The Learning Platform in Distance Higher Education

Contributed by:

Jonathan James Fri, Jan 07, 2022 05:52 PM UTC

The aim of this study is to discover students’ perceptions from the School of Education about the use of the
learning platform to improve the educational process in distance higher education. To this end, a descriptive
study with a mixed approach (quantitative and qualitative) has been applied according to the objectives of
the study.

1. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE January 2019 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 20 Number: 1 Article 5
THE LEARNING PLATFORM IN DISTANCE HIGHER EDUCATION:
STUDENT’S PERCEPTIONS
Dr. Maria Luz CACHEIRO-GONZALEZ
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7865-1362
Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED)
Madrid, Spain
Dr. Antonio MEDINA-RIVILLA
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1483-0668
Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED)
Madrid, Spain
Dr. Maria Concepcion DOMINGUEZ-GARRIDO
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1192-0040
Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED)
Madrid, Spain
Dr. Maria MEDINA-DOMINGUEZ
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3500-9913
Universidad Antonio de Nebrija
Madrid, Spain
Received Date: 08/02/2018 Accepted Date: 25/05/2018
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to discover student’s perceptions from the School of Education about the use of the
learning platform to improve educational process in distance higher education. To this end, a descriptive
study with a mixed approach (quantitative and qualitative) has been applied according to the objectives of
the study. An ad-hoc semi-structured questionnaire has been validated by experts, obtaining the response of
111 students of the Spanish National University of Distance Education (UNED), who are conducting social
education, pedagogy, and master's degrees in education. The results showed positive values in the different
dimensions analyzed: (I) Role of learning platform in distance education, (II) Instructional of the design
learning platform, (III) Didactic interaction through the learning platform and (IV) The learning platform
and professional practice. The analysis of the open questions, provides guidelines for improving the use of
the learning platform in distance higher education regarding strengths (student’s exchange, and independent
learning) and weaknesses (feedback delay, and content repository).
Keywords: Learning platform, ICT, student perception, higher education, distance education.
INTRODUCTION
Higher distance education offers a scenario for the development of teaching-learning processes through
educational platforms and their functionalities for didactic communication, mainly online forum (Lopez, &
Camilli, 2014; Guedez, & Navea, 2014; Bousbahi, & Alrazgan, 2015; Bin, 2017). One of the challenges of
the Distance Higher Education modality is to promote the advantages it offers to groups that do not have
the opportunity to participate in other traditional models. This requires an adequate use of the potential of
this methodology so that students can combine self-regulated and collaborative training processes, as well as
71

2. training in digital competence that “become increasingly necessary to participate meaningfully in the new
knowledge society and economy of the twenty-first century (INTEF, 2017, p. 5). Among the aspects that
require constant updating in the use of the learning platform are: pedagogical functionalities, online
instructional design, and didactic interaction. The development of the theoretical framework has allowed
deepening aspects such as: ICT in Higher Distance Education, Technopedagogical Models, Design of online
learning environments, and the learning platform components in higher education (Course components
and Communication tools of learning platforms).
Quality of content and system interactivity through LMS has a major influence of students’ initial
perceptions of their satisfaction (Chugh, Ledger, & Shields, 2017; Altunoglu, 2017; Baleghi, Ayub,
Mahmud, & Daud, 2017). The objective of this study is to discover student’s perceptions from the School
of Education about the use of the learning platform to improve educational process in distance higher
education. The analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the platform offers guidelines for an adequate
integration of technological resources in distance education processes. Some Learning Management Systems
(LMS) Trends are discussed for future research.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
ICT in Higher Distance Education
The impact of information and communication technology (ICT) in the knowledge society is producing a
permanent revolution in the different sectors (Pavel; Fruth & Neacsu, 2015) and requires a new approach
to education, focused on the use of open content and resources (Knyazeva, 2016) mainly based on the
possibilities of the web 2.0 cloud technologies (wikis, blogs, and social networks) (Barak, 2017; Moreira,
Henriques, Goulão, & Barros, 2017), promoting “persistent connectivity, enabling students and educators
to access and contribute to shared workspaces, anytime” (Adams et al, 2017, p.20). Keane, Keane, &
Blicblau (2016) emphasize that the use of ICT by students contribute to the development of the 4Cs
(creativity, communication, collaboration and critical thinking), essential in the 21st century, in
combination with the 3Rs (reading, writing and arithmetic).
Higher education students have at their disposal a variety of ICT resources offering integrated media
typologies, as RICA (Information, Collaboration and Learning) (Cacheiro, 2011), or SECTIONS
(Students, Ease of use, Costs, Teaching functions, Interaction, Organizational issues, Networking, and
Security and privacy) (Bates, 2015). This plurality of learning resources (apps, edublogs, social networking,
and websites) (Brazuelo & Cacheiro, 2015) require an extensive use by teachers in co-involvement with
students, the real protagonists, prosumers now. Sometimes, students manifest more satisfaction with the
Social Networking Sites (SNS) than by traditional Learning Management System (LMS) (Pilli, 2014).
ICT development towards the knowledge-based society include three stages: ICT Readiness (level of
networked infrastructure and access to ICT); ICT Intensity (level of use of ICT in the society) and ICT
Impact (results/outcomes of effective and efficient ICT use) (Pavel; Fruth & Neacsu, 2015). In the full
democratization of knowledge, it is necessary to promote open learning environments with the appropriate
tutorial advice, which makes possible the purpose of higher education. Four rationales for ICT integration
in education are presented by Jain & Tyagi (2017): social (need for familiarizing students with technology),
vocational (preparing students for jobs that require skills in technology), catalytic (utility of technology to
improve performance and effectiveness in teaching), and pedagogical (to utilize technology in enhancing
learning, flexibility and efficiency in curriculum delivery).
Distance education practices focus on identifying the educational potential of technology and assume a
transformative role of students towards self-regulated learning strategies (Zimmerman, 1990), providing the
foundation for new generations of learning (Scoppio & Luyt, 2017). The study by Topchyan and Zhang
72

