This document summarizes a study on improving student learning through assessment using social media and e-Learning 2.0 on a distance education degree program in Sri Lanka. Specifically: - The study examines the Bachelor of Information Technology (BIT) program at the University of Colombo School of Computing, which has high failure and dropout rates. - Currently exams focus on factual recall through multiple choice questions, encouraging rote learning. Language barriers also negatively impact some students' performance. - The program aims to improve learning and reduce failure/dropout rates by designing new assessment methods using social media and e-Learning 2.0 to promote higher-order thinking. Data on student experiences will inform the redesign.

1. Improving student learning through assessment for learning
using social media and e­Learning 2.0 on a distance education
degree programme in Sri Lanka
Hakim Usoof (Umeå University, Sweden)
Gihan Wikramanayake (University of Colombo School of Computing, Sri Lanka)
Abstract
This study is part of a larger study into assessment practices on a large
distance education programme in Information Technology (BIT) based at the
University of Colombo, School of Computing (UCSC), Sri Lanka. The overall
development in which it is set is co‐ordinated by the National E‐learning
Centre of Sri Lanka based at UCSC. This project is involved in a longer‐term
study into summative assessment for the promotion of higher order thinking
on the part of students working on the BIT programme. This programme
involves annual enrolment of around 1500 students who work at a distance
with variable levels of support from local study centres. Against this
background there has been a continual process in place for improving failure
and drop out rates through the use of technology enhanced learning, which
most recently has involved the use of social media and e‐learning 2.0. This
paper will address the question of the ways in which the design process has
resulted in improving the student learning experience and in doing so will
draw on data from questionnaires and interviews directly with students.
Background
The University system
Sri Lanka has a state University system. The total number of Universities in Sri
Lanka is 15 in number with a total of 58,500 students and 3800 academics. In
addition to these, there are 9 other institutions that come under the University
Grants Commission (UGC). There is also one institution that awards degrees in IT
and Computer Science, which has no affiliation to the UGC but is sanctioned by
the Government to award degrees. These Universities and the Institution award
degrees of their own. There are also many other private institutions, which are
not sanctioned by the Government to award degrees. These institutions act as
proxies of foreign Universities that offer degrees in Sri Lanka.
The admission into the Universities and Institutions under the UGC is through
the results of the G.C.E. Advance Level (A/L) examination, which is a national
examination conducted by the Ministry of Education. The subjects’ students offer
at the G.C.E A/L examination dictates, which study programmes the students
may follow in University. From the total of 200,000 who sit for the examination
each year, 120,000 qualify with the minimum marks required for University
admission. Currently, the Universities in Sri Lanka can accommodate about
20,000 new admissions per year which is about 10% of the total number of
student sitting for the A/L examination and 16% of the total number that qualify
for admission to the Universities (Central Bank, 2006). These students follow
courses full‐time on‐campus (internal). Similar to primary and secondary
1

2. education, tertiary education is free in Sri Lanka. In addition to this, students
may be entitled to a monthly scholarship during their stay at University.
In addition to these full‐time internal degrees offered by the Universities and
Institutions, there are also study programmes referred to as external degrees. In
most occasions, the individuals reading for these are part‐time students and take
the courses off‐campus (external). The admission to these degree programmes
may be based on the G.C.E A/L results and/or through a qualifying examination.
The BIT degree programme
The BIT degree programme is conducted by the UCSC. It is an external degree
where students with an interest in Information Technology (IT) can follow three
year study programme. The students have the option of continuing or leaving the
programme on the completion of each year with certification. If the student
achieves above a minimum criteria in his or her examinations, the student is
awarded the Diploma in IT (DIT) at the end of the 1st year and the Higher
Diploma in IT (HDIT) at the end of the 2nd year and at the end of the final year, he
or she will be awarded the degree of Bachelor of IT (BIT).
Students who follow the BIT study programme have a diverse level of education
and also have diverse objectives. Following are some of the most common
categories of students who take the BIT study programme:
 Individuals vying for a degree soon after their Advanced Level
examination
 Individuals following parallel degrees or seeking a second degree in
different subject areas or related subjects areas
 Individuals from the IT industry or expecting to obtain a career in the IT
industry (May already posses a degree in a different subject area or a
diploma in IT or Computer Science)
 Individuals vying for a degree despite failing the Advanced Level
examination
 Individuals looking for a Foundation in IT leading only to DIT.
The number of students following the BIT programme varies greatly among
years but the number of students progressing through the programme follows a
similar pattern. In certain years the dropout rate has been as high as 55%. The
failure rate and the dropout rate have been identified as a major issue of the BIT
study programme. The limited assistance for learning from the UCSC and the
issues in the assessment system have been identified as problem areas during
the analysis of the BIT degree programme.
2

