Table 3 Brief description about the evaluation criteria and sample of LMS
From: An evaluation and selection problems of OSS-LMS packages
References | Sample of LMS | Evaluation criteria |
|---|---|---|
Graf and List (2005) | ATutor, Dokeos, dotLRN, ILIAS, LON-CAPA, Moodle, OpenUSS, Sakai, and Spaghetti learning | Learning objects, communication tools, management of user data, usability, technical aspects, adaptation, administration, and course management. Each criterion has sub-criteria |
Blackboard, CLIX, and Moodle | Usability testing; student’s learning environment; system, technology, and standards; and tutoring and didactics. Each criterion has sub-criteria | |
Al-Ajlan et al. (2008) | Desire2Learn, KEWL, ANGEL Learning Management Suite, eCollege, Blackboard, Moodle, Claroline, Dokeos, OLAT, and Sakai | Learner tools (communication, productivity, and student involvement tools), support Tools (administration, course delivery, and content development Tools), technical specifications (hardware/software and pricing/licensing tools). Each criterion has sub-criteria |
Bri et al. (2008) | Blackboard, WebCT, Moodle, and Sakai | Upload and share documents, create content online in HTML, online discussions, grade discussions/participation, online chat, student peer review, online quizzes/surveys, online gradebook, student submission of documents, self-assessment of submission, student workgroups, student journals, and embedded glossary |
Aydin and Tirkes (2010) | Moodle, ATutor, Dokeos, and OLAT | Support and compatibility to standards (AICC, SCORM), multiple language support, online exam, XML support, chat and group work, ease of installation and maintenance, follow-up of student’s learning process (including content development and content authoring/editing tools, modularity), user authentication, and survey and forum support |
Muhammad et al. (2011) | eFront and VULMS | Usability features (feedback/interactivity, learning material, assessment, visibility, learner facilitation and support, error handling and prevention, and collaboration support) |
WebCT, Moodle, and Blackboard | Learner environment, pedagogical factors, instructor tools, course and curriculum design, administrator tools, and technical specification. Each criterion has sub-criteria | |
Pecheanu et al. (2011) | +CMS, ATutor, Claroline, Dokeos, dotLRN, OpenACS, Drupal, ILIAS, LON-CAPA, Mambo, Moodle, MySource Matrix, OLAT, Plone, and Sakai | Three categories of criteria, build-in applications (tools), technical aspects, and usability. Each criterion has sub-criteria |
Srđević et al. (2012) | Blackboard, CLIX, and Moodle | Student’s learning environment; system, technology, and standards category; and tutoring and didactics. Each criterion has sub-criteria |
Leba et al. (2013) | Moodle | Pedagogical methods implemented in the system, users security, synchronous interactivity, asynchronous interactivity (forum, chat, e-mail), online accessibility, scale = 200 (number of participants involved simultaneously in a learning activity), ensure the quality of the technical characteristics for the didactical support, symmetry of the system (degree of focusing on each participant), interactivity (response time), system tools available for learning activities, level of cooperation and communication of one student with other students and professors, possibility to integrate information from different sources and represent it in different modes, costs of each participant involved in a learning activity, time (possibility to browse content at own pace), and flexibility of the system to upgrade according to user suggestions |