Content uploaded by Abdelraheem Mousa Basal
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abdelraheem Mousa Basal on Nov 21, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume 8, Number 24 http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
In this issue:
Building an Integrated Student Information System in a K-12 School
System
Annette Lerine Steenkamp Abdelraheem Basal
Lawrence Technological University Lawrence Technological University
Southfield, Michigan, MI 48075-1058 USA Southfield, Michigan, MI 48075-1058 USA
Abstract: The task of managing an IT system in a school environment poses unique challenges. For
example, one of the greatest challenges facing individual schools is the lack of integration between
various information systems. The present situation in many schools is that there are many discon-
nected systems managing many different tasks. Systems with differing levels of functionality run
independently of one another, causing multiple problems for the school’s overall IT system. Many
difficulties arise from inconsistently registered data, duplicate manual data entry, the extra time
needed to manage multiple user accounts for one user, and non-productive time spent on technical
support. In addition to these problems, the task of maintaining each individual system is time con-
suming. The challenges described above have prompted this research study. This study required an
examination of the system architecture of several typical K-12 School systems, and a comprehensive
understanding of the business and instructional needs of K-12 education.
Keywords: Learning Management System, Student Information System, Content Management
System, Web 2.0, MVC Framework, SaaS, Cloud Computing
Recommended Citation: Steenkamp and Basal (2010). Building an Integrated Student
Information System in a K-12 School System. Information Systems Education Journal, 8 (24).
http://isedj.org/8/24/. ISSN: 1545-679X. (A preliminary version appears in The Proceedings of
ISECON 2009: §3554. ISSN: 1542-7382.)
This issue is on the Internet at http://isedj.org/8/24/
ISEDJ 8 (24) Information Systems Education Journal 2
The Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) is a peer-reviewed academic journal
published by the Education Special Interest Group (EDSIG) of the Association of Information
Technology Professionals (AITP, Chicago, Illinois). •ISSN: 1545-679X. •First issue: 8 Sep 2003.
•Title: Information Systems Education Journal. Variants: IS Education Journal; ISEDJ. •Phys-
ical format: online. •Publishing frequency: irregular; as each article is approved, it is published
immediately and constitutes a complete separate issue of the current volume. •Single issue price:
free. •Subscription address: subscribe@isedj.org. •Subscription price: free. •Electronic access:
http://isedj.org/ •Contact person: Don Colton (editor@isedj.org)
2010 AITP Education Special Interest Group Board of Directors
Don Colton
Brigham Young Univ Hawaii
EDSIG President 2007-2008
Thomas N. Janicki
Univ NC Wilmington
EDSIG President 2009-2010
Alan R. Peslak
Penn State
Vice President 2010
Scott Hunsinger
Appalachian State
Membership 2010
Michael A. Smith
High Point Univ
Secretary 2010
Brenda McAleer
U Maine Augusta
Treasurer 2010
George S. Nezlek
Grand Valley State
Director 2009-2010
Patricia Sendall
Merrimack College
Director 2009-2010
Li-Jen Shannon
Sam Houston State
Director 2009-2010
Michael Battig
St Michael’s College
Director 2010-2011
Mary Lind
North Carolina A&T
Director 2010-2011
Albert L. Harris
Appalachian St
JISE Editor ret.
S. E. Kruck
James Madison U
JISE Editor
Wendy Ceccucci
Quinnipiac University
Conferences Chair 2010
Kevin Jetton
Texas State
FITE Liaison 2010
Information Systems Education Journal Editors
Don Colton
Professor
BYU Hawaii
Editor
Thomas N. Janicki
Associate Professor
Univ NC Wilmington
Associate Editor
Alan R. Peslak
Associate Professor
Penn State Univ
Associate Editor
Scott Hunsinger
Assistant Professor
Appalachian State
Associate Editor
Information Systems Education Journal 2009-2010 Editorial and Review Board
Samuel Abraham, Siena Heights
Alan Abrahams, Virginia Tech
Ronald Babin, Ryerson Univ
Michael Battig, St Michael’s C
Eric Breimer, Siena College
Gerald DeHondt II, Grand Valley
Janet Helwig, Dominican Univ
Mark Jones, Lock Haven Univ
Terri Lenox, Westminster Coll
Mary Lind, NC A&T University
Cynthia Martincic, St Vincent C
Brenda McAleer, U Maine Augusta
Fortune Mhlanga, Abilene Christian
George Nezlek, Grand Valley St U
Anene L. Nnolim, Lawrence Tech
Monica Parzinger, St Mary’s Univ
Don Petkov, E Conn State Univ
Steve Reames, American Univ BIH
Jack Russell, Northwestern St U
Sam Sambasivam, Azusa Pacific U
Bruce M. Saulnier, Quinnipiac
Mark Segall, Metropolitan S Denver
Patricia Sendall, Merrimack Coll
Li-Jen Shannon, Sam Houston St
Michael Smith, High Point Univ
Robert Sweeney, South Alabama
Karthikeyan Umapathy, U N Florida
Stuart Varden, Pace University
Laurie Werner, Miami University
Bruce A. White, Quinnipiac Univ
Charles Woratschek, Robert Morris
Peter Y. Wu, Robert Morris Univ
This paper was in the 2009 cohort from which the top 45% were accepted for journal publication.
