Learning Management System for Greater Learner Engagement in Higher Education

Abstract

Online education helped resume learning that had come to a momentary and uncertain pause with the onset of COVID-19 pandemic across the globe. Since then, learning in many educational institutions continued through synchronous and asynchronous modes, with teaching being undertaken remotely on digital platforms. In this large-scale migration towards online mode of curriculum delivery induced by the pandemic, the institutional learning management system (LMS) had a critical role to play in ensuring uninterrupted learning and student engagement. By drawing heavily from extant works, learnings from MOOC platforms, observations from the LMS applications in corporate training, the present article synthesis the extant literature on how the effective use of LMS can make the learning process interactive, student centric, catering to the needs of diverse learners in higher education.

Keywords

Learning management system learner engagement strategies higher education

Introduction

COVID-19 has drastically disrupted every aspect of life including the way education is being delivered. From the early part of 2020, educational campuses closed world over in line with the social distancing norms, to curb the spread of the pandemic. All academic, curricular and co-curricular activities came to a standstill, faced with an uncertain future. Online learning helped resume activities in many higher education institutions, ensuring uninterrupted learning through synchronous and asynchronous modes (Darius et al., 2021). The COVID-19 outbreak is reported to have compelled many Universities to swiftly move to online mode of teaching, with many instructors finding it stressful and difficult to develop online modules in a short period of time (Hew et al., 2020) with some instructors relying on emergency online methods (Hodges et al., 2020).

While prior to COVID-19, the world had already witnessed a high growth and adoption in educational technologies with an estimated investment of USD 18.66 billion in 2019 and the online education market estimated to reach USD 350 billion by the year 2025 (WEF, 2020), there has been a sudden surge in the usage of online learning tools like language apps, virtual tutoring, video conferencing and software, such as learning management systems (LMS), since the pandemic. The COVID-19 situation has bought into sharp focus the need to have a robust online learning system to offer seamless learning in the event of any externalities disrupting the learning services (Lederman, 2020). A rushed adoption of online tools however is noted to have been ineffective in the past for promoting active learning and student engagement (Bates & Galloway, 2012) making a case for a more planned implementation of online learning systems (Hodges et al., 2020) to tackle any disruptions to the delivery of education.

While online learning has been the panacea in the pandemic, earlier studies have identified some challenges in this mode of delivery too. These range from basic technical problems to pedagogical (Dhawan, 2020) including mediocre content, limited scope for experiential learning, lack of peer engagement and difficulty in understanding the learning content (Song et al., 2004). Added to this, the rushed application of LMS in educational delivery has been beset with challenges, primary among them being the direct application of a corporate oriented LMS to an institutional setting without adequate training to the stakeholders to explore its features. Extant literature (Sarker et al., 2019) highlights certain constraints in the effective usage of LMS in the educational sector, owing to which optimal benefits of the LMS could not be harnessed to promote greater student engagement (Coates, 2005; Parkes et al., 2014). In this context, the present article reflects on how the effective usage of an LMS can make the learning process interactive and student centric, catering to the needs of diverse learners in class. The article also reflects on the benefits of LMS in providing a barrier free self-learning under the ICT environment and discusses strategies to strengthen the institutional LMS.

Methodology

The article is a review article that draws extensively from extant literature captured through a semi systematic methodology and analysed qualitatively (Hannah Snyder, 2019). The article is organized as follows. The first part builds the case of a barrier free self-learning in an ICT driven teaching environment. It explains the teaching learning through the LMS. The second part discusses strategies to strengthen the Institutional LMS to cater to learning diversities and enhanced learning experience. The third part draws from the learnings of the Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) framework for enhancing the usage of the LMS. Towards the end the article offers suggestions for effective implementation of LMS in an institutional setting.

The Learning Management System

Teaching learning processes have undergone transformational changes in the last decade with technology being at the core of educational delivery. Technology is well accepted as an integral part of education, essential to access higher order competencies often referred to as 21st century skills. Learning environments supported by technology are innovative and student centric. Teaching and learning with the help of ICT tools makes the learning experiences engaging and provides opportunities for student driven learning, interactivity and collaboration, personalization and flexibility (Groff, 2013).

