning process. Kolb’s four learning cycle modes have received significant
attention and is outlined in Table II.

Building “next generation” learner management system (LMS)

The innovation process is based on the need to support both cognitive learning styles
and preferences through the use of emerging adaptive technologies. The development
process is also undertaken through an iterative process to evaluation. The use of
e-learning has increased enormously during the last few years and even the most
modest estimations predict huge growth in the future. The main reasons for this have
been based on the principle of delivering training anytime and anywhere, giving
cost-savings on the reduced off-the-site time, travel and accommodation expenses and
tutor costs. However, a disadvantage of this approach is that e-learning can often lead
to an isolated experience and not deliver sufficient tutoring or guidance. This factor
has often been linked to poor completion rates for online courses.
In a traditional classroom scenario teaching tends to be pitched to the average level of
the people attending the class. This level may not suit all and training individually can,
sometimes, provide an advantage if training is tailored to an individual’s specific needs.
E-learning provides direct access to each individual being tutored and should, in theory,
be superior to the broadcasting methodology used in the traditional classroom if
mechanisms can be put in place to provide an individualised experience. However, the
Learning style
Visual (Dunn and Dunn, 1975)
Auditory (Dunn and Dunn, 1975)
Kinesthetic/haptic (Dunn and Dunn,
1975)
Social collaborative
(Grasha-Riechmann, 1974)
Concrete sequential (Gregorc, 1982)
Concrete random (Gregorc, 1982)
Abstract sequential (Gregorc, 1982)
Abstract random (Gregorc, 1982)
Source: Adapted from Ross and Schulz (1999)
Characteristics
Learner
management
Processes information primarily through sight
Enjoys tasks involving reading, recitation, taking notes, system
watching videos and other forms of mixed media
Processes information primarily through sound
Task orientation through active listening, lecturing,
communication, music and narration
61
Holistic view of processing information through whole body
movement and through life experiences/applications
Task orientation through acting, building, manipulating,
cause-effect, designing, playing and field experiences
Information processing most effective within social
situations and cooperative groups
Task orientation through peer collaboration, interactive
discussions, debate, interviewing, sharing of stories
Linear-based sequential thinker in processing information
Task orientation through recognition of cause-and-effect
relationships, lab exercises, conducting task analysis,
flowcharting, developing arguments, writing or following
directions, generating examples and analysing key ideas
A non-linear thinker through random, multidimensional
information processing. Most effective when tangible and
directly “in-tune” with the senses
Task orientation through exploration, problem solving,
hypothesis generating, independent thinking, synthesizing,
idea generating, anticipating problems
Linear-based sequential thinker in processing information
who is most effective when more invisible to the senses and
involves reason and intuition
Task orientation through interpreting textual material,
vocabulary building, abstracting, integrating disparate
information, logical analysis, conceptual model building and
two-way discussions
A non-linear thinker through random, multidimensional
information processing. Most effective when it is invisible to
the senses
Task orientation through global evaluation, interpersonal
interactions, affective analysis, multidimensional analysis,
creative, imaginative tasks and mind mapping Table I.
“Learning styles mix”
defined

benefits of this have not yet been exploited. Regardless of the fact that the tutoring is
done individually and at any time the learner prefers, the delivered content is still static
for the learner. The same limitation applies to the majority of hypermedia, as web
content is often the same static information presented to each reader (Brusilovsky, 2001).
Academic research has delivered some pedagogically valid systems that pitch the
level of teaching to the level of the trainee but they have been bespoke applications
aimed at a specific knowledge domain (Moore, 1992). Industry has developed several
generic domain user modelling systems (Kobsa, 2001) but nothing focussed purely on
learning and education. NTP, the collaborating company, require a system that can
CWIS Term Explanation
22,2
Concrete experience (CE) Individuals acquire tangible qualities of immediate
experiences
Reflective observation (RO) Individuals are then able to internally reflect on these
external world experiences
Abstract conceptualisation (AC) Individuals understand information conceptually and
62 undertake the process of theory building
Active experimentation (AE) Learn by manipulating the real-world environment through
testing and evaluation. Thus the cycle then recommences
Table II. since the experimentation itself yields concrete experiences
Kolb’s four learning cycle
modes Source: Jonassen and Grabowski (1993)