Acceptance is competitive based on at least three double-blind peer reviews plus additional single-
blind reviews by the review board and editors to assess final manuscript quality including the
importance of what was said and the clarity of presentation.
c
Copyright 2010 EDSIG. In the spirit of academic freedom, permission is granted to make and
distribute unlimited copies of this issue in its PDF or printed form, so long as the entire document
is presented, and it is not modified in any substantial way.
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 3
Building an Integrated Student Information
System in a K-12 School System
Annette Lerine Steenkamp
Steenkamp@ltu.edu
Abdelraheem Basal
abasal@datapublix.com
College of Management
Lawrence Technological University
Southfield, Michigan, 48075-1058, USA
Abstract
The task of managing an IT system in a school environment poses unique challenges. For ex-
ample, one of the greatest challenges facing individual schools is the lack of integration be-
tween various information systems. The present situation in many schools is that there are
many disconnected systems managing many different tasks. Systems with differing levels of
functionality run independently of one another, causing multiple problems for the school’s
overall IT system. Many difficulties arise from inconsistently registered data, duplicate manual
data entry, the extra time needed to manage multiple user accounts for one user, and non-
productive time spent on technical support. In addition to these problems, the task of main-
taining each individual system is time consuming. The challenges described above have
prompted this research study. This study required an examination of the system architecture
of several typical K-12 School systems, and a comprehensive understanding of the business
and instructional needs of K-12 education.
Keywords: Learning Management System, Student Information System, Content Manage-
ment System, Web 2.0, MVC Framework, SaaS, Cloud Computing
1.
INTRODUCTION
More than ever before, K-12 schools are
adopting information systems to improve
and automate many processes that were
once manual. With this large-scale move-
ment towards IT systems and the increasing
pressure on schools to use technology to
improve student performance, many schools
are looking for a learning management sys-
tem as a way to enhance student learning:
Recent surveys show that K-12 online learn-
ing is a rapidly growing phenomenon (Pow-
ell, 2008).
Learning management systems have already
been implemented and used widely in insti-
tutions of higher education. Many U.S.
states, including Michigan, require an online
experience for all graduates (Michigan De-
partment of Education, January, 2006).
The introduction of learning management
systems into mainstream K-12 schools is
expected to solve some problems in this
education sector, but it also poses chal-
lenges, such as the major challenge of inte-
grating systems. Many factors make integra-
tion of disparate systems used in K-12
schools a complex task. Different informa-
tion technology architectures, software and
hardware systems, network platforms, lega-
cy systems, data structures, and applica-
tions already in place increase the complexi-
ty of the integration process (Perks and Be-
veridge 2003).
Such challenges apply equally to schools in
small and large school districts working with
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 4
information systems. The failure to integrate
their information systems is causing schools
many headaches due to inconsistent data,
duplicate manual data entry, extra time
needed to manage multiple user accounts
for individual users, and non-productive time
spent on technical support. In addition, the
task of maintaining all of the individual sys-
tems is time consuming.
Once a school system has all components of
the disparate systems integrated, with the
ability to access all of them from a single
sign on (SSO), the tedious task of keeping
track and maintaining the different systems
will disappear. This paper explains research
on building an integrated student informa-
tion system with a Learning Management
System, File Management System, and Con-
tent Management System for K-12 schools.
The proposed system will achieve the high-
est level of data quality because a single
source of data will be implemented and
maintained. Section 2 presents the context
for the research, Section 3 describes the
research approach, Section 4 presents the
approach to redesigning the architecture for
the integrated system, with some modeling
artifacts. Section 5 presents the demonstra-
tion of concept, a prototype), and Section 6
concludes with the summary and conclusions
of the project.
2. RESEARCH CONTEXT
Need for Study
A solution is needed to address the issues
discussed in the Introduction. This solution
would include building an online environ-
ment in which students, parents, teachers
and school administrators can share infor-
mation and outcomes, while also complying
with regulatory requirements and school
policies in a transparent manner. The con-
cerns of all stakeholders should be ad-
dressed in the form of an integrated enter-
prise architecture, which can result in a cost
effective, adaptable and scalable solution. A
clear roadmap of how to transform the indi-
vidual systems of a disparate architecture
into an integrated system based on a servic-
es orientation is also needed. Specifically,
research should be aimed at designing a
conceptual architecture for the next genera-
tion of integrated School Information Sys-
tems. This project was based on the Soft-
ware-as-a-Service (SaaS) model utilizing
Web 2.0 technologies.
