A Comparison of Two Online Learning Systems
Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning Volume 20, Number 1, ISSN 1179-7665 e-ISSN 1179-7665 Publisher: Distance Education Association of New Zealand
Open Polytechnic is a single-mode provider of distance education with a rich history of print-based provision. Strategically, the institution is rapidly adopting an online-only approach, with some exceptions for programmes that require student contact. A recent and internal review of Moodle, the Open Polytechnic’s learning management system (LMS) indicated concern about the likely student experience for an online-only format, so an internal system called iQualify was developed. iQualify was developed specifically from a user-experience (UX) perspective to optimise the online-only learning experience. As part of the drive towards online-only education, Open Polytechnic courses are being purposefully redeveloped for iQualify, moving away from print-and textbook-based materials, and towards textbook-independent and online-only study. This article uses a UX perspective to compare student outcomes, high-level course evaluations, and student perceptions of the two approaches—Moodle, with print and textbook; and iQualify online-only. Findings indicate that while students tend to prefer printed materials, actual withdrawal and pass rates are not affected by an online-only approach. Respondents also indicated a significant preference for the new iQualify platform over Moodle, and openness to online-only study.
Nichols, M. (2016). A Comparison of Two Online Learning Systems. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 20(1), 19-32. Distance Education Association of New Zealand.
© 2016 Distance Education Association of New Zealand
ReferencesView References & Citations Map
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.Suggest Corrections to References
Cited ByView References & Citations Map
Martin Bassett & Joanne Robson
Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning Vol. 21, No. 2 (Nov 27, 2017) pp. 20–30
These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact email@example.com.