tailor e-learning content extracted from a repository of re-usable SCOs to a large

diverse audience. To provide a cost effective solution for the enterprise the content has
to be authored to industry standards so that it can be reused and interchanged across
the platforms. The advanced distance learning (ADL) is an initiative from the US
Department of Defense (DoD), which is aimed for promoting the co-operation, between
government, academia and business to develop e-learning standardisation. This
initiative has resulted in actions that have delivered the sharable content object
reference model (SCORM), which is currently on version 1.2.
SCORM defines a web-based learning “aggregation model” and “run-time
environment” (RTE) for learning objects. The aggregation model specifies how to
aggregate the resources into the structured learning content. The SCORM RTE defines
the common language and data model for the communication between the LMS and the
content. This enables the true interoperability between the content and LMSs developed
by the different vendors. The SCORM has been the specification that has brought
together the pieces of the learning specifications made by other organisations, like
Aviation Industry CBT Committee (AICC), Alliance of Remote Instructional Authoring
& Distribution Networks for Europe (ARIADNE) and the Institute of Electrical
Electronics Engineering (IEEE) Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC).
NTP has seen SCORM as the lead standard and developed its infrastructure to
implement the SCORM 1.2 specification. The ADL initiative envisions the use of the
training content to be developed as small reusable sharable content objects (SCO), which
could be stored in a repository used in various different courses. The first versions of the
SCORM specification have already been well adopted by the industry and implemented
in most of the leading LMSs. ADL takes the vision of interoperability and re-usability
further, in its long range vision; once the SCO are commonly available they can be
assemble in real time, on demand and then delivered to learners (Advanced Distributed
Learning, 2001). This research has developed the system that implements this behaviour
by extending the SCORM data model to include the data of the learning outcomes of the
SCOs and by developing a dynamical routing engine that can suggest to the learner the
different learning paths that can be taken to achieve the same learning objectives.

System architecture
NTP have developed a web-based LMS that acts as the infrastructure for delivering,
managing and monitoring learning in the work place. The system contains various
interfaces that allow course authors, tutors, managers and trainees to create a Learner
customisable learning portal that displays the user with the menus and menu-items management
based on the given rights. When learners access this system they are presented with a
menu showing the courses that they are enrolled on, where they are up to and what system
they need to do next. Content is developed using authoring tools, such as Lectora and
Flash, in the form of SCOs and submitted into a learning repository using the SCO
management interface. A learner manager uses the course management interface to 63
create courses by defining paths between the SCOs that are present in the repository.
Work completed so far has focussed on extending these interfaces and including a
third interface; the learning navigator interface. The objective of the learning navigator
is to provide a graphical way to visualise the contents of the learning repository and
the structure of the course the student is following. The interface allows the learner to
not only see the SCOs that form part of the course that they are enrolled on, but also
any other relevant SCOs. The learner can also view several different paths through to
SCOs ranging from how the course was originally authored to what the system
considers is the best path for the user to take in their particular situation.

The SCO management interface

The SCO management interface (Figure 1) is an access point to the learning object
repository and provides the tools necessary for adding and editing and registering
SCOs into the system. The SCORM aggregation model defines the basic SCO
information, like name, description and keywords. We have extended the SCORM
specification by assigning the SCO with the weighted learning outcomes (skills). These
learning outcomes are predefined in the system and have been related to each other in a
hierarchy, which consists of skills categories in a tree type structure.

Figure 1.
The SCO management
interface
CWIS The course management interface
22,2 The course management interface (Figure 2) is used to create courses from the SCOs in
the repository. Courses are split into key stages, which define a series of weighted skills
that the trainee has to achieve to progress passed that stage. Like the skills associated
into the SCOs, these skills are mapped to the same skill hierarchy. In addition, the course
author assigns each stage with the learning objects that fulfil the requirements of the key
64 stage. This forms a basic course structure and is called a default learning path.

