Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Learners’ Needs in Online Learning Environments and Third Generation Learning Management Systems (LMS 3.0)

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Learning Management Systems are web-based systems in which learners can interact with content/learning resources and assessments, as well as other learners and instructors. LMSs have been widely used especially since the beginning of the information age. In the context of this study, the aim was to determine the expectations and needs of the learners, who are considered to be one of the most important stakeholders of the LMSs. An open-ended questionnaire and a semi-structured interview form prepared by the researchers were used as data collection tools. Content analysis was performed to analyze open-ended questions and interview data. According to the findings it was seen that learners want more entertaining and self-monitoring environments, especially with the elements of gamification. It was also seen that the learning environments have reporting and predictive capability on student achievement. Learners’ needs and expectations match with third-generation learning management systems. The third-generation learning management systems can be developed through educational data mining and learning analytics. Within the scope of this research, the learner expectations and needs were discussed in the context of the third generation learning management systems, intervention and types of intervention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Akram, A., Aslam, M., Martinez-Enriquez, A.M., ul Qayyum, Z., & Syed, A.Z. (2011). Agent based intelligent learning management system for heterogeneous learning environment. In 2011 IEEE 14th International multitopic conference (pp. 76–81). IEEE.

  • Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method: A behavioral science view. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M.D. (2012). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 267–270). ACM.

  • Aslan, S., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Educational technologists: Leading change for a new paradigm of education. TechTrends, 57(5), 18–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, G. D. (1992). Wanted: A road map for understanding integrated learning systems. Educational Technology, 32(9), 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusilovsky, P. (2003). Developing adaptive educational hypermedia systems: From design models to authoring tools. In Authoring tools for advanced technology learning environments (pp. 377–409). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Casey, K., & Azcona, D. (2017). Utilizing student activity patterns to predict performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L. H. (2011). Enhancement of student learning performance using personalized diagnosis and remedial learning system. Computers & Education, 56(1), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S. P., Lam, S. S., Li, K. C., & Wong, B. T. (2018). Learning analytics at low cost: At-risk student prediction with clicker data and systematic proactive interventions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 273–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–14.

  • Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2. Press). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

  • Davey, L. (2009). The application of case study evaluations. Elementary Education Online, 8(2).

  • David, S.A. (2013). A critical understanding of learning management system.

  • Demir, Ö., Yasar, S., Sert, G., & Yurdugül, H. (2014). Examination of the relationship between students’ attitudes towards computer and self-directed learning with technology. Education and Science, 39(176), 257–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducasse, A. M., & Hill, K. (2019). Developing student feedback literacy using educational technology and the reflective feedback conversation. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 12(1), 24–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Er, E., Dimitriadis, Y., & Gašević, D. (2020). Collaborative peer feedback and learning analytics: Theory-oriented design for supporting class-wide interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–22.

  • Fardinpour, A., Pedram, M. M., & Burkle, M. (2014). Intelligent learning management systems: Definition, features and measurement of intelligence. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 12(4), 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5–6), 304–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiaidhi, J. (2014). The next step for learning analytics. IT Professional, 16(5), 4–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic motivation and school performance: Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(3), 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, E. S. (2005). Behavior-based safety and occupational risk management. Behavior Modification, 29(3), 539–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannakos, M.N., Sampson, D.G., & Kidziński, L. (2016). Introduction to smart learning analytics: Foundations and developments in video-based learning. Smart Learning Environments, 3–12.

  • Grow, G. O. (1991). Teaching to learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3), 125–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning: Prepared for the Council of Europe. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Y., Lo, C., & ve Shih, S. (2014). Developing early warning systems to predict students’ online learning performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 469–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, M. L., Chou, C., Chen, C. H., & Own, Z. Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1080–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2017). Are higher education institutions prepared for learning analytics? TechTrends, 61(4), 366–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. London: Routledge.

  • Jin, S. H. (2017). Using visualization to motivate student participation in collaborative online learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jun, J. (2005) Understanding dropout of adult learners in e-learning (PhD Dissertation). Seoul National University of Education Seoul, Korea

  • Khan, I., & Pardo, A. (2016). Data2U: Scalable real time student feedback in active learning environments. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge (pp. 249–253).

  • Kim, J., Jo, I. H., & Park, Y. (2016). Effects of learning analytics dashboard: Analyzing the relations among dashboard utilization, satisfaction, and learning achievement. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17(1), 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Pyschological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, L.A., Dawson, S., Gašević, D., Joksimović, S., Pardo, A., Fudge, A., & Gentili, S. (2020). Students’ perceptions of, and emotional responses to, personalised learning analytics-based feedback: An exploratory study of four courses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–21.

  • Lin, C. H., Hu, S. S., Lai, H. Y., Chiang, C. F., Tseng, H. C., & Cheng, Y. C. (2016). Visca: A dashboard system to visualize learning activities from e-learning platforms. International symposium on emerging technologies for education (pp. 422–427). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers & Education, 48(2), 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of Learning Management Systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 686–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, O. H., Huang, J. C., Huang, A. Y., & Yang, S. J. (2017). Applying learning analytics for improving students engagement and learning outcomes in an MOOCs enabled collaborative programming course. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(2), 220–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloof, M.A. (Ed.). (2006). Machine learning and data mining for computer security: Methods and applications. Berlin: Springer.

  • McKay, T., Miller, K., & Tritz, J. (2012). What to do with actionable intelligence: E 2 Coach as an intervention engine. In Proceedings of the 2nd international Conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 88–91). ACM.

