E Research & Technology Enhanced Learning, Doctoral Programme - Cohort 11

Module 1 - ED.S821 - Course Leader: Dr. Kyungmee Lee - Jan' -- July 2018

Research Methods in Education and Social Sciences

Virtual Learning Environments (VLE's)

& Learning Management Systems (LMS’s):

'Staying longer than necessary'

Author: Benjamin Moores

Illustrations: Franceso Dibattista

Opening Remarks

pdf icon.jpg
PDF Download here

Autoethnography has proved to be a very intriguing and positive qualitative method for my research.  It is a first-time method for me, and as such comes with its own challenges, in that it asks me as the researcher to reflect more than I am used to.  Autoethnography has caused me to pause for thought and look back on my teaching career from a new perspective. 

I have been fortunate enough to work in a number of schools during the eight years since I graduated as a teacher. In 2012, I flew to the United Arab Emirates and worked in the private school sector (ages 11-19).  This meant that I was working in schools with readily available finances to afford luxuries such as expensive VLEs and LMS’s.

However, possessing the funds to afford these systems and having the fully trained staff to maximise their potential are two very different beasts. Focusing on these last six years, I will draw on my experiences from two organisations in the UAE - my previous employer (2012-2017) and my current employer (2017 to present).  The latter uses Firefly - a popular VLE for British schools - whilst the former uses Managebac.

Writing this autoethnography, I was aware of a number of issues: this is a PhD research paper, requiring the appropriate quality and attention to detail, but at the same time it is also being written in the style of an autoethnography, so I am consciously relaxing how formal a research paper would otherwise sound.  I want this to be more authentic and personable, so I am attempting to tip-toe along the tightrope between a relaxed and thoughtful reflection on my experiences whilst also remaining disciplined and well-read to produce a high-quality research paper.  I have opted to adopt an unorthodox approach by doubling down using hand-drawn illustrations, sparingly, to help readers warm to the autoethnographic approach.  I hope you enjoy it.

Abstract

The purpose of this assignment was to identify why staff do not use the VLE to its fullest extent. What causes them to either refrain from using the VLE at all, or limit their usage to only what is necessary or mandatory.  All schools have a VLE or LMS of some sort, but in this study I have focused on two schools: my current employer (referred to as British/Firefly school, VLE) and my former employer (referred to as IB/Managebac school, LMS). 

 

I have employed a mixed methods approach. A qualitative autoethnographic research method was used to reflect on my own personal experiences, whilst a quantitative method was employed to correlate and challenge my own thoughts, via identical questionnaires sent to each school.  The findings revealed a vocal need for increased time, training and engagement, whilst further confirming the importance of obtaining the right balance with existing staff responsibilities. 

 

Time is infinite, but to humans it is finite; with the pressures of a teaching load and other ongoing commitments, achieving an acceptable balance is a delicate procedure.  But as this paper illustrates, regular training and time investment are paramount to an adoptive and enthusiastic approach to using a VLE/LMS.

Key Words

Self-reflection, autoethnography, Virtual Learning Environment, implementation, attention/motivation when using VLEs, LMS (Learning Management system).

This research will identify which design features encourage a more comprehensive and effective use of Virtual Learning Environments in an academic setting. All too often, teachers are drawn to the possibilities presented by VLEs/LMS’s only to become discouraged by their complexity and thus shy away from further use. Rather than truly discovering the potential of VLEs/LMS’s, these teachers often determine that the environments are unworkable or ineffective and therefore never fully develop their repertoire of virtual teaching methods. Similarly, students exposed to VLEs/LMS’s through the efforts of discouraged or frustrated teachers also never encounter the full potential of VLEs/LMS’s. This research will strive to identify what factors and influences help promote prolonged and active use of VLE’s specifically among staff in school that teach up to and including age 16.

It’s important to note the difference between a VLE and an LMS:

VLE – Virtual Learning Environment: This is a system for delivering learning materials online, such as resources, guides, lesson plans, course structures, books, and so on. Some are more sophisticated than others, but essentially, they all contribute to a virtual classroom for students.

LMS – Learning Management System:  This is a system similar to a VLE, but whilst it can be used to deliver materials it is largely used for instructors/teachers to set tasks, facilitate learning and receive submissions from students.  Additionally, teachers using LMS’s tend to have more scope for administration, such as entering grades and writing reports.

Some systems are simultaneously a VLE and LMS and some are independent. For clarity, for this research project I have picked one independent LMS: Managebac, and one independent VLE: Firefly.