3. (2014) has validated some factors that affect the perception of distance education students to develop the
competences to work in virtual learning teams, which are: loyalty, integrity, conscientiousness,
communication, cooperation, creativity, learning motivation, persistence, independence, and intercultural
The plurality of web resources integrated on virtual learning platforms provides opportunities to select and
adapt information, collaboration and learning resources. Nevertheless, some results indicate that university
students tend not to use these technologies to regulate their own learning process (Yot & Marcelo, 2017).
Henderson, Selwyn & Aston (2017) suggest that digital technologies are not ‘transforming’ the nature of
university teaching and learning.
Online learners pay attention to structure and leadership of virtual learning environments to take a deep and
meaningful approach to learning (Garrison & Cleveland, 2010). A systematic review from 1995 to 2014
(Martin, Ahlgrim & Budhrani, 2017) conclude that it was not clearly distinguishable whether the
Synchronous Online Learning technology was used for disseminating the content or whether it was used to
allow students to interact with each other or the material. Research from different authors (Prendes &
Gutierrez, 2013, ITU-UNESCO, 2014, and Kebble, 2017) considers that ICT should promote interactivity
favoring forms of communication in the knowledge society. The time dedicated to communication activities
by students has been considered as a predictor of academic performance (Rienties & Toetenel, 2016).
Selection, adoption and adjustment of ICT tools promote openness to a permanent change, rediscovering
the most valuable goals of academia, and the continuous improvement of teachers and students.
Technopedagogical Models
Technopedagogical models like the TPACK (Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge) (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006) and SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification & Redefinition) (Puentedura, 2014,
2016), offer a framework to make decisions in order to incorporate the use of ICT as a didactic experience.
TPACK Model
The teaching profession in the words of Shulman (2015) is "magical" and requires "embracing uncertainty"
through a reciprocal commitment between the teacher and the students. This author has promoted the need
to combine knowledge of content and pedagogy by coining the term PCK (Pedagogical Content
Knowledge), which has been the precursor of the TPACK model (Technology, Pedagogy and Content
Knowledge) from Mishra and Koehler (2006, 2008) which incorporates the technological knowledge
applied to the teaching-learning process. The TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, 2008) offers
different combinations among the types of knowledge of the model: curricular, pedagogical, and
technological, based on the application contexts. The dimensions offered by the model are seven: CK
(Content Knowledge), PK (Pedagogical Knowledge), TK (Technological Knowledge), CPK (Pedagogical
Content Knowledge), TCK (Technological Content Knowledge), TPK (Technological Pedagogical
Knowledge), and TPCK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge). The TPACK model, widely
disseminated internationally, provides different strengths and opportunities through the questionnaires
developed to analyze the level of mastery in the integration of ICT (Schmidt et al., 2009; Cabero, 2014),
allowing the design of teaching strategies to reinforce the types of knowledge less developed.
SAMR Model
The SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition) model is based on different
phases from substitution (initial contact with technology) to redefinition (mastery of educational
technology). The first two phases correspond to the process of improvement in the way of integrating ICT,
and the next two phases are in the process of transformation. Each phase can be characterized by the role of
technology in the teaching practice (Puentedura, 2016):
73

