MOODLE ÖĞRENME YÖNETİM SİSTEMİ SÜRÜMLERİNİN ÖĞRENCİ PERSPEKTİFİNDEN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI KULLANILABİLİRLİK ANALİZİ

Öz

Teknolojideki gelişmelere paralel olarak internet kullanımının eğitim üzerindeki etkisinin artmasıyla birlikte; açık kaynak kodlu öğrenim yönetim sistemi (ÖYS) yazılımlarının eğitim hayatındaki yeri de giderek artmaya başlamıştır. Çalışmada, açık kaynak kodlu ÖYS’den biri olan Moodle (Modular Object Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment-Modüler Nesne Yönelimli Dinamik Öğrenme Ortamı) adlı ÖYS’nin kullanılabilirliği, aynı aracın 2.0 (2.5.1) ve 3.0 (3.3.4) sürümleri için analiz edilmiştir.  Kullanılabilirlik testlerine toplam 18 üniversite öğrencisi katılmıştır. Öğrenciler her iki sürümü de daha önce kullanmış olan ikinci ve daha üst sınıflardan seçilmiştir. Deneylerde, Moodle üzerinde öğrencilerin en çok gerçekleştirdiği düşünülen beş farklı görev belirlenmiş ve söz konusu görevlere ilişkin etkililik ve memnuniyet boyutlarındaki veriler kullanılabilirlik analiz yazılımı olan Morae yazılımıyla kaydedilmiştir. Etkililik boyutu kapsamında görev tamamlanma süresi, fare tıklama sayısı, iki veri girişi arasında geçen süre, fare hareket mesafesi kriterleri değerlendirilirken, memnuniyet boyutu kapsamında sistem kullanılabilirlik skorları dikkate alınmıştır. Sonuç olarak;  öğrencilerin Moodle sürüm 3.0 (3.3.4)’ın kullanımından daha çok memnun kaldıkları ancak etkililik kapsamında sürümler arasında öğrenciler açısından istatistiksel olarak herhangi bir farklılığın olmadığı belirlenmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Web ergonomisi,kullanılabilirlik,Moodle

COMPARATIVE USABILITY ANALYSIS OF MOODLE LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM VERSIONS FROM STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

Öz

With the increase in the effect of internet usage on education in parallel with the developments in technology; the place of open-source learning management system (LMS) software in educational life has started to increase gradually. In this study, the availability of an open-source LMS called Moodle (Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment), the analysis of the same tool for versions 2.0 (2.5.1) and 3.0 (3.3.4) It was. A total of 18 university students participated in the usability tests. The students were selected from the second and higher classes that had previously used both versions. In the experiments, five different tasks which are thought to be the most performed by students on Moodle were determined and the data on effectiveness and satisfaction dimensions of these tasks were recorded with Morae software which is usability analysis software. In terms of effectiveness dimension, task completion time, the number of mouse clicks, the time between two data entries, mouse movement distance criteria were evaluated and system usability scores were taken into consideration in satisfaction dimension. As a result; it was found that students were more satisfied with the use of Moodle version 3.0 (3.3.4), but there was no statistically significant difference between the versions in terms of effectiveness.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Web ergonomics,usability,Moodle

Kaynakça

1. T. Martín-Blas and A. Serrano-Fernández, “The role of new technologies in the learning process: Moodle as a teaching tool in Physics,” Comput. Educ., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 35–44, 2009.
2. A. Chaubey and B. Bhattacharya, “Learning Management System in Higher Education,” IJSTE - Int. J. Sci. Technol. Eng., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 29–51, 2015.
3. M. Yorulmaz, H. G. Yavuzcan, and A. Togay, “a Web-Based Management System and Its Application,” J. Educ. Instr. Stud. World, vol. 2, no. May, pp. 203–215, 2012.
4. E. Gutiérrez, M. A. Trenas, J. Ramos, F. Corbera, and S. Romero, “A new Moodle module supporting automatic verification of VHDL-based assignments,” Comput. Educ., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 562–577, 2010.
5. “Moodle.org: Moodle Statistics,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://moodle.net/stats/. [Accessed: 05-Jul-2019].
6. J. Cole and H. Foster, Using Moodle - Teaching with the Popular Open Source Course Management System, 2nd ed. Oreilly Community Press, 2008.
7. M. Machado and E. Tao, “Machado2007.Pdf,” no. December 2006, pp. 7–12, 2007.
8. M. R. Elabnody, “A Survey Of Top 10 Open Source Learning Management Systems,” Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res., vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 7–11, 2015.

