Assessing the Interaction and Interactivity in OUT MOODLE LMS:
The Outlook of Content Design Patterns, System Configurations and User’s Access Rates
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol4.iss6.560Keywords:
Learner, Software, Content, MOODLE, Interaction, InteractAbstract
Despite the wide spread adoption of MOODLE by Higher Learning Institutions (HLIs) in Tanzania, there is still lack of maximum utilization of the software by learners. This is due to lack of interactivity in the system caused by poor MOODLE customization and configuration, improper content design and integration with add-on multimedia files. On the other hand, instructors consider that uploading learning materials in MOODLE is enough without putting down the interactivity facilities.
This paper assesses the interactivity in MOODLE from both design and usage. The paper discloses the extent of poor MOODLE customization that can likely hinder the inclusion of the multimedia facilities, extent of poor online course design and lack of virtual interactivity among learners.
To undertake this study, a case study methodology was opted by investigating the MOODLE platform of the Open University of Tanzania. The respondents to this study were categorized as MOODLE Learners (MLs), MOODLE Instructors (MIs) and MOODLE Administrators (MA). In addition to interview, an intensive documentary review together with screening the design and configurations of MOODLE servers has been done. The study focused on four aspects of interactivity which are learner interaction to learner, instructor, content, and interface.
The study reveals that there is a critical lack of interactivity between learners themselves enrolled in the same course, between learners and their respective tutors and between learners and system contents and interfaces. The synchronous interaction is less practiced compared to asynchronous interaction. This has been due to less insertion of real time multimedia and interactivity features.
Generally, uncoordinated operations and ad hoc performance among key MOODLE stakeholders during interface design, software implementation, system configuration, and onsite content development form the basis of this.
References
J. H. Lungo, and Kaasbøl, “ Experiences of open source software in institutions: Cases from Tanzania and Norway ”, (
MOODLE Learning Platform, www.moodle.org , Date Accessed: 10 March 2016
The Open Source Definition, www.opensource.com , Date Accessed: 12 November 2015
How to use MOODLE 2.7: Teacher’s Manual for the world’s most popular LMS, Date Ac
accessed: 05 March 2016
MOODLE Docs: Guidelines for contributors MOODLE http://docs.moodle.org/en/MoodleDocs:Guidelines_for_contributors , Date Accessed: 06 February 2016
The OUT MOODLE platform, http://elms.out.ac.tz , Date Accessed: 01 April 2016
The OUT e
Learning Implementation Strategy, 2012; Date Accessed: 11 January 2016
Y. W
Wang, X. Li, R. Gu, “Web-Based Adaptive Collaborative Learning Environment Designing”, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, (2004), LNCS 3143, 163168 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27859-7_21
D. Engelbart, “
User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction ”, Volume 11, Issue 1 2, (2001), pp 65 86 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011145532042
SINHA, Gaurav; SHAHI, Rahul; SHANKAR, Mani; “
H uman Computer Interaction ”, In: Emerging
Trends in Engineering and Technology (ICETET), 3 rd International Conference on IEEE, (2010), p. 1 4.
T. Anderson, “
Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction ”,
Internation al Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, (2003a), 4 (2). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230 , Date Accessed: 12 April 2016[12] Ku
ldeep Nagi, et.al “Evaluating Interactivity of eLearning Resources in A Learning Management
System (LMS) A Case Study of MOODLE”, 2015
Smith, P. L., and Dillon, C. L. “Comparing distance learning and classroom learning: Conceptual
considerations”. American Journal of Distance Education, (1999), 13 (2), 6 23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649909527020
K.
Soo, and C. J. Bonk, “ Interaction: What does it mean in online distance education?” Paper
presented at the ED MEDIA/ED TELECOM 98 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedi a & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications (10 th ), Freiburg, Germany. (1998,
June 20 25) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No, ED 428724)
A. Kenny, “Online learning: Enhancing nurse education?”
Journal of Advanced Nursing, (2002), 38 ,
7 135.
V. A. Thurmond, “
Examination of interaction variables as predictors of students' satisfaction and
willingness to enroll in future Web based courses while controlling for student characteristics” Published
Dissertation. University of Kansas, Pa rkland, FL: Dissertation.com. (2003). Available online
http://www.dissertation.com/library/1121814a.ht m
E.D. Wagner, “In support of a functional definition of interaction”,
The America n Journal of Distance
Education , (1994), 8 (2), 6 29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/089202069400800114
E. D. Wagner, “Interactivity: From agents to outcomes”. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.),
Teaching and learning at
a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs . San Francisco: Jossey Bass
Publishers. (1997)
D. C. Hillman, D. J. Willis, and C. N. Gunawardena, “Learner
interface interaction in distance
education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for parishioners”. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 8 (2), (1994), 30 42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526853
M. Moore, “Three types of interaction”. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), (1989), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
7.
