Una herramienta para el seguimiento del profesorado universitario en Entornos Virtuales de Aprendizaje

  1. Magdalena Cantabella 1
  2. Belén López-Ayuso 1
  3. Andrés Muñoz 1
  4. Alberto Caballero 1
  1. 1 Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia, España
Journal:
Revista española de documentación científica

ISSN: 0210-0614,  1988-4621

Year of publication: 2016

Volume: 39

Issue: 4

Type: Article

DOI: 10.3989/REDC.2016.4.1354 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista española de documentación científica

Abstract

Learning Management Systems’ (LMS) interaction mechanisms are mainly focused on the improvement of students’ experiences and academic results. However, special attention should also be given to the interaction between these LMS and other actors involved in the educational process. This paper specifically targets the interaction of degree coordinators with LMS when monitoring lecturers’ performance, especially in an online mode. The methodology is guided by the following three objectives: (1) analysis of the limitations of monitoring lecturers in current LMS; (2) development of software program to overcome such limitations; and (3) empirical evaluation of the proposed program. The results show that this type of tool helps coordinators to intuitively and efficiently analyze the status of the subjects taught in their degree programs.

Bibliographic References

  • Bhuasiri, W.; Xaymoungkhoun, O.; Zo, H.; Rho, J. J.; Ciganek, A. P. (2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education, vol. 58, 843-855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.010
  • Bootstrap (2016). Bootstrap: framework for front-end web. (http://goo.gl/dPHuah) [20-05-2016]. Campus Computing Project (2013). Campus Computing Survey. (http://goo.gl/7kUznn) [30-09-2015].
  • Canvas LMS (2015). Canvas Guide. (https://goo.gl/JZ2B5I) [28-09-2015].
  • Chiang, C. F.; Tseng, H. C.; Chiang, C. C.; Hung, J. L. (2015). A case study on learning analytics using Experience API. In D. Slykhuis y G. Marks, (Coords.), Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, vol. 2015, No. 1, (pp. 2273-2278). Las Vegas: EdITLib.
  • Cole, J.; Foster, H. (2007). Using Moodle: Teaching with the popular open source course management system. Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media, Inc.
  • Delgado, F. J.; Fernández-Llera, R. (2012). Sobre la evaluación del profesorado universitario (especial referencia a ciencias económicas y jurídicas). Revista Española de Documentación Científica, vol.35 (2), 361-375. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2012.2.861
  • Dodero, J. M.; García-Peñalvo, F. J. et al. (2014). Development of E-Learning Solutions: Different Approaches, a Common Mission. Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologías del Aprendizaje, IEEE-RITA vol. 9(2), 72-80. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2014.2317532
  • ECBCheck (2015). E-Learning for Capacity Building. (https://goo.gl/nH7SDi) [15-09-2015].
  • Ellis, R. A.; Calvo, R. A. (2007). Minimum indicators to assure quality of LMS-supported blended learning. Educational Technology & Society, vol. 10(2), 60-70.
  • Galán, B. M.; Mateos, D. R. (2012). La Evaluación de la Formación Universitaria Semipresencial y en Línea en el Contexto del EEES mediante el Uso de los Informes de Actividad de la Plataforma Moodle. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, vol. 15(1), 159-178.
  • Gómez-Aguilar, D. A.; García-Peñalvo, F. J.; Therón, R. (2014). Analítica Visual en e-learning. El Profesional de la Información, vol. 23(3), 1386-6710. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2014.may.03
  • Hibernate ORM (2016). Hibernate object-relational mapping framework. (http://goo.gl/B7E9Dg) [20- 05-2016].
  • Hilera González, J. R. (2008). UNE 66181: 2008, el primer estándar sobre calidad de la formación virtual. RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia, Monográfico VII, 1-6.
  • Hilera, J. R.; Hoya, R. (2010). Estándares de e-learning: Guía de consulta; Editorial Universidad de Alcalá; Alcalá de Henares (Madrid). JQuery (2016). JQuery library. (https://goo.
  • Li, X.; Zhang, X.; Fu, W.; Liu, X. (2015). E-Learning with visual analytics. In 2015 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e), pp. 125-130. IEEE Melaka, Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3e.2015.7403499
  • Maldonado, U. P. T.; Khan, G. F.; Moon, J.; Rho, J. J. (2011). E-learning motivation and educational portal acceptance in developing countries. Online Information Review, vol. 35(1), 66-85. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521111113597
  • Peter, S. E.; Bacon, E.; Dastbaz, M. (2010). Adaptable, personalised e-learning incorporating learning styles. Campus-Wide Information Systems, vol. 27, 91-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650741011033062
  • Poltrack, J.; Hruska, N.; Johnson, A.; Haag, J. (2012). The next generation of SCORM: Innovation for the global force. In The Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference (I/ITSEC), vol. 2012, No. 1. Orlando: National Training System Association.
  • Mondrian (2016). Mondrian: Online Analytical Processing server (OLAP). (http://goo.gl/GKe7SB) [20-05-2016].
  • Patterson, R. E.; Blaha, L. M., Grinstein et al. (2014). A human cognition framework for information visualization. Computers & Graphics, vol. 42, 42-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2014.03.002
  • Pawlowski, J. M. (2007). The quality adaptation model: adaptation and adoption of the quality standard ISO/IEC 19796-1 for learning, education, and training. Educational Technology & Society, vol 10(2), 3-16.
  • Pressman, R. S. (1997). Ingeniería del Software: Un enfoque práctico (7.ª ed.); Editorial Mc Graw Hill.
  • Retalis, S.; Papasalouros, A.; Psaromiligkos, Y.; Siscos, S.; Kargidis, T. (2006). Towards networked learning analytics–A concept and a tool. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on networked learning, pp 1-8. Lancaster, UK.
  • Sakai (2015). Sakai Features. (https://goo.gl/UQ7W1a) [30-09-2015].
  • Sánchez, V. G.; Arrufat, M. J. G. (2015). Modelo de análisis de metodologías didácticas semipresenciales blended learning en educación superior. Educación XX1. En prensa.
  • Siemens, G.; Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and Education. EDUCAUSE review, vol. 46(5), 31-40.
  • Steel, C.; Levy, M. (2009). Creativity and constraint: Understanding teacher beliefs and the use of LMS technologies. In R. J. Atkinson y C. McBeath,(Coords.), Same places, different spaces. Proceedings of the 26th Annual ascilite International Conference (pp. 1013-1022), Auckland: Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de Auckland.
  • Van Leeuwen, A.; Janssen, J.; Erkens, G.; Brekelmans, M. (2014). Supporting teachers in guiding collaborating students: Effects of learning analytics in CSCL. Computers & Education, vol. 79, 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.007
Data source: Dialnet