  • Narciss, S., Körndle, H., Reimann, G., & Müller, C. (2004). Feedback-seeking and feedback efficiency in web-based learning–How do they relate to task and learner characteristics. In Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning. Proceedings of the first joint meeting of the EARLI SIGs instructional design and learning and instruction with computers (pp. 377–388).

  • Naveh, G., Tubin, D., & Pliskin, N. (2010). Student LMS use and satisfaction in academic institutions: The organizational perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 127–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, B. L. L., Liu, W. C., & Wang, J. C. (2015). A preliminary examination of teachers’ and students’ perspectives on autonomy-supportive instructional behaviors. Qualitative Research in Education, 4(2), 192–221p.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, A., & Dawson, S. (2016). Learning Analytics: How Can Data Be Used to Improve Learning Practice? In ​Measuring and Visualizing Learning in the Information-Rich Classroom, Reimann, P., Bull, S., Kickmeier-Rust, M., Vatrapu, R., Wasson, B. (Eds.) (pp. 41–55). London: Routledge.

  • Park, Y., & Jo, I. H. (2015). Development of the learning analytics dashboard to support students’ learning performance. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 21(1), 110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parthasarathy, M., Ananthasayanam, R., & Ravi, R. (2011). Intelligent learning management system: A conceptual framework. Indian Streams Research Journal, 1(5). ISSN: 2230-7850.

  • Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

  • Peraković, D., Remenar, V., & Jovović, I. (2011). LMS 2.0: Next generation of e-learning. In Third international scientific congress of informational technology for e-learning—ITeO 2011.

  • Pinheiro, M.M. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of research on engaging digital natives in higher education settings. Hershey: IGI Global.

  • Reigeluth, C.M., & Garfinkle, R.J. (1994). Systemic change in education. Educational Technology.

  • Reigeluth, C.M., Watson, W.R., Watson, S.S.L., Dutta, P., Chen, Z., & Powell, N.D. (2008). Roles for technology in the information-age paradigm of education: Learning management systems. Educational Technology, 32–39.

  • Ribbe, E., & Bezenilla, M. J. (2013). Scaffolding learner autonomy in online university courses. Digital Education Review, 24, 98–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2010). Educational data mining: a review of the state of the art. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, IEEE Transactions on, 40(6), 601–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şahin, M. (2018). Design and development of the intervention engine based on learning analytics for e-learning environments (PhD Dissertation). Hacettepe University, Ankara

  • Şahin, M., & Yurdugül, H. (2019). An intervention engine design and development based on learning analytics: the intelligent intervention system (In2S). Smart Learning Environments, 6(1), 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samarawickrema, G., & Stacey, E. (2007). Adopting web-based learning and teaching: A case study in higher education. Distance education, 28(3), 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, C., & Ifenthaler, D. (2018). The importance of students’ motivational dispositions for designing learning analytics. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30, 599–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiler, L., Kuhnel, M., Ifenthaler, D., & Honal, A. (2019). Digital applications as smart solutions for learning and teaching at higher education institutions. In utilizing learning analytics to support study success (pp. 157–174). Cham: Springer.

  • Shabani, Z., & Eshaghian, M. (2014). Decision support system using for learning management systems personalization. American Journal of Systems and Software, 2(5), 131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siadaty, M., Gašević, D., & Hatala, M. (2016). Associations between technological scaffolding and micro-level processes of self-regulated learning: A workplace study. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1007–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G. (2013). Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1380–1400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simic, G., Gasevic, D., & Devedzic, V. (2004). Semantic web and intelligent learning management systems. In Workshop on applications of semantic web technologies for e-learning.

  • Tabaa, Y., & Medouri, A. (2013). LASyM: A learning analytics system for MOOCs. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA), 4(5), 113–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabuenca, B., Kalz, M., Drachsler, H., & Specht, M. (2015). Time will tell: The role of mobile learning analytics in self-regulated learning. Computers & Education, 89, 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, L.M., & Kay, J. (2014). Gamification: metacognitive scaffolding towards long term goals? In UMAP workshops.

  • Tlili, A., Essalmi, F., & Jemni, M., Chang, M. & Kinshuk. (2018). iMoodle: An intelligent moodle based on learning analytics.

  • Ueno, M. (2004). Data mining and text mining technologies for collaborative learning in an ILMS" Ssamurai". In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies, 2004 (pp. 1052–1053). IEEE.

  • Watson, W.R., Watson, S.L., & Reigeluth, C.M. (2015). Education 3.0: Breaking the mold with technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(3), 332–343.

  • Watson, W., & Watson, S.L. (2007). An argument for clarity: What are learning management systems, what are they not, and what should they become.

  • Weber, R.P. (1990). Basic content analysis (No. 49). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R.K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

  • Yoo, Y., Lee, H., Jo, I.-H., & Park, Y. (2015). Educational dashboards for smart learning: review of case studies. In Chen, G., Kumar, V., Kinshuk, Huang, R., & Kong, S.C. (Eds.) Sayfa: 145–155. Berlin: Springer.

  • Zhang, J.-H., Zhang, Y.-X., Zou, Q., & Huang, S. (2018). What learning analytics tells us: Group behavior analysis and individual learning diagnosis based on long-term and large-scale data. Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 245–258.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Ege University, 35040, Izmir, Turkey

    Muhittin Şahin

  2. Faculty of Education, Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Hacettepe University, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

    Halil Yurdugül

Authors
  1. Muhittin Şahin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Halil Yurdugül
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhittin Şahin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Şahin, M., Yurdugül, H. Learners’ Needs in Online Learning Environments and Third Generation Learning Management Systems (LMS 3.0). Tech Know Learn 27, 33–48 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09479-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09479-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation