A framework for assessing LMSs e-courses content type compatibility with learning styles dimensions
Open accessAbstract
During the past few decades, it seems that personalizing and adjusting the e-courses’ content based on individual learning styles is rather important. Indeed, several studies have been carried out throughout the years regarding the a priori personalization and adjustment of e-courses systems. This way modern LMSs (Learning Management Systems) could identify beforehand the learning styles of the e-course attendants and adjust the lesson content flow and type based on personal learning styles. Nevertheless, little bibliography exists on how to assess the compatibility level between educational content and learning styles dimensions of an LMS, in a real-life environment. With the above thoughts in mind, the current work attempts to introduce and verify an innovative framework for the students' learning styles and e-courses compatibility assessment, based on the content type and volume. The proposed framework is validated through its application at an LMS in a real-life academic environment. Such an approach could be very beneficial for already deployed e-courses on LMSs that aim to differentiate educational content provision based on users’ profiles.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Of the identified articles, 3% investigated learning styles-namely, Active vs Reflective, Sensitive vs Intuitive, Visual vs Verbal, Sequential vs Global-when implementing e-course content.
“Of the identified articles, 3% investigated learning styles—namely, Active vs Reflective, Sensitive vs Intuitive, Visual vs Verbal, Sequential vs Global—when implementing e-course content (Kouis et al., 2020; Ljubimova et al., 2015; Xiao & Rahman, 2017).”
From A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for teaching and learning (2022) · cites this paper as Kouis et al., 2020
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for teaching and learning
Gamage, S. H. P. W., Ayres, J. R., & Behrend, M. B. (2022) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-021-00323-x · Cited by 360 · see citing works
Raj, N. S., & Renumol, V. G. (2022) · Journal of Computers in Education · doi:10.1007/s40692-021-00199-4 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kouis, D., Kyprianos, K., Ermidou, P., Kaimakis, P., & Koulouris, A.
- Affiliations
- University of West Attica (GR)
- Venue
- Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society
- Publisher
- Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society
- Published
- 2020-05-13
- OpenAlex
- W4405564433
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 2.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doaj.org
- Licence
- Locations
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Società Italiana di e-Learning
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
- Keywords
- virtual learning environments, online courses, learning styles, personalized learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review