Yasushi Akiyama
ABSTRACT
Since the COVID-19 pandemic forced educational institutions worldwide to shift their course delivery mode to remote/online, the importance of learning management systems (LMS) in evaluating the experience of teaching and learning is increasing significantly. More frequent use of these platforms by instructors and students, who had minimal experience with these tools and/or who started using them in ways that they had never used before, brought to light some design limitations of LMS platforms. In particular, Interdisciplinary Studies (IDS) often employ pedagogical approaches that require direct human interaction; however, this type of teaching and learning environment is not typically supported by the design of current LMSs. This paper first presents a survey of comparison studies of LMSs and discusses the shortcomings of these studies in terms of designing ideal LMS platforms for IDS education. It then describes an upcoming pilot study that will take place to compare LMS platforms focusing on communication and collaboration tools.
- W. H. Newell. 2001. A theory of interdisciplinary studies. Issues in integrative studies, 19, 1, 1–25. J. Wentworth and D. Sebberson, editors.Google Scholar
- L. Rutting, S. Menken, M. Keestra, and G. Post. 2016. An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research: Theory and Practice. Perspectives on Interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN: 9789462981843.Google Scholar
- A. Repko, R. Szostak, and M. Buchberger. 2019. Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies. SAGE Publications. ISBN: 9781544379388.Google Scholar
- S. Woodill, R. Plate, and N. Jagoda. 2019. How interdisciplinarians work. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 8, 2, 112–129.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Woodill. 2021. The epistemology of complexity and ‘doing’ interdisciplinarity. Interface: An International Interdisciplinary Studies Journal, 1, 2.Google Scholar
- M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter. 2008. Pedagogical biases in educational technologies. Educational Technology, 48, 3, 3–11. ISSN: 00131962.Google Scholar
- N. Dreamson. 2020. Online design education: meta-connective pedagogy. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39, 3, 483–497. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12314.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Cross. 2004. An informal history of eLearning. on The Horizon, 12, 103–110.Google Scholar
- B. Davis, C. Carmean, and E. D. Wagner. 2009. The evolution of the LMS: from management to learning. Santa Rosa, CA: e-Learning Guild, 24.Google Scholar
- J. J. Kim, Y. Yoon, and E.-J. Kim. 2021. A comparison of faculty and student acceptance behavior toward learning management systems. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 16. ISSN: 1660-4601. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18168570.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Laanpere, H. Poldoja, and K. Kikkas. 2004. The second thoughts about pedagogical neutrality of LMS. In IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2004. Proceedings. 807–809. doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2004.1357664.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Subramanian, N. Zainuddin, S. Alatawi, T. Javabdeh, and A. R. C. Hussin. 2014. A study of comparison between Moodle and Blackboard based on case studies for better LMS. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND INNOVATION.Google Scholar
- N. V. Karadimas. 2018. Comparing learning management systems from popularity point of view. In 5th International Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sciences and Industry (MCSI).Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. M. Momani. 2010. Comparison between two learning management systems: Moodle and Blackboard. Behavioral & Social Methods eJournal, 2, 54.Google Scholar
- F. Ouatik and F. Ouatik. 2021. Learning management system comparison: new approach using multi-criteria decision making. In Business Intelligence. M. Fakir, M. Baslam, and R. El Ayachi, editors. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 239–248. isbn: 978-3-030-76508-8.Google Scholar
- J. McGrenere, R. M. Baecker, and K. S. Booth. 2002. An evaluation of a multiple interface design solution for bloated software. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’02). ACM, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 164–170. ISBN: 1-58113-453-3. doi: 10.1145/503376.503406.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. McGrenere and G. Moore. 2000. Are we all in the same ”bloat”? In Proceedings of the Graphics Interface 2000 Conference, May 15-17, 2000, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (May 2000), 187–196.Google Scholar
- X. Hu and C. Lai. 2019. Comparing factors that influence learning management systems use on computers and on mobile. Information and Learning Sciences, 7/8, 468–488.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. S. S. Sahid, P. I. Santosa, R. Ferdiana, and L. E. N. 2016. Evaluation and measurement of learning management system based on user experience. In the 6th International Annual Engineering Seminar (InAES). Yogyakarta, Indonesia.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Sezer and R. Yilmaz. 2019. Learning management system acceptance scale (LMSAS): a validity and reliability study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 3, 15–30.Google ScholarCross Ref
