Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Learning styles, Personalization, and
Learning Management Systems
Towards a student-centred LMS approach
Mélissa Khaled
Department of ALM
Theses within Digital Humanities
Master’s thesis (two years), 30 credits, 2021, no. 9
2
Author Mélissa Khaled English Title Learning styles, personalization, and Learning Management Systems: Towards a student-centred LMS approach
Svensk Titel Lärstilar, personalisering och system för hantering av lärande: Mot en studentcentrerad LMS-strategi
Supervisor Nadzeya Charapan
Abstract This study investigates existing learning management systems practices, in this case Canvas and Moodle in relation to user personalization and students’ learning styles as both factors are closely contribute to the design of a meaningful learning experience for learners. With the expansion of these teaching tools and methods, it seems crucial to determine to what extent they actually serve the learner and what role is really given to the student using these online platforms. Factors such as instructors’ feedback, peer communication, learning objects and follow-up will be examined. This study is anchored in a Swedish academic setting, and aims to provide a comprehensive overview of learners' needs, expectations, and preferences to benefit educational institutions as well as LMS developers. The goal is to assess how such factors play an essential role in the personalization of learning tools and to suggest that their consideration can lead to the development of more intuitive LMS platforms that do not solely rely on content uploaded by teachers, but that can in turn potentially offer relevant content tailored to each user.
Sammanfattning Den här uppsatsen undersöker befintliga praxis för lärande hanteringssystem, i detta fall Canvas och Moodle, i förhållande till användaranpassning och studenternas inlärningsstilar, eftersom båda faktorerna bidrar till utformningen av en meningsfull inlärningsupplevelse för studenterna. På grund av expansionen av dessa undervisningsverktyg verkar det avgörande att bestämma i vilken utsträckning de faktiskt tjänar inläraren och vilken roll studenten verkligen får när hen använder dessa plattformar. Faktorer som lärarnas återkoppling, kommunikation med andra elever, lärandeobjekt och uppföljning kommer att undersökas noggrant. Studien är förankrad i en svensk akademisk miljö och syftar att ge en heltäckande översikt av inlärarnas behov, förväntningar och preferenser. Målet är att förstå hur dessa faktorer spelar en väsentlig roll i personaliseringen av lärverktyg och att föreslå att deras beaktande kan leda till utveckling av mer intuitiva LMS-plattformar som inte enbart förlitar sig på innehåll som laddas upp av lärare, utan som i sin tur potentiellt kan erbjuda relevant innehåll som är skräddarsytt för varje användare.
Keywords Personalization; learning styles; learning management systems; Canvas; Moodle; Felder-Silverman model.
Ämnesord Personalisering; inlärningsstilar; lärandeshanteringssystem; Canvas; Moodle; Felder-Silverman-modell.
3
Table of contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 5
2. Definitions and overview of the research field .................................. 10
2.1 LMS, learning styles and personalization: Defining the notions ........................... 10
2.1.1 Learning Management Systems ............................................................................ 10
2.1.2 Learning styles ...................................................................................................... 13
2.1.3 Personalization ...................................................................................................... 16
2.2 Personalizing Learning Management Systems: an overview ................................ 18
2.3 Limitations and future perspectives ....................................................................... 20
3. Materials and Methods ......................................................................... 27
4. Results .................................................................................................... 32
4.1 General overview ................................................................................................... 32
4.2 Learning styles: How does students prefer to learn? ........................................... 33
4.3 Classification of the respondents’ learning styles ................................................. 35
4.4 Learning styles’ influence on students .................................................................. 37
4.5 User experience with Canvas and Moodle ............................................................ 39
4.6 User needs and LMS ............................................................................................. 41
4.7 Possible improvements for Canvas and Moodle to better satisfy users’ need ….43
4.8 Personalization through a recommender system ................................................... 43
4.9 Learning environment preferences ....................................................................... 44
5. Discussion ............................................................................................... 46
6. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 53
7. Reference list .......................................................................................... 55
8. Appendixes ............................................................................................. 60
1. Question for the survey ....................................................................................................... 60
2. Overview about the participants’ background ..................................................................... 63
4
List of tables and figures
Figure 1, p.9: Organisation of the thesis
Figure 2, p.21: Representation of the Felder-Silverman model
Figure 3, p.30: Representative graph of the participants’ background
Figure 4, p.31: Representative graph of students’ preferences regarding the way of study
Figure 5, p.32: Representative graph of students’ preferences regarding language learning
Figure 6, p.32 : Representative graph of students’ preferences regarding language
learning
Figure 7, p.34: Main identified trends regarding learning objects preferences
Figure 8, p.35 : Overview of learning styles’ impact on students
Figure 9, p.36: Participants’ opinion about the ability to work in groups in Canvas and
Moodle
Figure 10, p.37 : Participants’ opinion about the easiness in practicing language learning
activities in Canvas and Moodle
Figure 11, p.38 : Participants’ opinion about the external content access and progress
visualization in Canvas and Moodle
Figure 12, p.38: Identification of students’ needs
Figure 13, p.39: Participants’ opinion about the most answered needs by Canvas and
Moodle
Figure 14, p.39 : Responsiveness of Canvas and Moodle to users’ needs
Figure 15, p.40 : Potential improvements for Canvas and Moodle to better respond to
students’ needs
Figure 16, p.41 : Personalized recommendations in LMS system: Overview of students’
needs
Figure 17, p.41 : Students’ satisfaction and preferences in term of learning environment
Figure 18, p.42: Students’ preferences when it comes to learning setting
Table 1, p.12: : Overview of some of the most important features in 3 of the major LMS
academic LMS platforms, based on the statistics and figure provided by Aldiab, et. al.,
(2019).
Table 2, p.28: : Overview of the themes that frame the questions.
Table 3, p.33: Summary of the respondents’ learning styles in accordance with FSLSM
5
1. Introduction
Since the democratisation of teaching online services, people are more and more
interested in engaging with quality content to learn about a specific topic such as
languages, in order to acquire new capacities and skills. Moreover, such experiences often
contribute to the diffusion of knowledge while connecting people all around the world.
Indeed, Dunn et al., (2019) mentions that “connected data, digital objects, virtual
museums, linked databases and digitally mediated ways of interacting with objects” have
provided innovative methods of studying and discovering the history behind the language,
but also what the object of study itself can tell and teach, what it can evoke.
This new teaching techniques are often referred to as “e-learning”. Defining the
notion of e-learning has been a source of debate among researchers. According to Pinder
and Elkins (2015), it refers to any type of learning process that occurs online through
available digital content, for example with YouTube videos, Wikipedia pages, eBooks
and more. Therefore, considering this statement e-learning can include “structured”
educative content that rely on “electronic” devices that will enable the user to obtain the
targeted competences (Pinder and Elkins, 2015). However, Moore et. al. (2011)
underlines the fact that e-learning could also be extended to non “web-based”
technological devices such as engaging TV programs, “videotape” and “satellite
broadcast”. Moreover, it is also important to evaluate the impact of online learning
methods on the way the student processes and acquires new knowledge (Moore et. al.
2011). Indeed, Moore et. al. (2011) mentions that the degree of interactivity should be
taken into account while defining the notion of e-learning. It is clear that there is
vacillation as to the exact properties of e-learning, but it seems evident that all types of e-
learning deliver a real learning experience for users.
In line with the idea of interactivity, the use of digital platforms in language
learning shows a process of interaction between the learner and the content. Hence, this
could be another efficient way for language teachers to provide educational tools and
support students to develop language skills. Furthermore, it is also necessary to
investigate how these platforms implement personalized feedback for each student and if
it is possible for them to be directly in touch with their teachers. Therefore, in order to
analyse the concept of e-learning platform, and more specifically of Learning
Management Systems (LMS), I will discuss the demand surrounding this online teaching
method, its purpose but also the way it can be enriched and improved through a
professional follow-up of quality.
This thesis turns towards the scrutinization of existing practices of LMS platforms
used in the context of language learning at an academic level, (i.e., university). As
learning a language comes is many different challenges, especially when it comes to
6
pronunciation, grammar, comprehension, and communication skills, studying it online
might emphasise these challenges, because students are not always able to be in contact
with other learners and practice together. Thus, exploring LMS through the prism of
language learning will be a good way to evaluate the efficiency and relevancy of this type
of software.
To deliver critically informed results based on truthful facts, but also to suggest
other learning implementations, I will address the bond that unites personalization and
learning experiences. Indeed, giving the possibility for students to have individual
comments and advice through their learning journey is essential for education processes
because it enables the student to optimize his focus and to stay motivated. Personal
feedback can also provide support to the user. It will also be necessary to consider what
effect these different online learning techniques produce on the learner and to determine
which approach is the most appreciated.
Hence, the purpose of this case study is to analyse the practices of digital LMS
platforms in incorporating an individual support and follow-up for language learning
purposes as a relevant teaching tool for students. Online learning methods can generally
be defined as being “the process of learning and teaching with computers and other
associated technologies, particularly through use of the Internet (Littlejohn & Pegler
2007, p. 15)”. The relevancy of this topic relies on its wide-spread and strong presence
online but also on the benefits that it offers to the targeted audience. Indeed, it is common
to encounter digital attractive learning methods that are spread through social media or
educational institutions. Moreover, its scholarly importance relies also on the fact that it
has elicited the interest of many researchers, especially during this pandemic. Indeed,
according to a recent study conducted by the University of Cambridge, learners would
like to do 60% of their learning online and feel that they are continuing to make progress
with their language meaning at home. However, 50% of the students have found distance
learning more difficult than they thought it would be.
However, it seems necessary to evaluate the concrete performance of these
platforms. Therefore, it will be necessary to address the following research questions :
- To what degree are Canvas and Moodle effective learning tools from
a pedagogical and ergonomic point of view?
- To what extent is the infrastructure of both platforms adapted to the
user’s learning style, needs, and expectations?
- What type of personalized follow-up Canvas and Moodle provide?
RQ1: It aims to discuss how LMS are efficient learning tools in terms of content,
educational methods, and general design. It involves several aspects as it brings in to play
the degree of adaptability of the language courses in LMS platforms but also the way in
which they are currently being implemented, which may raise different types of problems
concerning, for example, oral practice, pronunciation exercises, etc. Usability and design
7
are also two key elements because a course does not only need to be suitable for digital
learning from the perspective of pedagogical content, but it also needs to be functional
and pleasant to use. Indeed, it is crucial for the student to feel comfortable with the
medium in which the course is presented. In fact, it relies on two factors; firstly,
possibilities offered by the LMS platform, and secondly the manner in which the course
is tailored for it while considering the points mentioned above. Hence, analysing LMS
platforms from the perspective of language course adaptability will then be decisive for
this case study.
RQ2: It follows this axis of research by further investigating how the content
offered on LMS platforms in the context of learning a new language at university meets
the expectations and needs of the students. Once again, this point does not only depend
on the content of the course itself but also on the pedagogical and practical options offered
by the LMS tools as well as on the possible methods that could be established to make
the best of these platforms and to put them at the service of the learners. The purpose is
also to question the actual importance given to learners and how their personality and
learning style influences their experience in order to evaluate and develop the
personalization of existing LMS platforms.
RQ3: It dives into one of the most encountered issues while being confronted to
digital distance learning which is personalized follow-up. Indeed, it is often difficult for
students to feel supported throughout their learning journey, as in a regular classroom this
support would directly come from teachers or even from other classmates. Thus, having
the possibility to easily reach out to an instructor or to other learners is an important aspect
that should be evaluated. It also relies on the quality of this service and how it could be
potentially enhanced.
As LMS platforms are a rather spread learning method it will be significant to
orientate this project towards the user’s need by analysing potential issues but also
offering concrete guidelines in order to improve these learning systems. The study will
be designed to explore user experience and the functioning of the chosen platforms. The
relevancy and originality of this project is embodied by the fact that it will deal with a
contemporary topic that is still not widely considered although it is more and more
implemented. It will also enable developers to have a different perspective on how to
make LMS more adapted to firstly, the expectations of students and to what
fundamentally enhances them in their learning experience. Finally, one of the key aspects
of this study will be to limit it to a selection of existing LMS platforms, which for this
study will be Moodle, and Canvas, in order to provide a relevant and clear analysis.
The emergence and growing presence of LMSs in both primary and higher
education has led to the adoption of a new approach to learning, both in the classroom
and remotely. Consequently, the study of this widespread phenomenon is essential to
contribute to the development of efficient tools adapted to learners, teachers and studied
content. As previously stated, personalization is a major factor, if not the most important
8
one, when aiming to make digital learning experiences beneficial, impacting and unique
to each stakeholder involved in the use of LMS platforms. Hence, the results obtained
through this research project intend to provide a better understanding of the role and
influence of personalization when it is introduced in LMS platforms, what it brings to the
students and how it can be concretely enhanced. In addition, this study will focus on the
needs and expectations of users and the importance of creating customized systems that
highlight student profiles, in order to determine the subsequent effects on learners, which
so far has been relatively unexplored.
The particularity of this project lies in its effort to bring new perspectives on LMS
personalization, which despite an obvious interest in student experience still lacks, in my
opinion, in user-centred approaches in order for these systems to be more functional,
ergonomic, and individual, thereby allowing the learner to feel emotionally attached to
this digital experience, engaging actively in it, and taking ownership of it while potentially
recommending it to others in the future. Learners’ profile and preferences will also be
valorised by assessing if LMS platform are adapted enough to the different learning styles
of students.