Learning navigator
The learning navigator (Figure 3) is an interface that is used by the learner when
proceeding through the courseware. It presents the learner with the course structure
that consists of stage SCOs and proximate SCOs. The stage SCO is a learning object
that has been authored to be part of the course. The proximate SCOs are dynamically
pulled out from the learning object repository and recommended for the learner, based
on the skill relations that are assigned to the stage SCOs, the trainee’s knowledge of the
learning path recommended made by the routing engine.
The example demonstrated in Figure 3 is part of a course on “protecting individuals
form abusive behaviour”. There are three stage SCOs before the first key stage. Each
stage SCO has been grouped together with the additional proximate SCOs. If the path
viewed had been the default path (original path authored by the learner manager) the
path would be a straight line. However, the path deviates from this and shows a path
that has been chosen by the routing engine. The learning navigator is also a learner’s

Figure 2.
The course management
interface
 Learner
management
system

65

Figure 3.
The learning navigator

visualisation tool to get all the necessary information about the course structure and its
different entities. This information can be divided in to two parts, the visual data and
the text-based data. The text-based data is mainly displayed in roll-over popup
windows and contains detailed information about the SCOs, skills, and key stages (e.g.
name, description etc.). The visual data can be listed as:
(1) Stage SCOs.
(2) Proximate SCOs.
(3) Key stages.
(4) Proximate SCO relations to stage SCO.
(5) Relevancy of the SCO, which depends on the:
.
trainee level of the SCOs (skills associated for the SCOs);
.
SCO relevancy towards the key stage; and
.
SCO relevancy for the stage SCO.
(6) Different paths with the order of the SCOs.
(7) Current course position.

Routing engine
The decisions made by the routing engine follow loosely the framework used by
Karagiannidis et al. (2001). He defines the layered structure for the evaluation for
adaptive and personalised learning services, which uses two distinct high level
processes; interaction assessment and adaptation decision making. The interaction
assessment phase makes the high-level conclusions from the learner’s interactions
during their learning. These conclusions are analysed by the adaptation
decision-making component, which personalises the content for the learner. The
NTP routing engine (Figure 4) applies this framework in the manner that complies
CWIS
22,2

66

Figure 4.
The high level architecture
of the routing engine

with the requirements of the SCORM specification. The interaction assessment has
been implemented in the SCO performance assessment module. This component makes
the conclusions based on the communication interchange using the SCORM RTE,
rather than monitoring low-level events such as keystrokes and mouse clicks.
Conclusions such as “the trainee ‘Mike’ has achieved 47 per cent on the ‘protecting
individuals form abuse’ – skill”, are based on the prior knowledge and analysis of
standard SCORM data items lesson-status and score. The benefit of this approach is
that the learning content can be authored to the SCORM standard and all objects in the
repository, whatever their subject domain, can be scheduled by the system. Some
limited extensions to the SCORM standard had to be made so that SCOs could be
linked to specific skills. Karagiannidis et al.’s (2001) adaptation decision making
component is implemented in the pathway generator module. This module passes the
information about the stage SCOs, proximate SCOs and pathways to the learning
navigator. The paths implemented so far include:
.
original: one that was authored;
.
generic: with SCOs that will generate widest range of knowledge;
.
fastest: based on time taken by the previous users; and
.
suggested: contains SCOs that best fit the users performance and entry profile.

Implementation architecture
The system has been implemented using a client side Java Applet as the SCORM API
and the learning navigator, providing the graphical user interface and interactivity
required by the learning navigator. The functionality of the routing engine and all
database access was left on the server side Java servlet, implementing a scalable
distributed client-server framework (Figure 5). Even though there are other
technologies to implement the required system (Sherman et al., 2000), this framework Learner
was chosen because of its benefits: management
.
Java applet can be used to implement high quality interactive graphical interface; system
.
fast response times compared to http-CGI architecture;
.
logical functionality mainly in the server side minimises the download size of
applet; and 67
.
distributed architecture provided.

Validation strategy
The success of the proposed system is identified through meeting pre-defined learning
outcomes, analysis of whether the pedagogical benefits match the estimations, and if
the logic of the system is suggesting relevant learning paths for the learner. The paper
follows the same validation process as Karagiannidis et al. (2001) as a means of
measuring performance. Validation will measured through specific focus on three
areas:
(1) Overall success at increasing learning efficiency, i.e. comparison with and
without the learning navigator facility.
(2) Whether the SCO performance assessment module can provide enough
information to the pathway generator such that useful decisions can be made.
(3) Success of proximate SCO and pathway recommendations of the pathway
generator.