A dynamic and a robust LMS is considered as a lifeline for the delivery and management of teaching, learning and evaluation processes in higher education. With technology taking over every aspect of life, education in present times is majorly managed through an institutional LMS, catering to the needs of all stakeholders, more specifically the students and teachers. Unlike primary and secondary education, where the students are totally dependent on the content taught in the classroom, learning in higher education is a two-way process, with the student researching and exploring information in addition to the content taught in the class. Apart from learning through in class engagement, student’s learning is further fuelled through group activities, projects, discussions forums and peer learning, requiring the students to remain in contact with the learning environment beyond the classroom hours (Adzharuddin & Ling, 2013).

There are several definitions for LMSs in the scholarly literature of educational technologies. An LMS is typically a web-based system that allows learners to authenticate themselves, register for courses, complete courses and take assessments (Gallagher, 2007). The history of the LMS has its roots in distance education (Szabo & Flesher, 2002). An LMS is defined as a dashboard or web-based platform that enables instructors to plan, evaluate, automate administration, report training events and implement the learning process (Ellis, 2009). Typically, an LMS provides an instructor with a facility to create and deliver content, monitor student participation and assess student performance online. The LMS may also provide students with the ability to use interactive features such as threaded discussions, video conferencing and discussion forums. An LMS is best suited when the learner audience is large and there is a great amount of content to be delivered (Pappas, 2020). Core features of an LMS include automation of administration, delivery of educational content and the assessment of learning outcomes (Turnbull et al., 2019). Studies report that LMS systems evolved from being just a tool to manage courses and publish syllabus, to offering a high degree of interaction between students and instructors making it a critical aspect in the delivery of higher education (Yueh & Hsu, 2008).

LMS has the potential to become a crucial differentiator in instilling or increasing interactive learning among participants. There are many forms of collaborative learning that already exist; pertinent examples include group assignments, collaborative projects and action research. Interactive learning, however, is an entirely different ball game.

An interactive learning experience can immerse the student completely in the academic event—inter alia a classroom, an exercise or a project. This causes the learning to facilitated not just by absorption of what is taught, but by a mix of experience and collaboration. LMSs are designed to suit these interactive learning needs. According to Fakhrutdinova and Nurkhamitov (2016), LMS-based interactive learning can be beneficial, both to facilitators and participants in multiple ways such as effective and dynamic flow of material, reduction of time wasted due to storage and administrative hassles, ensuring possibility of dynamism of pace in learning and easier exchange of study material prepared among participants. Most LMSs offer reporting and analytical tools to assess areas where additional learning support is required (C R Wright et al., 2014).

Learning content, that is, online, is accessed through the LMS with the aid of web browsers using any operating system, computer or mobile device. A basic version of an LMS has some standard features as discussed here. It helps in the scheduling of the classes, preparation of time tables, scheduling of events. Attendance of the students is captured and made accessible to the faculty and the students on a real time basis. An important feature of an institutional LMS is sharing of learning resources with the students made available to them at all times and accessible from any location. LMS also supports the assessment of learning through scheduling of exams, creation of question papers and import of marks. The institutional LMS allows the faculty to map the learning experiences and assessment with the outcomes defined for each course with the corresponding blooms level. LMS is also equipped with tools to capture stakeholder feedback on curriculum and teaching, learning process. Studies have found a positive correlation between student engagement and the use of LMS (Venugopal & Jain, 2015) both in campus and off campus, thus building a case for implementing LMS to provide a blended learning environment to the students.

LMS also supports the assessment of learning through scheduling of exams, creation of question papers and import of marks. The institutional LMS allows the faculty to map the learning experiences and assessment with the outcomes defined for each course with the corresponding blooms level. A departure from the traditional methods of assessment can be seen in the framework proposed by Rodríguez Gómez et al. (2009), mentioned in Figure 1. Primarily, there are two types of assessment—formative, which is developmental in nature and summative, which is final in nature. A lot of LMSs provide many features, which help instructors in designing formative assessments. On the other hand, for summative assessments, LMSs provide the functionality of rubrics and grading forms. LMS is also equipped with tools to capture stakeholder feedback on curriculum and teaching, learning process.

Figure 1.

Source: Rodríguez Gómez et al. (2009).

