Loenguslaidid Tallinna Ülikooli haridustehnoloogia magistriõppe kursusel IFI7227.DT Õpikeskkonnad ja võrgustatud õpe, 24. september 2022.

1. Virtuaalsed
õpikeskkonnad ja
õpihaldussüsteemid
IFI7227.DT Õpikeskkonnad ja võrgustatud õpe

2. Ajaveebid

3. Hetkeseis ajaveebidega
• Ajaveeb EduFeedris registreeritud — 30/35
• Õpikeskkondade kursuse rubriik — 25/35
• Ajaveeb privaatne — 2
• Postituste asemel leheküljed — 1?

4. Tehnilised soovitused
• Ülesande linkimine postitusse
• Kommentaaride automaatne avalikustamine

5. Teadusartiklite andmebaasid

6. https://www.tlulib.ee/andmebaasid/e-andmebaasid/

7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxtdV_jAGTs

8. Viitamine

9. https://apastyle.apa.org

10. https://www.tlu.ee/dt/oppetoo/dokumendid-ja-juhendid

11. APA7 viitamissüsteemi lühikokkuvõte
Tekstisisesed viited
Juhul kui allika avaldamiskuupäev puudub, kirjutatakse tekstisiseses viites aasta asemel “kuupäev puudub”. Näiteks:
(Tallinna Ülikool, kuupäev puudub)
Juhul kui autori nimi puudub, kirjutatakse tekstisises viites autori asemel allika pealkiri. Näiteks:
(Isikuandmete kaitse seadus, 2019)
Tekstisisesed viited kirjutatakse lause sisse, mitte punkti järele. Ainsaks erandiks, kus viide käib punkti järel, on vähemalt 40 sõna pikkused tsitaadid (American
Psychological Association [APA], 2020, lk 272).
Täpsemad juhised tekstisisese nimi-aasta viitamise kohta APA kodulehel: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/basic-principles/author-date
Allika tüüp Nimi ja aasta sulgudes Nimi tekstis, aasta sulgudes
Ühe autori teos (Laanpere, 2013) Laanpere (2013)
Kahe autori teos (Kollom & Tammets, 2017) Kollom ja Tammets (2017)
Kolme või enama autori teos (Põldoja et al., 2016) Põldoja et al. (2016)
Grupi teos (lühendiga) Esimene viide:
(Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium [HTM], 2019)
Korduvad viited:
(HTM, 2019)
Esimene viide:
Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium [HTM] (2019)
Korduvad viited:
HTM (2019)
Grupi teos (lühend puudub) (Apple, 2019) Apple (2019)
Koostanud: Hans Põldoja, Tallinna Ülikooli Digitehnoloogiate instituut /
1 14
Viimati muudetud: 20. detsember 2020

12. Täielikud viitekirjed kasutatud allikate loetelus
Nr Allika tüüp Viide Mendeley allika tüüp
Perioodikaväljaanded
(Periodicals)
1. Teadusajakirja artikkel koos DOI-
numbriga
(Journal article with a DOI)
Väljataga, T., & Laanpere, M. (2010). Learner control and personal learning
environment: a challenge for instructional design. Journal of Interactive Learning
Environments, 18(3), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2010.500546
Tekstisisene viide sulgudes: (Väljataga & Laanpere, 2010)
Tekstisisene viide lause sõnastuses: Väljataga ja Laanpere (2010)
Täpsemad juhised APA kodulehel:
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples/journal-
article-references
Journal Article
2. Teadusajakirja artikkel ilma DOI-numbrita
koos mitte-andmebaasi URL’iga
(Journal article without a DOI, with a
nondatabase URL)
Christiansen, J.-A., & Anderson, T. (2004). Feasibility of Course Development
Based on Learning Objects: Research Analysis of Three Case Studies.
International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 1(3), 21–38.
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Mar_04/article02.htm
Tekstisisene viide sulgudes: (Christiansen & Anderson, 2004)
Tekstisisene viide lause sõnastuses: Christiansen ja Anderson (2004)
Journal Article
3. Teadusajakirja artikkel ilma DOI-numbrita
teaduskirjastuse andmebaasis või
trükiversioonina
(Journal, magazine, or newspaper article
without a DOI, from most academic
research databases or print version)
Põldoja, H., Leinonen, T., Väljataga, T., Ellonen, A. & Priha, M. (2006). Progressive
Inquiry Learning Object Templates (PILOT). International Journal on E-Learning,
5(1), 103–111.
Tekstisisene viide sulgudes: (Põldoja et al., 2006)
Tekstisisene viide lause sõnastuses: Põldoja et al. (2006)
Journal Article
Koostanud: Hans Põldoja, Tallinna Ülikooli Digitehnoloogiate instituut /
2 14
Viimati muudetud: 20. detsember 2020

