PORTER, Gavin (University of Hong Kong) http://citers2012.cite.hku.hk/en/paper_536.htm

1. Free choice by students of parallel
learning management systems:
views and habits
Gavin Porter PhD
Teaching Consultant
Faculty of Science
University of Hong Kong

2. HKU is in a transition period……
2010-2011 academic 2011-12 academic year 2012-13 academic year
year (and years (and for the
previous…) foreseeable future…)
Centrally
administered,
supported, and
portal-integrated
LMS

3. HKU is in a transition period……
2010-2011 academic 2011-12 academic year 2012-13 academic year
year (and years (and for the
previous…) foreseeable future…)
Centrally
administered,
supported, and
portal-integrated
LMS

4. HKU is in a transition period……
2010-2011 academic 2011-12 academic year 2012-13 academic year
year (and years (and for the
previous…) foreseeable future…)
Centrally
administered,
supported, and
portal-integrated
LMS

5. HKU is in a transition period……
2010-2011 academic 2011-12 academic year 2012-13 academic year
year (and years (and for the
previous…) foreseeable future…)
Centrally
administered,
supported, and
portal-integrated
LMS
In the 2011-2012 academic year, both WebCT and
Moodle were centrally administered, supported, and
portal-integrated

6. Several studies on LMS transitions appear in the literature
Study Source Conclusion(s) Comments
Transitioning from American Journal of Slightly higher faculty preference for LMSs differed on a course by course
Blackboard to Moodle Business Education; WebCT; students preferred Moodle 3:1 basis, no choice of one LMS for the
Course management Payette and Gupta, 2009 same course
software: Faculty and
student opinions
Changing course Educause Quarterly; Major concern with conversion tools Change from WebCT to Desire2Learn
management systems: Smart and Meyer, 2005 from one LMS to another Very small faculty survey (10)
Lessons Learned
Evaluating the usability of Journal of Information Students preferred Moodle for course Students used one LMS at a time, for
web-based course Technology Education; layout, retrieving course documents, an entire semester – no free choice
management systems Unal and Unal, 2011 assignment modules, and
communication tools. Similar scores
for discussion and gradebook tools
Faculty perspectives on Tech Trends; Beatty and Faculty preference for Moodle on ease Faculty first-hand accounts of
moving from Blackboard Ulasewicz, 2006 of interface use, and for WebCT on experience
to the Moodle Learning sharing of student work and control of
Management System author posts
Introducing a new Australasian Journal of Primarily staff, expressed concerns of Major focus on implementation
learning management Educational Technology; the pedagogical effectiveness of the evaluation model, as opposed to the
system: An institutional Benson and Palaskas, LMS, access, and technical problems LMS itself – also was a transition
case study 2006 between two WebCT versions
The Social shaping of a Electronic Journal of Posting of course documents, Identified patterns of LMS use by the
virtual learning eLearning; Dutton, announcements, and assignments faculty
environment: The case of Cheong, and Park, 2004 received a heavy valuation by faculty Evaluated the eClass LMS
a University-wide course
management system

7. • No studies have examined a situation
where students have free choice of
two LMSs with parallel content for
one particular class
• Which system will the students
gravitate towards?
• What reasons will they give for
their choice?

8. The inquiry…………
• Set-up parallel content on both WebCT and Moodle
– Syllabus
– Announcements
– Lecture content (ppts)
– Tutorial content
– Evaluation rubrics
– and course readings
were all posted simultaneously and identically on the two LMSs
• Large enrolment course (of 102 students) with diverse
backgrounds
– Science, Nursing, Engineering, Business, Social Science, Arts,
Medicine, Pharmacy, Dentistry

9. The inquiry…………
• Very brief survey, conducted in conjunction with
a course evaluation
Survey questions:
1. Which course management system did you use more
often? (Moodle, WebCT, never used either)
2. Why did you use that system more often? (open-ended)

10. The inquiry…………
• Cross-checked the data from the brief
questionnaire with Moodle access logs
• Categorized the student responses from the
survey
• Checked usage categories for student
composition (and performance on the course) –
just in case something obvious (or interesting)
popped out…….

11. Survey Says……Moodle????
WebCT????

12. The majority of students indicated (self-report)
that they prefer using WebCT
100
82
80
# of students
60
40
20 14
0
0
er
e
T
dl
C
th
eb
oo
ei
W
M
d
se
s
s
er
er
ru 96 responses
ef
ef
ve
Pr
Pr
ne

13. Moodle log usage data fits with self-report
11 to 19 items accessed
via Moodle; 15 students
“Heavy Moodle users”
0 items accessed via
Moodle; 30 students
3 to 10 items accessed
via Moodle; 38 students
1 to 2 items accessed
via Moodle; 19 students
Total = 102 students