Research focus
Addressing the problems stated above from
an architecture point of view required an
analysis of all systems in the K-12 environ-
ment. A Management Checklist (Perks & Be-
veridge, 2003) was used to identify systems
integration problems in nine charter schools
in southeast Michigan and northwest Ohio.
The answers to these questions, presented
in Table 1, lead us to take a holistic ap-
proach to examining the problems that
schools face in the area of systems integra-
tion.
Integration related Questions
Do your customers complain about your
inability to maintain accurate and consistent
information about them?
No
Do you find that changes required in one
system manifest themselves in costly
changes in other systems?
Yes
Do you find that integrating electronic in-
formation from customer and partners is
costly and lacks integrity?
Yes
Do management information reports
represent an inconsistent view of the cur-
rent operational state of the organization?
Yes
Are there problems with internal business
units communicating with each other elec-
tronically?
No
Has there been a lack of success in devel-
oping a corporate-wide shared knowledge
base?
No
Do IT projects sponsored directly by the
business exhibit integration and quality
problems when introduced into the IT envi-
ronment?
Yes
Is the integration between legacy and con-
temporary systems ineffective and costly?
Yes
Table 1: Management Checklist Answers
to Integration Problem
Background of the Study
At the time of writing, several disparate sys-
tems are being used in K-12 charter schools
in southeast Michigan. They are summarized
in this section. The current system consists
of several applications. A summary of these
applications provides some indication of
each system’s functionality.
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 5
Learning Management System
The main functions
of this system
course management,
the ability to
content, online student-
teacher
and student grading.
F
ile Management System:
allows all files to
be stored and accessed
from one secure server.
The schools use
MS W
indows 2003 file server
challenge
facing this system is that its u
need to link these file
types
and to
access their files from home or
the school campus.
Library System:
This system keeps track of
how students check materials out from the
Media Center.
Special Education System
helps keep track of a
student
lized Education Program (IEP)
made on a yearly basis. I
t also helps to track
which students use
different special services,
such as speech,
occupational
the school’s
resource room.
Student Information System:
based Student Information System
used since 2001 and is currently servin
schools
with more than 300 staff and 3000
students. The SIS
provides the functionality
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Current
Student Information
System F
unctionality
Assessment System:
This system keeps
track of student scores in
various tests
outside the local
grading system.
Curriculum Management System:
system allows teachers to access material
that has previously been taught
Learning Management System
(LMS):
of this system
include
the ability to
upload
teacher
interaction,
ile Management System:
This system
be stored and accessed
The schools use
the
indows 2003 file server
. The main
facing this system is that its u
sers
types
to their websites
access their files from home or
off-
This system keeps track of
how students check materials out from the
Special Education System
: This system
student
’s Individua-
lized Education Program (IEP)
, and progress
t also helps to track
different special services,
occupational
therapy, and
resource room.
Student Information System:
The web
based Student Information System
has been
used since 2001 and is currently servin
g 9
with more than 300 staff and 3000
provides the functionality
Student Information
unctionality
This system keeps
various tests
taken
grading system.
Curriculum Management System:
This
system allows teachers to access material
that has previously been taught
, and helps
them to map out the curriculum that should
be taught for the upcoming months or year.
Cafeteria System:
This system deals with
student transactions involving meals, keeps
files on free and reduced lunches
Michigan State
requirement
Content Managements System:
tem maintains the school
website.
Problem Analysis
Multiple applications
in sc
systems create problems
because of the lack
of communication between them.
tiple systems collect the same data nume
ous times to meet the immediate need of
each department. This constant collection of
the same data creates errors, d
reconciliation challenges,
and reporting di
crepancies
(Fruth, Larry, Michael, &
Elizabeth, 2007). For
example, if you have
one teacher named
Mr. Smith
count/user information in each system wit
in the school. He has an account within the
Student Information System,
tem, e-mail system,
file management sy
tem
and several other systems that might be
needed.
The fact of having
in one school creates
a major dilemma when
it
comes to entering user information within
each system. When one system is
the other systems are not,
are not integrated
. Appendix 1
the various
systems within the school int
ract with one another
, and the
tionships
between them. All
ships are shown with
interconnecting
and
are all manual in nature.
The existing systems
in the
la
ck the following functionality:
• Student C
onnect module:
students
will be able to login
their grades and assignments online.
•
Parents Connect module:
parents will be able to check their child’s
grades, assignments, discipline, atte
dance, learning material
online.
• Administrator/Staff
Connect module:
place where a
dministrators, teachers,
and technical support
to a single
port where they can access
all systems without the tedious task of
remembering various passwords
them to map out the curriculum that should
be taught for the upcoming months or year.