This study will focus on collecting and examining the feedback of volunteer students
from different universities in Sweden on their experiences of learning a foreign language
via two LMS platforms which are Canvas and Moodle. The objective is to analyze the
findings of this investigation in order to highlight what could be improved and what is
currently lacking so that effective solutions can be introduced in the future. This case
study will not focus on the opinions or experiences of instructors, but rather on the
students as they are the stakeholders primarily need to benefit from these types of e-
learning structures. It will also explore what are the principal criteria that need to be taken
into account, when addressing the issue of personalization and what role the user’s profile
plays in this process, through the learning styles adopted by the student, his/her
characteristics, feelings, and behaviour. Furthermore, this case study does not aim to
develop a specific tool to be implemented, but rather to present a state of the art on how
LMS tools are perceived by learners from the standpoint of personalization.
The study includes 6 chapters: Introduction, definitions and overview of the research
field, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion. Therefore, it develops firstlt the
contextual aspect and research importance of this topic presented in this introduction. In
a second time, it underlines the current state of research through a thorough literature
review which highlights the important findings on both E-learning and LMS as well as
eventual limitations and points that would need further evaluation. It also addresses the
crucial stake of personalization and how it has been explored and established so far. Then
it is be necessary to expose the methodology applied and how the research was conducted
as well as explaining the chosen theoretical framework and procedure for data collection
and analysis. Ethical considerations are also discussed in this section in order to address
the eventual challenges that could be faced. The fourth part of the thesis presents the
9
results from the data collection as well as potential explanations and the various tracks
for interpretation. Following the presentation of the findings comes the discussion of
these results through the important themes and factors determined during the literature
review as well as highlighting potential solutions that could be developed in the future.
Finally, it is essential to add a comprehensive conclusion exposing the main reflections
and future perspectives coming out of the study case as well as assessing its contribution
to the area of research (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Organisation of the thesis
10
2. Definitions and overview of the research field
2.1 LMS, learning styles and personalization: Defining the notions
2.1.1 Learning Management Systems
Learning Management System (LMS) has been largely specified as being a digital
multi-user software application or platform, that is implemented in an educational
environment to organise, manage and evaluate a predetermined learning journey. It is
generally accessible through a web-browser, and it can be proprietary or open-source
based (i.e., with or without licensing fees). Historically, the earliest LMS system was the
client-server system FirstClass, created by SoftArc in 1990, (Aldiab, et. al., 2019). It
included the essential features that are found nowadays in almost all LMS platforms, such
as private messaging, a discussion function and the possibility of hosting online
conferences. Other platforms were then developed such as Blackboard, Moodle or
Canvas, respectively created in 1997, 2001 and 2008 (Aldiab, et. al., 2019).
LMS offers to teachers the opportunity to generate and share content, oversee student
participation, and evaluate their progress as well as performance. Learners can also
benefit from interactive tools such as web conferences, private mailboxes with
instructors, and discussion forums. This software facilitates the management of learning
activities, self-paced courses and blended learning programs. Through automation,
institutions and instructors may avoid time-consuming and costly manual work while
keeping its content, data, and students well-organized. It also provides monitoring and
reporting of course activities and learners’ performances (Foreman, 2017; Anderson,
2019). It generally does not comprise its own creation functions but is rather intended to
administer courses designed by several external different sources (Kaplan-Leiserson,
2000).
There are also different categories of LMS, each platform having its own distinctive
learning management features. The three main types are corporate LMS, academic LMS
and integrated LCMS-LMS (Foreman, 2017). This study will focus on academic LMS
platforms, which can be defined as follows according to Foreman, (2017):
Academic LMS: In this case, the LMS system will aim to digitally recreate and
sometimes even replace the traditional classroom environment. This type of platform will
then allow teachers and learners to meet virtually and exchange online, mainly through
content and assignments uploaded by the instructor. It is possible for students to
communicate with each other via discussion forums, but also to contact their teachers at
any time either through the private messaging system integrated into the platform or by
email. It is also a good way for students to hand in assignments and test their knowledge
through different quizzes. Academic LMS systems are those that will be found in a higher
education context (i.e., universities, private schools, colleges) or sometimes also in
secondary schools.
11
Researchers also link LMS to the concept of Virtual Learning Environment (VLE),
which refers to a combination of teaching and learning materials intended to enrich the
student's learning process through the use of computer and Internet technology as part of
the learning experience. Among the key aspects of a VLE set are outlining the content of
the program (i.e. curriculum mapping), as well as developing a plan of action for the
learners by dividing the course into several distinct and evaluable modules. Other
important elements would be student supervision, online assistance for both teachers and
students, digital communication (i.e., chat boxes, emails, web-publishing), and Internet
links redirecting to content outside of the platform but beneficial and/or related to the
course (Anderson, 2019).
From a general perspective, LMS platforms provide many benefits during a learning
experience, particularly when it comes to an academic setting. Firstly, physical location
is no longer an issue as it is possible for the learner to access the platform at any time
regardless of location as long as they have an internet connection. Thus, if a student
cannot go to the university, he/she will still be able to access his/her courses and know
the next important steps to come (i.e., homework, seminars, exams...). Furthermore, it is
possible for all students from the same university/institution to use the same LMS
platform regardless of their discipline and campus of study. This allows the university in
question to centralize and manage all its students without having them spread out over
different departments. Bringing together all these students from different backgrounds
via this digital platform also improves their interactions, exchanges and also the way they
receive feedback from their teachers. Another advantage of LMS platforms is that it is a
very convenient tool, easy to access, as it is possible to connect from a computer as well
as from a smartphone or tablet, via a web-browser or a dedicated application (Aldiab, et.
al., 2019).
The learning environments created by LMSs are also meant to offer an attractive
study experience for students, especially by introducing a certain degree of gamification
through the tracking of the learners' progress, their objectives, or through ergonomic
design. The implementation of gamification is however sometimes optional and depends
on how the institution chooses to implement LMS platforms within their own
organizations. LMS is also appealing to teachers who have the possibility to include
different types of teaching materials. Finally, one of the most important options for LMSs
is the fact that they are regularly updated to incorporate ever more advanced functions,
(Table 1), according to the needs of its users (Aldiab, et. al., 2019).
Features Moodle Canvas
Syllabus ✖ ✔
Lesson outline ✔ ✔
Discussion/Chat ✔ ✔
12
Forum ✔ ✔
Quizzes/Tests ✔ ✔
Reports ✔ ✔
Comments ✔ ✔
Virtual Classroom ✔ ✔
Wiki ✔ ✖
Tracking ✔ ✔
Statistics ✔ ✔
Calendar ✔ ✔
Internal mailbox ✔ ✔
Safe Assignment ✖ ✔
Language preferences ✔ ✔
Plagiarism checker ✔ ✔
Table 1: Overview of some of the most important features in 3 of the major LMS academic LMS
platforms, based on the statistics and figure provided by Aldiab, et. al., (2019).
Choosing the right LMS platform for an academic study setting, is however, not an
easy task. In order to facilitate this step, Khairudin, et. al, (2016), discusses some of the
factors that should be considered:
1. Training to LMS: Sufficient access for teachers to training that familiarizes
them with the technological tools used in teaching, so that they can
consolidate their knowledge about it. Experience with an LMS helps
teachers to be familiar to such systems and sustain its usage over time.
Furthermore, if an instructor knows how to make the best use out of these
types of software, it will firstly be useful for them as it enhances and
facilitates their teaching task but will also be more meaningful for the
students who will benefit from having a teacher at ease with new learning
technologies and potentially have access to more significant content.
2. Student Participation: Ensuring that students engage with the platform and
use the various features (i.e., participate in forum discussions, submit
assignments on time etc). By safeguarding participation, the learner’s
motivation can be stimulated thus resulting a more meaningful learning
13
experience. The aim is also to empower students and to make them feel at
ease in this online pedagogical environment, while offering new
approaches to learning, thereby promoting a more interactive perspective.
3. Student Commitment: Guarantee the integrity of students by, for example,
limiting late submissions, preventing cheating and plagiarism. It also
refers to ensuring learners' attendance and active involvement in their
learning tasks. This notion of commitment is therefore intrinsically linked
with the idea of individual follow-up in order not only to check the
student's activity but also to provide the necessary assistance when needed.
The student's commitment once again comes down to personal motivation
and interest. If these two aspects are stimulated, then it will be easier for
the learner to have a sense of responsibility towards his/ her learning
journey.
4. Equality of chances: Enable every student to succeed by giving them as
much opportunity as possible to actively participate through easy access
(i.e., on all electronic devices). This aspect is particularly important in
cases of exclusive distance learning (without any physical meetings), so
that the learner can maintain a connection not only with his or her courses
to be able to progress, but also with his or her classmates and teachers to
recreate a social atmosphere, even if the meetings take place only
remotely.
5. IT structures and guide: Having the necessary technical support available
when needed. Providing effective assistance services also plays an
important role in establishing a good user experience of LMS systems
since both technical and operational failures can alter the user's perception
and in the context of distance learning this could affect the student's
motivation if he/she does not find the platform easy to use or if he/she
encounters a lot of problems (updates, maintenance, issues with the
uploading of assignments, etc).
Taking these criteria into account, Aldiab et. al, (2019), notes that universities
therefore generally favour LMSs that allow them to improve their teaching methods while
optimizing them, making them more useful, flexible, and effective. Universities need to
focus on the benefits of approved LMSs, namely student performance throughout the
course and student outcomes at the end of the course. Support for computers and cell
phones is another feature that universities consider important.
2.1.2 Learning styles
The notion of learning styles refers to the way students obtain knowledge, engage
with it and to what type of content stimulates them within their learning environment
14
(Shaw & Marlow, 1999). Understanding the different types of learning styles may be
useful for both teachers and students. Instructors can develop and tailor their pedagogical
activities to further satisfy the needs of different learning style groups. Nevertheless, it
demands a comprehensive investigation of the theories and learning patterns
(Balakrishnan & Gan, 2016). Hence, when it comes to learning theories, Hung (2001),
has identified four primary classes which includes:
1. Behaviourism: Students are mainly viewed to be passive and to solely react when
they are challenged by their environment. Moreover, it does not take into account
the learner’s way of processing information internally, and the steps that he or she
might have been through as it is considered to be more difficult to scientifically
assess it (Ertmer & Newby, 1993; Hung, 2001). Hence, it mostly relies on
environmental circumstances than on the learner himself as the primary concern
is the organisation of stimuli and its consequence within the learning context
(Thurlings et al., 2013). On the other hand, this style has the disadvantage of
focusing the pedagogical structure of teaching and learning activities around the
instructor (Balakrishnan & Gan, 2016).
2. Cognitivism: Unlike behaviourism, cognitivism, instead, prefers to encourage
students to actively participate in the process of their learning. The cognitivist
methodology has a particular interest for the development of knowledge and inner
mental representations. This approach emphasizes how students' learning
processes are conceptualized and addresses aspects related to the way information
is perceived, structured, memorized and retrieved by the student’s mind. Although
environmental factors play a critical role in shaping and directing student learning,
cognitivism also encompasses the importance of practice and feedback to rectify
potential errors and monitor the learner's progress. Furthermore, it acknowledges
that it is the state of mind of the learner that guides his/her interaction and response
to learning objects and content, (i.e., organisation, roadmap, motivation, goal
setting…etc.) (Thurlings et al., 2013).
3. Humanism: The humanistic concept aims to enhance cognitivism by insisting on
student-driven teaching and learning, thereby promoting a learning environment
conducive to the development of social and critical thinking abilities. Humanistic
pedagogy aims to nurture the individual as a whole as it is not limited to cognitive
and intellectual education but also to consider the student’s needs, beliefs, and
feelings. It involves personal and creative fulfilment and self-directed learning to
some degree. Indeed, its purpose is to assist the student in acquiring a feeling of
personal identification, which will later contribute to the establishment of
achievable goals for the learner. Humanism encourages to personalize as much as
possible the learning experience, in order to enable him/her to be active in this
process. Moreover, the learning environment should be established in such a way
that the learner feels comfortable enough to express himself and interact with
15
others without feeling at risk (i.e., no peer-pressure, fear of judgement…) (Khatib
et al., 2013).
4. Constructivism: Along the same axes as the humanistic approach, constructivism
is very supportive of self-directed learning as its objective is to help students
throughout their learning by providing to them the essential tools they need to
improve their comprehension, their problem-solving skills, while allowing them
to take initiatives (Balakrishnan & Gan, 2016). This model regards learning as the
creation of meaning from experience (Bednar et al., 1991). It considers that
students do not necessarily only acquire knowledge, but rather contribute to its
creation. According to Thurlings, et. al, (2013), learners develop personal
interpretations of the world grounded on personal experiences and exchanges
instead of transferring gained knowledge into their mind. Therefore, the inner
mode of knowledge representation is likely to continuously vary, as it is not an
objective reality that learners try to grasp. Environmental and learner factors are
then key because it’s their interaction that generates knowledge, thereby allowing
it to manifest itself according to the situations in which it is appropriated.
(Thurlings et al., 2013).
