A Study of the Correlation between Students’ Moodle Log for Content and the Other Forms of Engagement on Moodle for a Mandatory Pre-Degree English Course
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54536/ajiri.v2i4.2034Keywords:
Content, Correlation, Moodle, Moodle Logs, LMSAbstract
This study investigates students’ Moodle log on content on LLFXX Moodle page and correlates it with the students’ Moodle logs for the other forms of engagement (instructor, other learners, assessments and feedback from assessments). 80 students from a mandatory English language course at pre-degree level at the USP participated in the research. These students were enrolled in LLFXX in Blended mode at the Laucala campus in the Fiji Islands. Data on students’ Moodle logs were extracted from LLFXX Moodle page and were analysed using the SPSS software. Pearson’s chi-square test was used to find the correlation between students’ Moodle log on content on LLFXX Moodle page and their academic achievements. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient test was used to find the p value and r value to determine the statistically significant bivariate association and strength of association between students’ Moodle log on content and the other forms of engagement on LLFXX Moodle page. The findings reflect the importance of content and engagement with content. It also emphasises the need to be vigilant with the quality and quantity of content placed on the course Moodle page.
Downloads
References
Abulibdeh, E. S., & Hassan, S. S. (2011). E-lkearning interactions, information technology self efficacy and student achievement at the Universitry of Sharjah, UAE. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(6), 1014-1025.
Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. (A. Terry, Ed.) The the and practice of online learningory, 15-44.
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Rsearch in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).
Anderson, T. (2006). Interaction in learning and teaching on the Educational Semantic Web. (C. Juwah, Ed.) Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice, 141-155.
Apuke, O. D. (2017). Quantitative Research Methods a Synopsis Approach. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Kuwait Chapter), 6(10), 1-8.
Bloomfield, J., & Fisher, M. J. (2019). Quantitative Research Design. Journal of the Australasian Rehabilitation Nurses Association, 22(2), 27-30.
Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analysing, designing and sequencing planned e-learning interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 141-160.
Hirumi, A. (2006). Analysisng and designing e-learning interactions. (C. Juwah, Ed.) Interactions in Online Education: Implications for Theory and practice, 45-69.
Kuo, Y. C., Belland, B. R., Schroder, K. E., & Walker, A. E. (2014). K-12 teachers’ perceptions of and their satisfaction with interaction type in blended learning environments . Distance Education, 35(3), 360-381.
Macarini, L. A., Cechinel, C., Machado, M. F., Ramos, V. F., & Munoz, R. (2019). Predicting Students Success in blended Learning - Evaluating Different Interactions Inside Learning Management Systems. Applied Sciences, 9, 1-23.
Meri, S. (2015). Exploring the interaction between learners and tools in e-learning environments. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouesny (Ed.), Critical CALL-Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, (pp. 397-403). Padova, Italy.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
Murray, M., Perez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A. (2012). Student Interaction with Online Course Content: Build It and They Might Come. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11, 125-140.
Nieuwoudt, J. (2018). Exploring online interaction and online learner participation in an online science subject through the lens of the interaction equivalence theorem. Student Success, 9(4), 53-62.
Nisbet, D. (2004). Measuring the qualitry and quantity of Online discussion group interaction. Journal of eLiteracy, 1, 122-139.
Ozsari, G., & Aydin, C. H. (2021). Interaction preferencesa of distance learners in Turkey. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning.
Ozturk, A., & Kumtepe, A. T. (2023). Relationship between learner profiles and learner-content interaction in online learning: Exploring implications for learning experience design. Distance Education, 1-33.
Quadir, B., Yang, J. C., & Chen, N. S. (2022). The effects of interaction types on learning outcomes in a blog-based interactive learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments , 30(2), 293-306.
Queiros, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9), 369-387.
Rhode, J. F. (2009). interaction Equivalency in Self-Paced Online Learning Environments: An Exploration of Learner Preferences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(1), 1-15.
Saba, F. (2000). Research in distance education: A status report. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 1(1).
Tang, H. (2021). Teaching teachers to use technology through massive open online course: Perspectives of interaction equivalency. Computers & Education, 174.
The University of the South Pacific. (2017). Flexible Learning Policy. Suva. Retrieved from https://policylib.usp.ac.fj/form.readdoc.php?id=746
The University of the South Pacific. (2023). Handbook and Calendar 2023. Suva: The University of the South Pacific.
Wanstreet, C. E. (2006). Interaction in online learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(4), 399-411.
Yu, C. L. (2013). Doctoral dissertation. The interaction equivalency theorem in a multimodal blended course. University of Houston.
Zawaki-Richter, O., & Naidu, S. (2016). Mapping research trends from 35 years of publications in distance Education. Distance Education, 37(3), 245-269.
Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content inuccess factor in online coursesteraction as a . The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 152-165.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Komal Karishma, Krishna Raghuwaiya
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