This system deals with
student transactions involving meals, keeps
files on free and reduced lunches
, and is a
requirement
.
Content Managements System:
This sys-
website.
in sc
hool information
because of the lack
of communication between them.
The mul-
tiple systems collect the same data nume
r-
ous times to meet the immediate need of
each department. This constant collection of
the same data creates errors, d
ata-
and reporting di
s-
(Fruth, Larry, Michael, &
example, if you have
Mr. Smith
, he has ac-
count/user information in each system wit
h-
in the school. He has an account within the
Student Information System,
testing sys-
file management sy
s-
and several other systems that might be
The fact of having
multiple systems
a major dilemma when
comes to entering user information within
each system. When one system is
updated,
since the systems
. Appendix 1
shows how
systems within the school int
e-
, and the
types of rela-
between them. All
of the relation-
interconnecting
lines,
are all manual in nature.
in the
charter schools
ck the following functionality:
onnect module:
A place where
will be able to login
to check
their grades and assignments online.
Parents Connect module:
A place where
parents will be able to check their child’s
grades, assignments, discipline, atte
n-
dance, learning material
s, and progress
Connect module:
A
dministrators, teachers,
staff can sign on
port where they can access
all systems without the tedious task of
remembering various passwords
to sign
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 6
on for different school locations and
sites.
• The system needs to support multiple
data from multiple years and school rolls
with the same user login.
• The bottom line: It is difficult for every
school in this study to maintain their
websites, and for individual content
management system users to keep track
of multiple user names and passwords.
To add to these requirements, there were
multiple requests from school management
teams to add the following sub-systems:
• A course and learning management sys-
tem to enhance student learning.
• A website for every teacher.
• A course website to manage curriculum
content.
Due to the complexity of the problem do-
main, the focus in this paper is on the four
main systems, namely the Student Informa-
tion System, the Learning Management Sys-
tem, the Content Managements System, and
the File Management System, highlighted in
yellow in appendix 1. These systems have
similar cross functionality. For example, a
student’s information is repeated in every
one of the following systems:
• Student information system
• File management system
• Learning management System
• Content management system
3. RESEARCH APPROACH
A positivist-empirical research approach was
followed for this project, based on observa-
tion and interventions using several methods
(Remenyi et al., 1998; Curtis and Cobham,
2002). This approach is appropriate for re-
search into the phenomena, processes, and
behaviors that are the basis of the K-12
educational environment. The action re-
search paradigm formed part of the research
approach since the primary author was en-
gaged in the domain of discourse and parti-
cipated actively in all the research
processes.
The research life cycle is illustrated in Ap-
pendix 2, which depicts the research
processes conducted in this study, and is
summarized in brief as follows:
1. Identified and verified research problem
and identified scope of research in terms
of integrated school system.
2. Reviewed literature related to K-12 edu-
cational systems focused on the learning
management systems, student informa-
tion system, content management sys-
tem and file management system.
3. Conceptualized insight into the research
field of focus, based on literature and
empirical experience.
4. Drafted the design of conceptual solution
and verified the conceptual model.
5. Demonstrated the conceptual model by
refining it into a conceptual solution and
a prototype using:
• Business case
• Use cases models
• Use cases specifications
• UML diagrams for business scenarios
• Class models
6. Evaluated prototype and refined concep-
tual solution.
7. Documented findings and drew conclu-
sions.
4. REDESIGNING THE
ARCHITECTURE
The architecture approach followed to rede-
sign the integrated school system architec-
ture consists of the following key tenets: the
principles guiding the architecture (including
overarching principles of the education do-
main of discourse and architecture viewpoint
principles for each viewpoint of concern);
the architecture meta-framework used when
performing systematic viewpoint analysis;
and the architecture process model and the
supporting architecture methodology that is
followed (Steenkamp, 2007). The approach
is supported by several architecting tools.
Overarching principles pertinent to this re-
search are:
• Interoperability
• Scalability
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 7
• Adoptability
• Ease of Use
• Affordability
• Use software as service for delivery
model
• Service-oriented architecture
• Use of open source technology
• Use of object oriented methodology
• Use of model view controller develop-
ment framework
Using an architecture meta-framework en-
sures comprehensive coverage of the prob-
lem space. The architecture process model
and supporting methodology simplify archi-
tecture development and ensure that the
redesign is accelerated by reusing available
patterns, templates and standards (The
Open Group 2003). The TOGAF 9 Reference
Model was adopted as the architectural
guideline, and provided a sound foundation
for this research (The Open Group 2009).
The intent is to ensure that the redesigned
architecture allows for future growth in re-
sponse to the changing needs of the K-12
Educational environment.
The architecture approach followed in this
project is intended to help resolve the stated
requirements and address the problems, by
providing a framework for building a proto-
type that shows how the individual systems
should be integrated into one integrated sys-
tem. By focusing the Student Information
System (SIS) as the main source of data,
the process of building an integrated enter-
prise system will be simplified. Redesigning
the architecture of the proposed school sys-
tem will enable the building of the enterprise
system.
The proposed system will integrate the over-
lapping functionality as shown in appendix 3,
in addition to adding the other needed func-
tionality mentioned in Sections 1 and 2. In
considering the design of the solution to the
research problem the authors adopted the
“DRY” principle: “Don’t Repeat Yourself,”
first introduced by Andy Hunt and Dave
Thomas which was used in a Ruby pro-
gramming language (Thomas & Hunt, 2000).
Applying the DRY concept at the system lev-
el resulted in the proposed system illu-
strated in Appendix 4.
The rationale of integrating the Student In-
formation System with the Learning Man-
agement System, the Content Management
System and the File Management System is
based on the notion that the Student Infor-
mation System is the core system in the
school, containing information about all
stakeholders. This system covers the man-
agement aspect of the school, including
enrollment, attendance, scheduling, and
grading. To add to these functions, the
Learning Management System helps the
teacher to add resources toward student
learning. The Content Management System
plays a major role in helping schools to inte-
grate their websites with their teachers’
pages and the course websites. The system
utilizes Web 2.0 blogs as a way of communi-
cating and adding content to the teacher
resources. With the process content crea-
tion, the need for file support motivated the
creation of a File Management System.
There is overlapping of functionality between
all these systems. Some examples of this
are grading, student schedule, and course
selection. Another example of overlapping is
the end user roles among the four systems.
If we look closely at the administrator, who
manages user accounts between all of the
systems, it is clear that the teacher appears
in both the Learning Management System
and Student Information System.
5. DEMONSTRATION OF CONCEPT –
THE PROTOTYPE
In developing a prototype of the proposed
system the semantics of UML 2.0 diagrams
were considered. UML 2.0 provides a com-
prehensive set of representation schemes for
modeling software systems. These include:
Use case modeling:
The use case context
diagram in Figure 2 shows how the pro-
posed system can be used with the other
entities (actors, end users, system) in the
abstract. First level use cases describe the
functionality of the system which results in
value added to the end users (stakeholders).
Use cases enable end users to get a first
impression of the intended functionality. The
use case context diagram in Figure 2 illu-
strates an example of a teacher’s interaction
with the system.
Process diagram: A process model serves
as the foundation for redesigning a process,
or redesigning the organizational structure
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 8
to better support the pro
Appendix 5, the process
of
a blog
is shown. Also appendix 6
process of posting an
assignment involving
several factors,
including teacher
students, and
the proposed system.
Figure 2. Teacher T
aking
Use C
ase
Meta-
model of the Proposed System
Appendix 7, a meta-
model demonstrates
the main classes and the relationships b
tween them, in the form of a UML class di
gram.
This section describes
the
menting a prototype of
the proposed sol
tion at a high level. T
he principle of agile
software development was
solution was implem
ented using E
P
rogramming (XP) as a software engineering
methodology. This w
as done as part of
tion research, where the researcher was
immersed and
actively
project. The process of
iteration
process of
planning based on
obtaining and validating
feedback from the
various stakeholders, commu
new requirements to
the development team,
testing, deploying of the
soliciting and receiving
feedback from the
end users
, and communicat
velopment team
throughout the develo
ment cy
cle, as illustrated in Figure
In the interest of simplicity, the feedback
loops and iteration has been omitted from
the diagram.
Take Attendance
Teacher
View Attendance
Verify
Attendance
Print Attendance
to better support the pro
cess desired. In
of
a teacher posting
is shown. Also appendix 6
shows the
assignment involving
including teacher
s, parents,
the proposed system.
aking
Attendance
ase
model of the Proposed System
: In
model demonstrates
the main classes and the relationships b
e-
tween them, in the form of a UML class di
a-
the
phases of imple-
the proposed sol
u-
he principle of agile
software development was
adopted and the
ented using E
xtreme
rogramming (XP) as a software engineering
as done as part of
ac-
tion research, where the researcher was
actively
involved in the
iteration
involved:
planning based on
requirements,
feedback from the
various stakeholders, commu
nicating the
the development team,
new functionality,
feedback from the
, and communicat
ing with the de-
throughout the develo
p-
cle, as illustrated in Figure
3.
In the interest of simplicity, the feedback
loops and iteration has been omitted from
The following technologies will be adopted
develop the solution.
1. MVC Framework
2. Ruby on Rails
3. Apache Web Server
4. MySQL for Database
5. Amazon services for
demonstrating the infrastructure as se
vice (IaaS) platform for d
hosting the proposed system.
Figure 3
. Proposed System Develo
ment Cycle
Web Application
Architecture Fram
work.