Given the elements discussed by each of these theoretical approaches to learning,
several factors, such as the pedagogical environment (i.e., demonstrations, illustrative
examples…), communication between students and with their teachers, or the learner’s
feelings and needs, have to be considered when looking at how students learn and
assimilate knowledge. As a result, researchers have proposed analytical and
categorization frameworks for the different learning styles of students in order to promote
a more open and inclusive mode of education for learners. Some of the most frequently
encountered models include the ones of (Balakrishnan & Gan, 2016):
1. Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): This classification identifies learning
styles built on the learner's character and presents four main axes:
a. Focusing attention (extroverted or introverted)
b. Perception of information (sensing: rely on facts and habits; or intuitive:
rely on impressions and non-routine)
c. Decision making (thinking: objective and rational; or based on feelings:
subjective and personal values)
d. Relationship with the outside world (judging: organization and control;
or perceiving: spontaneous and flexible)
2. Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI): This model consists of the four categories,
which are established on the learner’s internal cognitive processes:
a. Divergers (Open-minded and enjoys brainstorming)
b. Assimilators (Planners and comfortable with abstract concepts)
16
c. Convergers (Problem-solvers and decision-makers)
d. Accommodators (Intuitive, risk-takers and initiators)
3. Felder–Silverman Model (FSLSM): This framework defines 4 major dimensions,
which are based on the learner’s preference when it comes to learning:
a. Processing information (Studying method: individually or in groups)
b. Type of information (Practical implementation or theoretical concepts)
c. Perception of external information (Nature and format: visual, auditive
or textual)
d. Progress towards understanding (Learning strategy: Follow a roadmap
or multi- source approach with no precise plan)
The way in which students interact with and process information thus plays a
determining role in their approach to learning. Therefore, addressing these factors may
allow both instructors as well as platforms that offer complementary services to learning
in a traditional classroom environment, to design an experience that is more meaningful
to students, and that encourages them to grow and develop as they learn. When it comes
to technological affordances and infrastructures to serve students’ learning styles, it is
essential to develop personalized learning experiences, where the students have access to
interactive multimedia content sized for their needs and preferences, (i.e., videos, audio
documents, text, flashcards…etc.), as well as individual learning assistance and tools for
social computing, (i.e., discussion forums, e-mails, or private messaging).
The key issue revolves around the idea that learning through technological tools, such
as LMS platforms, requires a precise adaptability to include an infinite number of
combinations and possibilities when it comes to integrating students' learning style. In
fact, flexibility for technology-enhanced educational systems may be further developed
by not only including the dimensions of learning styles but also its different
characteristics, resulting in a more precise representation of students' learning styles
(Graf, et. al., 2007).
From a general point of view, LMS platforms are more adapted to the needs of
teachers (i.e., possibility for the teacher to check users' activity, uploaded documents, quiz
performances...etc.). Yet, there are still many gaps regarding the needs and habits of the
students (i.e., resources and options that are not varied enough). Developing a more
student-centred approach will allow for the creation of digital infrastructures that are more
adapted to the different learning styles, therefore, creating a more personalized LMS
experience for the user.
2.1.3 Personalization
For the notion of personalization, it has in fact several definitions which depend on
the perspective or approach from which it is regarded. If looked at from a general point
of view, personalisation could be defined as the antonym of impersonal, common or even
17
random (Verpoorten, et. al., 2009), and refers to the development or creation of a product
intended to respond to someone’s individual requirements (Oxford Languages, 2021). In
a learning environment, scholars have stated that personalization specifically refers to
automatically generated learning systems designed in a way that fits the needs and
expectation of students (Verpoorten, et. al., 2009). This definition comes closer with the
setting of LMS teaching as it puts in the center the role of personalized methods in the
learning process. Imran, et. al., (2014), develops this idea further by explaining the notion
of LMS personalisation:
Personalisation in LMS refers to the functionality which enables the system to
uniquely address a learner’s needs and characteristics such as levels of
expertise, prior knowledge, cognitive abilities, skills, interests, preferences and
learning styles, so as to improve a learner’s satisfaction and performance
within the course.
With this in mind, it is clear that personalization is what will make the learning
experience unique for the user, who will feel that the services offered are adapted to what
he is looking for and what he needs in order to progress in the studied field. In
fact, researchers agree to say that offering a personalized experience is what will leave a
long-lasting impact on learners. Verpoorten, et. al., (2014), also emphasizes that
personalisation in learning settings can be comprehended through 3 main axes:
1. Constructivism: points at the learning process environment, meaning how
the student will build knowledge, apprehend notions, and gain skills.
2. Reflective thinking: emphasizes the importance of helping students reach
a different learning level while being engaged in the course in a way that
enables them to present and understand the acquired knowledge.
3. Self-regulated learning: refers to the action of taking control of the
learning journey through cognitive and communication stages.
Furthermore, one major purpose of learning personalization is to stimulate the
learners' motivation. This depends on three fundamental factors, that include the degree
of control perceived and of individual efficiency by the learner, as well as the perceived
potential benefit of the learning process. Essentially, these elements are based on learners'
own perceptions of how they learn and where they stand in the context of the learning
task. Consequently, helping learners to be mindful of their learning goals, their individual
progress, and the setting in which they are learning is imperative (Verpoorten, et. al.,
2014). To this end, many studies suggest that student profiles can be used to personalize
the learning experience and to automatically make pedagogical and educational
adjustments. It also implies that personalizing learning means stimulating and
encouraging students to independently regulate their learning activity.
18
The structure of these online learning environments needs to be rethought so that the
learner has the possibility of having at his disposal tools allowing him to control different
tasks, in addition to having access to literature lists, content to read, websites, to
assignments to be submitted, etc. The personalized follow-up of the learner resulting from
this method has a greater influence on the relevant variables, thus generating a feeling of
commitment and responsibility (Verpoorten, et. al., 2014). Beyond learning style, limited
research has focused on the factors that contribute to the student's overall perception of a
personalized educational experience (Verpoorten, et. al., 2014). However, Waldeck's
study, (2006), although conducted in a traditional teaching setting, (i.e., in a classroom
with immediate interaction between the student and the teacher), has identified a number
of factors that explain what allows a learner to find a learning experience beneficial and
stimulating. These aspects include (Waldeck, 2006):
· Teachers talking about their personal interests and their time outside of
teaching
· Good support and advice from teachers
· Teachers being attentive to the student’s potential issues/struggles
· Bonding of teachers with their students (relationship that is neither too formal
nor too close)
· Adaptivity of the teacher regarding course expectations and demands
Therefore, the key insight from Waldeck's study (2006) is that the relational and
social aspect seems to play a major role in how the student perceives their learning
journey. The importance of communication, feedback and support for the student is hence
prominent. Yet, as pointed out by Verpoorten et. al, (2014), even if these factors provide
important clues regarding the learners' sense of ownership of a given course, this approach
remains teacher-centred and was carried out in a face-to-face environment and not
remotely as is the case with online learning platforms such as LMS. This is why, as
mentioned above, in the context of distance learning via a digital platform, this sense of
ownership is characterized rather by the degree of control and choice that the user can
make, thus facilitating a more personalized experience.
Consequently, it is necessary to promote the personalization aspect in LMS platforms
in order to create and develop educational methods that allow the student to be fully
empowered throughout the learning process.
2.2 Personalizing Learning Management Systems
Different strategies should be developed in order to fit the student’s needs but also to
be suitable for “the learning objects included in the course”, (Essalmi, et. al. 2015).
Moreover, it is necessary to keep in mind that one personalization strategy cannot fit all
courses, students, and teachers. Therefore, it is essential to think about several ways to
enhance LMS personalization in order to enrich it but also to make it more relevant based
19
on the targeted content, audience, and type of instructor. One approach is to look for how
to assist specific combinations of learners’ characteristics. This could be implemented
through the development of “personalized learning scenarios” (Essalmi, et. al. 2015),
which means that the platform needs to provide different types of learning methods, for
example through gamification by creating a system of levels or virtual rewards when a
learner obtains a good result in a quiz (Lin, et. al. 2013). This aspect could also be
developed by highlighting different types of learning materials that the learner could
choose from, (i.e., audio, video, iconographic, textual content...etc.), or by offering the
possibility to have different display language settings in the platform (i.e English,
Swedish...etc.), (Essalmi, et. al. 2010).
However, as stated by Essalmi et al., (2010), two important factors also need to be
taken into account while implementing personalized scenarios, which are the number of
personalization parameters and the availability of learning objects which correspond to
the learners’ characteristics. Indeed, establishing the right balance between the number of
features and its adequation to a learner's profile is essential as it will contribute to shaping
the experience of the user (Essalmi, et. al. 2015). The pitfall to avoid would be on the one
hand not having enough features for the learners, having too many or even having enough
but without meeting the real needs of the user. To prevent this type of issue, Essalmi et.
al. (2015), suggests determining general “metrics”, such as the time spent on a course or
completion rates for a test, that will help examine personalization parameters, (i.e. the
learner’s level of knowledge or learning goals), and determine what strategies are suitable
for a particular content or course.
Then, personalization relies on the right combination between learners’
characteristics and learning objects. Imran et. al., (2014) has analysed this aspect by
developing a framework that aims to facilitate the implementation of personalization in
LMS systems. The developed approach put forward a “flexible integration model” from
which personalization would be integrated through an automatic recommender system of
learning objects, adaptable to all LMS platforms, based on users’ “current situation” in
their learning journey, and on learners with a similar profile that may have previous
successful learning experiences (Imran et. al., 2014). By developing a suggesting tool for
LMS this would not only help students manage their learning time but also to improve
their performance while being satisfied with their LMS learning experience. Thus, it is
necessary to take into account the different characteristics of the students, (i.e., learning
style, academic background, level...), in order to elaborate the profile of the user and then
create an appropriate list of “personalized recommendation of “learning objects” as well
as a “neighbourhood of learners” adapter for the LMS format (Imran et. al., 2014). The
purpose is also for the student to be able to modify his/her profile throughout the learning
process in order to make it as relevant as possible and keep it updated.
This is also what Verpoorten, et. al. (2009), pointed out, emphasizing the importance
of student profiles and the need to highlight them in order to develop better
personalization tools that are adapted to users' needs and expectations. It was indicated
20
further that tools tracking student’s interactions could also be used in a beneficial way by
showing it back to the learner, so he can himself look back at certain activities or files
that were consulted (Verpoorten, et. al., 2009). The purpose of this system is actually to
sustain and stimulate the learner's motivation by sending him back the outcome of his/her
efforts, and thus allowing him to keep track of his/her progress but also to encourage him
to continue in this direction, thereby enabling him to acquire a certain autonomy. It also
helps to maintain interest in the task of learning a subject such as a new language for
example. This could work in the same manner as search engines’ historics, for instance
Verpoorten, et. al. (2009) stated that, when implemented in Moodle, this method made it
possible to introduce new ways of understanding users' personal information as part of
the personalization of the LMS platform, by knowing for example how many assignments
the student has submitted and how many are left or how he/she has participated in a forum
discussion about upcoming lectures.
As touched upon earlier, personalisation of LMS platforms is then successfully
established when the student feels ownership of the learning process which in turn
becomes both personal and dear to him/her (Verpoorten, et. al., 2009).
2.3 Limitations and future perspectives
Despite findings from previous research being globally positive and encouraging,
some challenges remain to be solved, especially when it comes to the design and
implementation of personalization strategies. As a matter of fact, choosing a learning
strategy with the best rate is not necessarily the best choice to make, since it all depends
on the medium and content of the course, which thus must be carefully considered.
On the other hand, it is also important to take into account possible technical problems
that may arise and thereby compromising a fulfilling learning experience (Essalmi, et. al.
2015). Some of the methods mentioned above could also benefit from further
developments, as for instance regarding the creation of a recommendation system in LMS
platforms, the module proposed by Imran, et. al., (2014), does not include suggestions
from search engines which can be a great loss for the users as it would allow them to have
access to additional sources and materials throughout their learning journey. Another
important issue that needs to be solved revolve around Verpoorten’s prototype of enabling
learners to have access to their tracked data, as until now no satisfying way of
visualisation of this information in LMS platform was fully developed.
While going further in LMS personalization, researchers have globally observed that
platforms are lacking in giving a focus on organizing study plans for learners that include
“time exigency of individual study materials and the e-course as a whole” (Bradáč, et. al.,
2016, p.30). It is often difficult for students to determine how much study time a particular
module or section requires. It might therefore be beneficial to have an option that helps
learners estimate how much time they would need to complete a particular task.
Furthermore, it was pointed out that students’ perspective regarding learning objects
needs to be regularly explored in order to ensure that the purpose of LMS platforms is to
21
keep the user at the centre of the learning experience. This could be notably enhanced
through the implementation of social networks and the creation of services promoting
social interaction and then encouraging students to share about their learning
journey (Perišić, et. al., 2018), which would also facilitate communication between
classmates and teachers (Song & Luan, 2020). Identifying typical learner behaviours on
LMS platforms can also be further examined in order to develop tools that can deliver
more relevant content to individual students, which could be beneficial for features such
as the automatic recommender proposed by Imran, et. al., (2014). Content or subject area
is also crucial in providing tailor-made assistance that is not only relevant to the student's
profile, but also to the discipline being studied (Fathema & Akanda, 2020).
Problems were also encountered with the interface of the various LMS platforms,
which sometimes had overly complex icons without mouse hints or captions for certain
images, videos or sections, (i.e., Fronter). Also, it has been noted that LMS are sometimes
limited when it comes to simple features such as searching for a particular course across
the LMS platform (i.e., Canvas does not have this option) (Ahmad, et. al., 2018).
This study aims to suggest further assess the identified drawbacks of Canvas and
Moodle and to suggest potential solutions based on the feedback of students in order to
enhance these platforms and have a better overview of the learning needs and preferences
of users. Therefore in order to serve this purpose, it is necessary to clearly define the
theoretical framework of this thesis.