3. Learning and Teaching in the BIT degree programme
The students in the BIT degree programme use various study methods.
Attending private institutes that conduct classes for the BIT study programme,
self‐studying and group studying have been identified as the most common
methods of preparing for the exam. It is very common for students to use a
combination of these methods. But it is important to point out that some
students only use self‐studying.
The students in most cases have access to the student manuals (detailed text
about subject matter) created for each course, reference books, BIT Virtual
Learning Environment (VLE) with Online learning content, assignments, practice
tests, etc., CDs with TV programmes and videos and, Notes and handouts given
by the institutions they attend classes.
The UCSC plays a very limited role in the actual learning process and act as a
more administrative body. The administration of students and the preparation,
conducting and marking of examination and the accrediting students are the
main activities conducted by the UCSC. The learning process is aided by the UCSC
by the designation of a detailed syllabus with the learning outcomes, the topics
to be covered and specific references, development of the student manuals and
creation of assignments and practice tests and on‐line learning content. The BIT
VLE has been added by the SIDA funded eBIT project in an attempt to improve
the support provided for learning. The VLE consists of online learning content,
documents, slideshows, videos and forums and runs on Moodle.
The students do not have any direct contact with the academic staff who handle
the courses. The lecturer in‐charge of the course has a distinct set of activities
that he or she has to perform. They are preparing the course syllabus, developing
the student manual, moderating the content developed for VLE, creating TV and
Video programmes, creating the assignments and practice tests and creating and
marking the final examination. The lecturer gets paid separately for his
contribution to the BIT degree programme, but the work done is not
accumulated to his University workload. In its latest attempt to aid the students’
learning process, the UCSC has allocated an e‐Facilitator (a dedicated individual)
for each course to address student questions.
Current Assessment
At the end of the course, the students sit for an examination conducted by the
UCSC at a designated examination centre. The final examination contributes
100% marks in determining the final grade of the student for the particular
course. The examination centres may be located in a few major cities in Sri Lanka
as well as some other countries that have a substantial number of students. The
year 1 examination consists of 40‐60 Multiple Choice questions (MCQs) while
structured questions are introduced from year 2 onwards. These questions bare
an inclination towards testing factual knowledge rather than higher order skills,
which also encourage students to rote learning. Literature too supports this fact
that MCQs encourage rote learning (Scouller 1994 1998, Gipps 1994, Paxton
3