13. Teadusajakirja artikkel koos DOI- numbriga (1)
Law, E. L.-C., van Schaik, P., & Roto, V. (2014).
Attitudes towards user experience (UX) measurement.
Journal of Human Computer Studies, 72(6), 526–541.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.006

14. Teadusajakirja artikkel koos DOI- numbriga (1)
Law, E. L.-C., van Schaik, P., & Roto, V. (2014). Attitudes towards
user experience (UX) measurement. Journal of Human Computer
Studies, 72(6), 526–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhcs.2013.09.006
artikli pealkiri
ajakirja nimi
aastakäik (ingl Volume)
number (ingl Issue)
lehekülje numbrid

15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.006

16. Zotero

17. https://www.zotero.org

18. https://www.zotero.org

20. https://www.zotero.org/support/word_processor_integration

21. https://www.zotero.org/download/connectors

22. https://www.zotero.org/support/ios

23. Ajaveebide jälgimine
• EduFeedr
• WordPress Reader
• Feedly

24. http://www.edufeedr.net/pg/edufeedr/view_educourse/71547

25. https://wordpress.com/read

26. https://feedly.com

27. https://apps.apple.com/ee/app/feedly-smart-news-reader/id396069556

28. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.devhd.feedly&hl=en&gl=EE

29. Õpilepingud

30. Haridustehnoloogia ajalugu

31. Haridustehnoloogia
ajalugu
Nicholson, P. (2007). A History
of E-Learning. B. Fernández-
Manjón, J. M. Sánchez-Pérez,
J. A. Gómez-Pulido, M. A.
Vega-Rodríguez, & J. Bravo-
Rodríguez, Computers and
Education (lk 1–11). Springer.
https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4020-4914-9_1
Molnar, A. (1997). Computers in
Education: A Brief History. The
Journal. http://thejournal.com/
Articles/1997/06/01/
Computers-in-Education-A-
Brief-History.aspx
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011).
Three Generations of Distance
Education Pedagogy. The
International Review of
Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 12(3), 80–97. https://
doi.org/10.19173/
irrodl.v12i3.890
Sumner, J. (2000). Serving the
System: A critical history of
distance education. Open
Learning: the Journal of Open
and Distance Learning, 15(3),
267–285. https://doi.org/
10.1080/713688409
https://norobotsforalice.wordpress.com/2022/09/18/kaugkoolituse-ajalugu-terry-andersoni-ja-jon-droni-artikli-three-generations-of-distance-education-pedagogy-alusel/ https://aalob.wordpress.com/2022/09/18/haridutehnoloogia-ajalugu/
https://olesjahoz.wordpress.com/2022/09/18/1-artikli-analuus-ja-reflektsioon/
https://kainark.wordpress.com/2022/09/18/ulevaade-distantsoppe-ajaloost/
https://maibrittk.wordpress.com/2022/09/18/artikli-serving-the-system-a-critical-history-of-distance-education-analuus/
https://merjekr.wordpress.com/2022/09/18/artikli-computers-in-education-a-brief-history/
https://kaidilblogi.wordpress.com/2022/09/19/artikli-analuus-andrew-molnar-1997-arvutid-hariduses-luhike-ajalugu/
https://virgeharteh.wordpress.com/2022/09/17/esimene-ulesanne-e-oppe-ajalugu/
https://maretiht6pe.wordpress.com/opikeskkonnad-ja-vorgustatud-ope/
https://ifop22.metz.ee/haridustehnoloogia-ajalugu/
https://dianapmag.wordpress.com/2022/09/20/refleksioon-the-journalis-ilmunud-1997-aastal-a-molnar-artikli-computers-in-education-a-brief-history-pohjal/
https://albinarzevskaja.wordpress.com/2022/09/21/haridustehnoloogia-ajaloost/
https://janarkmagistriope.wordpress.com/2022/09/15/andrew-molnari-artikkel/
https://gettermagistriope.wordpress.com/2022/09/14/analuus-andrew-molnari-artiklist-computers-in-education-a-brief-history/
https://margitmih.wordpress.com/2022/09/18/esimene-teema-haridustehnoloogia-ajaloost/
https://ailipa.wordpress.com/2022/09/17/analuutiline-ja-reflekteeriv-analuus/
https://piretrammul.wordpress.com/2022/09/17/computers-in-education-a-brief-history/
https://looresinitamm.wordpress.com/2022/09/16/arvutid-hariduses-luhike-ajalugu/
http://164.92.249.68/wordpress/ifi7227/reflektsioon-a-molnari-artikli-computers-in-education-a-brief-history-pohjal/
https://kirstimagistriope.wordpress.com/2022/09/16/haridustehnoloogia-ajaloo-teemalise-artikli-analuus/
https://annelyris.wordpress.com/2022/09/17/lugemisulesanne-haridustehnoloogia-ajalugu/
https://kerlited.wordpress.com/2022/09/17/opikeskkonnad-ja-vorgustatud-ope/