Dagada and Mungai (2013) talks about the implementation of LMSs in educational institution as a process, that is, ‘usually risky, frustrating and expensive’. It therefore becomes important to take the necessary steps for a seamless and smooth implementation of the LMS, followed by complete usage and migration to the platform. Despite the popularity of LMS, its effectiveness is also contingent upon its design and effective training given to the faculty (Yueh & Hsu, 2008). Studies also reveal that while an LMS may have extensive interactive features, the same may not always be utilized by the faculty. Yueh and Hsu (2008) in their study explain that only basic instructional functions of LMS such as publishing syllabi, sending email and providing readings are noted to be predominantly used by faculty, the interactive features remaining mostly unexplored (Goli, 2020).

Extant literature has discussed many advantages of having an institutional LMS that supports the teaching and learning processes. An LMS can serve as a repository of learning content, that is, easily accessible at all times to the learners as it helps to organize the eLearning content in one location. The learning resources are made available via various mediums such as mobiles or tablets. Learner’s progress and performance is easily tracked through the LMS. This is especially relevant in the context of learning diversity experienced in a class with capabilities of students ranging from advanced to slow learners. Reforms in the field of education have focussed on self-regulated learning, where the learner takes the responsibility of their own learning from cognitive, behavioural, emotional and motivational aspects fostered through the use of ICT tools. (Dettori & Persico, 2011)

An LMS supports self-directed learning, where the students can choose their learning path with the pace and time suited to their needs. This ensures that the learners take the responsibility of their learning. It is well accepted that peer interactions during the learning process make the learnings effective. The LMS provides an opportunity for such interactions both through synchronous and asynchronous means to reflect on their learnings.

Strengthening the Institutional LMS to Cater to Learning Diversities and Enhanced Learning Experience

Essentially, the LMS has evolved to cater to the training and development needs of the corporates, as majority of the features of the LMS such as self-paced learning, customized curriculum, self-monitoring with minimum external intervention, tracking map, etc. have been designed to accommodate the needs of employees in the corporation as opposed to the collective, sustained learning, that is, characteristic of educational institutions. A direct application of an LMS modelled for corporate training and development, to an institutional setting renders that some critical needs of higher education are not met. Learner profiles in a corporate setting are different from that of higher education. Firstly, differences in the demographic factors viz. age, language proficiency render that the learner needs and capabilities are different. In the case of learners in the educational sector, it is important to monitor learner progress and provide them with learner extension trajectories as requirements of peer learning, need for engagement accentuated in an educational setting.

In order to make modern LMSs more engaging and inclusive, the application of the LMS has to be reviewed from two perspectives namely engagement during class hours and engagement outside class hours. The core function during in class hours is to enhance and supplement the teacher in classroom delivery. Another important factor to look at would be to free the teachers’ bandwidth from routine, semi-automated elements such as class enrolment and attendance tracking, so that the core focus of the teacher goes to teaching and explaining.

Real-Time Analytics of Learner Performance

The backbone of effective student improvement lies in the diagnosis of whether the learning process is proving to be ineffective and is catering to the needs of all learners. A key tool for assessment of learning levels of diverse learners is student analytics, as explained by Baron, M. (2018, June 13). Learner centric assessment calls for the use of learning analytics which essentially is the interpretation of a wide range of data gathered on behalf of a learner in order to assess a student’s academic progress, predict future performance and recognize potential issues (Johnson et al., 2011). Data mined from the LMS has been successfully used by the academia (Macfadyen & Dawson, 2010) as cited in Martin and Ndoye (2016) to track students’ progress. Student LMS usage in terms of participation in discussion forums, quizzes and performance in the class tests has helped extract pedagogically meaningful information. Studies have reiterated (Fritz, 2011) that students’ usage of LMS is directly proportional to their performance with real time comprehensive student analytics providing an opportunity to teachers to intervene and provide feedback to slow learners of the class.

However, the power of analytics has not been fully leveraged in many LMS applications in higher education with majority of the LMS usage restricted to capture of attendance marks and sharing of the learning content. Analytics, that is, an integral part of the soft infrastructure of the LMS has two core features. Analytics provided by LMSs can be customized to suit the needs of the educational institution and other stakeholders. This is important to avoid the one-size-fits-all fallacy that often occurs in any institutional setup, where the requirements for each student are different. For meaningful analysis of the student performance, the analytics has to be synchronized. Educators need access to real-time analytics which provide actionable insights about the students’ performance in a time-sensitive manner. Intermittent and a post facto analysis does not provide a true picture.

Learner Records

Any LMS collects, stores, maintains and retrieves a wealth of data about the students. These are not just typical student records, but records of their learning journey and some additional analyses as well. An indicative list of features comprises of the analysis of performance in a course or a module based on the assessments conducted, the rough submissions made by the students to understand the raw thought processes, along with help, instructions and SOPs of navigating through the LMS. However, one of the most important aspect of student records, where LMSs go a step forward, is providing pre-emptive insights into potential dropouts based on a variety of predetermined factors (Antunes et al., 2016).

Audio-Visual Support

Multiple studies have indicated that the learning capability of students increases when the curriculum and content factor in audio-visual inputs. The LMS could prove to be a pivotal tool in enhancing the classroom delivery of the defined curriculum by easing the delivery of these AV aids. The ‘smart class’ system being implemented in classrooms nowadays is a first step in this direction, but it is still very far from reaching effective implementation.

AR/VR Support

Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality are two of the most important techniques that can enhance learning experiences. Augmented Reality (AR) is used to describe a combination of technologies that enable real-time mixing of computer-generated content with live video display (Mekni & Lemieux, 2014). According to Boas (2013), Virtual Reality (VR) is the domain of technology that gives one the capability of interacting with this world, while using specific devices to simulate an environment to make the experience as real as possible. Morgan and Resnick (2017) have elaborated how Virtual Reality could be beneficial for the educational experience. With the introduction of AR and VR in the LMS one can imagine the transformation in learning that could be brought into STEM, Medicine, Biotechnology and many other disciplines.

Interactive Content Support

Educational content nowadays is highly dynamic, especially with the advent of interactive eLearning content. There are various formats in LMS viz. SCORM, TINCAN, AICC, etc., in which interactive eLearning content is available. A step further from this is gamified content, where students can not only interact with the course module, but also get the feel of a game, to keep them more engaged. The effectiveness of both interactive and gamified content is significantly higher in terms of classroom output. In general practice however, the content available an institutional LMS is predominantly instructor-led supplemented by basic audio-visual elements. The deployment of interactive content in the classroom requires a dynamic LMS to deliver interactive learning.

Easing Administrative Elements

There are a lot of administrative elements that an educator has to take care of, apart from teaching. These could include, inter alia, attendance, adding students to the roster and checking class participation. While teaching is the core job of an educator, it is these administrative elements that choke the available bandwidth, especially if the records to be maintained are physical making it cumbersome and repetitive. With an LMS in place, educators are freed from this burden. A typical LMS has attendance automation or one-click attendance settings, assignment assistance and linking with other software’s to automate addition and migration of records. Being the key stakeholders in the learning progress of the student, parents need to stay abreast of the progress their ward is making. Normally, the administrative part of this comes onto the educator. Be it through phone calls, WhatsApp groups or in-person meets, educators keep the parents’ concerns at bay. However, with an LMS, parents have the option of having an account, that is, linked to their wards account. This way, they stay updated with the progress without burdening the educator.

Student Engagement Outside Class Hours

Outside class hours, the role of an LMS becomes even more important is extending the learning environment. Through mobile friendly platforms of the LMS, learning content is mobile and accessible at the student’s convenience (Iqbal & Qureshi, 2011). Getting the learner to pay attention to what is being taught and the ability to sustain that interest is the first challenge encountered by teachers in an online class. One of the ways to sustain interest of the learner is infusing the teaching process with gamification tools. Gamification has been defined as the use of game design elements to motivate user behaviour in non-game contexts (Deterding et al. 2011). Behavioural psychologists maintain that a learning environment that provides step by step tasks, instantaneous feedback and positive reinforcements engages the learner and ensures that the learner is motivated to complete the assigned tasks, leading to attainment of learning outcomes (Kapp, 2012). The usage of gamification elements such as leader board, progress levels, streak systems can prove to be instrumental in increasing student engagement in a sustained manner (Amriani et al., 2014). Online learning is presumed to require stronger motivation to learn. This makes it a promising area for applying gamification.

A LMS facilitates co-learning, group studies, peer discussions through chat functionalities, discussion boards, watch parties, live chats and other such functionalities changing the students from passive viewers to active learners. One of the key arguments made for traditional learning is the social aspect—the social interactions, co-learning, group studies, etc. contribute to the social and behavioural development of a student.

Learnings from a MOOC-Based Platform for Institutional LMSs

MOOCs are credited as the next big revolution in the educational setup, where through MOOCs, people across the world have access to learning resources and certified courses without geographical and financial constraints via the Internet. The origin of MOOCs is traced to the USA’s Open Education Resources (OER) movement, which started in the early 2000s. MIT is credited as the pioneering institution, with an early version of the MIT open course ware made available to the public audience in 2002. A more significant jump was seen in 2008, when Dr David Wiley from Utah State University and Dr Alec Cuoros from University of Regina started their online courses. Since then, MOOCs have not looked back. Many platforms viz. Coursera, Udemy, edX etc., are completely MOOC-based platforms, aggregating courses from various institutions and instructors and delivering them to millions of users.

MOOC-based platforms can provide valuable insights as to how LMSs can be effectively implemented in institutions. In research domains, an inquiry into how MOOCs have emerged as a phenomenon provide insights into how implementation of LMSs can be done more effectively in institutions.

Hood et al. (2015) and Kinkead-Clark (2017) have highlighted that there are four conditions that are met in an institutional context for MOOCs to be adopted at a large scale. These four conditions are as follows:

Internal variousness: The diversity of the learner audience in an institution. This could be demographic viz. based on gender, age, occupation, prior experience, etc., or geographic. The diversity of these factors and the heterogeneity of the target audience is key when it comes to institutional MOOC emergence.

Internal redundancy: As defined by Liyanagunawardena et al. (2015), Guterman (2017) and Si and Qiao (2017), the repetitive internal attribute of a complex system is known as internal redundancy. This causes the system’s component elements to have continuous, good interactions.

Neighbour element interaction: Multiple elements that allow discussion and consultation within MOOCs are collectively referred to as the phenomenon of ‘neighbour element interaction’. This condition is best reflected in the partner consultation and discussion mechanism of MOOCs, according to Bulger et al. (2015).

Decentralized control: A reflection of something, that is, typical of a MOOC—openness and freedom. According to Lai et al. (2017) and Watson et al. (2016), decentralized control is best reflected in the autonomous control of the learning process, formation of groups within the framework of the course and free setting of the themes for discussion and participation.

Insights from these factors can prove to be critical in the context of institutional LMSs. Educational institutions in the country are, by their very nature, formed of diverse participants. Students flock to educational institutions from various and varying socio-economic strata and geographical locations. This diversity is therefore the building block of institutional LMS.

The criticality of neighbour element interaction as a factor cannot be emphasized enough. This is perhaps the biggest reason why MOOCs are so strong in their proposition—learners are constantly interacting with each other to solve problems and further the discussion on a number of relevant topics, which makes the usage a secondary phenomenon and increases it without active intervention. Decentralized control gives the students a feeling of collective ownership, making the process and adoption much more seamless and people-led (Lan & Hew, 2020). Strong gamified elements are the bane of any MOOC-based platform. Constant progress tracking, leader boards, community support, etc. become very important for learner engagement. The core strength of any MOOC-based platform is strong user retention and audience engagement. Going the MOOC way can have beneficial ramifications for implementation of institutional LMSs. Factors such as automated coaching, learner skill tracking, free to audit courses, reputed industry associations have been used by MOOC to engage with the learner audience.

Effective Implementation of LMSs in Educational Institutions

Needs analysis: Each institution is unique—there are technical, social, economic and cultural elements that make one institution different from the other. Needless to say, an LMS cannot follow a one-size-fits-all approach. Therefore, a thorough needs analysis from the institution's side is required to better understand the expectations from the LMS and the context and constraints within which it is going to operate. Ideally, this has to be conducted before the implementation of an LMS. However, if the implementation has already been done, needs analysis can act as a great starting point for a strategic review.

