Establishing and applying criteria for evaluating the portability of dynamic e-learning development platforms in tertiary institutions
PROCEEDINGS
Johnson Dehinbo, Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa
E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Orlando, Florida, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-83-9 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA
Abstract
The availability of many platforms for developing e-learning applications gives rise to the problem of choosing the most appropriate platform. Students' performance could be enhanced if the platform chosen by the institution for teaching the relevant concepts is very suitable in various respects including portability. This study establishes and apply a set of criteria for evaluating the portability of the platforms. These criteria were tested by evaluating four platforms namely Java Servlets, JavaServer Pages, Active Server Pages (ASP) and PHP Hypertext Processor using various research methods including descriptive inquiry, document analysis, observations and programming tests. While Java Servlet and JSP were found to be more portable on applying the criteria, the significance of the study lies in the establishment of a comprehensive but specific set of criteria that can be used as a scientific basis for selection.
Citation
Dehinbo, J. (2010). Establishing and applying criteria for evaluating the portability of dynamic e-learning development platforms in tertiary institutions. In J. Sanchez & K. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2010--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 467-474). Orlando, Florida, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 28, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/35589/.
© 2010 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map- Apte, V., Hansen, T. & Reeser, P. (2003). Performance comparison of dynamic Web platforms. Computer Communications. 26 (8) 888 – 898.
- Ashenfelter, J.P. (1999). Choosing a Database for Your WebSite. New York: John Wiley& Sons. Bakken, S.S. Et al. (2002). PHP Manual: Getting started [Online]. Available from: http://www.php.net/docs.php [Accessed: 02/02/2009].
- Bergin, J. (1996). Object Technology in the Classroom-Java as a Better C++. ACM SIGPLAN Curricular Patterns. 1 (2) 21-27.
- Bishop, J. & Hurter, R. (1999). Competitors to Java: Scripting languages. (Paper read at the South African Computer Lecturers Association-SACLA-conference, June, Golden Gate, South Africa). Unpublished.
- Bowling, A. (2002). Research methods in health. 2nd edition. Buckingham: Open University Press
- Coertze, D. & Heath, R. (1997). Research Methodology for Technikon Student. Durban: Technikon Natal publishing.
- Cooper, R. (2001). Software for managing websites. In: Proceedings of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists (SAICSIT) Annual conference. September 2001. Pretoria, South Africa: SAICSIT.
- Fuecks, H. (2004). Is PHP the natural upgrade path for ASP 3.0/VB 6? [Online]. Available from: http://www.sitepoint.com/blog-post-view.php?id=175686 [Accessed: 20/10/2009].
- Hadjerrouit, S. (1998). Java as first programming language: a critical evaluation. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin inroads. 30 (2) 43-47.
- Hamilton, M.A. (1996). Java and the Shift to Net-Centric Computing. IEEE Computing Practices. 1 (2) 31-39.
- Hartman, H. (2001). Tools for dynamic websites: ASP vs PHP vs ASP.NET. Seybold Report Analysing Publishing Technologies, 15339211 (12).
- Holt, R., Wortman, D., Barnard, D. & Cordy, J.R. (1977). SP/k: a system for teaching computer programming. Communications of the ACM. 20 (5) 301-309.
- Klopper, S. (2003). Comparing the three scripting languages: PHP, ASP and JSP with each other, in order to use the best option for a specific application. Technologiae. 1 (2003) 17-22.
- Kruse, W. (2003). A comparison of PHP and J2EE. Technologiae. 1 (2003) 110-117.
- Lerdorf, R. & Tatroe, K. (2002). Programming PHP. Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly & Associates Inc.
- Lim, B.L. (2002). Teaching Web development technologies: Past, present, and (near) future. Journal of Information Systems Education. 13 (2) 117-123.
- Marshak, M. & Levy, H. (2003). Evaluating Web user perceived latency using server side measurements. Computer Communications. 26 (8) 872-887.
- Okuthe, J & Bishop, J. (1999). Performance comparison of object models for Web based Distribution. In: Companion to the Proceedings of OOPLSA. November, 1999. Denver, USA: 102-104.
- Prechelt, L. (2000). An empirical comparison of seven programming languages. Computer. 33 (10) 23-29.
- Renaud, K., Lo, J., Bishop, J., van Zyl, P& Worrall, B. (1999). Algon: A framework for supporting comparison of distributed algorithm performance. In: Proceedings of PNDP conference, February 2003. Genoa. Rome: PNDP.
- Sebesta, R.W. (1996). Concepts of Programming Languages, 3rd edition. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
- Sun Educational Services. (2000). Web Component Development With Java Technology. SL-314 Student Guide. Revision A.1. New York: Sun Microsystems.
- Van Hoff, A. (1997). The case for Java as programming language. IEEE Internet Computing. 17 (1) 51-56.
- Vinoski, S. (2003). The performance presumption. IEEE Internet Computing. 7 (2) 88-90.
- Wiedenbeck, S., Ramalingam, V., Sarasamma, S. & Corritore, C.L. (1999). A comparison of the comprehension of objectoriented and procedural programs by novice programmers. Interacting with Computers. 11 (3) 252-282.
- Wigglesworth, J. & Lumby, P. (2000). Java Programming Advanced Topics. U.K.: Thompson Learning Course Technology.
- Yank, K. (2001). Which Server-Side Language is Right for You? [Online]. Available from: http://www.sitepoint.com/print/server-side-language-right [Accessed: 20/10/2009].
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References