Learning Management Systems in Higher Education ... - CTools

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Factors AffectingInteractionIndependent Variables:• Instructor/student (RQ #1)• Research/Non-research university (RQ #2)• Number of courses one has used an LMS (RQ #3)• Use / Preference for IT (RQ #4)Tuesday, November 9, 2010SI & USE LabUniversity of Michigan
Findings• Learner-Content (LC)• Students value slightly more than instructors• Higher use of LMS = More value for LC activities• Learner-Instructor (LI)• Students value much more than instructors• Learner-Learner (LL)• Non-research institutions value more than Researchinstitutions• Higher use of LMS = Less value for LC activities• Use / Preference for IT = More value for all interaction typesTuesday, November 9, 2010SI & USE LabUniversity of Michigan
Page 1 and 2: Learning Management Systemsin Highe
Page 3 and 4: USE LabResearch Team• Steven Lonn
Page 5 and 6: LMS GrowthSI & USE LabUniversity of
Page 7 and 8: Different Types ofInteractions• D
Page 9 and 10: Survey Items by Interaction TypeTue
Page 11 and 12: Survey Items by Interaction Type•
Page 13: Multi-InstitutionalResearch Questio
Page 17 and 18: Residential vs.Commuter• Instruct
Page 19 and 20: User Log DifferencesBetween Campuse
Page 21 and 22: Summary• No significant differenc
Page 23 and 24: How Does LMS AffectUse of In-Class
Page 25 and 26: Learner-Content(LC) InteractionsStu
Page 27 and 28: Other InteractionsStudents• "Many
Page 29: Negative Responses• Students main
Page 32 and 33: Qualitative Analysis Summary• Fac
Page 34 and 35: Examples of LMS Use• Principles o
Page 36 and 37: LectureTools• Hybrid for LC, LI,
Page 38 and 39: Conclusions• Across campuses, LMS
Page 40 and 41: Future LearningSpaces with LMS• A

Learning Management Systems in Higher Education ... - CTools

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?