Measuring learning outcomes: bridging accreditation requirements and LMS functionalities

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Hesham El Marsafawy, Rumpa Roy, Fahema Ali
{"title":"Measuring learning outcomes: bridging accreditation requirements and LMS functionalities","authors":"Hesham El Marsafawy, Rumpa Roy, Fahema Ali","doi":"10.1108/qae-11-2021-0186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to identify the gap between the requirements of the accreditation bodies and the widely used learning management systems (LMSs) in assessing the intended learning outcomes (ILOs). In addition, this study aims to introduce a framework, along with the evaluation of the functionality of the LMS, for measuring the ILO.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA qualitative method was deployed to examine the gap between the requirements of the accreditation standards and the LMS functionalities. The researchers collaborated to design a mechanism, develop a system architecture to measure the ILO in alignment with the accreditation standards and guide the development of the Moodle plugin. The appropriateness and effectiveness of the plugin were evaluated within the scope of assessment mapping and design. Focus group interviews were conducted to collect feedback from the instructors and program leaders regarding its implementation.\n\n\nFindings\nThe results of this study indicate that there is no standardized mechanism to measure course and program ILO objectively, using the existing LMS. The implementation of the plugin shows the appropriateness and effectiveness of the system in generating ILO achievement reports, which was confirmed by the users.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study proposed a framework and developed a system architecture for the objective measurement of the ILO through direct assessment. The plugin was tested to generate consistent reports during the measurement of course and program ILO. The plugin has been implemented across Gulf University’s program courses, ensuring appropriate reporting and continuous improvement.\n","PeriodicalId":46734,"journal":{"name":"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-11-2021-0186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to identify the gap between the requirements of the accreditation bodies and the widely used learning management systems (LMSs) in assessing the intended learning outcomes (ILOs). In addition, this study aims to introduce a framework, along with the evaluation of the functionality of the LMS, for measuring the ILO. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative method was deployed to examine the gap between the requirements of the accreditation standards and the LMS functionalities. The researchers collaborated to design a mechanism, develop a system architecture to measure the ILO in alignment with the accreditation standards and guide the development of the Moodle plugin. The appropriateness and effectiveness of the plugin were evaluated within the scope of assessment mapping and design. Focus group interviews were conducted to collect feedback from the instructors and program leaders regarding its implementation. Findings The results of this study indicate that there is no standardized mechanism to measure course and program ILO objectively, using the existing LMS. The implementation of the plugin shows the appropriateness and effectiveness of the system in generating ILO achievement reports, which was confirmed by the users. Originality/value This study proposed a framework and developed a system architecture for the objective measurement of the ILO through direct assessment. The plugin was tested to generate consistent reports during the measurement of course and program ILO. The plugin has been implemented across Gulf University’s program courses, ensuring appropriate reporting and continuous improvement.
衡量学习成果:衔接认证要求和LMS功能
目的本研究旨在确定认证机构的要求与广泛使用的学习管理系统(LMS)在评估预期学习成果(ILO)方面的差距。此外,本研究旨在引入一个框架,以及LMS功能的评估,以衡量ILO。设计/方法/方法采用定性方法来检查认证标准要求与LMS功能之间的差距。研究人员合作设计了一种机制,开发了一个系统架构,以根据认证标准衡量国际劳工组织,并指导Moodle插件的开发。插件的适当性和有效性在评估映射和设计的范围内进行了评估。进行了焦点小组访谈,以收集导师和项目负责人对其实施情况的反馈。结果本研究的结果表明,使用现有的LMS,没有标准化的机制来客观地衡量课程和计划ILO。插件的实施表明了该系统在生成劳工组织成就报告方面的适当性和有效性,用户对此予以确认。独创性/价值本研究提出了一个框架,并通过直接评估制定了国际劳工组织客观衡量的系统架构。该插件经过测试,可在课程和项目ILO的测量过程中生成一致的报告。该插件已在海湾大学的项目课程中实施,确保了适当的报告和持续改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EDUCATION EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: QAE publishes original empirical or theoretical articles on Quality Assurance issues, including dimensions and indicators of Quality and Quality Improvement, as applicable to education at all levels, including pre-primary, primary, secondary, higher and professional education. Periodically, QAE also publishes systematic reviews, research syntheses and assessment policy articles on topics of current significance. As an international journal, QAE seeks submissions on topics that have global relevance. Article submissions could pertain to the following areas integral to QAE''s mission: -organizational or program development, change and improvement -educational testing or assessment programs -evaluation of educational innovations, programs and projects -school efficiency assessments -standards, reforms, accountability, accreditation, and audits in education -tools, criteria and methods for examining or assuring quality
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信