32. (Anderson & Dron, 2011)
Summary of Distance Education Pedagogies
We conclude by arguing that all three current and future generations of DE pedagogy have an
Generation of
distance
education
pedagogy
Technology Learning
activities
Learner
granularity
Content
granularity
Evaluation Teacher
role
Scalability
Cognitive–
behaviourism
Mass media:
Print, TV,
radio, one-to-
one
communication
Read and
watch
Individual Fine:
scripted and
designed
from the
ground up
Recall Content
creator,
sage on
the stage
High
Constructivism Conferencing
(audio, video,
and Web),
many-to-many
communication
Discuss,
create,
construct
Group Medium:
scaffolded
and
arranged,
teacher-
guided
Synthesize:
essays
Discussion
leader,
guide on
the side
Low
Connectivism Web 2.0:
Social
networks,
aggregation &
recommender
systems
Explore,
connect,
create,
and
evaluate
Network Coarse:
mainly at
object and
person
level, self-
created
Artifact
creation
Critical
friend, co-
traveler
Medium

33. (Nicholson, 2007)
Table 1-1. The changing focus of educational technology over the past 30 years (after Charp,
1997; Herrington, Reeves et al., 2005; Leinonen, 2005; Mortera-Gutiérrez, 2006; Nicholson
& McDougall, 2005; Pilla, Nakayama et al., 2006; THOMSON, 2005)
Era Focus Educational characteristics
1975-1985 Programming;
Drill and practice;
Computer-assisted learning –
CAL.
Behaviourist approaches to learning
and instruction; programming to
build tools and solve problems;
local user-computer interaction.
1983-1990 Computer-Based Training;
Multimedia;
Use of older CAL models with
interactive multimedia courseware;
Passive learner models dominant;
Constructivist influences begin to
appear in educational software design
and use.
1990-1995 Web-based Training Internet-based content delivery;
Active learner models developed;
Constructivist perspectives common;
Limited end-user interactions.
1995-2005 E-Learning Internet-based flexible courseware
deliver; increased interactivity;
online multimedia courseware;
Distributed constructivist and
cognitivist models common; Remote
user-user interactions.

34. (Jones, 2011, lk 71)
Table 2.7. Five paradigms of university e-learning.
Period Title Description
Late 1980s to
early 1990s
Text-based CMC Text-based tools for e-mail, Usenet
news, perhaps FTP. Not always Internet
based. Very limited use. Limited
access. Difficult to use. (e.g., Oliver,
1985)
~1995 – late 90s Web-based Lone
Ranger
Lone-Ranger academics using Web and
Internet tools to enhance teaching.
Increasing access, creation difficult.
Little institutional support (e.g., Jones,
1996b)
1995 to 1999 Cottage Industry Ad hoc development of systems to
increase ease-of-use. Often multiple in
an institution. Often arise from work of
Lone-Rangers. Origins of the LMS
(e.g., Goldberg et al., 1996)
1998 – ?? Industrial E-learning becomes an institutional
concern. Must be a single institutional,
“enterprise ready” system represented
by a LMS. (e.g., Tickle, Muldoon, &
Tennent, 2009)
~2005 – ?? Post-industrial Rise and increasing availability of
Internet access, social media, mobile
devices etc. turns focus from
institutional provision to the use of
personal tools. From integrated systems
to learning networks (Downes, 2007)
2.5.2. Usage of industrial e-learning: quantity

