在实践中审视学习管理系统:高等教育应用时间序列研究

Esra Barut Tuğtekin
{"title":"在实践中审视学习管理系统:高等教育应用时间序列研究","authors":"Esra Barut Tuğtekin","doi":"10.19173/irrodl.v24i2.6905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examined the use of Advancity Learning Management Systems (ALMS) and the Moodle Learning Management Systems (LMS) in learning settings, as well as online exams, within the framework of Transactional Distance Theory. With 146 college students (nfemale = 102, nmale = 44) as voluntary participants, data was gathered through an online questionnaire. A time series design was used for two different LMS sessions, and participants who voluntarily participated in ALMS and Moodle LMS sessions were matched. The findings revealed that while Moodle and ALMS both receive relatively similar assessment ratings for online exams, Moodle scored better in terms of learning setting. When factors of the Learning Management Systems Evaluation Scale (LMSES) based on Transactional Distance Theory were compared, the dialogue and autonomy factors were significantly higher for Moodle LMS than for ALMS. When online exams in the LMS were compared, there was no significant difference between ALMS and Moodle LMS, and for both LMS, the reliability factor was a determinant indicator than the other factors. As a result, in assessing and using an LMS, choices should be based on how well the LMS characteristics address an institution’s demands.","PeriodicalId":22544,"journal":{"name":"The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scrutinizing Learning Management Systems in Practice: An Applied Time Series Research in Higher Education\",\"authors\":\"Esra Barut Tuğtekin\",\"doi\":\"10.19173/irrodl.v24i2.6905\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study examined the use of Advancity Learning Management Systems (ALMS) and the Moodle Learning Management Systems (LMS) in learning settings, as well as online exams, within the framework of Transactional Distance Theory. With 146 college students (nfemale = 102, nmale = 44) as voluntary participants, data was gathered through an online questionnaire. A time series design was used for two different LMS sessions, and participants who voluntarily participated in ALMS and Moodle LMS sessions were matched. The findings revealed that while Moodle and ALMS both receive relatively similar assessment ratings for online exams, Moodle scored better in terms of learning setting. When factors of the Learning Management Systems Evaluation Scale (LMSES) based on Transactional Distance Theory were compared, the dialogue and autonomy factors were significantly higher for Moodle LMS than for ALMS. When online exams in the LMS were compared, there was no significant difference between ALMS and Moodle LMS, and for both LMS, the reliability factor was a determinant indicator than the other factors. As a result, in assessing and using an LMS, choices should be based on how well the LMS characteristics address an institution’s demands.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22544,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i2.6905\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v24i2.6905","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究在交易距离理论的框架内研究了在学习环境中使用先进的学习管理系统(ALMS)和Moodle学习管理系统(LMS),以及在线考试。以146名大学生(女102名,男44名)为自愿参与者,通过在线问卷收集数据。对两个不同的LMS会话使用时间序列设计,并对自愿参加ALMS和Moodle LMS会话的参与者进行匹配。调查结果显示,尽管Moodle和ALMS在在线考试方面的评分相对相似,但Moodle在学习环境方面得分更高。比较基于交易距离理论的学习管理系统评价量表(LMSES)各因子,Moodle LMS的对话因子和自主因子显著高于ALMS。当比较LMS中的在线考试时,ALMS和Moodle LMS之间没有显著差异,并且对于这两个LMS来说,信度因子比其他因素更具决定性。因此,在评估和使用LMS时,应该根据LMS的特征满足机构需求的程度来进行选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scrutinizing Learning Management Systems in Practice: An Applied Time Series Research in Higher Education
This study examined the use of Advancity Learning Management Systems (ALMS) and the Moodle Learning Management Systems (LMS) in learning settings, as well as online exams, within the framework of Transactional Distance Theory. With 146 college students (nfemale = 102, nmale = 44) as voluntary participants, data was gathered through an online questionnaire. A time series design was used for two different LMS sessions, and participants who voluntarily participated in ALMS and Moodle LMS sessions were matched. The findings revealed that while Moodle and ALMS both receive relatively similar assessment ratings for online exams, Moodle scored better in terms of learning setting. When factors of the Learning Management Systems Evaluation Scale (LMSES) based on Transactional Distance Theory were compared, the dialogue and autonomy factors were significantly higher for Moodle LMS than for ALMS. When online exams in the LMS were compared, there was no significant difference between ALMS and Moodle LMS, and for both LMS, the reliability factor was a determinant indicator than the other factors. As a result, in assessing and using an LMS, choices should be based on how well the LMS characteristics address an institution’s demands.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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