When looking to rebuild and
interconnect
the proposed system we will
be using the Model View Controller (MVC)
web application architecture framework. This
is the
most important step and
first in the remodeling of the new updated
system.
Model-View-
Controller (MVC)
Overview.
The architecture of the
MVC
application data model, user interface, and
control logic into three distinct components.
This separation
is beneficial because if
changes and modifications need to be made
to one of the components, th
with
little impact or harm to the other
components.
Parents
Secretary
Student
Information
System
The following technologies will be adopted
to
cloud computing,
demonstrating the infrastructure as se
r-
vice (IaaS) platform for d
eveloping and
hosting the proposed system.
. Proposed System Develo
p-
ment Cycle
Architecture Fram
e-
When looking to rebuild and
the proposed system we will
be using the Model View Controller (MVC)
, a
web application architecture framework. This
most important step and
will come
first in the remodeling of the new updated
Controller (MVC)
MVC
separates the
application data model, user interface, and
control logic into three distinct components.
is beneficial because if
changes and modifications need to be made
to one of the components, th
ey can be done
little impact or harm to the other
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 9
Model: This is the domain-specific
representation of the information on which
the application operates. The Model is
another name for the domain layer. Domain
logic adds meaning to raw data, e.g.
calculating the student’s total absent days.
View: This renders the model into a form
suitable for interaction, typically a user
interface element. MVC is often seen in web
applications, where the View is the HTML
page and the code that gathers dynamic
data for the page.
Controller: This responds to events,
typically user actions, and invokes changes
in the Model and perhaps the View. In
addtion, the Controller is responsible for
mediating between View and Model. It must
translate View events, which originate from
user input, to Model operation
(Veit &
Herrmann, 2003).
Figure 4. MVC Framework with Ruby on
Rails
MVC is often thought of as a software design
pattern. However, MVC encompasses more
of the architecture of an application that is
typical for a design pattern. Constructing an
application using MVC architecture involves
defining three classes of modules domain
objects (such as student, class, attendance)
that hold all the business logic and know
how to persist themselves to a database.
The Controller handles the incoming re-
quests (such as Save New User, Update
Student Record, Show Teacher Account) by
manipulating the Model and directing data to
the View. Figure 4 shows the conceptual
model of MVC according to the user’s view-
point.
Ruby on Rails Development
Framework
Once the MVC has been chosen for the arc-
hitectural framework, the next step is to
choose a development framework. This de-
velopment framework should be compatible
with the MVC architecture framework. After
we examined the available development
frameworks, it was clear that the best choice
for the proposed system would be the newly
developed open source product Ruby on
Rails as the application framework. This web
application framework builds web application
frameworks according to the MVC. A rail is a
full-stack framework for developing data-
base-backed web applications built with the
object-oriented language Ruby, according to
the Model-View-Control architecture pattern
(Chak, 2009).
One of the main principles of Ruby on Rails
is “Don’t Repeat Yourself (DRY).” In essence,
this principle means that the information put
into a system should not be duplicated.
Deployment
The deployment of the proposed solution
implementation will use cloud computing,
including Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) for
the development environment, Infrastruc-
ture-as-a-Service (IaaS) for hosting the pro-
posed system , and Software-as-a-Service
(SaaS) as the delivery model. Figure 5
shows the conceptual model, which demon-
strates the end user viewpoint and the de-
veloper viewpoint in relation to the proposed
system.
Proposed Education
System
Figure 5. Deployment of Cloud
Computing - Conceptual Model
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 10
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The intent of this study was to examine the
Student Information Systems in several
charter schools in southeast Michigan and
northeast Ohio, and to create an IT solution
that would solve many of the problems en-
demic in the current systems. Some of the
main issues with the current systems were
identified, and suggestions and changes for
a better and more efficient system emerged.
The main outcome is an integrated system
which eliminates the need for multiple dispa-
rate systems that were causing difficulties
and inefficiencies for the school systems in-
volved. The redesigned system allows all
stakeholders to log in and access the Stu-
dent Information System, the File Manage-
ment System, the Learning Management
System, and the Content Management Sys-
tem. New technologies available for web ap-
plication development were identified and
adopted into the redesigned solution. Using
open source Web 2.0 technologies to inte-
grate four disparate systems into one sys-
tem allows users access to all of the school’s
services and systems with a single sign-on
step. The proposed system described in this
paper will be further developed by taking the
next steps and implementing the prototype
into a live system in the schools that partici-
pated in this study.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support and
involvement of Global Educational Excel-
lence, the Service Provider with the K-12
schools’ management, and the input of all
stakeholders during this research project.
8. REFERENCES
Aulbach, S., Grust, T., Jacobs, D., Kemper,
A., and Rittinger, J. (2008). Multi-tenant
databases for software as a service:
schema-mapping techniques. In
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM
Basal,A .(2009). Service Oriented Approach
in Information Technology Enabled Educa-
tion Systems
Basal, A. and Steenkamp, A.L. (2009). An
Integration Approach to IT Enabled K12
School System, submitted to ISECON2009,
Washington DC, United States.