Introduction

Overarching Question:

How can employers encourage the use of Virtual Learning Environments/Learning Management Systems beyond what is essential and mandatory?

 

Sub Questions:

RQ1: What obstacles/benefits do instructors face when using a VLE/LMS?

 

RQ2: What VLE/LMS features discourage or benefit students?

Research Questions

Methodology

Autoethnography will be my main research methodology mainly because it requires me to analyse my own experiences, which I believe are extensive enough to answer the main question.  It also allows me to be both the researcher, as well as the researched, in terms of my own personal teaching history, thus allowing me to qualitatively examine my own feelings, prospects, and experiences (Adams, Jones, & Ellis, 2014).  Also, it will allow me to combine research obtained from multiple sources into an easy-to-read biographical format.

Although I believe I have sufficient background and experience to provide a meaningful analysis and critique of Virtual Learning Environments, I realise that self-reflection alone is not sufficient for my research.  I will employ autoethnography to structure and guide my investigation of my own experiences in order to produce a qualitatively useful analysis of the benefits and limitations of VLEs.  However, I will provide some quantitative analysis discussed below.  Results from the quantitative method will support and encourage my own reflections in the autoethnographic form adopted throughout this paper.

To answer RQ1, I drew on my past experiences of using VLEs and the difficulties I encountered. Furthermore, I created two identical tailor-made questionnaires for qualified teachers, sent out to my former school (who use Managebac) and my current employer (who use Firefly). The teachers were asked about the challenges they face when using VLEs, and the answers created additional insight for me to reflect upon.  The questionnaires were created using Google Forms. The turnout was 11 from my previous employer and 43 from my current school. All responses were from experienced educators, verified by their prescribed school email addresses.

To answer RQ2, I drew heavily on my own experiences setting tasks and assignments for students using VLEs.  I also created questionnaires using Google Forms and sent them to students, again adding credibility to the authenticity of their answers by asking them to provide their official university email addresses.

There were relatively few ethical considerations as the questionnaires were answered by consenting adults, and in my own reflections on past experiences with students, the students remain nameless. The major ethical consideration was that teachers may perhaps talk in a negative manner about their school’s VLE system and their employers might not enjoy the comments made by their staff. I addressed this issue by seeking permission from my current and former principals to survey their staff, and further assured them that I would filter out any extreme or unprofessional comments that were made. Fortunately, none existed. In my opinion, the comments that might be deemed negative were relatively tame. 

Personal Experiences / Reflections

As a computer science teacher with experience in early years, primary, secondary and sixth form settings in three different curricula, I have encountered many different examples of Virtual Learning Environments. Based on my own experiences, as well as discussions with other teachers and feedback from students, I believe VLEs/LMS’s can be readily modified to make them simpler to use, more efficient in presenting material, and more welcoming to both staff and students. I believe the true potential of VLEs/LMS’s has not yet been explored in our educational system and believe they can become extraordinary vehicles for education.

I have dealt with many VLEs/LMS’s, but I will focus on two popular systems across different curricula and age ranges:

  • Managebac (Popular with International Baccalaureate schools) – LMS

2014-2017 (3 academic years)

  • Firefly (popular with International British schools) – VLE

2017-2018 (1 academic year)

 

Managebac, 2014-17:

In my time as a computer science teacher between 2012-2017, I worked in an International Baccalaureate school in the UAE. From 2014 we used Managebac, which I continued to use after I transferred to another school (still within the same organisation).

The LMS - as mentioned previously - is technically not a VLE, but it still had potential as a teaching device for children; you can set work, upload video links and hold online discussions.  But predominately its strengths lay in its muscle for administrative capabilities, particularly in relation to the International Baccalaureate.

A little background to Managebac: it was founded by three graduates in 2006 and over more than 10 years has grown into a very successful LMS. Its website boasts usage by 2,500 schools across 120 countries.

Once a week, I had a meeting scheduled with an experienced IB trained teacher to go over Managebac training and planning.  Although these meetings were scheduled for a 36-week calendar school year, only about 9 actually took place and usually lasted for only 20 minutes.  To be honest, although these meetings were helpful, they were not as comprehensive - and thus not as beneficial - as I hoped.

 

 

Not all teachers used Managebac for their planning; from my experience, most teachers still planned their units/lessons in Word.  When we had inspections due, weeks before there would be a rush to transfer a unit to Managebac for the inspectors’ eyes. During the inspection week, the school wanted teachers to be seen using Managebac with their students to set and receive work.

