• Save
Student LMS choices in HKU’s transition period: results and reasons
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Student LMS choices in HKU’s transition period: results and reasons

on

  • 745 views

PORTER, Gavin (University of Hong Kong)

PORTER, Gavin (University of Hong Kong)

http://citers2012.cite.hku.hk/en/paper_536.htm

Statistics

Views

Total Views
745
Views on SlideShare
683
Embed Views
62

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 62

http://citers2012.cite.hku.hk 62

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Student LMS choices in HKU’s transition period: results and reasons Student LMS choices in HKU’s transition period: results and reasons Presentation Transcript

  • Free choice by students of parallel learning management systems: views and habits Gavin Porter PhD Teaching Consultant Faculty of Science University of Hong Kong
  • HKU is in a transition period…… 2010-2011 academic 2011-12 academic year 2012-13 academic year year (and years (and for the previous…) foreseeable future…)Centrallyadministered,supported, andportal-integratedLMS
  • HKU is in a transition period…… 2010-2011 academic 2011-12 academic year 2012-13 academic year year (and years (and for the previous…) foreseeable future…)Centrallyadministered,supported, andportal-integratedLMS
  • HKU is in a transition period…… 2010-2011 academic 2011-12 academic year 2012-13 academic year year (and years (and for the previous…) foreseeable future…)Centrallyadministered,supported, andportal-integratedLMS
  • HKU is in a transition period…… 2010-2011 academic 2011-12 academic year 2012-13 academic year year (and years (and for the previous…) foreseeable future…)Centrallyadministered,supported, andportal-integratedLMSIn the 2011-2012 academic year, both WebCT andMoodle were centrally administered, supported, andportal-integrated
  • Several studies on LMS transitions appear in the literatureStudy Source Conclusion(s) CommentsTransitioning from American Journal of Slightly higher faculty preference for LMSs differed on a course by courseBlackboard to Moodle Business Education; WebCT; students preferred Moodle 3:1 basis, no choice of one LMS for theCourse management Payette and Gupta, 2009 same coursesoftware: Faculty andstudent opinionsChanging course Educause Quarterly; Major concern with conversion tools Change from WebCT to Desire2Learnmanagement systems: Smart and Meyer, 2005 from one LMS to another Very small faculty survey (10)Lessons LearnedEvaluating the usability of Journal of Information Students preferred Moodle for course Students used one LMS at a time, forweb-based course Technology Education; layout, retrieving course documents, an entire semester – no free choicemanagement systems Unal and Unal, 2011 assignment modules, and communication tools. Similar scores for discussion and gradebook toolsFaculty perspectives on Tech Trends; Beatty and Faculty preference for Moodle on ease Faculty first-hand accounts ofmoving from Blackboard Ulasewicz, 2006 of interface use, and for WebCT on experienceto the Moodle Learning sharing of student work and control ofManagement System author postsIntroducing a new Australasian Journal of Primarily staff, expressed concerns of Major focus on implementationlearning management Educational Technology; the pedagogical effectiveness of the evaluation model, as opposed to thesystem: An institutional Benson and Palaskas, LMS, access, and technical problems LMS itself – also was a transitioncase study 2006 between two WebCT versionsThe Social shaping of a Electronic Journal of Posting of course documents, Identified patterns of LMS use by thevirtual learning eLearning; Dutton, announcements, and assignments facultyenvironment: The case of Cheong, and Park, 2004 received a heavy valuation by faculty Evaluated the eClass LMSa University-wide coursemanagement system
  • • No studies have examined a situation where students have free choice of two LMSs with parallel content for one particular class • Which system will the students gravitate towards? • What reasons will they give for their choice?
  • The inquiry…………• Set-up parallel content on both WebCT and Moodle – Syllabus – Announcements – Lecture content (ppts) – Tutorial content – Evaluation rubrics – and course readings were all posted simultaneously and identically on the two LMSs• Large enrolment course (of 102 students) with diverse backgrounds – Science, Nursing, Engineering, Business, Social Science, Arts, Medicine, Pharmacy, Dentistry
  • The inquiry…………• Very brief survey, conducted in conjunction with a course evaluation Survey questions: 1. Which course management system did you use more often? (Moodle, WebCT, never used either) 2. Why did you use that system more often? (open-ended)
  • The inquiry…………• Cross-checked the data from the brief questionnaire with Moodle access logs• Categorized the student responses from the survey• Checked usage categories for student composition (and performance on the course) – just in case something obvious (or interesting) popped out…….