4. 2000). Another identified issue is the guessing factor when dealing with MCQs.
Prior to the current syllabus revision, the BIT exams discouraged guessing in
answering by penalizing wrong answers, this method was changed in the revised
syllabus to improve pass rates and also increase the student’s level of confidence
by penalising students for guessing within the question, instead of carrying
forward the negative mark to the next question as it was before the 2006
revision. Innovative MCQ development such as “confidence measurement”
(Farrell & Leung 2004, Davis 2002) and “computer adaptive testing” (Conole &
Warburton 2005) still may be adapted to solve this issue, but it still does not
fully eliminate the guessing factor and the argument that MCQs feed the answer
rather the student constructing the answer. The possibility of guessing adds to
the issues of validity of the MCQ assessment system used in the BIT study
programme.
Another identified issue is the language problem of students. The BIT study
programme is conducted in English, which is the second language to the majority
of the students. This also causes issues that some students find it difficult to
understand the question, thus creating unfair assessment by them.
Computer Literacy and Internet penetration in Sri Lanka
According to a survey done in 2004, Sri Lanka has a 10% computer literacy rate,
which varies from a high of 20% in the Colombo district to a low of 3% in the
Monaragala district. The Internet penetration is about 0.7% and this too varies
from a high of 1.8% in the Western province to a low of 0.1% in Uva, North
Central and Sbaragamuwa provinces (Department of Census and Statistics,
2004). Since 2002 the introduction of General Information Technology (GIT) as a
subject for G.C.E A/L students ICT being a subject from 2008 in the G.C.E O/L
exams have helped improve the Computer Literacy of students leaving school
(De Silva, 2007). Current literacy rate is claimed to be reaching 30% (Daily News,
2009).
Progression of Technology in the BIT
The BIT degree programme, which commenced in 2000, has undergone three
major revisions, which can be classified into three phases.
1. Pre‐LMS from 2000/01 to 2002/03 (First three years)
The learning assistance provided for students during this phase was
mainly the following;
• Static www.bit.lk website to provide information
• Detail syllabi with recommended text books
• Model papers and Model answers
• Some PowerPoint slides
• A few lessons through TV
• Private Institutional support
4

5. 2. LMS from 2003/04 to 2005/06 (Next three years) – Introduced LMS with
practice quizzes and unsupervised assessments that has to be passed in
addition to the final examination to be qualified for Diploma and Higher
Diploma certificates.
More support was offered to students during this phase. They included
• More dynamic website
• Detail syllabi with Learning Objectives, recommended text books
and reference page numbers
• Practice quizzes and Assignments
• Introduction of a Collaborative Learning model
Drawbacks of this phase were the facts that it lacked Constructive
alignment between syllabus, learning resources and assessment. Also the
failure of the Collaborative learning model was a key drawback. The
repercussion was a negative impression that the BIT lacked student‐
learning support. Furthermore, there was a lack of connection between
continuous assessment and end semester examinations.
3. eBIT from 2006/07 onwards (two batches so far) – e‐learning content,
quizzes and activities for year 1 and activities and quizzes for year 2.
A radical change occurred in this phase with much more support for
students’ learning through a strict adherence to Constructive Alignment
between Syllabus, Learning Content and Assessment. The implementation
of rich learning content and learning activities aimed at improving
students’ learning was a vast improvement over the previous phase.
Another improvement was the introduction of Formative Assessment and
the creation of a clear relationship between Formative and Summative
assessment in the eBIT phase.
The use of Forum and Chat facilities within the BIT VLE to enhance
student interaction and collaborative learning is also a key difference in
the eBIT phase. The use of ‘UCSC TV’ for streaming related programmes is
another initiative to help students in their learning process. The creation
of a social network instance called the eBIT Community using the Elgg is
also another attempt to use Social Media for students’ collaborative
learning and interaction. Previously BIT students had very little
opportunity to get their issues and questions addressed. The introduction
of an e‐Facilitator for each course has helped address this issue in the
eBIT phase.
The three phases have been compared to each other considering two factors, the
Enrolment and Progression of students.
Enrolment
Enrolment refers to the number of registered students for a particular academic
year of the BIT degree programme. This can be looked at in two different views.
First the numbers of new students joining the BIT degree programme and
second the numbers of students remaining within the entire BIT degree
programme.
5