First of all, it focuses on academic LMS platforms, especially the ones used in the
context of higher education, in this case Canvas and Moodle. Regarding the concept of
personalization, it was observed through the literature review, that it is what allows the
user to build a special relationship with the topic being studied, thus staying motivated
and improving performance. To address the previous gaps mainly mentioned by
Verpoorten et al. (2009; 2014), Essalmi et al. (2015) and Bradáč, et. al., (2016), I have
chosen to use a framework that allows to evaluate the integration of personalization in the
context of language learning in LMS systems through the theoretical model of Felder-
Silverman (FSLSM) developed in relation to learners’ learning styles. Indeed, FSLSM is
recognized as an effective and reliable model for the analysis of digital learning types. It
also defines learners’ preferences in a more detailed way than Kolb’s Learning Style
Inventory or than the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. As mentioned earlier, it is composed
of four dimensions (Figure 2), which can be described as follows (Liyanage, et. al.,
2013):
1. Way of processing information (WPI): Active (ACT) or reflective (REF).
A student is considered active if he/she prefers to learn in groups and enjoy
practical aspects of learning by doing exercises or having the opportunity
to put their knowledge to work. On the other hand, a learner would be
considered reflective if they would rather work individually and prefer to
learn from previous classes to then discuss the different ideas and
perspectives.
22
2. Type of information preferred (TIP): Sensory (SEN) or intuitive (INT).
Sensory here means that the student is more inclined towards learning
though, facts, and situations that could occur in daily life. Meanwhile an
intuitive student would be more comfortable to learn through concepts and
theories as well as more abstract approaches.
3. Perception of external information (PEI): Visual (VIS) or verbal (VER).
The two categories differentiate themselves through the preferred medium
used by learners, with which they feel that their learning progress is
facilitated. Visual persons will be more comfortable with pictures, graphs
or schematization whereas Verbal students will prefer an oral transmission
method via audio, video or even text.
4. Progress towards understanding (PTU): Sequential (SEQ) or global
(GLO). If a learner needs to follow a particular pre-designed plan during
their learning journey, he/she will be considered as Sequential. On the
other hand Global learners will often gather information from all different
kinds of sources without any particular order in order to obtain a general
overview.
Figure n°2: Representation of the Felder-Silverman model
23
Based on the different categories established by Felder-Silverman, this model will be
used to evaluate LMS personalization as it includes key aspects related to users' learning
methods, the way knowledge is built, but also to how levels are gradually achieved as
well as communication, which therefore provides an in-depth approach to
personalization. It is also important to analyse this methodology in relation to the research
questions chosen for this study:
- RQ1: To what degree are Canvas and Moodle effective learning tools
from a pedagogical and ergonomic point of view?
Using the FSLSM model is an appropriate way to address this issue. Indeed,
considering the learning styles of students is an important criterion that can contribute to
the improvement of the content of courses on the one hand, but also of the way in which
they are built. This will help to determine whether and to what extent Canvas and Moodle
facilitate the inclusion of such factors in course design. Taking into account the criteria
concerning the learning style of the students is important, from the point of view of the
teacher who can adapt his or her course according to these factors. However, the LMS
platform used plays a critical role in the design of a course for full distance or blended
learning, (uses both physical classroom and online teaching), because if the teacher does
not have the possibility to implement the necessary pedagogical tools to promote the
learning style of the users in Canvas or Moodle, then this will limit the adaptability and
flexibility of the course. Identifying the way students learn will then allow these platforms
to be developed in such a way that they are more efficient and effective.
The consideration of learning styles is also connected to the ergonomic aspect that an
online course can take on, especially with regard to the presentation of the different
features, their availability and accessibility. For example, for a student who prefers to
study via visual content, such as diagrams or pictures, one might ask whether from the
interface of Canvas or Moodle, the learner can easily access them or not. Another case
could be that of active learners, i.e., those who prefer to learn in groups or who like to
have the possibility to apply the knowledge they have learned, if it is possible for them to
easily communicate with their peers, for example to organize group work sessions, or to
practice the language they are studying together.
- RQ2: To what extent is the infrastructure of both platforms adapted to
the user’s learning style, needs, and expectations?
As explored in the literature review, the notion of learning styles is intrinsically
connected with personalisation, which places the learner at the centre of concern. These
learning styles actually reflect the student's personality, interests but also their behaviour
in a learning context, their relationship to the exercises required and to the application of
certain concepts, both in a physical and in a virtual classroom. The way a learner studies
can also greatly influence his or her progress. Evaluating Canvas and Moodle from the
24
point of view of the FSLSM model will therefore give a more complete overview and
understanding of the students' behaviours, needs and expectations regarding distance
learning via an LMS software. Indeed, to be aware of each of these factors will lead to a
more satisfied learner and an overall positive experience. However, if the student does
not find the tools and materials corresponding to his or her learning method and
preferences, then this will affect important factors in the learning process such as
motivation, stimulation, ownership, and commitment, as these criteria essentially
represent the notion of personalization.
A sequential student, for example, needs to establish and follow an action and study
plan designed beforehand. It is important for students adopting this type of learning to
know the next steps in the learning process and the upcoming events such as exams or
assignments in a clear and functional way. It will ensure that learners are comfortable
with their learning environment. Allowing them to organize themselves and highlight
important tasks via a calendar for example can also serve to fulfil this need.
Unfortunately, if LMS platforms such as Moodle or Canvas do not offer any features that
support this type of usage for students, then there is a lack in ownership affecting then
personalization parameters.
- RQ3: What type of personalized follow-up do Canvas and Moodle
provide?
Learning styles can influence the way the student's follow-up will be carried out. The
goal is to have effective tools that allow the student to follow his or her progress and to
communicate easily with his teachers. In the case of a visual student, it could be
interesting to evaluate if the tools provided by Canvas and Moodle allow for example to
visualize the progress of the student in a clear and precise way and if it helps the student
involved. Personalized follow-up also includes access to grades, giving students the
possibility to ask questions about their results and to understand them. By highlighting
the learning style of students and examining it accurately, it will be possible to identify
the best ways for both students and teachers to communicate, so it can also be beneficial
for LMS platforms such as Moodle and Canvas as it will allow them to set up exchange
tools adapted to the personality and preferences of students, for example:
• Video conferencing tools for active and sensory students who prefer a social
approach.
• An efficient messaging system that facilitates communication between students,
(especially for verbal students who prefer text-based materials), and their
instructors, particularly through the optimization of response time.
FSLSM model can also be linked to the 3 dimensions mentioned by Verpoorten, et.
al., (2014), especially when it comes to constructivism and reflective thinking which both
engage different learning styles developed by the FSLSM framework. Moreover, with the
25
findings of the literature review, it was possible to identify other aspects that are
connected to personalization and that need to be taken into account for the establishment
of the questionnaire:
1. Ownership: Rely on letting the student be in control of his learning
progress which may include for the user to be able to set his/her own
goals, track his study activity, track his progress, follow a particular
plan or roadmap, as well as anticipating the potential next steps in
his/her journey. Control is also acquired through self-decision-making,
which may be determined by the student’s logic, beliefs or feelings,
and in order to have this sense of ownership, letting the student make
his own decisions will increase his/her dedication in their learning
process.
2. Adaptability: Provides the learner with the possibility to have features
that specially respond to the student’s needs or expectations, but that
also adapt to the student’s profile, learning style, habits, and
preferences. It may also suggest targeted content for learners that could
benefit them throughout their journey.
3. Participation: Creates a space that lets the learner feel comfortable
enough to engage with the content that is taught, but also to interact
with their classmates. It is key to encourage students to participate
through for example appealing format (quizzes, challenges,
pools…etc.), options (system of rewards, raising hand, showing time
spent on the platform…), teaching modes (demonstrations, group
work, enabling students to share about themselves…) but also ways of
communicating (suggesting similar learner profiles, follow-up from
teachers, emailing system…).
4. Communication: Contributes to the development of a personal
relationship between the learner and his/her journey as it encourages
the student’s feeling of belonging to a community and of being
understood both by his instructors and by his/her peers. Moreover, it
also relies on the feeling of being sufficiently supported, especially by
professors through feedback, advice, and valuable insights.
5. Diversity: Offering several types of content, tasks, and study
environments. It may also encompass the suggestion of various types
of methods that may appeal to the user and correspond to their way of
learning as well as targeted goals and outcomes.
6. Regularity: Refers to consistency more precisely by assessing learners’
motivation and seeing if students want to be involved in the different
learning tasks because they value the potential results and seek to
achieve it.
26
7. Reflection: Aims to enhance the learner’s confidence by granting him
autonomy and encouraging him in doing his/her own retrospection,
and in establishing an efficient study plan. Developing reflection is
also intrinsically linked with the feeling of ownership as it lets the
student have more control over his/her learning journey.
Given the dimensions established by both the Felder-Silverman model and the results
obtained in the literature review, the approach chosen for personalization in this study
will be both from the point of view of the outcomes and from the perspective of usability
and infrastructure of personalization. This means that it will first of all be a matter of
assessing the contribution of the results obtained in comparison with the shortcomings
and limitations existing in the previous studies, with the aim of valuing a student-centred
perspective for LMS platforms. For this purpose, it seems appropriate to combine this
approach with an evaluation of the personalization of LMS systems from the point of
view of functionality and design of these infrastructures, since it contains at its core the
tools made available to learners and therefore influences the way they interact with
complementary teaching technologies.
27
3. Materials and Methods
For the purpose of this study, two LMS platforms used in an academic setting for
higher education were chosen. This selection was made after an overall evaluation of the
Swedish landscape in the implementation of learning platforms for higher education
purposes, which showed that 20 higher education institutions use Canvas via the Swedish
University Computer Network (Sunet). The second most used LMS service in Sweden is
Moodle, even though several universities switched to other platforms during the past few
years: Linköping University has recently opted for Sharepoint, or Uppsala University
which since 2019 has been using Canvas exclusively after deciding to change its LMS
service for all its campuses, including Gotland, which until then was still on Moodle.
Comparing the two platforms will also enable the identification of respective advantages
and potential inconveniences in order to explore how both platforms could be possibly
enhanced. To have a better understanding of Canvas and Moodle it seems essential to
present the two LMS systems:
- Canvas
Canvas is one of the most used LMS platform worldwide as it is used by more than
3,000 academic institutions in a higher education level (Falcone, 2018; Wicaksono, et.
al., 2021). At the Swedish level, it currently has agreements with 20 universities all over
the country. It was created by Josh Coates and is now owned by the company Instructure.
Although it was created in 2008, its official launching occurred four years later in 2011.
In 2012, the Canvas user network was successfully implemented on the platform, mainly
used as a complementary or substitute for the traditional classroom learning environment.
The purpose of Canvas is first of all to create a digital online space that supports the
user during his/her learning journey by offering “user-friendly” features (Wicaksono, et.
al., 2021), and an experience of quality for the learner who can rely on the services
provided by the platform. The aim is also to create a timely-efficient infrastructure,
notably through an insightful and ergonomic interface, providing a simplified access to
the most essential services for students. If Canvas has also managed to expand rapidly is
because it is accessible and easily navigable while offering a model of openness and of
reliability for students, especially if they have to learn remotely or cannot come to class
(Wicaksono, et. al., 2021). Compared to other LMS systems such Fronter, Canvas has,
from a general perspective, a better interface making it easy for students to access course
materials, and also enable learners to preview files before downloading them (Ahmad, et.
al., 2018). From the point of view of personalization, Canvas has also more options, by
allowing the learner to edit his/her profile and change the platforms’ settings from the
angle of language, notifications, and email.
My choice towards this platform was also determined by the study of Fathema, et.
al., (2020), that showed that instructors teaching disciplines within humanities, education
28
and social sciences are more interested in using Canvas than teachers in engineering,
medical sciences, or physics. Therefore, this platform represents an interesting object of
study, particularly when it comes to education as it is one of purpose for which it is most
used.
- Moodle
Moodle is an open source LMS whose acronym stands for Modular Object-Oriented
Dynamic Learning Environment (Limongelli, 2011; Cole, 2018). It was created by Martin
Dougiamas, a computer scientist and teacher in order to allow teachers to design online
programmes that promote the sharing and cooperative development of content, letting in
that way the website to be continuously evolving. This platform is one of the most famous
LMS and widely used in higher education, (in 215 countries in 2014), and learning
institutions, as being one of the pioneering LMSs. In 2014, it represented approximately
30% of market shares in education and was used in 19,4% of higher education institutions
in 2016, making it the second most popular LMS platform right behind Blackboard
(Falcone, 2018).
From a general point of view the advantages of Moodle are first of all its free license
to use and its usability. It targets easily primary user needs such as communication with
teachers and classmates both privately and publicly, respectively through forums of
discussion and private messaging. It also provides an efficient classifying tool for all the
courses that are taken by the student always suggestion the lastly or most accessed first.
The learner also has the possibility to search for any type of course within the platform
or at the scale of a specific institution, for example, a student at Linnéuniversitet may
search in Moodle other courses offered at this university. It also offers the learner a quick
access to his or her progress as well as grades as soon as they are registered on the
platform. Another important benefit would be that the user has the possibility to set up
notifications for the upcoming course events such as lectures, assignments to submit and
more1.