The benefits to NTP Ltd and their customers

E-learning has provided a way through the use of technology for NTP to increase the
effectiveness of its training and to decrease development costs. The cost of creating
e-learning content is typically far greater than developing material for traditional
classroom instruction. This cost only becomes viable when the e-learning content is
used to train a large number of students. However, this one-size-fits-all approach has
proven not to be the best approach for NTP who specialise in training a diverse range
of people, in various industries, from different social economic backgrounds. It is for
this reason that NTP’s strategy has been to reduce costs and increase flexibility by
supporting industry standards, such as SCORM, that facilitate learning object re-use
and adaptive sequencing. NTP see the use of learning objects as key to the effective
and efficient use of learning content delivered through a LMS.
A major issue with the effectiveness, and ROI, received by e-learning is student
retention. NTP trainee’s could be involved in vocations that vary from meatpacking
poultry to designing super structures. As a consequence, their trainees tend to have a

Figure 5.
The implementation
architecture
CWIS wide variety of learning styles, motivation, and susceptibilities. A fixed learning path
22,2 methodology is incapable of detecting different capabilities and will not provide the
most effective training experience for the entire audience. The methodologies
discussed in this paper are able to deliver a unique blend of training that meets a
diverse audience. It is well established that greater relevance leads to an improvement
of retention and better learning. NTP is now able to offer their customers improved
68 learning efficiency through the “learning navigator” that allows trainees to see options
that best suit their individual learning style, cadence, skill-gap and existing knowledge
base. This technology optimises courseware delivery and increases the effectiveness of
the learning experience. This factor, combined with the cost saving benefits of object
re-use, provides NTP with a formidable unique selling point.

Concluding comments
To conclude the paper identifies how a LMS can be extended to provide individualised
tuition through a design process focused on a cognitive learning style approach that
extends current LMS software developments from both a technical and pedagogical
perspective. An individualised training experience in the context of the designed LMS
has been demonstrated to lead to improved learning based on the identified
performance measures. We have outlined how courses can be represented as small
discrete re-usable SCOs, stored in a learning repository, retrieved, and allocated
dynamically at runtime. The system developed is non-dictatorial and provides
guidance in the form of different routes through SCOs to meet the same learning
objectives. The continued proliferation of e-learning solutions and the increasing
number of trainees using LMSs means that the functions, which this project has
provided could play an essential role in increasing learning effectiveness in the
workplace.
Finally this development project extends current internationally recognized SCORM
specification by assigning the SCO with the weighted learning outcomes (skills), which
in addition embeds an automated validation approach directly into the design process
evaluation and performance measurement. In addition to standards development the
paper also extends our current knowledge of the role of adaptive technologies in
supporting learning styles.