- V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 3, 425–478.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. J. J. Gumasing, A. B. Vasquez, A. L. S. Doctora, and W. D. D. Perez. 2022. Usability evaluation of online learning management system: comparison between blackboard and canvas. In 2022 The 9th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (Europe) (ICIEA- 2022-Europe). Association for Computing Machinery, Barcelona, Spain, 25–31. ISBN: 9781450396059. doi: 10.1145/3523132.3523137.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Brooke. 1995. Sus: a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind., 189, (November 1995).Google Scholar
- B. Shneiderman. 2003. Promoting universal usability with multi-layer interface design. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Universal Usability (CUU ’03). ACM, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 1–8. ISBN: 1-58113-701-X. doi: 10.1145/957205.957206.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Nielsen. 1994. Usability Engineering. Elsevier.Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Y. Hock, R. Omar, and M. Mahmud. 2015. Comparing the usability and users acceptance of open sources learning management system (LMS). International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5, 4, (April 2015).Google Scholar
- E. O. Yilmaz. 2022. Comparison of the satisfaction of students who use different learning management systems in distance education processes. Open Praxis, 14, 2, 96–109.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Cohen, T. Soffer, and M. Henderson. 2022. Students’ use of technology and their perceptions of its usefulness in higher education: international comparison. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38, 5, 1321–1331. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12678.Google ScholarCross Ref
- I. A. Almarashdeh, N. Sahari, and N. A. M. Zin. 2011. Heuristic evaluation of distance learning management system interface. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics, 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICEEI.2011.6021542.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Minovi´c, V. ˇStavljanin, M. Milovanovi´c, and D. Starˇcevi´c. 2008. Usability issues of e-learning systems: case-study for Moodle learning management system. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2008 Workshops. R. Meersman, Z. Tari, and P. Herrero, editors. SpringerGoogle Scholar
- G. Xun, I. Lubin, and Z. Ke. 2010. An investigation of faculty's perceptions and experiences when transitioning to a new learning management system. Special issue: Web-Based Learning: Innovations and Challenges. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: an International Journal, 2, (December 2010), 433–447.Google Scholar
- Z. Yildirim, C. M. Reigeluth, S. Kwon, Y. Kageto, and Z. Shao. 2014. A comparison of learning management systems in a school district: searching for the ideal personalized integrated educational system (pies). Interactive Learning Environments, 22, 6, 721–736. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2012. 745423.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. N. Mohd Kasim and F. Khalid. 2016. Choosing the right learning management system (LMS) for the higher education institution context: a systematic review. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 11, 06, (June 2016), pp. 55–61. doi: 10.3991/ijet. v11i06.5644.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Nichol. 2016. A comparison of two online learning systems. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 20, 1, 19–32.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Morrison. 2008. Educational philosophy and the challenge of complexity theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40, 1, 19–34. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00394.x.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Mayes. 2019. Learning theory and the new science of learning. In Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Principles and Practices of Design. H. Beetham and R. Sharpe, editors. Routledge, (June 2019), 17–31. ISBN: 9781351252805. doi: 10.4324/9781351252805-2.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yellowdig: Online learning platform for student engagement. Retrieved March 23, 2023 from https://www.yellowdig.co/Google Scholar
Index Terms
- How Can We Improve the UI/UX of Learning Management Systems (LMS) for Interdisciplinary Studies (IDS)? A Survey on Comparison Studies of LMS Features That Support Interdisciplinary Theory
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Do Open Educational Resources and Cloud Classroom Really Improve Students' Learning?
More and more educational institutions are using educational technologies and online learning materials to help students achieve satisfactory learning effects. However, not all teachers are able to prepare and design digital learning materials for ...
Towards a Smart Learning Management System (smart-LMS) to Improve Collaborative Learning in Higher Education
SCA '18: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Smart City ApplicationsWith the increasing number of higher education students using e-learning technology, collaborative learning has been suggested as a solution to the lack of sufficient support to learners in e-learning environments, particularly LMS (Learning Management ...
Factors affecting students' and teachers' use of LMS --- towards a holistic framework
ICHL'12: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Hybrid LearningLearning management systems (LMS) have been widely used in higher education for enhancing traditional classroom teaching. However, there is not such a model fully explains the interrelationships of the students, the teachers, and the external dimensions ...
Comments