Appointing ambassadors: Implementation of LMSs is an adaptive process and needs to be driven sometimes. In such cases, having ambassadors or change leaders can make a pivotal difference in gaining critical mass. Appointing ambassadors is a great way to gain stakeholder buy-in, which sometimes becomes the biggest impediment to successful and effective implementation of LMSs. For example, appointing a task force which comprises students, educators and technical experts can help generate diverse views, and ensure that needs of all user segments are taken care of in the implementation process.

Training educators: Most of the students currently enrolled in educational institutions are ‘digital natives’. According to Prensky (2001), Digital Natives are the young people who are much more proficient and engaged in technology. The idea is that since these generations are much more immersed in technology from a very early age, they think, learn and assimilate things differently. Adapting to the technical part of LMSs might not be a challenge for them. ‘Digital immigrants’, however, are a different ball game altogether. A digital immigrant is someone whose technological footprint was developed before the digital age. Most of today's educators lie in the digital immigrant category. According to Prensky, while digital immigrants are trying to adapt to a technologically advanced environment, they still retain some ‘accent’ from their older ways of working. This can tend to them utilizing the LMSs in a suboptimal manner, or worse still, not utilizing it at all. The biggest way to solve this is to train educators on the technical and behavioural aspects of an LMS, emphasizing on how it could make their lives much easier and increase their effectiveness.

Conclusion

LMSs have the potential to change the way learning happens in institutions. Not only can it make the learning process student-centric, it can drastically optimize the entire knowledge creation and dissemination process, making space for innovation and creativity. The challenge, however, is the effective implementation. With appropriate steps taken to implement LMSs in institutions, classrooms can become much more engaging and inclusive. It can, moreover, add a layer of interactive and engaging environment to benefit the overall learning ecosystem. The objective of putting in LMS-based interactive learning is create an environment of creative exchange and build a shared experience that would be beneficial for the entire learning community.

Administratively, it is a huge value addition, since it allows the instructor to manage multiple modes of learning content along with other administrative elements. With the integration of LMSs, educators would be able to peer into the student performance, intervene wherever required based on predictive insights. Given this potential, the institutional LMS is a prerequisite for a student centric learning experience in all modes of delivery.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Parimala Veluvali

Author’s bio-sketch

Parimala Veluvali is an Assistant Professor and Head IQAC of Symbiosis Centre for Management Studies, Symbiosis International (Deemed University). She is also a Fellow Member of Institute of Company Secretary of India. Her research interests are in the areas of Higher education, Quality assurance, Corporate laws and Investor protection.

Jayesh Surisetti is currently the Founder of Happea, the world’s first happiness and peace companion app.He is also the co-founder of Apprison, a gamified productivity app aimed at instilling digital wellbeing and enabling users to take charge of their smartphone usage, reducing digital addiction.

In his previous engagement, Jayesh was the Head – Strategy and HR with NIBF in the areas of Strategy Planning and Deployment along with HR policies and systems. Heading one of India’s premier Learning & Development organisation, he supervises end-to-end activities including content development, academics, project management, training delivery and new product development.

Prior to this, he was working with ICICI Bank as an Employee Relations Manager in their Human Resources Management Group, managing Rest of Maharashtra and Goa.

Jayesh has also been associated with various consultancy firms, news agencies, publishing houses and educational institutions in diverse capacities. Some of his other prominent associations include Random House, NTPC, Pratham International, PT Education and Central Chronicle.An alumnus of IIM Raipur, Jayesh was the recipient of BoG Chairman’s Gold Medal for academic excellence, prior to which he had completed his BBA (Corporate Management) from Symbiosis Centre for Management Studies (UG), Pune.He has written and published research papers in various areas including Macroeconomics, Media studies, Legal studies, Human Resources and Social Psychology.

References

Adzharuddin

N. A.

, & Ling

L. H.

(2013). Learning management system (LMS) among university students: Does it work? International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning , 3(3), 248–252. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJEEEE.2013.V3.233

Amriani

, Aji

, Utomo

A. Y.

, Wahidah

, & Junus

(2014). Gamified e-learning model based on community of inquiry (Paper presentation) . 2014 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems, Jakarta. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7065830

Antunes

, Teles Lucena

, de Oliveira

, Gusmão

, Nozawa

É.