References
Advanced Distributed Learning (2001), “Sharable content object reference model version 1.2
specification”, available at: www.adlnet.org
Alexander, S. (1995), “Teaching and learning on the world wide web”, AusWeb95, 1st Australian
World Wide Web Conference, available at: www.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausweb/ ausweb95/
papers/education2/alexander
Armstrong, S. (1999), “The influence of individual cognitive style on performance in
management education”, Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference of the European
Learning Styles Information Network, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, pp. 31-50.
Bahar, M. and Hansell, M. (1999), “The relationship between some psychological factors and their
effect on the performance of grid questions and word association tests”, Proceedings of the
4th Annual Conference of the European Learning Styles Information Network, University
of Central Lancashire, Preston, pp. 51-70.
Bogen, J.E. (1969), “The other side of the brain II: an appositional mind”, Bulletin of the Los Learner
Angeles Neurological Societies, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 313-20.
management
Brusilovsky, P. (2001), “User modeling and user-adapted interaction (UMUAI)”, Adaptive
Hypermedia, Vol. 11 No. 1/2, pp. 129-58. system
Clark, R.E. and Craig, T.G. (1992), “Research and theory on multi-media learning effects”,
in Giardina, M. (Ed.), Interactive Multimedia Learning Environments, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, pp. 19-30. 69
Curry, L. (1983), An Organisation of Learning Style Theory and Constructs, ERIC document, US
Department of Education, Washington, DC, p. 235.
Dunn, R. and Dunn, K. (1975), Educators’ Self-Teaching Guide to Individualising Instructional
Programs, Parker Publishing, New York, NY.
Felder, R.M. and Silverman, L.K. (1988), “Learning styles and teaching styles in engineering
education”, Engineering Education, Vol. 78, pp. 674-81.
Ford, N. (1999), “Learning styles for adaptive course delivery: problems and prospects”,
in Hill, J., Armstrong, S., Graff, M., Rayner, S. and Sadler-Smith, E. (Eds), Proceedings of
the 4th Annual Conference of the European Learning Styles Information Network,
University of Central Lancashire, Preston, pp. 187-202.
Goldstein, K.M. and Blackman, S. (1978), Cognitive Style: Five Approaches and Relevant Research,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Gregorc, A.R. (1982), Style Delineator, Gabriel Systems, Maynard, MA.
Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1992), The Manual of Learning Styles, Peter Honey, Maidenhead.
Jonassen, D.H. and Grabowski, B.L. (1993), Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning and
Instruction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Karagiannidis, C., Sampson, D. and Brusilovsky, P. (2001), “Empirical evaluation of user models
and user-adapted systems: a layered evaluation review”, 8th Panhellenic Conference on
Informatics, Workshop on Software Usability, Nicosia, 8-10 November.
Kobsa, A. (2001), “Generic user modeling systems”, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction,
Vol. 11, pp. 49-63, available at: www1.ics.uci.edu/,kobsa/papers/2001-UMUAI- kobsa.pdf
Luria, A.R. (1966), Higher Cortical Functions in Man, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Messick, S. (1984), “The nature of cognitive styles: problems and promises in educational
practice”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 19, pp. 59-74.
Molich, R. and Neilsen, J. (1990), “Improving a human-computer dialogue”, Communications of
the ACM, Vol. 38, pp. 31-3.
Moore, M.G. (1992), “Distance education theory”, American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 1-6.
Paterson, P. and Rosbottom, J. (1995), “Learning style and learning strategies in a multimedia
environment”, Association of Learning Technology Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 12-21.
Reiber, L.P. (1992), “Computer-based microworlds: a bridge between constructivism and direct
instruction”, Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 93-106.
Reynolds, M. (1997), “Learning styles: a critique”, Management Learning, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 115-33.
Riding, R.J. (1991), Cognitive Styles Analysis – CSA Administration, Learning & Training
Technology, Birmingham.
Riding, R.J. and Cheema, I. (1991), “Cognitive styles: an overview and integration”, Educational
Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3-4, pp. 193-215.
CWIS Riding, R.J. and Douglas, G. (1993), “The effect of cognitive style and mode of presentation on
learning performance”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 297-307.
22,2 Riding, R.J. and Pearson, F. (1994), “The relationship between cognitive style and intelligence”,
Educational Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 81-106.
Riechmann, S.W. and Grasha, A.F. (1974), “A rational approach to developing and assessing the
construct validity of a student learning style scales instrument”, The Journal of Psychology,
70 Vol. 87, pp. 213-23.
Ross, J.L. and Schulz, R.A. (1999), “Using the world wide web to accommodate diverse learning
styles”, College Teaching, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 123-9.
Sadler-Smith, E. (1997), “‘Learning styles’ and instructional design”, Innovations in Educational
and Training Technology, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 185-93.
Sherman, R.A., Singley, M.K. and Fairweather, P.G. (2000), “Porting a standalone intelligent
tutoring system to the web”, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Adaptive an
Intelligent Web-Based Educational Systems, in conjunction with ITS2000, Montreal, June.
Sperry, R.W. (1964), “The great cerebral commissure”, Scientific American, Vol. 210, pp. 42-52.
Tennant, M. (1988), Psychology and Adult Learning, Routledge, London.
Witkin, H.A. (1962), Psychological Differentation: Studies of Development, Wiley, New York, NY.

Further reading
Ford, N. (2000), “Cognitive styles and virtual environments”, Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 543-57.
Grasha, A.F. and Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000), “Integrating teaching styles and learning styles
with instructional technology”, College Teaching, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 2-10.
Mullier, D.J., Hobbs, D.J. and Moore, D.J. (1998), “A web-based intelligent tutoring system” (an
initial investigation into moving the ideas discussed in the previous papers into web
environment), Proceedings of NETIES, Leeds Metropolitan University, available at: www.
mullier.co.uk/NETIES.htm
Riding, R.J. and Rayner, S.G. (1998), Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies, David Fulton,
London.