Chak, D. (2009). Enterprise Rails. Sebasto-
pol : O'Reilly Media Inc.
Curtis, G. and Cobham, D. (2002). Business
Information Systems: Analysis, Design and
Practice, 4th edn., Pearson, Essex.
David Thomas, A. H. (2000). Programming
Ruby: the pragmatic programmer's guide.
Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Publish-
ing Co.
Dougiamas, M., & Peter, T. (2003). Moodle:
Using Learning Communities to Create an
Open Source Course Management System.
Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia , 171-178.
Ferretti, S., Mirri, S., Muratori, L. A., Roccet-
ti, M., and Salomoni, P. 2008. E-learning
2.0: you are We-LCoME!. In Proceedings of
the 2008 international Cross-Disciplinary
Conference on
Web Accessibility (W4a) (Beijing, China,
April 21 - 22, 2008). W4A '08, vol. 317.
ACM, New York, NY, 116-125. DOI=
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1368044.1368
070
Fruth, L., Larry, C. a., Michael, S., &
Elizabeth, L. (2007). The Right Data to the
Right People at the Right Time:How
Interoperability Helps America’s Students
Succeed. Council of Chief State School
Officers and Data.
ISO/IEC15288, 2002, Systems Engineering
– System Life Cycle Processes. 2002-11-
01.
Jacobson, I., G. Booch and J. Rumbaugh,
(1999). The Unified Software Development
Process. Addison-Wesley.
Gerard, B., & Marinos, A. (2009). Digital
Ecosystems in the Clouds: Towards Com-
munity Cloud Computing. in Digital Gian-
paolo, Carraro; Fred, Chong. (2006, Octo-
ber). Software as a Service (SaaS): An En-
terprise Perspective. Retrieved July 17,
2009, from MSDN Architecture Center:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/aa905332.aspx
Ecosystems and Technologies Conference.
IEEE Press, 2009.
Gu, Q., & Lago, P. (2008). SOA process
decisions: new challenges in architectural
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 11
knowledge modeling. ACM Special Interest
Group on Software Engineering , 3-10.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating
technology into K–12 teaching and
learning: Current knowledge gaps and
recommendations for future research.
Educational Technology Research and
Development , 223–252.
Harmon, P. (2003). A Manager’s Guide to
Improving, Redesigning and Automating
Processes. Morgan Kaufmann.
Harris, A.L. and Rea, A. (2009). Web 2.0
and Virtual World Technologies: a Growing
Impact on IS Education, Journal of
Information System Education, Vol. 20(2).
M. A. Roth, D. C. (2002). Information
integration: A new generation of
information technology. IBM System
Journal , 563.
Mahmoud, Q. H. (2005, April). Web
Services. Retrieved 11 1, 2008, from sun
microsystem:
http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArt
icles/WebServices/soa/
Mark, G., & Cindy, G. (2006). Integrating
Technology For Meaningful Learning. 2006.
Michigan Merit Curriculum - Online Learning.
(2006). Retrieved from
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/
OE_Companion_Doc_12-06_184084_7.pdf
Perks, C. and Beveridge, T. (2003) Guide to
Enterprise IT Architecture, Springer, New
York.
Powell, A. (2008). K12 Online Learning: A
Global Perspective. In G. Richards (Ed.),
Proceedings of World Conference on E-
Learning in Corporate, Government,
Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008
(pp. 2353-2380). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. and
Swartz, E., 1998, Doing Research in
Business and Management, Sage, pp.73.
Rienzo, T. And Han, B. (2009), Microsoft or
Google Web.0 Tools for Course
Management. Journal of Information
System Education, Vol. 20(2).
Shen, Jia and Eder, L.B. (2009), Intentions
to Use Virtual Worlds for Education. Journal
of Information System Education, Vol.
20(2).
Steenkamp, A.L. (2007), An Approach to
Developing IT Architectures, The Open
Group Enterprise Architecture Practitioner’
s Conference, San Diego.
Steenkamp, A.L. and McCord, S.A., 2007,
“Teaching Research Methodology for In-
formation Technology”, Journal of Informa-
tion Systems Education, Vol. 18, No.2.
Schooldude. (2008). Retrieved July 15,
2009, from Schooldude:
http://www.schooldude.com/elements/me
dia/article_file/The_Unique_Challenges_Fa
cing_the_IT_Professional_in_K12_Educatio
n.pdf
The Open Group (2009). TOGAF Enterprise
Edition 9. Retrieved June 29th, 2009
http://www.opengroup.org.
Weil, P. and J.W. Ross, 2004, IT Gover-
nance, How Top Performers Manage IT De-
cision-rights for Superior Results, Harvard
Business School Press.