4.  Substitution. Technology acts as a direct tool substitute, without any functional change.
 Augmentation. Technology acts as a direct substitute tool, with functional improvement.
 Modification. The technology allows redesigning important task.
 Redefinition. Technology allows the creation of new tasks, previously inconceivable.
In this context, it is favored to incorporate into the teaching-learning process resources adapted to the
objectives (from memory to creation), to the level of competence (from substitution to redefinition), and to
the investigative process (from research to share). These models can be considered conceptual frameworks
that offer a comprehensive vision of different relevant elements to consider when applying technologies in
the educational context.
Design of Online Learning Environments
Conner (2013) highlights the plurality of contexts and diversity of ways of learning that occur in the
knowledge society from formal to informal, from intentional to unexpected, which are represented in the
following diagram (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Ways to learn in the knowledge society (Conner, 2013)
The synthesis processes of teaching quality presences in online environments are made explicit by Garrison
& Anderson (2005, p. 52), evaluating three types of: cognitive, social and teaching (Table 1).
Table 1. Educational interaction in online learning environments (Garrison & Anderson, 2005)
Elements Categories Indicators
Cognitive presence Triggering event:  Feeling of perplexity.
 Exploration.  Exchange of information.
 Integration.  Association of ideas.
 Resolution.
Social presence  Affective dimension.  Expressing emotions.
 Open communication.  Express themselves freely.
 Cohesion of the group.  Promote cooperation.
Teaching presence  Design and organization.  Establish the program content and
 Discursive elaboration. methodology.
 Explicit guidance.  Construct meaning together.
 Focus the debate.
74

5. These three elements and their interactions offer a landscape to analyze educational interaction inside online
learning environments. It is necessary to find a synthesis between innovation and research practices in
Distance Higher Education. Evidence in this respect is provided by Zanjani, Edwards, Nykvist, & Geva
(2016) who find that designing appropriate tasks and assessment procedure are determinants for engaging
students with the Learning Management System. Online learning environments must have: quality,
certification and affordability, which is based on the rigor of institutions. Digital learning (a new version of
distance education) is assuming an educational disruption because it raises a drastic change of supports and
methods and because progressively it is gaining space in conventional formats, this author arriving to collect
more than 20 causes that advance to great pace of educational proposals at a distance: openness, flexibility,
ubiquity, self-control, immediacy, etc. (Garcia-Aretio, 2017). Johnson, Adams, Cummins, Estrada, Freeman
& Hall (2016) state that educational institutions and particularly university in the today world combine
classroom and online courses. Mirriahi, Alonzo, McIntyre, Kilobyte & Fox (2015) present some principles
and implications to be consider for the design of effective online learning programs (Table 2).
Table 2. Principles in designing online programs (Based on Mirriahi et al., 2015)
Principle Implications for design
Active engagement. The teaching staff can engage in an active process and
become aware of new ideas or experiences.
Extract of the practice and the previous The teaching staff can reflect and draw from their own
knowledge in authentic environments. practice, their work and their colleagues the most valuable.
Understanding expectations. Program facilitators present and provide new guidelines for
action.
Respect and satisfaction with the diverse The program models influence learning environments where
apprentices. staff feel valued and respected.
The use of online systems in universities must be supported by the authorities of the institution and
recognized the efforts undertaken by the faculty. Mirriahi et al. (2015) are questioning that online programs
must consider the principles of flexibility, b-learning modeling, flipped classroom, inclusivity, scalability,
efficiency and cost-effectiveness. It is intended that the course design on the learning platform is intuitive
and that students understand and properly use links and possible scenarios that must work and interact with
faculty and all participants.
The Learning Platform Components in Higher Education
The learning platform is a way of structuring the instruction that fosters optimal organization of content
and interaction with students, and it is used by most of the Universities (Gomez, 2016; Almarashdeh, 2016).
Teaching must take advantage of virtual environments (Moreira, Henriques, Goulão & Barros, 2017; Ju-
Yin & Yen-Chen, 2016; Marin, Sampedro, & Vega, 2017) and adapting the discourse to the uniqueness of
the virtual environments complexity. Learning platforms have been presented as virtual scenarios that
promote educational innovation and professional development (Prendes & Gutierrez, 2013, Sáez,
Dominguez, Ruiz & Belando, 2014), more focused on the model of educational personalization, with
emphasis on cooperation.
Course Components of Learning Platforms
The learning platform in distance higher education must be adapted to the knowledge and practices of
virtual environments (e-Learning and b-Learning), promoting usefulness (Moreno, Cavazotte & Alves,
2017), autonomous learning (Cho, 2011, Zhu, Au & Yates, 2016), and interaction with teachers throughout
learning tasks and communication tools (Ma, Han, Yang & Cheng, 2015; Gharmallah, 2017). In this line,
75