35. (Leinonen, 2010, lk 12)
tools live on and continue to have an effect on us; the newer paradigms
and forms live simultaneously with the old ones (Figure 1).
Below I will present a chronological, thematic, and summarizing histo-
ry of the mainstream development of computer-based learning tools in
five phases. It is worth mentioning that the categorization is a general-
ization of the stages.
I – Late 1970s – early 1980s: programming, drill, and practice.
Accordingtomyownexperience,inthelate1970sandearly1980sthecom-
Figure 1:
Timeline of the
Main Paradigms
of Using Comput-
ers in Learning
drill and
practice
Computer-based
training(CBT)
with multimedia
Internet-based
training (IBT)
e-Learning Social software +
free and open
content
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

36. (Põldoja, 2016, lk 20)
Table 1. Five generations of using computers in education (adapted from Anderson & Dron,
2011; Jones, 2011; Leinonen, 2010; Nicholson, 2007).
Era Focus Learning technolo-
gies
Learning activities
1959–1985 Computer assisted
instruction
Personal computers,
intelligent tutoring
systems, artificial
intelligence, pro-
gramming tools
Drill and practice
exercises, program-
ming
1985–1993 Computer-based
training
Educational desktop
software, multimedia
CD-ROMs
Reading, drill and
practice exercises,
educational games
1993–1998 Web-based training Web sites, e-mail,
discussion forums,
chat
Reading, writing,
discussing, testing
1998–2005 E-learning Learning management
systems, learning
objects and reposito-
ries, computer-based
assessment tools,
video conferencing
Discussing, creating,
constructing
2005– Technology-enhanced
learning
Web 2.0, social soft-
ware, personal learn-
ing environments,
mobile devices, e-
textbooks, interactive
whiteboards, open
educational re-
sources, massive
open online courses,
learning analytics
Exploring, connecting,
creating, evaluating,
planning personal
learning, reflecting
The beginning of each generation may be connected to an important turning

37. Rühmaarutelud

38. Rühmaarutelud
• Moodustage 5…6-liikmelised arutelu rühmad
• Valige üks kahest teemast: haridustehnoloogia ajalugu või
õpilepingud
• Tehke lühikokkuvõte

39. Õpilepingud
Isiklik kogemus. Rakendusvõimalused hariduses?
Rakendusvõimalused tööalases koolituses? …

40. Haridustehnoloogia ajalugu
Mis oli huvitavat? Millised seosed tekkisid? Mida on ajaloost
õppida tehnoloogiapõhise õppe lahenduste disainimisel?

41. Virtuaalsed õpikeskkonnad

42. Virtuaalse õpikeskkonna vahendid
• Õpihaldussüsteem (learning management system, LMS; virtual learning environment,
VLE; course management system, CMS)
• Õppeinfosüsteem (study information system, SIS)
• Õpiobjektide repositoorium (learning object repository, LOR)
• Õpiobjektide autorvahendid
• Testimiskeskkonnad
• e-Portfoolio
• …

43. Õpihaldussüsteemi põhifunktsionaalsused
• Kursuste haldus
• Õppijate haldus
• Ajakava
• Õppematerjalid
• Ülesanded
• Suhtlusvahendid
• Hinded

44. Õpihaldussüsteemide areng

45. (Hill, 2022)

46. (Hill, 2022)

47. Õpihaldussüsteemid ja õpikeskkonnad
Eestis
• Eestis arendatud keskkonnad: VIKO, IVA, Edutizer, Krihvel,
LePress, EduFeedr, Dippler, eDidaktikum, eKool, Stuudium/
Tera, Õpiveeb, Opiq, Foxcademy, Schoolaby, Coursy
• Eestis kasutusel olnud välismaised keskkonnad: WebCT,
Moodle, Ilias, Canvas, Eliademy, LearnLoop