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 12
Appendix 1. Typical Applications in the K-12 School Environment
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 13
Appendix 2. Positivist-Empirical life cycle
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 14
Appendix 3.
Typical
Typical
SIS
, LMS, CMS, and FMS functionality in K12 School
, LMS, CMS, and FMS functionality in K12 School
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 15
Appendix 4. Pro
posed Conce
posed Conce
ptual System with Inte
grated Functi
grated Functi
onality
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 16
Appendix 5. Blog Posting Workflow
Teacher
Student
Parents
Yes
N o
Yes
Yes
N o
Post a Blog
For T eacher
View Blog
For Student
View Blog
For Parants
View Blog
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 17
Appendix 6. Process Diagram of Posting Assignment
Proposed Syst em
T eacher
Stude nt
Par ent s
Access Myclassroom
Access Student
Planner
Add Assignment to
Parent Connect
Add Assignment to
Student Planner
Post
Assignment
Grade
Select a Course
Validate
View Assignments View Assignment Grade
Login
View Assignments
Create
Assignment
View Assignment
Grade
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
ISEDJ 8 (24) Steenkamp and Basal 18
Appendex 7. Meta Model of the propoesd System.
1
..
*
1..*
Has
Belong
1
1
Belongs
Has
0..1
0..1Runs
Manage
1..*
1
..
*
Manage
Managed By
*
*contain
offerd
*
1
..
*
Has
1..*
Taught
Teaches
1
1
has
Belon
gs
Has
1..*
1Link
Belong
Has
1
1
..
*
has
1 1
1
1
1..*
1..*Must have
Has
1
1..*Belong
Has
1
1..*
Belong
1
1..*Belong
Has
1
1..*Contains
Listed in
1..*
1..*
Study
Taught to
1
*Post
posted
*
*viewed
View
1
*Post
posted by
1
1
*
View
Posted to
1
is
1
1
Has
Belong
1
1..*
Has
1View
View
1..*
1..*Belong
Has
T er m
T er mT er m
T er m
As si n g m e n t
As si n g m e n tAs si n g m e n t
As si n g m e n t
be n c h m a r k s
be n c h m a r k sbe n c h m a r k s
be n c h m a r k s
C a te g o r y
C a te g o r yC a te g o r y
C a te g o r y
C o u rs e
C o u rs eC o u rs e
C o u rs e
D i str i c t
D i str i c tD i st r ic t
D i str i c t
Sc ho o l
Sc ho o lSch oo l
Sc ho o l
Se c ti o n
Se c ti o nSec ti o n
Se c ti o n
St u d e n t
St u d e n tSt u d e n t
St u d e n t
Su b j e c t
Su b j e c tS u b j e c t
Su b j e c t
T e a ch e r
T e a ch e rT e a c h e r
T e a ch e r
Gr a d e
Gr a d eGr a d e
Gr a d e
Gr ad in g S cal e
Gr ad in g S cal eGr ad in g S cal e
Gr ad in g S cal e
Sc o r e
Sc o r eSc o r e
Sc o r e
St a tu s
St a tu sSta tu s
St a tu s
Sc ho o l
Sc ho o lSch oo l
Sc ho o l
W e bs i t e
W e bs i t eW e b si t e
W e bs i t e
C o u rs e
C o u rs eC o u rs e
C o u rs e
W e b si t e
W e b si t eW e b s i te
W e b si t e
M a rk
M a rkMa r k
M a rk
Gr a d e B o o k
Gr a d e B o o kGr a d e B o o k
Gr a d e B o o k
be n c h m a r k
be n c h m a r kb e n ch m a r k
be n c h m a r k
Bo o k
Bo o kBo o k
Bo o k
D o cu m e n t
D o cu m e n tD o cu m e n t
D o cu m e n t
D r op B o x s
D r op B o x sDr o p B o xs
D r op B o x s
At ta n d a n c e
At ta n d a n c eAt ta n d a n c e
At ta n d a n c e
Bo o k
Bo o kBo o k
Bo o k
Se r vi c e
Se r vi c eSer v i ce
Se r vi c e
Pr o v id e r
Pr o v id e rPr o vi d e r
Pr o v id e r
U se rs
U se rsU se r s
U se rs
Bl o g
Bl o gB l o g
Bl o g
Pa r e n t s
Pa r e n t sPa r e n t s
Pa r e n t s
C o u ns e l o r
C o u ns e l o rC o u n s el o r
C o u ns e l o r
Ad m i n i s tr a to r
Ad m i n i s tr a to rAd m i n i s tr a to r
Ad m i n i s tr a to r
Pr i n ci p a l
Pr i n ci p a lPr i n ci p a l
Pr i n ci p a l
1
Part of
c
2010 EDSIG http://isedj.org/8/24/ June 9, 2010