9. Y. A. Turker, K. Baynal, and T. Turker, “The evaluation of learning management systems by using Fuzzy AHP, fuzzy topsis and an integrated method: A case study,” Turkish Online J. Distance Educ., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 195–218, 2019.
10. J. R. Chou and S. W. Hsiao, “A usability study on human-computer interface for middle-aged learners,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2040–2063, 2007.
11. N. Bevan, “International standards for HCl and usability,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 533–552, 2001.
12. J. Nielsen, Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.
13. N. Juristo, “Impact of usability on software requirements and design,” in Software Engineering, Springer, 2007, pp. 55–77.
14. A. Seffah and E. Metzker, “The obstacles and myths of usability and software engineering,” Commun. ACM, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 71–76, 2004.
15. R. G. Bias and D. J. Mayhew, Cost-justifying usability: an update for an Internet age, vol. Second, no. 2006–7. 2005.
16. M. S. Crowther, C. C. Keller, and G. L. Waddoups, “Mediated Instruction Through Usability Evaluations,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 289–303, 2004.
17. J. Kirakowski, N. Claridge, and R. Whitehand, “Human centered measures of success in web site design,” in Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Human Factors & the Web, 1998.
18. C. Lewis and C. Wharton, “Cognitive walkthroughs,” in Handbook of human-computer interaction, Elsevier, 1997, pp. 717–732.
19. L. Faulkner, “Beyond the five-user assumption-10.3758%2FBF03195514,” Behav. Res. Methods, Instruments, Comput., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 379–383, 2003.
20. S. Graf and B. List, “An Evaluation of Open Source E-Learning Platforms Stressing Adaptation Issues,” in Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’05), 2002, pp. 5–7.
21. J. Melton, “The LMS moodle: A Usability Evaluation,” Prefect. Univ. Kumamoto, 2006.
22. G. Kakasevski, M. Mihajlov, A. Sime, and S. Chungurski, “Evaluating Usability in Learning Management System Moodle,” in Proceedings of the ITI 2008 30th Int. Conf. on Information Technology Interfaces, 2008, pp. 613–618.
23. T. G. Kirner, C. D. A. Custódio, and C. Kirner, “Usability Evaluation Of The Moodle System From The Teachers’ Perspective,” Brazil IADIS Int. Conf. eLearning, pp. 371–378, 2008.
24. S. S. Tee, T. S. M. T. Wook, and S. Zainudin, “User Testing for Moodle Application,” Int. J. Softw. Eng. its Appl., vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 243–252, 2013.
25. M. Ivanović, Z. Putnik, Ž. Komlenov, T. Welzer, M. Hölbl, and T. Schweighofer, “Usability and privacy aspects of moodle: Students’ and teachers’ perspective,” Inform., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 221–230, 2013.
26. Z. Unal and A. Unal, “Investigating and comparing user experiences of course management systems: BlackBoard vs. Moodle,” J. Interact. Learn. Res., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 101–123, 2014.
27. L. Senol, H. Gecili, and P. Onay Durdu, “Usability Evaluation of a Moodle based Learning Management System,” World Conf. Educ. Multimedia, Hypermedia Telecommun., vol. 2014, no. 1, pp. 850–858, 2014.
28. P. Farmanesh, A. A. Samani, and G. Magusa, “Heuristic Evaluation of the Usability of Learning Management System (Moodle) at Eastern Mediterranean University,” Int. J. Sci. Res. Inf. Syst. Eng., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 22–36, 2016.
29. L. Hasan, “Usability Problems on Desktop and Mobile Interfaces of the Moodle Learning Management System (LMS),” in Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on E-Business and Applications, 2018, pp. 69–73.
30. A. Suner, “Moodle ile internet destekli biyoistatistik dersinin değerlendirilmesi Evaluation of internet assisted biostatistics course with Moodle,” Ege Tıp Derg. / Ege J. Med., vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 201–211, 2018.
31. O. A. Aliyu, C. Arasanmi, and S. Ekundayo, “Do demographic characteristics moderate the acceptance and use of the Moodle learning system among business students ?,” Int. J. Educ. Dev. using Inf. Commun. Technol., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 165–178, 2019.
32. T. Corporation, “Morae Manager,” no. March, 2012.