During informal staffroom discussions and conversations, Managebac was referred to as “unnecessary” and “complicated”, a common complaint being that “we haven’t had any training on it”.

With the lack of usage by teachers, combined with the little effort put into setting and receiving work, it’s a fair assumption to say that staff either found the platform uninspiring or too difficult to use.  I suspect that the ‘too hard to use’ argument was a guise for many; it may be a bit rich of me to say so as a computer scientist but Managebac was, and remains, incredibly intuitive. It requires only slightly more skill than using a social media platform and just a few hours of play and exploration in order for the user to improve their confidence and understanding of the system.

As both a teacher and technology specialist, I would often take part in Learning Walks throughout the school.  Each classroom was kitted out with state of the art equipment.  A typical classroom had an Apple TV, a smartboard, a touchscreen smart TV and an extremely fast bandwidth Wi-Fi connection.  In addition, each teacher was provided with an iPad and a MacBook pro. The school certainly had money.  However, with access to a world class LMS and cutting-edge technology, I would still see teachers relying heavily on the obligatory classroom whiteboard and pen. If they did use the touchscreen smartboard, it often extended to nothing more than using PowerPoint.

Looking back, I can only remember teachers receiving training on these devices during their induction week, which usually amounted to about 3 or 4 hours.  For context, an induction week is the first week of your new employment.  You may have transferred from one continent to another, leaving your family, friends and employment to make a new life for yourself in a completely different culture.  All your key training is then crammed into your first week, labelled as INSET. Yes, teachers have regular training slots throughout the year, but rarely on the mechanics of using technology in the classroom. Too much time, I felt, was dedicated to theory-based practice.  Staff would often vent frustration at this: “Why are we learning about this? I don’t know how to use Managebac”, “It would help if the TVs would let me use the touchscreen”.

So, what about the children?  Students would log on, read the work that was set and submit their responses.  Discussion pages were set up, but rarely used.  Videos were uploaded to be watched, but rarely viewed.  Deadlines would be set for work to be sent in, but in my experience, many would submit it late - after a reminder about how and where to submit.

Low teacher motivation/enthusiasm for the LMS translated into a lack of student engagement with the LMS, as well as the minimal visible usage of the technology available.  Referring back to the iPads distributed to staff, I would rarely see them used - or even present - in the classroom; they were most likely to be used at some teachers’ accommodation for social purposes.

I recently asked staff in key positions how they currently feel about Managebac. You can read about these in my findings/results.

 

Firefly, 2017-present:

Firefly is a sophisticated VLE and, unlike Managebac, detailed lessons and resources can be uploaded for the children to see and engage with.  Teachers, parents and children all have an individual logon with their own set of privileges.  Teachers can set and receive work, create content, make pages and upload units and revision materials.  Children can communicate with teachers and see work set and tasks to be completed.  Parents have a ‘view only’ privilege so they can see what their children are learning/engaging with in school.

It’s clear that my current school takes the VLE seriously; staff have access to updates, the calendar and all of the school policies, and all departments set work for their students.  It should be noted that in addition to Firefly, the school uses separate software - ISAMS - as its LMS, but as this is not the focus of this research I will not talk in detail of my experience with this software.

To clarify why my current school has two different systems is relatively straightforward.  As a private school, it boasts some of the best facilities in the region.  It was decided by the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) that ISAMS was the best LMS available and Firefly was the best VLE available. Undeterred by the extra cost incurred by separate subscriptions - compared to a system which envelops both - the school opted for the two.  It also allows the school to compartmentalise a system with extremely sensitive data (LMS) from one that has moderately sensitive data (VLE).

As a member of the school’s computer science department, we have been instructed to set the bar for VLE usage by having the children engage with VLE pages for each and every lesson. So, instead of reading off a PowerPoint, we try to flip the classroom by having all tasks and work on a VLE page. This allows students to work at different speeds and encourages independent learning, both at school and at home. A typical page can include embedded YouTube videos, quizzes, pictures and instructions. 

Screenshot collection of one of my interactive VLE lessons in Firefly:

However, despite a strong push by senior leadership and heightened usage by computer science teachers, once again VLE usage by wider staff is minimal.  It is often used as an extension of the school’s LMS ISAMS for accessing policies or important documents to print out. In staff emails, senior leadership actually proactively link to documents on the VLE - as opposed to attaching them as a document - to both simultaneously save on storage and gently nudge staff in the direction of the VLE.  But these subliminal nudges have not been enough to stop staff in 2018, at a world leading school, from being reluctant to use the VLE to its full capabilities. Time and again, many resort back to their comfort zone of PowerPoints, whiteboards and pens.