14. Sample quotations from students
“because other courses use this system”
“as a habit only”
“never heard of Moodle”
”a lot of courses use it, easier to check one platform”
“WebCT is perfectly integrated into the Portal, very
convenient”
“everything organized by week, easier to follow”
“arranged according to order of lessons”
“appears tidier”
”interface more attractive, has a checklist of things to be
completed to give better understanding of learning
progress”

15. WebCT preference….a majority of the justification had nothing to
do with the intrinsic qualities of the LMS
Reasons for WebCT preference
most other courses use WebCT
habit/familiarity
ease of use
convenience
never heard of Moodle
no Moodle portal integration
0
10
20
30
40
# of comments
Reasons for Moodle preference
organization
appearance
ease of use
checklist of items to complete
0
2
4
6
8
10
# of comments

16. Health Science students were the least likely to be
heavy Moodle users
60 57%
% heavy Moodle users
% of students
40 % never accessed Moodle
33%
20 14%
2.6%
0
Only 2.6% of health science
students (1 out of 39) fell into the
g
e
e
ss
in
nc
nc
ne
er
heavy Moodle usage category
ie
ie
si
ne
Sc
Sc
Bu
gi
lth
En
ea
H
student's discipline
Can lead to new hypotheses…….
WebCT more entrenched in health sciences courses?
More difficult transition in 2012-13 for health science faculty (and/or students)?

17. Transition from WebCT to Moodle: personal
opinions
• Initially I wasn’t particularly impressed with
Moodle – now I am a convert…….
– Interface is certainly preferable
– Fairly powerful (assessment options, polls, etc.)
and well-supported both technically and
pedagogically – Computer Centre, CETL, and
Faculty of Education
– the learning curve is shallow enough (“turn
editing on”)

18. Summary
• Findings indicate some inertia on the part of
instructors (and also students) during the
transition period, with many students preferring
to use WebCT
– The main reason being: “because most other courses
use it”
• The reasons for Moodle preference were intrinsic
to the LMS itself, namely the interface’s
appearance and organization
• WebCT only “wins” out of habit, while Moodle
“wins” out of quality and design

20. Composition of different usage
categories
Moodle users (# of items accessed = 11 to 19) Never accessed Moodle (0 items accessed)
Science
Science
Nursing
Business Business
Faculty
Faculty
Engineering
Engineering Medicine
Dentistry
Nursing
Pharmacy
0
2
4
6
8
0
5
10
15
# of students # of students
final grade average = 83.5 +/- 3.0 (SEM) final grade average = 79.2 +/- 1.75 (SEM)

21. Composition of different usage
categories
Sporadic Moodle Access (accessed 2 to 10 course items) Accessed Moodle one or two times only
Science Nursing
Nursing Science
Arts
Faculty
Faculty
Business
Social Science
Medicine
Business
Pharmacy
Pharmacy
Engineering
Dentistry
0
5
10
15
20
0
2
4
6
8
10
# of students # of students
final grade average = 78.1 +/- 1.9 (SEM) final grade average = 77.8 +/- 2.8 (SEM)

22. More observations from data (to be taken with a grain
of salt…….)
• Moodle usage was less prevalent among the health
science students (medicine, nursing, dentistry,
pharmacy), this could suggest a heavier reliance on
WebCT in that Faculty and perhaps a more abrupt
forthcoming transition for instructors and students
• “Moodle user” group had the highest grade average in
the course (+4.3%)
• “mixed users” – some students with WebCT preference
had clearly accessed Moodle based on the usage logs

23. (11 to 19 items accessed) (1 to 10 items accessed) (0 items accesssed)
Moodle users Sporadic Moodle users Never accessed Moodle # students
Science 6 23 13 42
Business 4 5 3 12
Engineering 4 1 2 7
Health Science 1 26 12 39
Arts 0 1 0 1
Social Science 0 1 0 1
15 57 30 102
11 to 19 3 to 10 1 or 2 0
Accessed Moodle once or
Moodle users Sporadic Moodle users twice Never accessed Moodle # students
Science 6 17 6 13 42
Business 4 4 1 3 12
Engineering 4 1 0 2 7
Health Science 1 16 10 12 39
Arts 0 0 1 0 1
Social Science 0 0 1 0 1
15 38 19 30 102

24. based on faculty
numbers
% Moodle users % Sporadic Moodle users % never accessed Moodle
Science 14.3 54.8 31.0 100.0
Business 33.3 41.7 25.0 100.0
Engineering 57.1 14.3 28.6 100.0
Health Science 2.6 66.7 30.8 100.0
Arts 0 100 0 100.0
Social Science 0 100 0 100.0
% Moodle users % Sporadic Moodle users % accessed Moodle once or twice % never accessed Moodle
Science 14.3 40.5 14.3 31.0 100.0
Business 33.3 33.3 8.3 25.0 100.0
Engineering 57.1 14.3 0.0 28.6 100.0
Health Science 2.6 41.0 25.6 30.8 100.0
Arts 0 0 100 0 100.0
Social Science 0 0 100 0 100.0