48. Stuudium

49. https://stuudium.com

50. eKool

51. https://ekool.eu

52. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5WEO0ChbZ0zugXGwS5lgCA

53. Opiq

54. https://www.opiq.ee

55. Õpiveeb

56. https://www.tebo.me

57. https://www.tebo.me

59. Foxcademy

60. https://www.foxcademy.com

61. Schoolaby

62. https://www.schoolaby.com

64. https://forte.del
fi
.ee/artikkel/120015154/digioppeplavorm-schoolaby-ja-selle-tarkvarakood-lahevad-vabakasutusse

65. https://gitlab.com/ng-education/schoolaby

66. https://opleht.ee/2021/04/schoolaby-muudab-veebioppe-palju-lihtsamaks-2/

67. Moodle

68. https://moodle.org

69. https://moodle.edu.ee

70. https://opikeskkonnad.ee/moodle/

71. eDidaktikum

72. http://edidaktikum.ee

73. http://edidaktikum.ee

74. Google Classroom

75. https://edu.google.com/workspace-for-education/classroom/

76. https://classroom.google.com

77. https://edu.google.com/workspace-for-education/classroom/

78. Ilias

79. http://www.ilias.de

80. https://ilias.mil.ee

81. Canvas

82. https://canvas.instructure.com

83. https://canvas.instructure.com

84. https://canvas.instructure.com

85. https://canvas.instructure.com

86. https://www.instructure.com/canvas/try-canvas

87. (Canvas, 2022)
Can a Acco n Com a i on
Canvas offers a wide range of features depending on your educational needs To introduce Canvas as a learning
platform Canvas offers a Free for Teacher account that is always free Try Canvas for Free
As of July 2020 Canvas Support will only accept support emails from Free for Teacher users regarding deleting
accounts restoring deleted courses resetting passwords and making courses public
Can a Fea e
Free for Teacher accounts do not contain all options available to paid Canvas environments The following table
shows feature availability in Free for Teacher accounts For more information about a Canvas feature please visit
the Canvas Guides (guides canvaslms com)
Teachers using a Free for Teacher account have all the same default Teacher permissions listed here with the
exception of the Grades Select Final Grade for Moderation permission View course permissions in Canvas
Fea e Paid Can a F ee fo Teache
Course level Features (Announcements Assignments
Discussions Grades People Pages Files Syllabus
Outcomes Quizzes Modules Conferences
Collaborations Course Settings)
Third party SSO Authentication
Custom authentication
with any available
authentication provider
Canvas authentication
Facebook GitHub
Google LinkedIn
Microsoft Twitter
Canvas Enabled External Tools (LTIs)
Chat New Quizzes
Quizzes tool Roll Call
Attendance SCORM
(Assignments)
File Storage
MB set by admin
50 MB user group*
500 MB course
50 MB user group*
External Notifications Email Slack Email
Third Party External Apps Management (LTIs) Account course level Course level
User Roles
Student Teacher TA
Designer Observer
Custom Roles
Student Teacher TA
Designer Observer
Canvas Commons Resources
ePortfolios
Canvas Customer Support Admin Ticketing System
Blueprint Course Templates
Individual Course Templates
Account and Sub account Management
Canvas 2021 guides canvaslms com updated 2021 09 18 Page 1

