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
Pages 294 - 299
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.
References
[1]
W. H. Newell. 2001. A theory of interdisciplinary studies. Issues in integrative studies, 19, 1, 1–25. J. Wentworth and D. Sebberson, editors.
[2]
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.
[3]
A. Repko, R. Szostak, and M. Buchberger. 2019. Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies. SAGE Publications. ISBN: 9781544379388.
[4]
S. Woodill, R. Plate, and N. Jagoda. 2019. How interdisciplinarians work. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 8, 2, 112–129.
[5]
S. Woodill. 2021. The epistemology of complexity and ‘doing’ interdisciplinarity. Interface: An International Interdisciplinary Studies Journal, 1, 2.
[6]
M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter. 2008. Pedagogical biases in educational technologies. Educational Technology, 48, 3, 3–11. ISSN: 00131962.
[7]
N. Dreamson. 2020. Online design education: meta-connective pedagogy. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39, 3, 483–497.
[8]
J. Cross. 2004. An informal history of eLearning. on The Horizon, 12, 103–110.
[9]
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.
[10]
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.
[11]
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.
[12]
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.
[13]
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).
[14]
A. M. Momani. 2010. Comparison between two learning management systems: Moodle and Blackboard. Behavioral & Social Methods eJournal, 2, 54.
[15]
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.
[16]
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.
[17]
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.
[18]
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.
[19]
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.
[20]
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.
[21]
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.
[22]
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.
[23]
J. Brooke. 1995. Sus: a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind., 189, (November 1995).
[24]
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.
[25]
J. Nielsen. 1994. Usability Engineering. Elsevier.
[26]
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).
[27]
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.
[28]
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.
[29]
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.
[30]
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. Springer
[31]
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.
[32]
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. 745423.
[33]
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. v11i06.5644.
[34]
M. Nichol. 2016. A comparison of two online learning systems. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 20, 1, 19–32.
[35]
K. Morrison. 2008. Educational philosophy and the challenge of complexity theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40, 1, 19–34. //doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00394.x.
[36]
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.
[37]
Yellowdig: Online learning platform for student engagement. Retrieved March 23, 2023 from https://www.yellowdig.co/
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
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
August 2023
429 pages
ISBN:9798400709142
DOI:10.1145/3625704
Copyright © 2023 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 04 December 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
ICEMT 2023
ICEMT 2023: The 7th International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology
August 29 - 31, 2023
Tokyo, Japan
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 63Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)59
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 02 Feb 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format