6. Benedetti (2015, p. 174) presents a map to know the student’s navigation processes, following the cognitive
style to understand and take better decisions to advance in the domain of the virtual course (Table 3).
Table 3. Student’s navigation processes (Benedetti, 2015)
Process Description
Understanding Overview of the course structure.
All parts / areas of the course are visible.
Instructional Organization logical course.
Easy access to components of the course.
Functional The course links operate correctly.
The course content levels are accurate.
According to the study of Holzweias, Joyner, Fuller, Henderson & Young (2014), online graduate students’
perceptions refer to their best learning experiences through activities that allow them to share knowledge
and reflect among others. The teaching-learning process mediated by the learning platform includes
substantial diversity of educational components to the communicative act: masterclass, knowledge
presentation and questioning (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Communicative act in the teaching-learning process
Medina, Sánchez & Campos (2014), Medina and Dominguez (2015), and Medina, Cacheiro & Medina-
Medina (2015) have stressed the value of communicative competence of teachers and impact on the
development of educational processes, making progress in achieving to harmonize the instructive-creative
design, to be worked on virtual environments. The educational use of learning platforms, respond to the
challenges of distance higher education, customizing tasks, and adapting content presentation to the virtual
support, combining with traditional materials (Medina & Dominguez, 2015; Oproiu, 2015).
Communication Tools of Learning Platforms
The use of learning platform encourages the interaction of all components of a traditional didactic scenario:
teacher, students and subject matter (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Components of a ICT learning scenario
76

7. The interaction among the various components is essential to promote a mediated learning (Bates, 2015).
The learning platform opens a new stage, which exceeds the traditional space-time to motivate and make
available to students, colleagues and various groups, a set of instructional options.
The most important communication features of the platforms include forums, chat and webconference.
 Forums. Virtual scenarios for comments, reflections between teachers and students in
asynchronous mode.
 Chat. Written speech involving a group of students and teachers in synchronous mode.
 Webconference. Synthesizes the keys of the oral discourse, supported on transparencies,
pictures, video tutorials, etc., expanded with questions, and comments from teacher and
students.
Online discussions carefully monitored by instructors promote co-constructed knowledge through activities
as: sharing, negotiating, elaborating, evaluating, etc. (Ioannou, Demetriou & Mama, 2014) and facilitates
students’ higher order thinking (Kwon & Park, 2017). When teachers give importance to collaborative
learning, students are more aware of their benefit (Gomez, Barbera & Fernández, 2016).
The interaction in online forums helps students to exchange different points of view of a subject (Duran,
Cornejo, & Flores, 2017). One of the advantages of online forums following Arasaratnam & Northcote
(2017) is having time for reasoned comments, meanwhile in the face-to-face sessions may not always be
possible. Learning platforms seek to exploit the most valuable aspects of the training scenarios to become
open spaces to the intellectual and emotional enjoyment of all participants, taking advantage of the
communication resources.
LMS Trends
Some leaders believe Learning Management System (LMS) are limited to the administration aspects rather
than the learning itself (Adams et al, 2017). “Learning ecosystems must be agile enough to support the
practices of the future. In using tools and platforms like LMS, educators have a desire to unbundle all of the
components of a learning experience to remix open content and educational apps in unique and compelling
ways”. (Adams et al, 2017, p. 2). To address this limitation, Brown, Dehoney, & Millichap (2015) have
adopted the term next generation digital learning environment (NGDLE) as an evolution of the current
LMS. NGDLE is a dynamic and interconnected ecosystem ever-evolving community of learners, instructors,
tools, and content (Table 4).
Table 4. NGDEL Characteristics and Functional domains
Characteristics Functional domains
A confederation of IT systems. Interoperability and Integration of tools.
Full adherence to standards for interoperability. User personalization.
Support personalization. Analytics, Advising, and Learning Assessment.
A cloud-like space. Collaboration at multiple levels making it easy to
move between private and public digital spaces.
Accessibility and Universal Design Approach.
The model for the NGDLE architecture could be considered as a mash-up using heterogeneity of
components to produce homogeneity of function (Brown, Dehoney, & Millichap, 2015). In this same line
are the developments of the cloud learning environments (CLE), including web 2.0 applications that favor
a pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism, in which students are active
learners and creators of knowledge (Barak, 2017).
77

