JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 1
Course Management for LMS-based
Blended Learning:
Blackboard vs. Moodle
Presenter: Terumi Miyazoe
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 2
Overview
 Design points and goals
 LMS (Blackboard vs. Moodle)
 Blended course design
 Data co...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 3
 A view of Blackboard
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 4
 A view of Moodle
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 5
Prior studies
Not many detailed studies (published)
comparing teaching and learning between
Blackb...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 6
Design points and goals
 LMS (Learning Management
System) implementation
 Blended learning: mixt...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 7
Significance of the study
 More descriptive and analytical
 Blackboard and Moodle groups have no...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 8
Teaching contexts
 Period: 2007 spring semester
 Location: Two universities in Tokyo
 Content: ...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 9
Student Demographics 1
 Blackboard group
- 1st year students with concurrent
blended learning cou...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 10
Student Demographics 2
 Moodle group
- 2nd year students with no prior
experience of blended lea...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 11
Blended course design 1
 Semi-identical usage of LMS was planned
for both universities
 Four fe...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 12
Blended course design 2
 In addition to 15 full meeting classes using
the system, the LMS was us...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 13
LMS for language teaching and learning 1
For teachers: Positive points
 Easy delivery of authent...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 14
LMS for language teaching and learning 2
For teachers: negative points
 Need necessary IT/ICT sk...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 15
LMS for language teaching and learning 3
For students: positive points
 Access from anywhere, an...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 16
LMS for language teaching and learning 4
For students: negative points
 Non-techie type students...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 17
Views of the course on LMS
 Audio delivery (BB)
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 18
View of the course on LMS
 Supplementary Content Delivery -
Moodle
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 19
View of the course on LMS
 Discussion Forum - BB
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 20
View of the course on LMS
 Discussion Forum - Moodle
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 21
Data collection 1
 Pre-course questionnaire regarding
overall student ICT readiness and online
l...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 22
Data collection 2
 Respondent specifications
Blackboard Moodle
Initial course
registration
63 st...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 23
Methods of analysis
 Five point Likert scale questions:
Statistical analysis on SPSS
- Frequency...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 24
Questionnaire 1 (extract)
Q.1.1 How long have you used a PC?
Q.1.2 Do you have an Internet
connec...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 25
Questionnaire 2 (extract)
Q.12 Posting your reports and opinions on
Moodle/BB Forum was,
painful ...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 26
Questionnaire 3 (extract)
Q.8.2 Regarding the activities in class and
assignments set on Moodle/B...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 27
Finding 1: Students’ overall evaluations
of LMS blended courses
Q.17 Moodle group (m=4.22) liked ...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 28
Finding 2: Comparison between blended
learning and traditional learning
Q.18 Moodle group (m=4.3)...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 29
Finding 3: Students’ evaluations on
LMS usability
Q.9 Moodle group (m=4.0) finds the LMS easier t...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 30
Finding 4: Correlation analysis of
students’ evaluations on blended learning
 Q.8.2 concerns onl...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 31
Crucial points
1. Overall, significantly higher
evaluation of blended course
design over traditio...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 32
Discussion 1
 Ease of use of LMS could affect
students’ overall evaluations of a
blended course....
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 33
Discussion 2
 Moodle allows individual instructors
to run an online course more easily
but the n...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 34
Conclusions
 Choice of a good LMS can affect
learning outcomes.
 More research is needed concer...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 35
References
 Beatty, B., & Ulasewicz, C. (2006). Faculty
Perspectives on Moving from Blackboard t...
JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 36
More detailed report will appear in the online JALT
conference proceedings under the title of
A c...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

LMS-based Blended Learning: Blackbord vs Moodle

3,627 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
3 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,627
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
22
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
3
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

LMS-based Blended Learning: Blackbord vs Moodle

  1. 1. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 1 Course Management for LMS-based Blended Learning: Blackboard vs. Moodle Presenter: Terumi Miyazoe
  2. 2. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 2 Overview  Design points and goals  LMS (Blackboard vs. Moodle)  Blended course design  Data collection  Results and analysis  Discussions and conclusions
  3. 3. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 3  A view of Blackboard
  4. 4. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 4  A view of Moodle
  5. 5. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 5 Prior studies Not many detailed studies (published) comparing teaching and learning between Blackboard and Moodle.  Bremer & Bryant (2005): Moodle is better  Munoz & Duzer (2005): Moodle is better  Betty & Ulasewicz (2006): Moodle is easier to use but Blackboard is better for instructor feedback
  6. 6. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 6 Design points and goals  LMS (Learning Management System) implementation  Blended learning: mixture of face- to-face and online learning  Encouraging interaction among students in English  Enhancement of expression and writing ability in English
  7. 7. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 7 Significance of the study  More descriptive and analytical  Blackboard and Moodle groups have no experience of using the other purer→ comparison.  The course designs and the usage of the two LMSs are semi-identical and highly controlled.  Identical survey tools are used for both groups.  The instructor avoids affecting students’ performance and evaluations as much as possible.
  8. 8. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 8 Teaching contexts  Period: 2007 spring semester  Location: Two universities in Tokyo  Content: English for computing (ESP) and English for academic purposes (EAP)  Year: 1st and 2nd year students  Duration: about 15 weeks  English Level: intermediate  Class size: 25 to 30×2 respectively
  9. 9. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 9 Student Demographics 1  Blackboard group - 1st year students with concurrent blended learning courses - majors: computing and web design - age: 18~19 - 63 students registered - Blackboard Academic Suite 7.1
  10. 10. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 10 Student Demographics 2  Moodle group - 2nd year students with no prior experience of blended learning - majors: system design and city planning - age: 19~21 - 50 students registered - Moodle version 1.7.2+
  11. 11. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 11 Blended course design 1  Semi-identical usage of LMS was planned for both universities  Four features commonly used in both universities: 1. announcement from the instructor every week 2. presentation of the course materials every week 3. delivery of the audios for all units 4. short assignments using Forum (BBS) every two weeks
  12. 12. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 12 Blended course design 2  In addition to 15 full meeting classes using the system, the LMS was used for asynchronous discussion assignments.  Minimal posting is required in order to minimize the burden and stress on students.  Grading policy (same for both universities): 30% attendance, 30% assignments, 40% mid-terms & final exams.
  13. 13. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 13 LMS for language teaching and learning 1 For teachers: Positive points  Easy delivery of authentic audio-visual materials  Easy linkage to other static/interactive digital resources  Easy course management such as grading, attendance check, etc.  More time for preparation and refinement  Reusable and shareable over semesters and with others
  14. 14. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 14 LMS for language teaching and learning 2 For teachers: negative points  Need necessary IT/ICT skills  Need necessary infrastructure/equipment  Could be overloaded by - planning - e-materials making - care of online activities outside classes - care of student technical problems both in and outside of class-time
  15. 15. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 15 LMS for language teaching and learning 3 For students: positive points  Access from anywhere, anytime, outside the classroom  Ease of student self-paced self- study  Higher collaboration and interaction among students  Higher connectedness to others
  16. 16. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 16 LMS for language teaching and learning 4 For students: negative points  Non-techie type students could suffer  Those without PC/Internet at home would be disadvantaged  Risk of overload outside the normal classes  Those who do not like the blended design would see more demerits
  17. 17. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 17 Views of the course on LMS  Audio delivery (BB)
  18. 18. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 18 View of the course on LMS  Supplementary Content Delivery - Moodle
  19. 19. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 19 View of the course on LMS  Discussion Forum - BB
  20. 20. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 20 View of the course on LMS  Discussion Forum - Moodle
  21. 21. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 21 Data collection 1  Pre-course questionnaire regarding overall student ICT readiness and online learning experiences  Post-course questionnaire regarding student demographics, notions about online interaction, and evaluations of the blended course delivery - 20 five point Likert scale questions - open questions  Written informed consent for data analysis and publication