Literature Review

Some academic sources discuss the benefits/limitations of Virtual Learning Environments; for example (Smith, 2017) conducted a study to explore which is better digital or paper home work. In the research, it explains that firefly was met with a mixed response by staff, the response rate from students to complete homework was significantly higher but the quality was better on paper.  This might be that resources made by staff on VLE vary in quality compared to traditional thought out paper handouts.

Literature also exists for LMS’s such as Managebac.  An interesting read that came was a case study conducted for Gems World Academy Dubai – this is actually a case study for the school on its implementation of Managebac, considering it is from the official site it is a rather positive one but is does provide some insight.

“GWA first began using ManageBac in 2011 to manage the DP, focusing on electronic CAS supervision. When Director of Digital Learning & ManageBac Coordinator Andrew MacRae joined GWA in 2012, he and the GWA team began expanding the use of ManageBac throughout the school. Andrew says that ManageBac was initially introduced to manage CAS and the DP. This was found to be very successful and was then implemented throughout the MYP and PYP. He adds that all teachers are now required to take attendance, plan units and set assignments using ManageBac. The flexibility of the ManageBac reporting system allows GWA to create programme-specific reports with custom rubrics that are easy for parents and students to understand.” (Managebac Official Website, 2017)

 

It seems that over time the VLE was well adopted and is now a requirement for all staff.  The link to all case studies can be found in the references section this paper.

 

it is difficult to find comparative evaluations of VLEs from an institutional or pedagogical perspective as the VLEs tend to be tailor-made for different institutions.  Their widely varying formats, features and capabilities defy ready comparison. Instead of attempting to find a uniform evaluative framework for assessing various VLEs, I shall focus heavily on my own experiences to identify features and design characteristics that encourage teachers and students to use VLEs most effectively.

A Study of the Impact of Technology-Enhanced Learning on Student Academic Performance (Chowdhry et al., 2015) by Edinburgh University staff compared final grades of students who were extensive users of VLEs to those who only used VLEs when required to do so, in order to determine the effectiveness of VLE environments on learning.

The Use of Virtual Learning Environments and Their Impact on Academic Performance (Demian & Morrice, 2012) also focused on the impact of VLE use on student outcomes by correlating student grades with time spent logged into VLE systems.

Virtual Learning Environments: Using, Choosing and Developing your VLE (Weller, 2007) outlines factors to be considered when a school is choosing a VLE and then continues to give guidance on how to make the best use of the VLE and to continue developing its formatting and usage over time.

 

What makes this research valuable / unique?

There is plenty literature that exists as to what might inhibit educators from effectively using VLE’s such as (McMahon, 2016) who conducted a case study among lecturers and their adoption of a new VLE.  The research acknowledges this research own findings that VLE’s have “increased significantly in recent years” but there are some teaching staff whose usage is “minimal”.  The research continues to state that usage from lecturers is the perceptions and beliefs that staff have about the VLE and that their encouragement to use it more is to change their mind-sets.

With similar research themes and questions already existing, I feel what makes my paper unique is quite simply the type of educator.  Lots of detailed research exists for lecturers but not so much for teachers in schools catering for ages up to and including 16/18.  As a teacher, myself these are the age ranges that I deal with on a day to basis and I feel contributing further research to these types of research might provide a deeper insight and perhaps solidify insights gained from existing researcher for university lecturers use of VLE’s/LMS’s.

I believe VLEs can be quantitatively improved in terms of both their effectiveness and their motivational capabilities. I believe my research will provide valuable insights into the mentality behind the fact that many educators are still resistant to using VLEs or use them only for what is essential.

1.  Do you feel that your school provides adequate training on using the VLE/LMS?

Note: some answers were "other" with no explanation given

2.  How long did your school spend on VLE/LMS training during your induction?

3.  Are there opportunities for VLE/LMS Personal Development (PD) in your school?

4.  Do you feel that you benefit from using the VLE/LMS?

5.  How much do you agree with the statement "My students are using the VLE/LMS to its full capability”?

6.  What do you feel prevents/discourages students from using the VLE?

7.  What obstacles do you feel you face when using your institution's VLE?.. (if any)

Note: The last 2 questions had 50+ individually written responses. Trends will be analysed in my Discussion of findings, with a large selection of specific responses available in my appendices for further insight.