Regarding participatory aspects, Moodle has introduced an interesting function called
the “Wikis”, that enables students to write reports or group assignments together. Every
user has the possibility to write and edit the text on the documents even though he or she
is not necessarily the other of the mended section. Just as Canvas, it is possible to access
the platform from both web-browser and from the mobile application, thus keeping the
student updated no matter what circumstances.
In order to evaluate how personalisation is implemented in online teaching
environments, this study will focus on LMS practices for teaching languages accessible
through a computer and a smartphone which in this case are Canvas and Moodle.
Teaching and providing feedback are two areas that can relevantly come together because
they are intra-sequentially connected. It will be enriching to examine both programs from
1 Both features mentioned above are also present in Canvas.
29
the perspective of teaching and of cultural knowledge. It will also be necessary to evaluate
students’ satisfaction through online surveys or interviews in order to provide useful and
critical insights. To collect the needed data, it will be necessary to ask permission from
students to share their feedback. It will also be important to underline the impact of the
results obtained and to highlight the fact that the proper functioning of a platform depends
on the satisfaction of its users. Therefore, it will be essential to report as faithfully as
possible on the opinions and experiences of the participants.
As briefly mentioned above, cases chosen for this study will deal with two LMS
platforms used at a university level in Sweden for teaching languages, each one of them
having similarities but also differences in the services and features offered. The two
selected digital tools for this project are Canvas and Moodle. 18 different language course
administrators from 7 different universities were contacted in order to diffuse a survey to
students currently learning a language regardless of their study level. Only programs
where learning and practicing a new language is the main objective are included as there
is a need to evaluate how LMS influences the learning and teaching process of a living
discipline that requires a lot of practice. I will ask them questions about the following
topics (Table 2), based on the FSLSM framework (see full table overview with all the
questions in the appendix 1) :
1 Information processing and preferences
2 Perception and acquisition of knowledge
3 Impact of learning styles
4 LMS endorsement towards learning styles
5 Adaptivity of LMS
6 Personalized recommendations and intuitive aspects of Canvas and Moodle
7 Student feedback and overall impression (relationship Learning styles and LMS)
8 Follow-up tools for personal progression
9 Variety and accessibility to sources
10 Assess student’s needs, satisfaction, motivation and expectations
11 Assess Canvas and Moodle functionality, interactivity, and attractiveness
12 Assess efficacy of communication tools and support in Canvas and Moodle
Table 2: Overview of the themes that frame the questions.
This study is primary based on a quantitative method (survey). The question format
of the survey was diversified by having closed and open-end questions. In this
perspective, the mode of answer for each question will be diver by proposing multiple
choices, scales, one-choice question, and free text. The survey was created in a digital
form and a link was sent to the participants. Data were analysed using close reading for
the responses that involved free text. Statistical analysis including percentages and graphs
was carried out with GraphPad Prism 9 and Excel. Figures were designed using the two
following websites: Canva and Visme.
30
To assure the good conduction of this study, the recommendation of the Swedish
Research Council (p. 10, 2017) was carefully applied in order to guarantee the moral
integrity of this study as well as its scientifical authenticity. The other major ethical
considerations concern mainly data collection as it is necessary to obtain the authorization
to reuse the data provided by participants, to assure a strong confidentiality policy, to
provide a critically factual analysis of the platforms and to guarantee the authenticity of
the collected data. Furthermore, it is necessary to explain on what criteria the participants
were selected. One other ethical challenge that I will face during this project is about
anonymity. Indeed, it will be important to decide if participants and or platform names
should remain anonymous or not. The content of interviews will also be essential as it
will be conceived carefully to respect personal experiences. Additionally, the questions
will not deal with sensitive topics in order to protect participants’ privacy and to not put
them at risk. Moreover, it could be interesting to examine each platform's legal ruling and
their terms of conditions for their users.
To solve the mentioned ethical challenges, it will be necessary to get knowledge
about the legal requirements that enable a content creator to offer teaching services online.
It will also be important to precisely define the targeted audience and to ask permission
to the interviewed teachers and students to share their feedback about their experiment.
Indeed, participants will be selected on two criteria: first that they are at least 18 years
old and that they are currently studying a language online through the platforms
mentioned above. Choosing to work on users’ experience from 18 years old and above is
very important from an ethical point of view as it will be easier concerning consent issues.
As only adults will take part in this study, only them will be asked for permission to share
their feedback and not their parents or legal guardians.
Regarding anonymity, it is more respectful for participants to keep their names
unknown as it will enable them to express themselves more freely and more honestly.
When quoting them, they are referred as: “Participant A, B, C…” (see full list in the
appendix 2). On the other hand, for platforms, it is crucial to mention their names as this
project will give developed insights on this teaching practices in order to benefit research
for online education but also to guide potential students to choose the type of program
that suits them best. Not telling the name of these platforms will then be the source of a
lack of relevance which should absolutely be avoided. The name of the universities that
were contacted and their departments will also be displayed if they give their consent. To
ensure that the student has understand the full meaning of the study and that he agrees to
participate in it, and Informed Consent form will be sent to the students prior to the survey
and interviews started to make sure that the respondent understands all the stakes that are
at play. All concepts and theories used will be attributed to their rightful owners.
It is also necessary to mention that this study does not involve any procedures that
could harm the participants either physically or psychologically, nor does it collect any
confidential information about the volunteers. Besides, the respondents concerned are not
children. It should be mentioned that there is no commercial dimension to this study, that
31
the results presented and used from other researchers are acknowledged, that the research
of others has not been subjected to any kind of subjective critique, and that the applied
methodology and significant results have been incorporated.
32
4. Results
4.1 General overview
In total 18 different language course administrators from 7 different universities were
contacted. Only 3 responded to my call: the French section from Uppsala and Umeå
University (using Canvas) and the German section from Linneaus University (using
Moodle). In total 18 students responded to the survey, 72.2% are using Canvas, and 27.8%
Moodle. Proficiency levels are rather heterogenous going from beginners to advanced,
the majority being intermediate and upper-intermediate, 38.9% and 33.3% of the
participants, respectively. The academic levels of participants are spread over into two
groups: Master’s degree level with 55.6% and Bachelor’s degree with 38.9%. 61.1% of
the students had previous experience with their LMS platform again 38.9% who were
using it for the first time. On the other hand, only 44.4% of the participants have used
other LMS platforms (mainly Moodle, Fronter and Canvas) in the past whereas 55.6%
have not (Figure 3).
Figure n°3: Representative graph of the participants’ background
33
For a clear and organized presentation of the results collected, it is preferable to
approach them in the light of the questions and themes included in the survey.
4.2 Learning styles: How does students prefer to learn?
- “As a student, do you prefer to learn in groups or on your own?” (Figure 4).
From a general perspective, the students who participated prefer to learn on their own
rather than in groups.
Figure n°4: Representative graph of students’ preferences regarding the way of study
- “What methods do you prefer to use in order to learn the language you are
studying? Please rank the following elements from a scale from 1 to 5 (5 being
the highest preference).” (Figure 5)
A majority of the participants finds quizzes and practical exercises on pronunciation,
writing and listening very useful. Although the majority of participants agreed that
grammar is a necessary aspect of language learning, only 27.8% of students made it a
central tool in their learning of French or German while 38.9% gave it a medium
importance. Learning with daily expression is however highly appreciated by learners:
38.9% classified it as an outmost preference, 27.8% as a moderate preference and only
6% don’t favorise it in their learning. Results concerning the use of vocabulary flashcards
is rather heterogenous, with 44% and 11% of the participants considering it very crucial
and 27.8% and 16.7% of them considering it moderately essential. Concerning visual
content 67% (ratings 4 and 5) of the students rather enjoy using movies or videos as a
way to enhance their language skills while only 34% (ratings 3 to 1), see it as something
of secondary importance. More balanced results can be observed for the use of textual
content such as novels or newspaper articles, with 56% of students liking this type of
medium to study languages while only 45% have no clear preference for this type of
content.
34
Figure n°5: Representative graph of students’ preferences regarding language learning
- “Do you prefer to use a roadmap or to explore different sources with not
particular direction?” (Figure 6)
When it comes to learning strategy, most of the respondents prefer to follow a
roadmap with a daily leaning plan (66.7%) than exploring different type of sources
without any structure (33.3%). From a general aspect, participants preferring the first
option explain that having a plan helps them to know what they should improve in order
to have a better fluency.
35
Figure n°6: Representative graph of students’ preferences regarding organization
4.3 Classification of the respondents’ learning styles
Learning styles are from a general perspective rather intertwined as most of the
participants preferences are heterogenous and could be classified in different categories
of the FSLSM model. For instance, one student may not enjoy working in groups but
likes to train through exercises and quizzes, both factors being a characteristic of active
learning when it comes to information processing. Participants were asked to rate learning
items belonging to the different FSLMS categories from a scale of 1 to 5 (5 representing
the highest preference). Considering these different factors and variations, a general
overview of the respondents’ learning styles is established below (Table 3). In this table,
the percentages are based on the votes that ranked the different learning objects as a top
priority (rank 5).
Table n°3: Summary of the respondents’ learning styles in accordance with FSLSM
Based on the obtained results, students mainly process information in an active way,
through group work or exercises. Regarding the type of information preferred, the
majority of the respondents could be defined as sensory learners as the majority of them
indicated to enjoy learning the language studied with fun facts and daily expressions.
Concerning the way students perceive external information, the repartition between visual
and verbal learners is rather balanced as participants enjoy content that belong to the two
Processing
information
Active
(group work, exercises)
Reflective
(work in autonomy, examples)
56% of participants 44% of participants
Type of
information
preferred
Sensory
(fun facts, daily expressions, demos)
Intuitive
(extra reading, grammar rules)
58% of participants 42% of participants
Perception of
external
information
Visual
(movies, photos, flashcards)
Verbal
(podcasts, music, articles)
68% of participants 32% of participants
Progress towards
understanding
Sequential
(Study plan)
Global
(Various sources)
67% of participants 33% of participants
36
categories (i.e., movies flashcards for visual and podcasts, music, or text-based materials
for verbal). The large majority of respondents prefer to have a roadmap or a study plan
for their learning in order oversee their progress and the next upcoming steps and can
therefore be considered as sequential learners.
The distinction between learning objects is however important because although, the
majority of the participants could be defined as active, students mainly preferred to work
on their own than in groups, but highly enjoyed practicing the language through exercises.
This shows the ambivalence of learners in their journey as students may belong to the
same category of learning style but prefer a different learning object. This may add
complexity for instructors but also for LMS developers in creating features that considers
every possibility when it comes to student profile. However, this study enabled the
identification of main trends when it comes to learners’ habits and preferences which can
then facilitate the integration of adaptability in LMS platforms and endorse the
implementation of algorithmic tools that could provide to the student suggestions based
on their profile. The main identified trends can be hierarchized as follows (Figure 7):
Figure n°7: Main identified trends regarding learning objects preferences
According to the findings, it may therefore be useful in the future, when it comes to
improving personalization within LMS platforms, to address these preferences in order
to improve the learners' experience and offer them more varied options that may
correspond to their real needs.
37
4.4 Learning styles’ influence on students
- “As a language learner, how does your way of studying influence your journey?”
Results show that these learning preferences contribute in fact to different aspects in
the student’s learning journey such as motivation, better level estimation, develop
language skills in terms of accent, idioms, and global knowledge. For example, several
participants explained that having a study plan help them to identify the areas in the
language that they study, such as pronunciation or reading comprehension, on which they
should focus in order to improve their fluency. Two participants developed a little bit
further on this aspect. The first one stated: “It is important for me to know where I am
going with my studies. Setting up a plan is helpful but also trying to communicate and
speak is what really makes me progress” - Participant A. The second one also highlighted
the importance of having a roadmap but also to regularly exercise through tests and
quizzes:
My ability to explore different aspects of the language and follow a self-made plan
is very important to me and can help me stay driven to learn more . In addition the
self-tests and the practices are very important to me so I can practice what I have
learned.
- Participant B.
By contrast with the participants who enjoy relying on a roadmap, one respondent
explained the how using different types of resources can also be a source of motivation
and encourage the student to progress
Having diverse content is essential for me because I feel that I can improve myself
on different aspects at the same time [for ex:] when watching a movie I can
improve my pronunciation, learn new words and also test my comprehension.
- Participant C.
Another respondent emphasized the impact of group work and communication with
peers on his/her learning journey: “Learning in groups helps me to put in practice what
we learn in class and to exchange tips with each other.”- Participant D. Conversely, one
student also described how writing and practicing on his own helped him to get ahead
each day, especially during the pandemic:
[I enjoy] writing [about] various topics to acquire new vocabulary and creating
virtual dialogues with myself to strengthen the conversation. The positive
[aspect] is self-reliance as a way to acquire language, especially in light of the
current circumstances and the adoption of educational methods remotely.
- Participant E.
38
Overall, it is possible to identify main trends when it comes to the influence of
learning styles on students (Figure 8). For instance, having a plan helps students to set up
goals, be more focused and anticipate their progress. Exploring different type of resources
on the other hand, encourages students to be polyvalent and develop different skills. In
turn, practice in groups and quizzes stimulates learners in being more involved in their
journey and learn from each other, which in helps them feel more confident and
independent.
Figure n°8: Overview of learning styles’ impact on students
39
4.5 User experience with Canvas and Moodle
- “If you like to work in groups, do you think that you are able to do so with the
platform you use?” (Figure 9)
Regarding the adaptability of the Canvas and Moodle platforms to the students'
learning style, the results are quite close, with 50% of the students finding that they do,
the other 50% finding that they do not.