6. For example, the 1st year Enrolment for 2007/08 was 1558 students. The
Average 1st Year Enrolment for the three phases is 3630 for the Pre‐LMS, 1678
for the LMS and 1377 for the eBIT. The drop in enrolment can mainly be
accredited to the fact that during the inception, most students thought they could
“just do a degree” and also the fact that a conception was created that the BIT
was difficult to follow and lacked student support.
The average enrolments for the three years (including repeat candidates) during
the three phases were 5358 for the Pre‐LMS, 4398 for the LMS and 3663 for the
eBIT (is expected to become around 4000 with the 2008/09 intake).
In the 2007/2008 Academic year, the BIT degree programme saw 781 students
progressing to Year 2 for the first time and 284 students progressing to Year 3
for the first time with some of them having very few repeat papers.
It is important to mention that there is a cross batch effect on the figures, for
example the 1st Year students of the LMS‐phase of academic year 2005/2006
would be in the eBIT phase as 3rd Year students in the academic year 2007/2008.
Progression
Progression can be looked at as, how many students continue to progress
through the degree programme achieving at least the minimum required results
to progress to the next year of study. It can also be considered as an indicator for
students passing their exams.
Academic Year 1st time Dropouts Obtained 1st time Dropouts Obtained
success to from CIT/DIT success to from ACIT/HDIT
proceed previous (%) proceed previous (%)
from Year Year 1 (%) from Year Year 2 (%)
1 to Year 2 2 to Year 3
(%) (%)
2000/2001 12 46 4 N/A N/A N/A
2001/2002 9 54 6 38 12 14
2002/2003 12 50 10 53 14 20
2003/2004 22 54 13 63 23 32
2004/2005 21 50 13 58 16 30
2005/2006 21 46 14 50 13 30
2006/2007 51 37 16 57 13 30
2007/2008 45 36 17 51 26 33
Table 1. Student progression indicators and achieving certification
Year 1 to Year 2
The VLE of the BIT degree programme provide first year students with student
manuals for each course, e‐leaning content, practice quizzes, assignments,
learning activities and CD with TV programmes. The first year students have a
great deal of learning support and can also call upon the assistance of an e‐
Facilitator assigned for each course.
6

7. A fourfold improvement in progression of first year students to the second year
can be seen when comparing the Pre‐LMS phase to the eBIT phase and a twofold
improvement when comparing the LMS phase to the eBIT phase of the BIT
degree programme. The average first time successes were 11% for the Pre‐LMS
phase, 21% for the LMS phase and 47% for the eBIT phase.
Year 2 to year 3
Unlike for the first year students, the second year students do not receive as
much support from the VLE. They are provided with quizzes and learning
activities. When comparing the second year figures, it is important to note that
repeat students benefited from the fact that the Math II and Computer Networks
papers were made optional.
There is no considerable difference in the first time success rates between the
three phases of the BIT. Even though there has been an increase in the number of
students achieving the HDIT certification, it is not visible as a percentage since
there is an increase in the number of students following the second year. The
average first time successes were 51% for the Pre‐LMS phase, 55% for the LMS
phase and 51% for the eBIT phase.
From the above figures, it is clear that there is a great improvement in the first
year of the BIT degree programme in student passing and student retention, but
there is no change in the figures for the second year. The considerable
technology‐enhanced learning support provided for students in the first year and
the lack of such considerable support in the second year, shows a clear relation
to the improvement in the high dropout rate in the first year and the lack of such
a change in the second year. It is clear that extremely high dropout rate, which
was a key issue of the BIT, has been addressed to a certain extent by the advent
of technology‐enhanced learning in the first year. Furthermore the numbers of
new students enrolling in the BIT degree program has stabilised at around 1500.
This figure may even grow with the BIT programme beginning to gaining a
reputation as a study programme that provides Distance Education and supports
student learning.
Social Media and the BIT
There have been several attempts both by the UCSC and BIT students too create
a presence on the Internet using social media.
The UCSC has created an eBIT community using the Elgg environment as an
attempt to create collaborative learning and encourage student interaction.
Furthermore, Moodle Forums and Chats are being currently used not only to
encourage collaborative learning and student interaction, but also to address
student issues and questions via the e‐Facilitators. The UCSC has also used a
YouTube account in addition to ‘UCSC TV’ to provide accessibility for students to
view the BIT TV programmes.
In addition to the UCSC initiative, students and Institutions that cater to the BIT
syllabus have taken their own initiatives. These include eight groups on
7