  22. 22. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 22 Data collection 2  Respondent specifications Blackboard Moodle Initial course registration 63 students (two classes) 50 students (two classes) Survey respondents 58 46 Valid samples 51 (88%) 37 (80%) Note: Valid samples = those who gave consent and whose answers were complete enough to be included in the analysis.
  23. 23. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 23 Methods of analysis  Five point Likert scale questions: Statistical analysis on SPSS - Frequency - t-test - correlation - group analysis  Open-ended questions: Count the frequency of similar ideas and group them
  24. 24. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 24 Questionnaire 1 (extract) Q.1.1 How long have you used a PC? Q.1.2 Do you have an Internet connection at home? Q.1.3 How many hours do you use a PC per day? Q.1.4 Tell me the software you frequently use. Q.1.5 Do you use a portable phone? If yes, for what purpose?
  25. 25. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 25 Questionnaire 2 (extract) Q.12 Posting your reports and opinions on Moodle/BB Forum was, painful 1-2-3-4-5 enjoyable Q.13 The reports and opinions of others on Moodle/BB Forum were, rarely read by me 1-2-3-4-5 mostly read by me Q.14 Reading the reports and opinions of others on Moodle/BB Forum was, painful 1-2-3-4-5 enjoyable
  26. 26. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 26 Questionnaire 3 (extract) Q.8.2 Regarding the activities in class and assignments set on Moodle/BB, I mostly did not participate 1-2-3-4-5 I mostly participated Q.9 The Forum on Moodle/BB was Difficult to use 1-2-3-4-5 Easy to use Q.17 On the whole, how did you like the class design of blending Moodle/BB? I didn’t like it 1-2-3-4-5 I liked it
  27. 27. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 27 Finding 1: Students’ overall evaluations of LMS blended courses Q.17 Moodle group (m=4.22) liked the blended course more than Blackboard group (m=3.61). St u de n t s 'e va lu a t io n s o n ble n de d le a rn in g 0 5 1 8 20 8 0 1 4 1 8 1 4 0 5 1 0 1 5 20 25 1 2 3 4 5 Dis like (1 ) - Like (5) numberof students Bla c kbo a rd Mo o dle
  28. 28. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 28 Finding 2: Comparison between blended learning and traditional learning Q.18 Moodle group (m=4.3) evaluates blended learning as better than traditional learning more highly than Blackboard group (m=3.59). Ble nde d v s . Tra d it io na l le a rning 1 2 21 20 7 0 0 3 20 14 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 5 Pre fe r t ra d it io na l (1) - Pre fe r b le nd e d (5) Numberof students Bla c kb o a rd Mo o d le
  29. 29. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 29 Finding 3: Students’ evaluations on LMS usability Q.9 Moodle group (m=4.0) finds the LMS easier to use than Blackboard group (m=3.43) even though it was their first time to use it. LMS us a b ilit y 2 3 22 19 5 0 1 7 20 9 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 5 Diffibut (1) - Ea s y (5) t o ue s e Numberof students Bla c kb o a rd Mo od le
  30. 30. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 30 Finding 4: Correlation analysis of students’ evaluations on blended learning  Q.8.2 concerns online interaction attendance (mean=4.13), Q.9 concerns the usability of LMS (mean=3.67), and Q.17 concerns the students’ liking of LMS- based blending learning (mean=3.86), α<.005. →   Students' higher evaluation of Moodle over Blackboard could partly be explained by greater ease of use of Moodle.
  31. 31. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 31 Crucial points 1. Overall, significantly higher evaluation of blended course design over traditional teaching. 2. Even though the Blackboard group is more familiar with LMS, the ease of use is scored lower than the Moodle group who used it for the first time.
  32. 32. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 32 Discussion 1  Ease of use of LMS could affect students’ overall evaluations of a blended course.  In particular for language learning where communication, repetition, and self-study are important for language internalization, could give more advantages than traditional teaching.
  33. 33. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 33 Discussion 2  Moodle allows individual instructors to run an online course more easily but the necessary administrative process might be shouldered by him/her as well.  The risk of both LMSs becoming unavailable at some point in the future is unavoidable.
  34. 34. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 34 Conclusions  Choice of a good LMS can affect learning outcomes.  More research is needed concerning which features of LMS have most impact on students’ usability evaluations and their learning.
  35. 35. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 35 References  Beatty, B., & Ulasewicz, C. (2006). Faculty Perspectives on Moving from Blackboard to the Moodle Learning Management System TechTrends, 50(4).  Bremer, D., & Bryant, R. (2005). A Comparison of Two Learning management Systems: Moodle vs Blackboard Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications.  Munoz, K. D., & Duzer, J. V. (2005). Blackboard vs. Moodle: A Comparison of Satisfaction with Online Teaching and Learning Tools. Retrieved November 5, 2007, from http://www.humboldt.edu/~jdv1/moodle/all.htm  Blackboard.com: http://www.blackboard.com  Moodle.org: http://moodle.org
  36. 36. JALT 2007.11.24 Tokyo 36 More detailed report will appear in the online JALT conference proceedings under the title of A comparative study of EFL blended learning: Blackboard vs. Moodle Thank you for your visit!!!

×