Figure n°9: Participants’ opinion about the ability to work in groups in Canvas and Moodle
The major problem mentioned by the participants is the lack of possibilities for video
conferencing, especially as plug-ins are not always functional on Canvas and Moodle:
I feel I can do so to some extent. Communicating via chats and discussion is
rather easy [in Moodle] but when it comes to having a video conference, I feel
restricted and not fully being able to practice at ease.
- Participant A.
However, the wiki option in Moodle is generally appreciated by Moodle users as it
allows students to have a common space to work on different group projects, in contrast
with Canvas as one participant stated that the platform: “[…] does not provide many
options for joint work with a group of students except for the Forum”. – Participant F.
- “To what extent is it easy for you to practice the following activities in relation to
learning a language, (i.e., conversation, hearing comprehension, pronunciation,
written exercises) on Canvas and Moodle? Please rank the modules from a scale
from 1 to 5 (5 being the highest preference).” (Figure 10)
Moreover, learning a language may sometimes be difficult, especially from the point
of view of oral conversation, oral and written comprehension, pronunciation and writing.
Having to develop these skills over distance learning can be particularly challenging for
learners. Survey findings show that 44% of students do not feel comfortable practicing
40
conversation with their peers on Canvas and Moodle. Only 23% feel that this is still
manageable and suitable to some extent, especially via discussion forums and chat. As
for hearing comprehension, the results are also very unanimous, with 56% of participants
finding Moodle and Canvas moderately accommodating for this type of exercise.
Participants can listen to the various audio files posted by teachers without having to
download them, but it is not always possible to answer questions directly on the platform.
Only 23% thought that it was quite easy to practice listening (ratings 4 and 5), while 23%
thought that the two platforms were not adapted at all to this type of task and material
(ratings 1 and 2).
In terms of pronunciation, opinions are fairly mixed, with 38.9% believing that it is
difficult to train, compared to 22.2% who believe that it is still achievable, particularly
thanks to the audio and video files posted by teachers. On the other hand, written exercises
are not a big issue for the majority of respondents, (i.e., 50%).
Figure n°10: Participants’ opinion about the easiness in practicing language learning activities in
Canvas and Moodle
- “Do you feel that you have enough access to external resources (articles,
videos…) related to the language you study? What about your progress and
grades? (Figure 11)
Access to external resources is something that remains difficult for 55.6% of the
participants against 44.4%, due to the lack of suggestions on Canvas and Moodle.
41
However, most users, 94.4%, agree that it is easy to view their progress and grades on
both Canvas and Moodle.
Figure n°11: Participants’ opinion about the external content access and progress visualization in
Canvas and Moodle
4.6 User needs and LMS
- Choose from the list below and/or mention the elements that you need as a learner.
(Figure 12)
Overall, students identified their needs as follows: Being able to monitor progress is
the most frequently expressed need (18.42% of responses), followed by communication
with teachers (17.11% of responses), customization of study plans (17.11%), access to
different types of study resources (67%), and the ability to communicate with classmates
(14.47%). Being able to work in a group is also called for by 7.89% of participants. By
contrast, having a personalized profile is surprisingly not considered as important, with
only 3.95% expressing this need. The ability to test current knowledge through quizzes
was also cited by 5.26% of the participants.
Figure n°12: Identification of students’ needs
42
- “Which of the needs below to do you feel are the most answered by Canvas /
Moodle?” Do you feel that Canvas / Moodle respond to it? (Scale from 1 to 5, 5
meaning that the participant agrees 100% with the previous statement) (Figure
13 and 14)
The three needs that respondents considered to be best met in general by the two
platforms were: group work, progress tracking, and communication with both instructors
and students. Yet, participants generally felt that both platforms only partially met their
needs (38.9%). Only 22.2% believe that the platforms fully satisfy their expectations.
Figure n°13: Participants’ opinion about the most answered needs by Canvas and Moodle
Figure n°14: Responsiveness of Canvas and Moodle to users’ needs
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Follow learning progress
Peer communication
Communication with instructors
Profile editing
Access to variety of content
Study plan editing
Group practice
Most anwsered need by Canvas/Moodle
Third place Second place First place
43
4.7 Possible improvements for Canvas and Moodle to better satisfy
users’ needs
Regarding the improvements that could be made to Canvas and Moodle (Figure 15),
participants expressed the need for more interactive content that would encourage the
student to participate more. They would also like to have more advice and information on
their progress, e.g., suggestions for improving a particular skill (writing, speaking, accent,
etc.). One student also mentioned having exercises or quizzes constructed in a fun way
similar to video games in order to combine the educational with a recreational aspect,
which could also help motivate the student. Some participants also noted the restrictive
nature of Moodle and Canvas in terms of studying certain modules, as these are not
always accessible at the beginning of the course. Thus, learners would like more
flexibility to be able to organise themselves according to their personal schedule and
commitments, but also to personalise their study plan so that they can work according to
their interests and preferences.
Figure n°15: Potential improvements for Canvas and Moodle to better respond to
students’ needs
4.8 Personalization through a recommender system
Participants were also asked about the possibility of adding algorithmic personalised
recommendations within Moodle and Canvas, more or less like YouTube, but related to
the language they are studying and based on their personal preferences and needs.
According to the feedback received, 61.1% of learners would like to have content
recommendations, i.e. videos, books or films related to the learning of French or German
44
but also matching their level. One participant also mentioned the possibility of having
more notifications as reminders about upcoming tests and assignments, as well as about
the time spent on the platform: “A reminder from the platform of the number of hours per
week that it is advisable to spend, which could be an indication of self-learning the
language” - Participant L.
Although both Canvas and Moodle already propose reminders for assignments, they
are only appearing on the day of the deadline, which can be quite stressful and challenging
if the student have mistakenly forgotten that he or she has something to submit. Therefore,
the participants are mainly asking for heads-up instead of D-day reminders. Following on
from what has been previously reported about the flexibility of these platforms, a system
of recommendations could include advice on workload allocation according to the needs
of the student, their timetable, and their level (Figure 16).
Figure n°16: Personalized recommendations in LMS system: Overview of students’
needs
4.9 Learning environment preferences
- “Where and how do you prefer to learn? (Possible to choose several alternatives).
Do you find the same satisfaction when you learn through Canvas / Moodle than
when you study in the classroom or at home?” (Figure 17)
Students generally prefer to study in a traditional setting but also with an LMS program
rather than alone at home. However, satisfaction is not the same for 61.1% of participants
versus 38.9%.
45
Figure n°17: Students’ satisfaction and preferences in term of learning environment
Physical interaction remains for most students a vital aspect of language learning
which "cannot be replaced", contributing to better motivation but also communication
facilitating language practice and teacher support and feedback. However, 27.78% of the
participants noted the beneficial aspect of combined teaching between the classroom and
Moodle/Canvas as it allows students to retrieve their entire course and all lessons (power
points, handouts, worksheets...etc.) in one place accessible at any time and from any
place. Having an overall view of individual progress is also greatly appreciated as it
allows the student to plan their work ahead and identify the skills they need to improve.
In general, Canvas and Moodle are perceived as complementary tools to their learning,
rather than a sole means of study on which the student could rely 100%, due to a lack of
adaptability but also of interaction with other learners and instructors (Figure 18).
Figure n°18: Students’ preferences when it comes to learning setting
46
5. Discussion
The obtained results will be summarised and confronted to the findings of previous
studies about LMS personalisation and about the role played by learning styles in order
to assess how LMS infrastructures could be enhanced in the future. To best organize this
reflection, it will be essential to approach these elements in the light of the three research
questions established for this study so as to firstly answer them and then to suggest
possible solutions to overcome the identified challenges during this investigation.
- RQ1: To what degree are Canvas and Moodle effective learning tools from a
pedagogical and ergonomic point of view?
From a general perspective, the results showed that opinions regarding the
effectiveness of Canvas and Moodle as user-friendly pedagogical learning tools are rather
divided. The positive aspects of both LMS platforms are mainly related to ergonomics.
This has been previously observed by Aldiab et al. (2019), who identified the main
advantages of LMS systems as being complementary and convenient tools that can be
accessed at any time, from any electronic device with an internet connection. The results
obtained in this study confirm the observations of Aldiab et al. (2019), as some
participants expressed that they appreciated the ease of access and having all their course
content in one place. Therefore, it appears that Canvas and Moodle are practical and
convenient for students, allowing them to follow the evolution of the course itself without
missing important information or documents, thereby encouraging them to work at their
own pace.
Further evaluating the real efficiency of LMS platforms, Khairudin et al.'s (2016)
study developed a categorization system to assess the suitability of LMS tools. Its purpose
is to assist institutions and instructors in their choice of platform towards an optimal
solution that creates the best possible learning experience for students. Khairudin et al.'s
(2016) guide is organized around 5 criteria (LMS training, student participation, student
commitment, equality of chances, and technical structures and support), making it fitting
in the context of this study to discuss the efficiency of Canvas and Moodle from a
pedagogical and ergonomic point of view considering these different factors. Here the
focus will be on the first, the second and the fourth criteria, as the third one will be dealt
with in relation to the third research question and the last factor has not been investigated
in this study.
1. LMS training: This point originally refers to the sufficient availability of
LMS training for teachers so that they are able to make the best use of
these platforms and are familiar with all the available features. As this
study was addressed to students, this aspect could not really be addressed
47
from the point of view of the quality of training for teachers. However, it
would be interesting to broaden the target audience of these courses and to
offer students the opportunity to learn about these digital tools.
Implementing LMS training for learners could be enriching for users,
especially as 37,5% of the participants stated that they did not have any
previous experience with Canvas or Moodle. It could also contribute to the
enhancement of digital learning experiences by practically demonstrating
to the student how to be independent through his/her use of Canvas or
Moodle, particularly as respondents also mentioned that they encountered
interface navigation issues, mostly with Moodle.
2. Student Participation: It involves the ways in which students are invited
to participate and interact on the LMS platform as part of their learning.
This is mostly done through the different options available on the website
(i.e., forums, assignment submissions, quizzes...etc.). According to
Khairudin et al. (2016), this seeks to preserve and potentially increase
learner motivation and interest while creating a sense of autonomy. The
importance of these factors was confirmed by the results obtained as the
majority of students expressed a preference for working independently and
needing more engaging and challenging activities. In the case of Canvas
and Moodle, both platforms only partially meet these criteria as they are
sometimes too limited due to the lack of variety in terms of access to
external content on the platform but also due to the lack of entertaining
options.
3. Equality of chances: This corresponds to the principle of accessibility and
availability of the platform not neglecting and/or favoring any student over
another. As mentioned earlier Canvas and Moodle are extremely easy to
access requiring only an internet connection. The results obtained are
consistent with the observations and results of Khairudin et al. (2016) and
Aldiab (2019), respectively.
The mixed feeling among respondents shows a clear lack of flexibility in Canvas and
Moodle, both from an ergonomic and pedagogical point of view, which fail to fully satisfy
learners. From the perspective of usability, Ahmad et. al. (2018) had noted the impractical
nature of certain platforms (in that case Fronter), due to complex icons, sections that were
difficult to access or the absence of mouse hints. The present study further confirms these
observations, but this time for Moodle, which is described by some participants as being
too "complicated" and needing time to adapt in order to fully "get the hang of it ". On the
other hand, despite having fewer advanced options for group work, Canvas appears to be
easier to use for students who mentioned that they liked the "simplicity" of the platform
and that the different sections are visible on the home screen. This confirms the previous
findings reported by Ahmad et al. (2018) about Canvas.
48
Therefore, it can be suggested that from the point of view of the practicality of Canvas
and Moodle, a solution to adopt could be to include training course for learners to
familiarize them with these tools, especially in the case of Moodle. From the perspective
of pedagogy, as highlighted by Khairudin et al. (2016) along with Song & Luan (2020),
which was further corroborated in this study, there is a crucial lack in providing additional
external content by both platforms. Canvas and Moodle do not make sufficient use of the
resources available on the internet and that could be potentially helpful to the learners if
suggested. Thus, to improve LMS platforms, it is essential to give particular attention to
how more content, beyond what is made available to students by instructors, can be
offered to learners.
- RQ2: To what extent is the infrastructure of both platforms adapted to the user’s
learning style, needs, and expectations?
As previously shown by Essalmi et al. (2015), it is essential that LMS platforms
provide different types of learning methods for students, which is further confirmed by
this study.
Therefore, with this in mind, the FSLSM model was chosen in order to gain a broader
perspective on how learners study, what their preferred methods are, and how this
influences their success. Knowing the learning style of students also aims to contribute to
a better personalization of LMS tools, which could potentially allow learners to engage
more with these tools. Algorithmic prototypes for Moodle that include learning styles-
based on the FSLSM model have been developed in order to investigate to what extent
learning styles could enhance LMS experience (studies of Liyanage et al., 2014, Chen et
al., 2015, Zlatkovic et al., 2019.). Our study further confirms the necessity for such
approach and more particularly the suitability of FSLSM model when it comes to the
assessment of students’ learning styles and preferences.
First of all, findings showed that participants’ preferences and learning styles are
heterogenous as students are at ease with various types of learning objects. Learners also
do not rank their needs to the same extent, as one factor, such as student-to-student
communication, will have a different value of importance from one participant to another,
with some believing it to be a major priority and others thinking it is not as crucial. This
supports the findings of Essalmi et al., (2015) and Verpoorten et al. (2009), who
demonstrated that different personalization strategies need to be developed in order to be
adapted to the learners' needs as well as to the discipline being taught, in this case a
foreign language (French and German for this study), emphasizing the diversity of student
profiles.