8. Facebook, one Google group, a Blog and a video sharing on Magnify.net. The
membership varies from 21 to 307 in these networks.
It is observed through many student comments for example;
“Heya evry1. Great c ya all in 1 place!!!!!!!!”
“I think this is a better way to share information about what we know & what we
want to know about the newest systems & technology. So that it'll be a big deal to
achieve our goals in life.
So dear mates, if you've got anything new just use this group to spread that among
all of our BIT friends.”
And the following is a response (original text of student) to an email interview of
the BIT student on the question “Do you think that students' online contributions
to the community (posting links, discussing, commenting, helping other etc.)
should be rewarded by some marks for the BIT assessment?”
“People normally contribute to a community because their tech interest and when
they are experienced about the same problem. For example if someone asks a
question about C++ programming and if I knew it well, then I'm very glad to
answer that question and share the facts. It should be rewarded, like other
communities do look at the daniweb.com site, they using a "points" and "star"
system to reward the members who contribute. that should be added to the
member profile and his badge. for example if you are good contributor in the form
C++ , when you gone to a C++ job interview you can say I'm a member of this
community that have this points and this number of solved number of threads in
C++. But it should not be mix with the assessment marks, cause it will be another
overhead. use the interest not force them. and it's not actually fair to give some
marks for the contributions for this community cause exam is a different thing”
that students have expectations of providing and gaining help and building a
social network with fellow BIT students.
Even though there are encouraging signs in the initial stage of creating or joining
a social network of the BIT, there seems to be a lack of motivation and responses
for the community to flourish. This could be due to that fact that online‐learning
communities depend on some key factors (Hiltz, 1998);
1. Behaviour moulded, modelled and encouraged by the instructor.
There have been not many activities that have been introduced in the BIT
that encourage, mould and model collaborative learning and building of
community.
2. Software structures that will support group collaboration.
Moodle, the Elgg environment, Facebook and other social media sites
have provided the software structures needed to support group
collaboration, but students do see some issues with these too, evident by
the following comment “I see the elgg user interface isn't looking good and
nt user friendly personally”.
3. Learner’s ability and willingness to participate regularly.
8

9. Limited access to the Internet, time management issues of BIT students
especially part time students who are employed, bandwidth issues, lack of
online social networking experience and lack of taking responsibility for
their own learning too may be the reasons for the lack of progress in
collaborative learning in these social networks. Furthermore the
deficiencies in expressiveness and a Cultural factor of not asking
questions too may affect the progression of the social Network.
Learning Communities & Collaborative Learning
An inherent issue in the BIT degree program is the lack of a Teacher. This creates an
environment where the student is isolated unless that student attends an institute that
caters to the BIT syllabus. One solution for this scenario is to create an online
learning community where the students collaborate in learning and take responsibility
for their own and their peers’ learning.
Mioduser, Nachmias et.al. (1999), and Mioduser and Nachmias (2002) define a
learning community as a novel educational system based on the combination of three
components: a virtual community (social dimension), hosted by an appropriate virtual
environment (technological dimension), and embodying advanced pedagogical ideas
(educational dimension).
Ludwig‐Hardman and Dunlap (2003) define a learning community as a group of
people, connected via technology mediated communication, who actively engage
one another in collaborative learner‐centered activities to intentionally foster
the creation of knowledge, while sharing a number of values and practices,
including diversity, mutual appropriation, and progressive discourse.
What is clear in both these definitions is that there are three elements that are
key; a technological element, a social element and an educational element. Even
if one of these elements were missing, there would not be a learning community.
As Lowell and Persichitte (2000) say “simply requiring learner interaction in
asynchronous environments does not promote a sense of community”.
The three factors Hiltz (1998) mentions can be clearly related to the above
elements and can also be identified in Figure 01 that depicts a Conditional Matrix
by Brown (2001) where the darker shades define higher engagement in class
and dialogue, and feelings of belonging to a community.
9