, & Brodbeck

(2016). LMS monitor: An application for academic and performance monitoring of students in LMS. Nuevas Ideas en Informática Educativa , 12, 45–52.

Baron

(2018, June 13). LMS performance analysis: Using web analytics methods to improve eLearning delivery. eLearning Industry . https://elearningindustry.com/lms-performance-analysis-using-web-analytics-methods-improve-elearning-delivery

Bates

, & Ross

K. G.

(2012). The inverted classroom in a large enrolment introductory physics course: a case study.

Boas

Y. A. G. V.

(2013, August). Overview of virtual reality technologies. In Interactive Multimedia Conference (Vol. 2013, p. 4).

Bulger

, Bright

, & Cobo

(2015). The real component of virtual learning: Motivations for face-to-face MOOC meetings in developing and industrialised countries. Information Communication & Society , 18(10), 1200–1216.

Coates

(2005, January 1). Leveraging LMS to enhance campus-based student engagement. Educase Review . https://er.educause.edu/articles/2005/1/leveraging-lmss-to-enhance-campusbased-student-engagement

Dagada

, & Mungai

(2013). Learning management system implementation frame-work for higher education-case of university of the Witwatersrand. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning , 3(2), 151–154. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJEEEE.2013.V3.212

10.

Darius

P. S. H.

, Gundabattini

, & Solomon

D. G.

(2021). A survey on the effectiveness of online teaching-learning methods for university and college students. Journal of the Institute of Engineers (India): Series B , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40031-021-00581-x

11.

Deterding

, Dan

, Rilla

, & Lennart

(2011).From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining Gamification. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic Mindtrek Conference On Envisioning Future Media Environments - Mindtrek ‘11. doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040.

12.

Dettori

, & Persico

(2011). Fostering self-regulated learning through ICT. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61692-901-5

13.

Dhawan

(2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of Covid-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems , 49(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018

14.

Ellis. (2009). Learning Management Systems Alexandra. VI, American Society for Training and Development (ASTD)

15.

Fakhrutdinova

, & Nurkhamitov

(2016). Technologies of interactive learning in higher education. International Journal of Humanities and Culture Studies . https://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/article/view/2136

16.

Fritz

(2011). Classroom walls that talk: Using online course activity data of successful students to raise self-awareness of underperforming peers. The In-ternet and Higher Education , 14(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.007

17.

Gallagher

D. K.

(2007). Learning styles, self-efficacy, and satisfaction with online learning: Is online learning for everyone? [Doctoral dissertation]. Bowling Green State University.

18.

Goli

(2021, April 21). Introducing new tools and features as demand for online learning grows. Coursera Blog . Retrieved July 9, 2021, from https://blog.coursera.org/introducing-new-platform-innovations-as-demand-for-online-learning-grows/l

19.

Groff

(2013). Technology-rich innovative learning environments (Working Paper). OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/Technology-Rich%20Innovative%20Learning%20Environments%20by%20Jennifer%20Groff.pdf

20.

Guterman

(2017). Whatmakesasocialencountermeaningful Theimpactofsocialencounters of home-schooled children on emotional and behavioural problems? Education and Urban Society , 49(8), 778–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124516677009

21.

Hew

K. F.

, Jia

, Gonda

D. E.

, & Bai

(2020). Transitioning to the ‘new normal’ of learning in unpredictable times: Pedagogical practices and learning performance in fully online flipped classrooms. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 17, Article 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00234-x

22.

Hodges

, Moore

, Lockee

, Trust

, & Bond

(2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review . https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

23.

Hood

, Littlejohn

, & Milligan

(2015). Context counts: How learners’ contexts influence learning in a MOOC. Computers & Education , 91(12), 83–91.

24.

Iqbal

, & Qureshi

(2011). Learning management systems (LMS): Inside matters. Information Management and Business Review , 3(4), 206–216.

25.

Johnson

, Smith

, Willis

, Levine

, & Haywood

(2011). The 2011 horizon report . The New Media Consortium. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED515956.pdf

26.