In the case of Canvas and Moodle, these criteria and learning methods are so far only
moderately taken into account. Despite the fact that Moodle has been the object of these
49
two prototypical experiments, the results have shown that students find it very difficult to
feel comfortable with these platforms. In order to best determine how well Canvas and
Moodle take into account the learning styles, preferences and needs of learners, this
discussion will be based around the 3 main factors identified in the literature review
(Ownership, Adaptability, Participation). It will also highlight how the FSLSM model is
relevant to improving the personalization of Canvas and Moodle.
1. Ownership: As explained by Verpoorten et al. (2014), this notion relies
on enabling the student to have control over his/her learning progress
by for instance letting him/her set his/her own goal, track progress,
follow a study plan…etc. Study results have revealed that this is
intricately linked to the learning style of the student and his/her
learning preference when it comes to learning objects as every student
feel empowered in a different way some of them needing to regularly
check their progress, other needing to determine their own goals in
advance or customize their study plan and pace. In the context of
Canvas and Moodle, Verpoorten et al. (2009) showed that giving
access to tracked information to learners about their activity in Moodle
allowed to further empower users and provide for them an experience
that was more in accordance with their needs and personal preferences.
Moreover, Bradáč, et. al., (2016) exposed that LMS platforms crucially
lacked in providing students the opportunity to effectively plan their
time and know exactly the amount of time they need to spend on a
particular task. These observations correlate with the gaps that were
mentioned by the respondents when it comes to roadmap
personalization and progress insights.
2. Adaptability: It refers to the possibility for the learner to benefit from
options that are taking into consideration the way he/she enjoys
learning, what type of content is preferred but also needed. For Canvas
and Moodle, Essalmi et al (2015) as well as Verpoorten et al. (2014)
emphazised the issues that revolve around this aspect as LMS
platforms are limited in reach and inclusivity. Imran et al. (2016) also
attempted to create a recommender system prototype for Moodle,
which purpose is to suggest content especially targeted for a precise
type of student in order to match his/her interests. Our findings align
with previous findings, as it was underlined through the use of the
FSLSM model, that for example, students enjoying to study in an
active manner, (i.e., with group work , exercises, practical
applications…etc.), were finding difficulties to actually practice the
languages they study, especially for teamwork. Furthermore,
participants were globally positive about the idea of integrating a
50
recommender system in Canvas and Moodle, thereby further
confirming its necessity to help develop more flexible LMS platforms.
3. Participation: It questions the way LMS platforms can be built in order
to let the student feel at ease while encouraging him/her to engage with
the discipline that is taught but also to participate and interact in the
virtual classroom. As previously state Essalmi et al. (2015) showed the
importance to offer different types of learning objects and to
implement activities that stimulates the learner, through gamification
for instance. Study results substantiates the previous findings as
respondent have highlighted the wish to have more game-like features
on Canvas and Moodle as well as external resources that they could
use and share with their classmates, thereby emphasizing the potential
improvements that could be done in LMS platforms.
From a general point of view, it can be noted that crucial problems persist with
Canvas and Moodle, being too restrictive, not very adaptable and following an online
teaching model mimicking face-to-face teaching. The difficulty in including different
learning styles relies on two main factors being the content and teaching materials used
and made available to students by teachers on these two LMS programs, but also the
diversity and flexibility of the options available on the two LMS sites being too limiting
and basic not allowing the student to feel that this learning experience has been designed
for them.
The lack of direct physical interaction means that additional methods must be put in
place to give the learner confidence, support, and follow-up throughout the experience,
especially when it comes to learning a language remotely. Indeed, as it was pointed out
in the presentation of the results, the vast majority of learners have difficulties practicing
the language via Canvas and Moodle, mainly from the point of view of conversation, oral
comprehension and also pronunciation training due to the lack of adapted tools made
available by the platforms. The problem that can be raised in a more global way is that
LMS platforms, in addition to requiring the development of a more individualized
experience for the user, seem to be poorly suited to teaching and learning a language
online because of these important challenges mentioned by the learners, which shows the
importance of drawing particular attention to this issue in order to propose solutions that
could potentially solve this problem in the future.
In order to do so, the use of the FSLSM model to determine students’ learning styles
and further understand their needs and preferences, seems to be suitable as it has allowed
us to discover and expose the main issues encountered by learners on Canvas and Moodle.
It also gave a better overview of the major trends in terms of learning objects which may
be precious for the development of future research. Hence, it is clear that the use of
specific learning objects can have a positive or negative impact on the student (i.e., in the
case of a low score in a quiz or test), as it will shape and affect the student's behaviour
51
and the way he/she perceives and interacts with the language he/she is learning, thus
influencing his/her progress, motivation, focus, and dedication. A better personalization
could therefore include learning objects that could be easily customizable and adjusted to
the needs and demands of the students, as this has a direct incidence on their learning
experience. Offering wider options for tailored content with regards to learning material
could thereby help to enhance and optimize LMS platforms by expanding efficiency.
Knowing the learners' profile could therefore allow not only to offer students content
and tools adapted to their interests and preferences, but also to enrich their educational
journey, for example through the introduction of an algorithmic system providing
automatic recommendations for the student based on his/her type of learning. As
Liyanage et al., (2014), suggested, a questionnaire could be set up to assess the user's
learning style and personal priorities when using the LMS platform for the first time,
similar to the way users select their areas of interest or favourite genres on popular
entertainment networks such as Netflix, Pinterest, or Spotify. This would not only
improve the overall student experience and make the platform more attractive, but also
prevent it from being solely dependent on the content uploaded by the teacher, which can
sometimes be restrictive and not necessarily reflect the variety of student profiles. As a
result, LMS platforms could also become content generators and a source of in-depth
learning for Trq1he user, transforming it from a complementary tool to a central learning
resource for the student, connecting to the platform as one would connect to social media.
- RQ3: What type of personalized follow-up do Canvas and Moodle provide?
From an overall perspective, both platforms were seen by participants as good
complementary tools that allowed them to track their progress but also to keep in touch
with their teachers and peers, especially during the pandemic, via different types of
messaging (i.e., emails, forums, and private messages). Nevertheless, an important
element to keep in mind while using LMS platforms is to ensure Student commitment.
As Khairudin et al. (2016) mentions, this aspect refers to the need to ensure student
integrity and that students complete the tasks required of them in order to allow for
pedagogical follow-up between the student and the teacher. According to the results of
this study, Canvas and Moodle provide simple and basic tracking options that are valued
by learners. However, as it has been observed in other studies, some students have
complained about the difficulty of communicating with professors, which is explained by
the fact that there are few video-conferencing options that can be integrated into Canvas
and Moodle, if not different plug-ins, but which unfortunately are not always available to
students and are not very intuitive.
Moreover, as discussed by Khairudin et al. (2016), Essalmi et al. (2015) and
Verpoorten (2014), the follow-up of a student, whether it is online or in person does not
stop with the interactions with their teacher. A key aspect to consider is the guidance and
tools given to the student to make progress. As Waldeck (2006) has shown, one of the
central factors in the academic success of a student is the ability for a teacher or an
52
educational structure to give their learners advice and assistance adapted to their needs,
but above all taking into consideration the student's learning path and difficulties. The
outcomes of this study showed that some students complained about the lack of tips on
their progress as well as the difficulty in sharing content with other learners and with their
instructors.
Additionally, Verpoorten et al. (2014) developed a prototype that allows students to
access information collected about them by LMS platforms, in that case with Moodle.
The goal was to allow students to view information about their activities: time spent on a
quiz, on a particular assignment, on the platform in general, to see the last documents
accessed...etc. Thus, the follow-up does not depend only on the communication with the
instructor but on the possibility offered to the student himself so that he can obtain as
many details as possible to visualize his progress. The results of the study also point in
this direction as some participants expressed the need to have more tools regarding their
progress by showing the time spent on a module compared to the time that is required to
finish a module for example.
Perišić et al. (2018) and Song & Luan (2020), also present another solution to
develop personalized follow-up in LMS systems. The goal would be to integrate social
network-type content sharing spaces in order to encourage students to help each other but
also to document their journey through the publication of related content. This could also
facilitate exchanges with teachers and initiate a dialogue about the learner's progress
through comments functions for example. As previously discussed in relation to the
concept of student engagement developed by Khairudin et al. (2016), some participants
did indeed mention that they encountered difficulties in communicating with their peers
as well as with their instructors. Problems with content sharing were also mentioned due
to the limited options offered by Canvas and Moodle, even though Moodle does include
Wiki tools, which are highly valued by students, especially for group work. The results
obtained therefore support the theory of Perišić et al. (2018) as well as Song & Luan
(2020) and further directs the outlook for LMS platform improvement towards the
possibility of developing an intuitive section similar to social media.
53
6. Conclusion
In this quantitative study the purpose was to investigate the performances of existing
learning management systems, in this case Canvas and Moodle, in relation to user
personalization and to suggest potential solutions in order to enhance these platforms. For
this endeavour, personalization was approached through the lens of students’
preferences, needs and expectations, as well as via the identification of students’ learning
styles using the FSLSM model. Having a better understanding of the way learners process
and acquire knowledge can help identify learning priorities for students, thus contributing
to the better design of inclusive learning features in LMS platforms, in order to put the
student at the centre of his/her digital learning experience.
The findings from the questionnaire allowed to visualize the students' preferences
and needs in a comprehensive way and to have a better overview of the students' learning
styles and the tools they use. It showed the positive aspects of Canvas and Moodle, which
are seen as practical tools, regarding the content and documents related to the courses,
which are thus gathered in one place, but also regarding the accessibility of these two
platforms. Canvas and Moodle are actually seen as complementary tools to classroom
teaching, enabling to keep in touch with teachers, classmates and course progress.
However, they are considered insufficient in the context of distance learning, as
they only copy the interactions of traditional teaching without providing anything
significantly new to the student that would encourage him/her to become attached or to
commit more to these platforms. As a matter of fact, results confirmed the problems
exposed in the previous studies, such as the lack of external resources, the lack of
complementary information about the student's progress, the difficulty in communicating,
especially when learning and practicing a foreign language, the lack of entertaining and
stimulating activities, the restriction in adjusting the study time and the plan of action to
be followed.
Thus, the positive aspects are mainly ergonomic due to the convenience of Canvas
and Moodle. As previously discussed, the usability of these platforms could however be
improved, especially through the implementation of training courses on the use and
familiarization with LMSs for learners so that they can fully benefit from these tools.
From the point of view of pedagogy, student engagement and adaptability of LMSs to
learners' preferences, learning styles and needs, the integration of an algorithmic system
of recommendations could greatly improve the overall experience of learners. In fact, one
of the major problems associated with Canvas and Moodle is that these systems are highly
dependent on the content provided by the instructors.
In order to personalize this experience in an optimal way, relying only on teacher
generated material does not allow for more advanced choices for learners, since the
learning content uploaded by instructors is addressed to an entire group and does not
necessarily take into account the variety of student profiles within a course. LMS
54
platforms must therefore go beyond this limit in order to become more than a simple
complementary tool for grouping course documents online. Therefore, by implementing
a personalized recommendation system based on the individual characteristics of the
learners, it would be possible to put forward content and services that are thought out or
at least adapted to the real needs of the learners, thus encouraging their progress, their
motivation and giving them a sense of ownership over their educational experience.
Concerning the follow-up of the student as well as the communication with the
professors, we can see that video-conference tools are sorely needed for the students. The
possibility to share a Zoom link or to integrate remote meeting plug-ins does not seem to
be sufficient and fully operational. The integration of a videoconferencing function within
Canvas and Moodle could solve and facilitate the communication with the students on
the one hand, but also with the other students who can be a good support during a learning
experience, especially in the context of a foreign language, thus encouraging the learners
to practice the language in question.
Besides the aspects mentioned above, the follow-up should not be limited to direct
communication, but should also be promoted through personal advice addressed to the
student privately. These tips could be based on the data collected by LMSs and then
delivered in an intuitive way to the learner. Designing social network-like services for
LMSs could further contribute to a better follow-up of students, thus encouraging
interactions and consequently the engagement of learners and the popularity of these
platforms.
In summarize, Canvas and Moodle are promising teaching tools, being seen as
practical and accessible by learners. Yet, as pointed out, the lack of intuitiveness,
flexibility, and adaptability to learner profiles undermines the performance of these
LMSs, which have the potential to transform e-learning. Hence, it is essential to develop
infrastructures that place the student at the center of the experience by valuing his or her
learning style, preferences and primary needs. These learning platforms must differentiate
themselves from traditional teaching in order to offer an innovative experience to the
learner and become more than a simple supplementary tool.
55
7. Reference list
1. E-learning
Dunn S., Earl G., Foka A., Wootton W. 2019, ‘Spatial Narratives in
Museums and Online: The Birth of the Digital Object Itinerary’. In: Giannini
T., Bowen J. (eds) Museums and Digital Culture. Springer Series on Cultural
Computing. Springer, London: Pages 253-27, 18 pages.
Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. 2007, Preparing for blended e-learning (1st ed.).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203961322
Moore, Joi L., 2011, e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning
environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education,
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 129-135, 6 pages.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751610000886.