10.
Figure 01. Conditional Matrix for community (Brown, 2001)
Student perspective on assessment
Survey
A survey was carried out to obtain the students’ perspective on assessment. An
online questionnaire was posted on the LMS of the BIT degree programme. The
questionnaire targeted 1st year students of the BIT degree following the
Computer Systems I course. The total number of respondents was 45. The total
number of students who viewed the questionnaire were 121, hence a 37%
response ratio. 73% of the respondents were male, which is close relation to the
gender ratio of BIT students.
Majority of the students who took this questionnaire were following the BIT
degree programme in order to pursue a career in the IT industry or to gain
knowledge in ICT. Furthermore, 76% followed the study programme as part‐
time while about 50% of the candidates are employed. While majority of the
students were taking the degree after their advance level examination, about
10% were pursuing a parallel degree or completed a bachelor’s degree. 64% of
10

11. the students were either following or hoping to follow an additional study
programme.
Results
• Regarding type of exams and grading methods, students preferred
Computer based continuous online assignments from home the most,
followed by paper and pencil tests. The least preferred were printed
reports/dissertations. 67% preferred end of course exams coupled with
continuous assignments as their most preferred grading method, while
22% preferred continuous assignments during the course deciding the final
grade.
• 100% of the respondents thought that audio and video in addition to text
and graphics would help them express their knowledge better, while 82%
preferred a change in the way they are assessed in BIT, 29% preferred
practical test the most, 24% preferred web portfolios/online exams and
16% preferred Open book/take home tests. As the preferred mode of
expression, 64% preferred written and typed text, 62% audio‐video and
67% Graphics and Images.
• In the issue of Language of study, 86% had at least a ’C’ grade for O/L
English and 67% had at least a ‘C’ grade for A/L English. 51% followed
were hoping to follow an additional English course. 60% preferred to use a
different language to English as their preferred language of expression.
• 80% thought that time pressure during examinations affected the quality of
their answer, 38% felt nervous and scared during exams. Furthermore,
82% thought that they performed better in real life than in examinations.
But ironically, the 53% thought that exams were fair in assessing their real
ability and knowledge. On preference of Assessment types, the most
preferred were MCQs, Open Book/Take home tests and Practical Tests. The
least preferred were Reports/Dissertation and Essay Type papers.
• As for study methods for the BIT programme, 82% would use Self‐Study,
13% Face‐to‐Face group study, 20% online Group study and 58% would
attend Group Classes.
• 93% and 96% often used computers for Education and Internet for
Education respectively
• With regard to studying, Passing exams were the main purpose of 18% of
the students and 13% thought that passing exams was the most important
aspect. 58% of students also stated that the study method they use for
Multiple Choice Question exams are different from how they study for non‐
MCQ exams. 93% of the students had experienced MCQ exams; only 13%
and 29% had experienced Reports/Dissertation and Viva/Interviews
respectively. 47% had experienced Web Portfolios/Online exams.
Findings
1. Students prefer continuous assessment with an end examination.
2. Students prefer the use of multi‐media for examinations.
3. Students have an acceptable command of English, but majority prefer
their own mother tongue.
4. Students lacked confidence about the assessment system and methods.
11