Ahmed “Interactions Quality in MOODLE as perceived by Learners and its Relation with some
Variables”, Turkish Online Jou rnal of Distance Education TOJDE July 2012 ISSN 1302 6488 Volume:
Number: 3 Article 25
J. J. Gutierrez, “Instructor
student interaction”, USDLA Journal, 14(3), 2000
M. G.
Moore, and G. Kearsley, “ Distance education: A systems view” view”. Belmont: Wadsworth
Publishing Company, (1996).
A. R. Leasure, L. Davis, and S. L. Thievon, “Comparison of student outcomes and preferences in a
traditional vs. World Wide Web based baccalaureate nursing research course”. Journal of Nursing
Education, 39 , (2000 ), 149 154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-20000401-04
K. Swan, “Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in
asynchronous online courses”. Distance Education, 22 , (2001), 306 331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791010220208
L. Atack, and J. Rankin, “A descriptive study of registere
d nurses' experiences with web based
learning”. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40 , (2002), 457 465. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02394.x
M. Jiang, and E. Ting, “
A study of students' perceived learning in a Web based online environment” environment”.
Paper presented at the WebNet 99 World Conference on the WWW and Internet, Honolulu, Hawaii. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 448721), (1999)
T. L. Faux, and C. Black
Hughes, “A comparison of using the Internet versus lectures to teach social
work history”. Research on Social Work Practice, 1 0 , (2000), 454 466.
C. R. Payne, “Good practice and motivation in online courses”.
Virtual University Gazette , (
R. L. Wilson, and M. Weiser, “Adoption of asynchronous learning tools by traditional full
time
students: A pilot study”, Inform ation Technology and Management, 2 , (2001), 363 375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011446516889
G. Zafeiriou, J. M. Nunes, and N. Ford, “Using students' perceptions of participation in collaborative
learning activities in the design of online learning environments”. Education for Information, 19 , (2001),
106.
R.
Yin, “Case Study Research”. Sage Publication, California, (1989), pp: 22 26.
L. Kantner, D.H. Sova and S. Rosenbaum, “Alternative methods for field usability research”, In
SIGDOC ’03, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, (2003), 68 72.
M. Alavi and P. Carlson, “A review of MIS research and disciplinary development”, J. Mgmt. Inf.
Sys., (1992), 3(4):45 62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1213231
J. P. Mead and G. Gay, “Concept mapping: an innovative approach to digital library design and
evaluation”. SIGOIS Bull., (1995 ), 16(2):10 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/226188.226193
M. Zelkowitz and D. Wallace, “Experimental validation in software engineering”, Inf. Softw. Tech.,
(1997), 39(11):735 743.
G. Marchionini and G. Crane, “Evaluating hypermedia and learning: methods and results from the
Perseus Proj ect”, ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., (1994), 12(1):5 34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/174608.174609
K. Rönkkö, M. Hellman, B. Kilander and Y. Dittrich, “Personas is not applicable: local remedies
interpreted in a wider context”, In PDC ’04, Toronto, Ontario, (2004), 112 120.
R. Molich and R. Jeff
ries, “Comparative expert reviews. In CHI ’03 extended abstracts”, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL, (2003), 1060 1061.
S. Kaski, (1997), “Data exploration using self
organizing maps”, PhD thesis, Helsinki University of
Technology.
S. Sato and T. Salvador, “Me
thods & tools: Playacting and focus troupes: theater techniques for
creating quick, intense, immersive, and engaging focus group sessions. Interactions”, (1999), 6(5):35 41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/312683.312715
R. L. Glass, V. Ramesh, and I. Vessey, “An analysis of research in computing
disciplines”, Commun.
ACM, (2004), 47(6):89 94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/990680.990686
M. Kyrillidou and S. Giersch, “Pilot testing the digiQUAL protocol: lessons learned”, In JCDL ’06,
Chapel Hill, NC, (2006), 369 369.
R.L. Van Horn, “Empirical studies of management information syste
ms”, SIGMIS Database, (1973),
(2 3 4):172 182.
J. J. Jensen and M.B. Skov, “A review of research methods in children’s technology design”, In
IDC ’05, Boulder, CO, (2005), 80 87.
D. M. Hilbert and D.F. Redmiles, “Extracting usability information
from user interface events”,
ACM Comput.Surv., (2000), 32(4):384 421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/371578.371593
MIT, OpenCourseWare (OCW) repository,
http://ocw.mit.edu , , Date Accessed: 13 March 2016[48] USU, OpenCourseWare (OCW) repository, Utah State Un
iversity http://ocw.usu.edu , Date Accessed:
March 2016
JHSPH, OpenCourseWare (OCW) repository, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
http://ocw.jhsph.edu , Date Accessed: 18 March 2016
UK OU, OpenCourseWare (OCW) repository, UK Open University http://openlearn.open.ac.uk ,
Date Accessed: 20 March 2016
Wikipedia, OpenCourseWare (OCW) repository,
http://www.wikipedia.org , Date Accessed:
March 2016
Wikibooks, OpenCourseWare (OCW) repository,
http://en.wikibooks.org , Date Accessed:
March 2016
The Open University of Tanzania (OUT), Facts
and Figures, (June 2015)
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Said Ally
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyrights for articles published in IJIER journals are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author for more visit Copyright & License.