[Consulted on 20/02/2021]
Paechter, Manuel, et. al., 2009, Students’ expectations of, and experiences in
e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction,
Computers & Education, Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages 222-229, 8 pages.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131509002000.
[Consulted on 20/02/2021]
Pinder, Desiree, Elkins, Diane, (2015). E-Learning Fundamentals, American
Society for Training & Development, Blue Ridge Summit, Alexandria, 177
pages.
Phillips, Rob, et. al., (2011). Evaluating E-Learning : Guiding Research and
Practice, Routledge, ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uu/detail.action?docID=838176.
[Consulted on 01/03/2020 ]
2. Learning Management Systems
Aldiab, A., Chowdhury, H., Kootsookos, A., Alam, F. & Allhibi, H. 2019,
"Utilization of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in higher education
system: A case review for Saudi Arabia", Energy procedia, vol. 160, pp. 731-
737.
56
Foreman, S. D. (2017). The LMS guidebook: Learning management systems
demystified (1st ed.). ATD Press.
Kaplan-Leiserson, E. E-Learning Glossary. 2000. Consulted on 29/04/2021.
[Retrieved from:] http://www.learningcircuits.org/glossary.html
Khairudin, N., Khairudin, R., Hamid, M.N.A., Hancock, P., McGill, T. and
Zamani, Z.A. 2016, The Importance of Human Capital Perspective In The
Learning Management System (LMS) Decision Making Process At
Universities. Jurnal Psikologi Malaysia, vol. 30, no. 2.
Ramírez-Correa, P. E., Rondan-Cataluña, F. J., Arenas-Gaitán, J., & Alfaro-
Perez, J. L. 2017, Moderating effect of learning styles on a learning
management system’s success. Telematics and Informatics, vol. 34, no. 1,
pp. 272-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.006
3. Canvas
Ahmad, F., Beyene, W. & Giannoumis, G.A. 2018, "Comparative
Evaluation of Accessibility and Learnability of Learning Management
Systems: Case of Fronter and Canvas" in Springer International Publishing,
Cham, pp. 3-9.
Falcone, K. 2018, A Case Study of Faculty Experience and Preference of
Using Blackboard and Canvas LMS, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Fathema, N. & Akanda, M.H. 2020, "Effects of instructors’ academic
disciplines and prior experience with learning management systems: A study
about the use of Canvas", Australasian journal of educational
technology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 113-125.
Song, Y.N. & Luan, Z.Q. 2020, "Function Design Optimization of Learning
Management System (LMS) Based on Student Perspective-Case Study of
Canvas Application University of Colorado Denver", Journal of physics.
Conference series, vol. 1621, no. 1, pp. 12058.
Wicaksono, G.W., Nawisworo, P.B., Wahyuni, E.D. & Cholily, Y.M. 2021,
"Canvas Learning Management System Feature Analysis Using Feature-
Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA)", IOP conference series. Materials
Science and Engineering, vol. 1077, no. 1, pp. 12041.
57
4. Moodle
Bradáč, V., Smolka, P. & Klimeš, C. 2016, "Personalization of Foreign
Language Education in the LMS Moodle Environment" in Springer
International Publishing, Cham, pp. 27-34.
Bradáč, V., Šimík, M., Kotyrba, M. & Volná, E. 2017, "Personalisation of a
Moodle Course From Student’s Perspective", European Conference on e-
Learning, , pp. 70-77.
Limongelli, C., Sciarrone, F. & Vaste, G. 2011, "Personalized e-learning in
Moodle: the Moodle_LS System", Je-LKS, vol. 7, no. 1.
Perišić, J., Milovanović, M. & Kazi, Z. 2018, "A semantic approach to
enhance moodle with personalization", Computer applications in
engineering education, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 884-901.
5. Learning styles
Balakrishnan, V. & Gan, C.L. 2016, "Students’ learning styles and their
effects on the use of social media technology for learning", Telematics and
informatics, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 808-821.
Ertmer, P.A. & Newby, T.J. 2013, "Behaviorism, Cognitivism,
Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design
Perspective", Performance improvement quarterly, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 43-71.
Graf, S., Viola, S. R., Leo, T., 2007, “In-Depth Analysis of the Felder-
Silverman Learning Style Dimensions”, Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 79-93.
Hung, D. 2001, "Theories of Learning and Computer-Mediated Instructional
Technologies", Educational media international, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 281-287.
Khatib, M., Sarem, S.N., & Hamidi, H. 2013, “Humanistic Education:
Concerns, Implications and Applications”. Journal of Language Teaching
and Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 45-51.
Liyanage, M.P.P., Gunawardena, K.S.L. and Hirakawa, M., 2015. Using
Learning Styles to Enhance Learning Management Systems. International
Journal on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions (ICTer), 7(2), pp.1–10.
DOI: http://doi.org/10.4038/icter.v7i2.7153
58
Shaw, G. & Marlow, N. (1999). The role of student learning styles, gender,
attitudes and perceptions on information and communication technology
assisted learning. Computers & Education, 33(4), 223-234. Elsevier
Ltd. Retrieved April 23, 2021 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/90609/.
6. Personalisation
Andersson, T. (2019). Learning Management Systems (LMS) Case study on
an implementation of an LMS and its perceived effects on teachers.
(Dissertation).
Conde, M.A., García, F., Rodríguez-Conde, M.J., Alier, M. & García-
Holgado, A. 2014, "Perceived openness of Learning Management Systems
by students and teachers in education and technology courses", Computers
in human behavior, vol. 31, pp. 517-526.
Essalmi, F., Ayed, L. J. B., Jemni, M., Kinshuk, & Graf, S. (2010). A fully
personalization strategy of E-learning scenarios. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(4), 581-591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.12.010
Essalmi, F., Ayed, L.J.B., Jemni, M., Graf, S. & Kinshuk 2015, "Generalized
metrics for the analysis of E-learning personalization strategies", Computers
in human behavior, vol. 48, pp. 310-322.
Imran, H., Belghis-Zadeh, Chang, T., Kinshuk, Kinshuk, Graf, S. & Graf, S.
2016, "PLORS: a personalized learning object recommender
system", Vietnam journal of computer science, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 3-13.
Imran, H., Hoang, Q., Chang, T., Kinshuk & Graf, S. "A Framework to
Provide Personalization in Learning Management Systems through a
Recommender System Approach" in Springer International Publishing,
Cham, pp. 271-280.
Verpoorten, D., Glahn, C., Kravcik, M., Ternier, S. & Specht, M. 2009,
"Personalisation of Learning in Virtual Learning Environments" in Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 52-66.
Waldeck, J.H., 2006, “What Does “Personalised Education” Mean for
Faculty, and How Should It Serve Our Students?”, Communication
Education, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 345–352.
59
Thurlings, M., Vermeulen, M., Bastiaens, T. & Stijnen, S. 2013,
"Understanding feedback: A learning theory perspective", Educational
research review, vol. 9, pp. 1-15.
60
8. Appendixes
1. Questions for the survey
Main part Questions Relevance of the question Related to what field
Det
erm
inin
g t
he le
arn
ing
sty
le o
f th
e st
ud
ent
an
d it
s im
pa
ct o
n le
arn
ing
exp
erie
nce
Do you prefer to learn in groups, with exercises and quizzes, or to work in autonomy through summaries of lectures, slide shows or grammar examples?
Identify the way the learner processes information
FSLSM (Active/Reflective)
To learn French, do you feel more comfortable learning through fun facts and daily expressions, or do you prefer to study grammatical concepts and rules ?
Determine the type of info preferred by the student
FSLSM (Sensory/Intuitive)
Would you say that you have more facility in learning through pictures and graphs or with recordings and audios?
Understand how the student perceives information
FSLSM (Visual/Verbal)
Do you prefer to follow a precise roadmap/outline, or do you prefer to explore different kinds of sources (grammar books, social media, podcasts in French…)?
Explains the steps followed by the student in order to
acquire knowledge and comprehend it
FSLSM (Sequential/Global)
As a learner of French how does your learning style impact your journey? Why do you believe this had a positive influence on your learning journey and progress so far?
Understand the impact of learning styles on the
student’s journey
FSLSM
Lea
rnin
g s
tyle
s &
LM
S
Do you feel that you have enough possibilities to work in groups, or do quizzes via Canvas/Moodle? Do you think that the available options are sufficient? Why?
Assess if LMS suits the way student processes info
FSLSM (Active)
Do you think that it is easier or more difficult to work in groups or to practice pronunciation, hearing comprehension through exercises in Canvas/Moodle?
Evaluate if LMS facilitates or not the student’s way of
processing info
FSLSM (Active)
Do you feel that it is easier or more difficult to work in autonomy or have access to lectures, slide shows or outlines of courses with Canvas/Moodle?
Evaluate if LMS facilitates or not the student’s way of
processing info
FSLSM (Reflective)
- Do you think that it would help you if Canvas/Moodle could suggest you
Identify student needs when it comes to learning objects
FSLSM (Sensory)
61
external sources related to French (i.e., fun facts, testimonies / innovative tips or ideas to boost you learning)? Please explain why.
more adapted to the student’s learning style and if it should be integrated to
LMS or not
- Do you think you have enough possibilities when it comes to finding pictures or videos, or audio and text content on Canvas/Moodle sized for you to learn French?
Determining if suggesting content adapted to the
preferred information of the learner should be improved
in LMS (personalized recommendations)
FSLSM (Visual/Verbal)
-What do you think could be done in order to offer the possibility to students to have better access to different types of content via LMS systems?
Collecting insights from students
FSLSM (Visual/Verbal)
-Do you feel that Canvas/Moodle allows you to visualize or create a clear outline? Do you think that you can have access to your progress easily ?
Assess if the learner has enough tools that enable
him to follow his evolution throughout his learning process in the used LMS
system
FSLSM (Sequential)
Do you feel that Canvas/Moodle enables you to have access to the various type sources (grammar books, social media, podcasts in French…) you need? Do you think that it suggests you enough solutions? Why?
Identify if the student feel that they can obtain enough type of sources via the used
LMS platform
FSLSM (Global)
-Do you believe that if Canvas/Moodle took more into consideration your learning style, it would have a better impact on your journey, especially when it comes to learning French?
Have the overall impression of the student on learning
style and LMS
FSLSM
Per
son
aliz
ati
on
an
d L
MS
As a learner of French, how would you define your needs? Do you think that Canvas/Moodle respond to it? Why?
Determine students’ needs and if the LMS platforms are sufficiently responding to it?
Personalization
What are the options that you expect to find on a platform like Moodle/Canvas?
Identify student’s expectations
Personalization
According to you, what is missing in Canvas/Moodle for language learners, especially when it comes to French?
Identify areas that can be improved
Personalization
- Do you find the same satisfaction when you learn French through Canvas/Moodle than when you study
Evaluate student’s satisfaction
Personalization
62
in the classroom and/or at home? Can you explain why?
Do you find LMS platforms, like Canvas/Moodle easy to use? (Functionality)
Assess functionality Functionality
Do you feel that it efficiently recreates classroom settings ? (Engagement)
Assess if its sufficiently lively, encouraging participation
Engagement
Do you believe that it is an efficient tool to learn a language ? (Progress)
Assess if LMS supports student’s progress and
success
Progress
Do you feel that you can communicate easily with your teachers or with other students? To what extent is this important for you ? (Follow-up)
Assess efficacy of communication tools and if
student is sufficiently supported
Follow-up
Do you think that your progress and achievements are sufficiently highlighted by Canvas/Moodle?
Determine if the student is sufficiently kept motivated
Personalization
Do you think that Canvas/Moodle provides you enough insights when it comes to areas to improve, upcoming events/tests, practicing French…?
Identify if LMS are sufficiently intuitive
Personalization
Furt
her
insi
gh
ts Have you had other experiences with
the same kind of platforms, if yes, which ones? Which one do you prefer to use and why?
Compare with previous experience (What is
better/worse)
Future perspectives
How would you like LMS platforms to be in the coming years?
Collect student’s wishes for learning a language via LMS
Future perspectives
63
2. Participant background overview
Participant Age range University Language
studied Level in the language Level of study Used
Platform
A 31-35 Linnéuniversitetet German Intermediate Masters degree Moodle
B 20-25 Uppsala universitet French Intermediate Bachelors degree Canvas
C 26-30 Linnéuniversitetet German Beginner Bachelors degree Moodle
D 26-30 Linnéuniversitetet German Beginner Masters degree Moodle
E 20-25 Uppsala universitet French Upper-intermediate Masters degree Canvas
F 26-30 Umeå universitet French Intermediate Doctoral degree Canvas
G 31-35 Umeå universitet French Upper-intermediate Masters degree Canvas
H 36-40 Linnéuniversitetet German Upper-intermediate Masters degree Moodle
I 20-25 Uppsala universitet French Advanced Masters degree Canvas
J 26-30 Umeå universitet French Beginner Bachelors degree Canvas
K 20-25 Uppsala universitet French Upper-intermediate Bachelors degree Canvas
L 36-40 Umeå universitet French Beginner Masters degree Canvas
M 20-25 Linnéuniversitetet German Intermediate Masters degree Moodle
N 26-30 Uppsala universitet French Upper-intermediate Bachelors degree Canvas
O 31-35 Uppsala universitet French Intermediate Masters degree Canvas
P 20-25 Uppsala universitet French Intermediate Bachelors degree Canvas
Q 26-30 Uppsala universitet French Intermediate Bachelors degree Canvas
R 31-35 Umeå universitet French Upper-intermediate Masters degree Canvas