Two teacher surveys:

 

  • IB / Managebac school, Dubai

  • British / Firefly school, Abu Dhabi

Findings / Results

Aside from my own personal accounts of VLE/LMS usage in the schools I have worked in, I decided to reach out and ask staff in my existing and former settings a series of questions I felt would contribute to this research project.

 

I sent two identical surveys using the popular service Google Forms.  In my current school I received 43 responses from teachers (more than half of their teaching staff), and from my former employer 11 responses from teachers (about a third of their teaching staff). Amongst many positions included were: heads of departments, assistant principals, subject specialist teachers and classroom teachers.  This indicates responses from a fair spread of professionals within two respected institutions.

Overwhelmingly, staff feel that they benefit from using the VLE/LMS (72% / 91%) so it’s a fair assumption that staff believe in the systems.  This is often half the battle and it’s encouraging that opposition is minimal.

 

Responses to Question 5 are particularly revealing: How much do you agree with the statement "My students are using the VLE/LMS to its full capability”?

At my former school, above, 46% of teachers believe that students use the LMS frequently and 18% a fair amount. This total of 64% indicates that students are using the LMS to a good degree. However, with the British school…

Discussion of Findings

In this section of my research I am going to focus on the results of my two surveys.  Both surveys were identical, one sent to my previous school, that uses Managebac, and the other to my current school, that uses Firefly.

 

Before I dig deep into the analysis of these results, I would like to point out the differences in the make-up of the schools’ respective staffs.  My former employer is an International Baccalaureate school, based in Dubai, with no defining nationality for staff as they come from numerous countries and many different backgrounds. In contrast, my current employer is a British school, based in Abu Dhabi, with the majority of staff consisting of British nationals. These points may not appear particularly noteworthy on the surface, but given the strong correlation running through both schools’ responses, it is interesting to see that popular opinion isn’t tied to any specific societal or cultural influences.

 

Both schools agree that adequate training is weak with only 18% (IB) / 25% (British) answering ‘Yes’.  This echoes my personal insight that training is largely only given during INSET (initial term-time training days). 

 

It should be noted that the head of computer science in my current school gave up one lunch time per week to assist staff wishing to improve their VLE skills. However, with teachers already having a stretched timetable and working some of the longest hours in the region, I can empathise with their unwillingness to sacrifice their lunchtime to commit to training that should be conducted on the school’s watch.

 

A majority of respondents in both schools (55%/54%) thought that only 1 hour was spent training staff on the VLE/LMS during induction. The fact that many people were split as to how much time was spent on training - ranging from less than 1, to over 4 hours - leads to the question: if they don’t know how long training was, how much of it do they really remember?

 

Only just over a 3rd of staff in the IB school knew about training for the LMS whereas over half knew about the lunchtime training slot for the VLE in the British school.  An important observation is that the IB school sends children home at lunchtime on Tuesdays and all staff have a weekly 3-hour PD slot from 1-4pm.  This is sometimes done as a whole school and sometimes in departments.  Perhaps more time could be spent on training on the VLE/LMS during the year within these sessions.  The British school - although having a longer school day than most schools in the region (8am-4:30pm compared to 9am-3:30pm) - broadly speaking does not have any dedicated weekly off timetable training, with teachers instead finding PD opportunities on weekends, during lunchtimes and at the annual INSET at the start of each academic year.

A relatively low figure of 12% of staff believe that students use the VLE frequently and only 19% a fair amount. This is offset by the fact that 7% believe that students use it all the time, thus bringing this low total up to 38%. However, this figure still pales in comparison to the positive 64% at the IB school. It is clear that the majority of staff within the British school believe that their students don’t use the VLE as well as they could.

 

Question number 6: “What do you feel prevents/discourages students from using the VLE?” could not be quantified with percentages as this was an opportunity for staff to answer in a more open-ended way on the online questionnaire.  With over 50 detailed responses, I will discuss some of the consistent themes below. (See appendices for a larger selection of comments.)

 

A concurrent theme is that younger children in the British school, and to a lesser extent in the IB school, are not allowed to bring in their own devices. In the IB school, students aged 9/10 and above are allowed to ‘bring your own device’ (BYOD) to school. In the British school, this minimum age is set higher, starting from 12/13 years old.