88. https://github.com/instructure/canvas-lms

89. Edutizer

90. http://www.edutizer.com

91. http://www.edutizer.com

92. Coursy

93. https://www.coursy.io

94. Edmodo
(2008 — 22.09.2022)

95. https://www.edmodo.com

96. https://www.edmodo.com

97. 2. teema lugemismaterjalid:
Õpihaldussüsteemid

98. 28 TechTrends • March/April 2007 Volume 51, Number 2
The application of computers to education
has a history dating back to the 1950s, well
before the pervasive spread of personal
computers (Reiser, 1987). With a mature
history and varying approaches to utilizing
computers for education, a veritable alphabet
soup of terms and acronyms
related to computers in
education have found their way
into the literature, most of them
non-standardized. Learning
Management System (LMS) is
one approach to the application
of computers to education
which holds great potential
and important concepts yet is
often misunderstood and the
term misused. This article will
clarify the use of the term LMS
by presenting a history and
definitionofLMS,differentiating
it from similar terms with which it is often
confused, and discussing the role it can play
in education. It will then describe current
application and available features of LMSs,
and conclude by identifying trends and
recommending future research.
History and definition of LMS:
What are LMSs?
The history of the application of computers
to education is filled with generic terms such as
computer-based instruction (CBI), computer-
assisted instruction (CAI), and computer-
assisted learning (CAL), generally describing
drill-and-practiceprograms,moresophisticated
tutorials and more individualized instruction,
respectively (Parr & Fung, 2001). LMS has its
history in another term, integrated learning
system (ILS) which offers functionality beyond
instructional content such as management
and tracking, personalized instruction and
integration across the system (Bailey, 1993;
Becker, 1993; Brush, Armstrong, Barbrow, &
Ulintz, 1999; Szabo & Flesher, 2002).
The term ILS was coined by Jostens Learn-
ing, and LMS was originally used to describe the
management system component of the PLATO
K-12 learning system, content-free and separate
from the courseware (R. Foshay, personal com-
munication, October 24, 2006). The term LMS
is currently used to describe a number of differ-
ent educational computer applications, and we
would argue that it is often used incorrectly. Lat-
er sections of this article will differentiate LMS
from other terms with which it is often confused,
but prior to describing what LMS is not; we will
focus on describing what an LMS is.
The key to understanding the difference
between LMS and other computer education
terms is to understand the systemic nature of
LMS. LMS is the framework that handles all
aspects of the learning process. An LMS is the
infrastructure that delivers and manages in-
structional content, identifies and assesses in-
dividual and organizational learning or training
goals, tracks the progress towards meeting those
goals, and collects and presents data for super-
vising the learning process of an organization as
a whole (Szabo & Flesher, 2002). An LMS deliv-
ers content but also handles course registration
and administration, skills gap analysis, tracking
and reporting (Gilhooly, 2001).
Bailey (1993) presents the following general
characteristics of an LMS in education:
An Argument for Clarity:
What are Learning Management
Systems, What are They Not, and
What Should They Become?
By William R. Watson and Sunnie Lee Watson
“A veritable
alphabet soup
of terms and
acronyms related
to computers
have found
their way into
the literature.”
Watson, W. R., & Watson, S. L. (2007). An Argument
for Clarity: What are Learning Management Systems,
What are They Not, and What Should They Become?
TechTrends, 51(2), 28–34. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s11528-007-0023-y

99. HAMISH COATES, RICHARD JAMES AND GABRIELLE BALDWIN
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF
LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ON UNIVERSITY
TEACHING AND LEARNING
ABSTRACT. The rapid uptake of campus-wide Learning Management Systems
(LMS) is changing the character of the on-campus learning experience. The trend
towards LMS as an adjunct to traditional learning modes has been the subject of
little research beyond technical analyses of alternative software systems. Drawing on
Australian experience, this paper presents a broad, critical examination of the
potential impact of these online systems on teaching and learning in universities. It
discusses in particular the possible effects of LMS on teaching practices, on student
engagement, on the nature of academic work and on the control over academic
knowledge.
INTRODUCTION
There is a significant change taking place in higher education that has
received surprisingly little analysis. In the last few years, integrated
computer systems known as Learning Management Systems (LMS)
have rapidly emerged and are having, and will increasingly have,
profound effects on university teaching and learning. LMS are
enterprise-wide and internet-based systems, such as WebCT and
Blackboard, that integrate a wide range of pedagogical and course
administration tools. These systems have the capacity to create virtual
learning environments for campus-based students, and are even being
used to develop fully online virtual universities. They are becoming
ubiquitous at universities around the world, adding a virtual dimen-
sion to even the most traditional campus-based institutions.
Unlike other financial or human resources management systems
recently introduced into universities, online LMS have the potential
to affect the core business of teaching and learning in unanticipated
ways. Despite this, research into the ramifications of LMS, in par-
ticular the pedagogical issues, is still in its infancy. In spite of wide-
spread levels of adoption, and although the systems are essentially
devices for teaching, attention has been most often focussed on their
Tertiary Education and Management 11: 19–36, 2005.
! 2005 Springer
Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A
Critical Examination Of The Effects Of Learning
Management Systems On University Teaching And
Learning. Tertiary Education and Management,
11(1), 19–36. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s11233-004-3567-9