  • Survey Says……Moodle???? WebCT????
  • The majority of students indicated (self-report) that they prefer using WebCT 100 82 80 # of students 60 40 20 14 0 0 er e T dl C th eb oo ei W M d se s s er er ru 96 responses ef ef ve Pr Pr ne
  • Moodle log usage data fits with self-report 11 to 19 items accessed via Moodle; 15 students “Heavy Moodle users” 0 items accessed via Moodle; 30 students 3 to 10 items accessed via Moodle; 38 students 1 to 2 items accessed via Moodle; 19 students Total = 102 students
  • Sample quotations from students“because other courses use this system”“as a habit only”“never heard of Moodle””a lot of courses use it, easier to check one platform”“WebCT is perfectly integrated into the Portal, veryconvenient”“everything organized by week, easier to follow”“arranged according to order of lessons”“appears tidier””interface more attractive, has a checklist of things to becompleted to give better understanding of learningprogress”
  • WebCT preference….a majority of the justification had nothing to do with the intrinsic qualities of the LMS Reasons for WebCT preference most other courses use WebCT habit/familiarity ease of use convenience never heard of Moodle no Moodle portal integration 0 10 20 30 40 # of comments Reasons for Moodle preference organization appearance ease of use checklist of items to complete 0 2 4 6 8 10 # of comments
  • Health Science students were the least likely to be heavy Moodle users 60 57% % heavy Moodle users % of students 40 % never accessed Moodle 33% 20 14% 2.6% 0 Only 2.6% of health science students (1 out of 39) fell into the g e e ss in nc nc ne er heavy Moodle usage category ie ie si ne Sc Sc Bu gi lth En ea H students disciplineCan lead to new hypotheses……. WebCT more entrenched in health sciences courses? More difficult transition in 2012-13 for health science faculty (and/or students)?
  • Transition from WebCT to Moodle: personal opinions• Initially I wasn’t particularly impressed with Moodle – now I am a convert……. – Interface is certainly preferable – Fairly powerful (assessment options, polls, etc.) and well-supported both technically and pedagogically – Computer Centre, CETL, and Faculty of Education – the learning curve is shallow enough (“turn editing on”)
  • Summary• Findings indicate some inertia on the part of instructors (and also students) during the transition period, with many students preferring to use WebCT – The main reason being: “because most other courses use it”• The reasons for Moodle preference were intrinsic to the LMS itself, namely the interface’s appearance and organization• WebCT only “wins” out of habit, while Moodle “wins” out of quality and design
  • Composition of different usage categories Moodle users (# of items accessed = 11 to 19) Never accessed Moodle (0 items accessed) Science Science Nursing Business BusinessFaculty Faculty Engineering Engineering Medicine Dentistry Nursing Pharmacy 0 2 4 6 8 0 5 10 15 # of students # of students final grade average = 83.5 +/- 3.0 (SEM) final grade average = 79.2 +/- 1.75 (SEM)
  • Composition of different usage categoriesSporadic Moodle Access (accessed 2 to 10 course items) Accessed Moodle one or two times only Science Nursing Nursing Science ArtsFaculty Faculty Business Social Science Medicine Business Pharmacy Pharmacy Engineering Dentistry 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 # of students # of students final grade average = 78.1 +/- 1.9 (SEM) final grade average = 77.8 +/- 2.8 (SEM)
  • More observations from data (to be taken with a grain of salt…….)• Moodle usage was less prevalent among the health science students (medicine, nursing, dentistry, pharmacy), this could suggest a heavier reliance on WebCT in that Faculty and perhaps a more abrupt forthcoming transition for instructors and students• “Moodle user” group had the highest grade average in the course (+4.3%)• “mixed users” – some students with WebCT preference had clearly accessed Moodle based on the usage logs
  • (11 to 19 items accessed) (1 to 10 items accessed) (0 items accesssed) Moodle users Sporadic Moodle users Never accessed Moodle # students Science 6 23 13 42 Business 4 5 3 12 Engineering 4 1 2 7Health Science 1 26 12 39 Arts 0 1 0 1Social Science 0 1 0 1 15 57 30 102 11 to 19 3 to 10 1 or 2 0 Accessed Moodle once or Moodle users Sporadic Moodle users twice Never accessed Moodle # students Science 6 17 6 13 42 Business 4 4 1 3 12 Engineering 4 1 0 2 7Health Science 1 16 10 12 39 Arts 0 0 1 0 1Social Science 0 0 1 0 1 15 38 19 30 102
  • based on faculty numbers % Moodle users % Sporadic Moodle users % never accessed Moodle Science 14.3 54.8 31.0 100.0 Business 33.3 41.7 25.0 100.0 Engineering 57.1 14.3 28.6 100.0Health Science 2.6 66.7 30.8 100.0 Arts 0 100 0 100.0Social Science 0 100 0 100.0 % Moodle users % Sporadic Moodle users % accessed Moodle once or twice % never accessed Moodle Science 14.3 40.5 14.3 31.0 100.0 Business 33.3 33.3 8.3 25.0 100.0 Engineering 57.1 14.3 0.0 28.6 100.0Health Science 2.6 41.0 25.6 30.8 100.0 Arts 0 0 100 0 100.0Social Science 0 0 100 0 100.0