 

From my experience working in both schools, within the same region, I found that allowing BYOD at a younger age does encourage early adoption and familiarity with the VLE/LMS for the students. The teachers’ sentiments reflect this.  Another observation is that within the British school there are 6 computing labs across the site; these are dedicated areas that have around 20 desktop computers fixed in each room.  In comparison, the IB school has just one computing lab (with 30 high performing Apple computers) but additionally has a very large collection of laptops in trolleys, which are readily available for booking out by teachers.  Teachers book the laptops and they are delivered by the school’s IT technicians.  The benefits/disadvantages of fixed rooms compared to laptop trolleys is worth its own research paper, but in general I found that trolleys are much more efficient and far less costly.

 

Laziness was another observation made by some staff. This is true to an extent, but sometimes laziness might be unjustly mislabelled as such, when in reality it may simply be genuine tiredness.  For example, if a student can only access the VLE during IT lessons (in the younger Year groups) and they get home at 6pm, go to bed at 8pm and get up again at 6am, this begs the question: when do they have the time?  In the IB school, home time is a little more favourable and VLE/LMS usage is higher.

 

The final question: “What obstacles do you feel you face when using your institution’s VLE?” revealed some interesting responses from both schools.

 

Some consistent responses between the two were:

 

“Time” – “Navigation” – “Cumbersome” – “Training” – “Simple things are unnecessarily hard” – “Greater consistency across departments” – “Lack of knowledge on how to use it adequately”

 

This echoes similar sentiments throughout this paper that staff feel they need more training and are frustrated by the VLE/LMS.  To be fair, the question is designed to illicit negative responses as it directly asks what obstacles are faced; perhaps, on reflection, if I also asked how the VLE/LMS benefits the school, I would have received some more polar replies. 

Conclusion

From my own reflections/insights of more than 6 years in the region, combined with comments from over 50 practicing professionals in two very good schools - possessing a range of previous teaching experiences from around the globe - I would hope that this conclusion is both fair and balanced.

 

I think it’s clear that teachers need more training, with the emphasis not on bulk, but on regularity.  Technology, especially VLEs/LMS’s are ever-changing, ever-evolving.  Staff should have regular training, sometimes face to face, but also in departments, with assigned courses.  Teachers also need the energy and motivation to positively commit to this training.  Choosing when to have training sessions, what kind of learning environment it takes place in, and having a healthy workload/time balance will all contribute to greater staff engagement. 

 

To simply say: here is an online course, go and complete your training hours is one thing. But to make a real commitment to taking time out of the working week and dedicating that to teachers’ professional development is a real sign that a school means business. The IB school books out half a day weekly, whereas the British school does not.  There is perhaps some middle ground available.

 

Another point I would like to make is to have other professionals who staff can be in contact with.  Many schools of late employ what are known as technology coaches. These are staff employed as teachers with a limited timetable, whose main responsibility is to embed technology within the classrooms and assist with how this is done on a pedagogical level, including training other staff members in order to improve their skills, and thus their confidence. A full-time teacher in a demanding school probably wouldn’t have this time (like myself in my current school) whilst an IT technician is more often than not stretched with handling the logistical side of school technological affairs.

 

I also believe that teachers’ enthusiasm translates into students’ enthusiasm; if teachers are using the VLE regularly within the school, then students will likely do so too.

 

I believe that more positive VLE/LMS usage will follow from a domino effect, and it all begins with time, training and confidence.

References

  • Adams, T. E., Jones, S. H., & Ellis, C. (2014). Autoethnography. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

  • Chowdhry, S., Sieler, K., & Alwis, L. (2014). A study of the impact of technology-enhanced learning on student academic performance. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 2(3), 3-15. doi: 10.14297/jpaap.v2i3.111

  • Demian, P., & Morrice, J. (2012). The use of virtual learning environments and their impact on academic performance. Engineering Education, 7(1), 11-19. doi: 10.11120/ened.2012.07010011.

  • McMahon, Michael J. (2016) "The Adoption of a Virtual Learning Environment Among "Digital Immigrant" Engineering Lecturers: a Case Study," Irish Journal of Academic Practice: Vol. 5: Iss. 1, Article 3.

  • Weller, M. (2007). Virtual Learning Environments: Using, choosing and developing your VLE.  Routledge, New York.

Appendicees

Available on request - click get in touch

Coming Soon

Reflection

Simple. Visual. Learning

Page design by Benjamin Moores | Founder of Pixel Teach