Kapp

K. M.

(2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education . John Wiley & Sons.

27.

Kinkead-Clark

(2017). Bridging the gap between home and school perceptions of classroom teachersand principals: Case studies of two Jamaican inner-city schools. Education and Urban Society , 49(8), 762–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124516658951

28.

Lai

P. K.

, Portolese

, & Jacobson

M. J.

(2017). Does sequence matter? Productive failure and designing online authentic learning for process engineering. British Journal of Educational Technology , 48(6), 1217–1227. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12492

29.

Lan

, & Hew

K. F.

(2020). Examining learning engagement in MOOCs: A self-determination theoretical perspective using mixed method. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 17, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0179-5

30.

Lederman

(2020). Most teaching is going remote. Will that help or hurt online learning? Inside Higher Ed. Insidehighered.Com . https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/03/18/most-teaching-going-remote-will-help-or-hurt-online-learning

31.

Liyanagunawardena

T. R.

, Lundqvist

, & Williams

S. A.

(2015). Who are with us: MOOC learners on a future learn course? British Journal of Educational Technology , 46(3), 557–569.

32.

Macfadyen

L. P.

, & Shane

(2010). Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education , 54(2), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.008

33.

Martin

, & Abdou

(2016).Using learning analytics to assess student learning in online courses. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice , 13(3), 110– 130. doi:10.53761/1.13.3.7.

34.

Mekni

, & Lemieux

(2014). Augmented reality: Applications, challenges and future trends. Applied Computational Science , 20, 205–214.

35.

Morgan

, & Marty

(2017). Best practices for virtual reality in higher education. Gartner Research .

36.

Pappas

(2020, September 16). The best learning management system. eLearning Industry . https://elearningindustry.com/the-best-learning-management-systems-top-list

37.

Parkes

, Stein

, & Reading

(2014). Student preparedness for university e-learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education , 25, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.002

38.

Prensky

(2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon , 9(5), 1–6.

39.

Rodríguez Gómez

, Ibarra Sáiz

, Dodero

, Gómez Ruiz

, Gallego Noche

, Cabeza Sánchez

, Quesada Serra

, Martínez del Val

Á.

(2009). Developing the e-Learning-oriented e-Assessment (Paper presentation). International Conference on Multimedia and Information and Communication Technologies in Education.

40.

Sarker

M. F. H.

, Mahmud

R. A.

, Islam

M. S.

, & Islam

M. K.

(2019). Use of e-learning at higher educational institutions in Bangladesh: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education , 11(2), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-06-2018-0099

41.

L. B.

, & Qiao

H. Y.

(2017). Performance of financial expenditure in China’s basic science and math education: Panel data analysis based on CCR model and BBC model. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education , 13(8), 5217–5224. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00995a

42.

Snyder

(2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research , 104, 333–339.

43.

Song

, Ernise

S. S.

, Janette

R. H.

, & Myung

H. K.

(2004). Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet And Higher Education ,7(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003

44.

Szabo

, & Flesher

(2002). CMI theory and practice: Historical roots of learning management systems . ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED479618

45.

Turnbull

, Chugh

, & Luck

(2019). Learning management systems: An overview. In Encyclopedia of education and information technologies (pp.1-7). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_248-1

46.

Venugopal

, & Jain

(2015). Influence of learning management system on student engagement (Paper presentation) . 2015 IEEE 3rd International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE). https://doi.org/10.1109/MITE.2015.7375358

47.

Watson

W. R.

, Kim

, & Watson

S. L.

(2016). Learning outcomes of a MOOC designed for attitudinal change: A case study of an animal behaviour and welfare MOOC. Computers & Education , 96(5), 83–93.

48.

WEF. (2020). The Covid-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how . https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-online-digital-learning

49.

Wright

C. R.

, Valerie

, Craig

, Sunday

, & Seb

(2014).Selecting a learning management system: Advice from an academic perspective. Educause Review . https://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/4/selecting-a-learning-management-system-advice-from-an-academic-perspective

50.

Yueh

H.-P.

, & Hsu

(2008). Designing a learning management system to support instruction. Communications to the ACM 51(4), 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/1330311.1330324

Learning Management System for Greater Learner Engagement in Higher Education—A Review