12. In addition, standardised examinations affected students in a negative
way.
5. Majority of students self study, and about 42% have very little
interaction with other students or Teachers.
6. Students were used to using computers and the Internet for Education.
7. Students have varying experiences with different types of assessment.
Assessment Design
Since there is very little or no Teacher involvement in the BIT degree
programme, students have very little interaction with teachers and hardly get
any feedback. Furthermore, there is very little peer‐interaction among students
since there is not always a common class they attend. Students are also diverse
with many following the BIT part‐time. The solution suggested to address this
issue is to create assessment with peer‐assessment so that it builds a community
of learning. Social‐Constructivist Assessment is a suggestion where students may
use different media and social media technologies to create their assignments
and also provide feedback to their peers. This is also in line with the concept of
“Lifelong Assessment” (Boud, 2000).
The assessment designed takes into consideration theories on Learning
Communities and the students’ perspective on assessment. In a study done by
Brown (2001), her students defined three degrees of community.
1. Making Acquaintances/Friends
2. Community Conferment
3. Camaraderie
The design of activities in this online collaborative environment will target the
achievement of at least the first two degrees, thereby leading to the third degree,
where students will go beyond a simple peer relationship. Activities such as
icebreakers (Dixon, Crooks and Henry, 2006), forum discussions, group problem
solving and peer‐assessment, etc. supported with different peer‐rating strategies
will aim to build a cohesive learning community.
In a previous study of the BIT programme, it was identified that students were
aware of the importance of Formative Assessment and “Assessment for
Learning” (Andersson, 2008). Furthermore, her study showed that students’
value peer‐collaboration and its importance to improving learning. Her findings
were confirmed in my results, thus the assessment model must have a formative
assessment, with the purpose of Assessment for Learning.
According to Greenhow, Robelia and Hughes (2009), Today’s graduating
students face technological competencies that emphasize the capacity for
innovation, leadership, multidisciplinary collaboration, collective problem
identification, and resolution in a dynamic, digital environment. Hence
Assessment methods that promote factual learning and do not support the
nurture of multiple skills need to be replaced with alternate assessment
methods. Furthermore, according to Gulikers, Bastiaens and Krischner (2004), in
12

13. a model attempting to assess higher order thinking process and competencies,
the assessment has to change from being summative to also serving a formative
goal of promoting and enhancing student learning. Gulikers further goes onto
state that this purpose requires alternative assessments because standardized,
multiple‐choice tests are not suitable for this.
Taking into consideration the students’ view, students have identified the power
of multi‐media for expressing their knowledge, and they have expressed their
preference to use Web Portfolios/Online examination. Hence the use of Social
Media such as Blogs, Wikis, and Video Sharing etc. would help students to tackle
assessment in more creative ways, addressing issues of Higher‐order skills than
simple MCQs.
Even though the majority refer to the use of their mother tongue as the preferred
language of expression, with the current issues of Localization of systems and
availability of resources and expertise, the Language issue would not be readily
addressed at this juncture. With a high percentage of students having above ‘C’
grades for English would allow for this. Furthermore, about 50% of students
were or were hoping to follow an additional English course. The recently
commenced Pre‐BIT course, referred to as the Fundamentals of IT course (FIT)
has included an English course to support students in improving their English
Language skills.
Attempting to make assessment “time‐and‐place independent” would to a
certain extent negate negative aspects of standardised examinations.
Furthermore including the “student perspective” in the Assessment would build
confidence of students in the Assessment system (Stiggins, 1999).
Discussion
The analysis of the different phases of the BIT degree programme has shown that
there has been a clear improvement in the student dropout rates and first time
passing of exams in the first year, which was supported through technology‐
enhanced learning, but did not show a change in the figures of the second year,
which was not provided such considerable support. This pattern can only be
attributed to careful design consideration of the first year of the eBIT phase
aimed at improving support for student learning.
Even though there has been clear success in the design for learning, the attempts
to create a learning community and a collaborative learning environment have
not been as successful. The main reason that can be attributed to this seems the
lack of activity modelling and encouragement for community building and
creation of collaborative learning.
The solution planed as a pilot project for a group volunteer first year students
following the Computer Systems I course will use community building and
collaborative learning activities to encourage the creation of a learning
community and use peer‐assessment as the building block for learning within
13