100. Koh, J. H. L., & Kan, R. Y. P. (2021). Students’ use of
learning management systems and desired e-learning
experiences: are they ready for next generation
digital learning environments? Higher Education
Research & Development, 40(5), 1–16. https://
doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1799949
Students’ use of learning management systems and desired e-
learning experiences: are they ready for next generation
digital learning environments?
Joyce Hwee Ling Koh a
and Rebecca Yen Pei Kanb
a
Higher Education Development Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; b
Pedagogy and
Research Unit, Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts, Singapore
ABSTRACT
Despite continual upgrades, students tend to use the administrative
functions of learning management systems more frequently than
their learning applications. As learning management systems
morph into next generation digital learning environments that are
capable of supporting user accessibility through content creation
and curation, integrated systems interoperability, personalised
adaptive learning, collaborative learning, and analytics-driven
performance management, students’ readiness to engage with
these system functionalities needs to be considered. Through a
survey of 262 Fine Arts majors, this study examines how students
use learning management systems and if their desired e-learning
experiences correspond to the functional dimensions of next
generation digital learning environments. The results show that
when students frequently use learning management systems for
content learning and discussion, they also desire to engage in
student-centred e-learning activities and to use e-learning systems
that support content curation, private group management, and
mobile interoperability. These findings suggest that students’
current experiences shape how they desire to use e-learning
systems. To foster student-centred digital learning experiences,
both infrastructural upgrades and faculty preparation need to be
considered in tandem. The implications of these findings for
higher education institutions that are seeking to implement next
generation digital learning environments are discussed.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 22 September 2019
Accepted 10 June 2020
KEYWORDS
Digital learning; e-learning;
next generation digital
learning environments; next
generation LMS
Introduction
Learning management systems (LMSs) are frequently used by both faculty and students in
higher education institutions for online learning (e.g., Dahlstrom, Brooks, & Bichsel, 2014;
García-Peñalvo & Alier Forment, 2014). It is often assumed that technology enhances
learning pedagogies (Kirkwood & Price, 2014) but this does not appear so with LMSs
as students tend to be more satisfied with their administrative functions (e.g., assignment
dropbox) rather than their learning applications (e.g., online discussion) (Dahlstrom et al.,
2014; Galanek, Gierdowski, & Brooks, 2018). Yet, quality e-learning experiences should be
student-centred and participative (Ossiannilsson & Landgren, 2012). Educational
© 2020 HERDSA
CONTACT Joyce Hwee Ling Koh joyce.koh@otago.ac.nz
HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
2021, VOL. 40, NO. 5, 995–1010
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1799949

101. 2. teema ülesanne
Võimalik valida teoreetilise ja praktilise ülesande vahel:
• Teoreetiline ülesanne: ülevaade ühest artiklist
• Praktiline ülesanne: kursuse struktuuri loomine ühes
õpihaldussüsteemis

102. Viited
• Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890
• Canvas. (2021). Canvas Account Comparison. https://s3.amazonaws.com/tr-learncanvas/docs/Canvas_Account_Comparisons.pdf
• Hill, P. (2022). State of Higher Ed LMS Market for US and Canada: Year-End 2021 Edition. https://philonedtech.com/state-of-
higher-ed-lms-market-for-us-and-canada-year-end-2021-edition/
• Jones, D. T. (2011). An Information Systems Design Theory for E-learning. Canberra: Australian National University. http://
hdl.handle.net/1885/8370
• Leinonen, T. (2010). Designing Learning Tools: Methodological Insights. Helsinki: Aalto University School of Art and Design. http://
urn.
fi
/URN:ISBN:978-952-60-0032-9
• Nicholson, P. (2007). A History of E-Learning. B. Fernández-Manjón, J. M. Sánchez-Pérez, J. A. Gómez-Pulido, M. A. Vega-
Rodríguez, & J. Bravo- Rodríguez, Computers and Education (lk 1–11). Dordrecht: Springer. http://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4020-4914-9_1
• Põldoja, H. (2016). The Structure and Components for the Open Education Ecosystem: Constructive Design Research of Online
Learning Tools. Helsinki: Aalto University. http://urn.
fi
/URN:ISBN:978-952-60-6993-7

103. See materjal on avaldatud Creative Commons Autorile viitamine–Jagamine
samadel tingimustel 3.0 Eesti litsentsi alusel. Litsentsi terviktekstiga tutvumiseks
külastage aadressi http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ee/
Hans Põldoja
hans.poldoja@tlu.ee
IFI7227.DT Õpikeskkonnad ja võrgustatud õpe
https://opikeskkonnad.ee
Digitehnoloogiate instituut
Tallinna Ülikool