14. the community. The pilot study will be used to design future learning
communities and assessment activities aimed at promoting learning and
improving the BIT degree programme.
Conclusion
The overall review of the BIT programme and the observation of student
activities reiterate the fact that there is room for further improvement of student
learning through increased support through e‐Leanring 2.0. Furthermore
student participation is required in form of informal learning for effective and
active use of social media. It is clear that further support needs to be provided by
means of encouragement and Community building activities in order to
stimulate the students’ social networking.
Acknowledgements
The researchers wish to express their deepest gratitude to;
The Swedish Program for ICT in Developing Regions (SPIDER) for the support
provided for the National eLearning Centre Project.
The BIT Students for their support in providing feedback.
Dr. Ruvan Weerasinghe, Director UCSC.
Dr. Priyantha Hewagamage, Coordinator, National eLearning Centre.
BIT Academic and Administrative Staff.
Prof. Brian Hudson for his valued guidance and motivation.
Reference
Andersson, A. (2008). Seven major challenges for e‐learning in developing
countries: Case study eBIT, Sri Lanka. International Journal of Education and
Development using ICT. 4 (3).
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning
society. Studies in Continuing Education. 22 (2), p151‐167.
Brown, R.E. (2001). The process of community‐building in distance learning
classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 5 (2), p18‐35.
Central Bank of Sri Lanka (2006). Annual Report of the Monetary Board to the
Hon. Ministry of Finance. Colombo: Central Bank of Sri Lanka. p53.
Conole, G and Warburton, B. (2005). A review of computer‐assisted assessment.
Association for Learning Technology journal. 13 (1), p17.
Daily News (2009). Mega­development projects launched for country's future
generation . Available: http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/08/08/news22.asp. Last
14

15. accessed 8 Aug 2009.
Davies, P (2000), Computerized Peer Assessment. Innovations in Education and
Training International. 37 (4), p346‐355.
De Silva, C.H. (2007). Information Technology Education in the Sri Lankan School.
System: Challenges and Perspectives. Available: http://telearn.noe‐
kaleidoscope.org/warehouse/256_Final_Paper_(001730v1).pdf. Last accessed 5
Sep 2009.
Dixon, J.S, Crooks, H and Henry, K. (2006). Breaking the ice: Supporting
collaboration and the development of community online . Canadian Journal of
Learning and Technology. 32 (2), p99.
Farrell, G and Leung, Y.K. (2004). Innovative online assessment using confidence
measurement. Education and information technologies. 9 (1), p5.
Gipps, C (1994). Beyond Testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment.
London: Falmer Press. p20.
Greenhow, C, Robelia, B and Hughes, J.E. (2009). Now?Should We Take Learning,
Teaching, and Scholarship in a Digital Age: Web 2.0 and Classroom Research:
What Path . Educational Researcher. 38 (4), p246.
Gulikers, J.T.M, Bastiaens, T.J and Kirschner, P.A. (2004). A five‐dimensional
framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology, Research and
Development. 52 (3), p67.
Hiltz, S, R. (1998). Collaborative Learning in Asynchronous Learning Networks:
Building Learning Communities. Available:
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b
/80/17/5a/cc.pdf. Last accessed 8 Mar 2009.
Lowell, N.O and Persichitte, K.A. (2000). A Virtual Ropes Course: Creating Online
Community. Available: http://www.sloan‐
c.org/publications/magazine/v4n1/lowell.asp. Last accessed 13 Aug 2009.
Ludwig‐Hardman, S and Dunlap, J.C. (2003). Learner Support Services for Online
Students: Scaffolding for success. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning. 4 (1), p197.
Mioduser, D and Nachmias, R . (2002). WWW in Education: An Overview. In:
Adelsberger, H, Collis, B and Pawlowsky, M Handbook on Information
Technologies for Education & Training. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.
p23‐43.
Mioduser, D, Nachmias, R, Oren, A and Lahav, O. (2000). Web‐supported
emergent‐collaboration in higher education courses. Journal of educational
technology & society. 35 (3), p94.
15

16. Paxton, M. (2000). A linguistic perspective on multiple choice questioning.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 25 (2), p109.
Satharasinghe, A. (2004). Computer Literacy of Sri Lanka ­ 2004. Available:
http://www.statistics.gov.lk/cls2004/index.htm. Last accessed 15 Aug 2009.
Scouller, K and Prosser, M. (1994). Students' experiences in studying for multiple
choice question examinations . Studies in Higher Education. 19 (3), p267‐279.
Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students' learning
approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay.
Higher Education. 35 (4), p453‐472.
16