8. Research Objectives
The main research objectives of the study were:
 Objective 1. To identify the student perceptions using learning platform in distance
education.
 Objective 2. To analyze the didactic interaction through the learning platform.
 Objective 3. To propose keys to instructional design of the learning platform: course
components and communication tools.
The methodological approach used to meet the research objectives of the research integrates a quantitative
and qualitative data analysis (Valles, 1997; Anderson, 1990; Garcia-Cabrero, 2009), benefiting from a mixed
method approach and action research (Creswell, 2012). A descriptive scope and a transversal design, has
been applied that "seeks to specify properties, characteristics and important features of the phenomenon
under analysis" (Hernández-Sampieri et al., 2010, p. 80) and provides a basis for an appropriate solution to
the problem of study.
A non-probability incidental sampling of undergraduate and postgraduate students from the UNED School
of Education (n=111), took place on this study. The questionnaire content validity has been assured through
consultation with experts, who have reviewed the clarity, adequacy and internal consistency of the items
based on their experience. It has also analyzed the reliability through the Cronbach's alpha internal
consistency coefficient, obtaining values between 0.60 and 0.80 in the different dimensions, considered
adequate for descriptive studies. The methodological rigor applied is in line with the proposals of Garcia-
Cabrero (2009) and Creswell (2012), through the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data obtained
through the questionnaire, allowing knowing the experiences of the participants on the use of the aLF
learning platform. Meanwhile, content analysis has deepened in the experiences expressed by participants in
the open questions, avoiding premature judgments (Gurtler & Huber, 2007). Triangulation of the most
representative results of closed and open questions is a contribution to the replicability of the study, in line
with the contributions of Reichardt & Cook (1986).
Characterization of the Participants
The participants are 111 higher education students of the UNED School of Education using the aLF
learning platform, being 19% men and 81% women, with an average age of 35, ranging from 19 to 55 years
old. Respondents are mainly pursuing an Education Master's degree (59%), otherwise the degree of Social
Education (30%), and fewer of Pedagogy (7%) and other education studies (4%). These students have used
the platform an average of 2 years, specifically for 1 year (41%), 2 years (19%), 3 years (20%) and more
than 4 years (20%), with a periodicity of consultation that goes from daily (48%), weekly (45%), biweekly
(4%) and monthly (3%). Students check the learning platform: daily (48.6%), weekly (44.1%), biweekly
(3.6%), and monthly (3.6%).
In addition to the learning platform, students demonstrate use of external communication tools, such as
Facebook (52%), WhatsApp groups (39%), google+ (9%), twitter (8%), and some others as Skype,
wikispaces, google drive, etc. The average years of professional experience in education of the group is 4,
being 1-4 years (33%), 5-10 years (26%), more than 10 years (19%), and some inexperienced (22%). The
professional educational level in which participants are involved are diverse, both formal: child (8%),
primary (19%), secondary (11%), vocational training (12%), university (22%); and non-formal (adults,
associations, foundations, etc.) (23%).
78

9. Results of the Closed and Open Questions of the Questionnaire
The questionnaire scale used has the values 1 to 6 (1=strongly disagree, 2=quite disagree, 3=somewhat
disagree, 4=somewhat agree, 5=quite agree and 6=strongly agree). In the analysis, the average value obtained
in the item on the scale is provided, and to facilitate interpretation have been grouped the results of the
options 1,2,3 (disagreement) and 4,5,6 (agreement) for each dimension of the questionnaire. The
percentages of each of the values of the scale are found in Annex I.
Dimension I: Role of Learning Platform in Distance Education
In this dimension, there are 9 items related to different aspects about the role of learning platform:
motivation, availability of course materials, promote independent learning, use by teachers, efforts to locate
relevant information, complementarity with traditional materials, critical thinking, interaction among
agents of the course and its role in distance education. The median value of the items is 4, except for item 3
which is 5 (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Dimension I. Role of the learning platform in distance education (items 1-9)
Students overwhelmingly agree that the learning platform "promotes autonomous learning" (item I3,
agreement=86.5%), "facilitates the availability of course materials" (item 2, agreement=81.1%) and "favors
the interaction between the different agents of the course" (item 8, agreement=78.4%). Some of the less
agreement values correspond with “effort to locate the relevant information” (item 5, disagreement=44.1%),
and “complement to the classic materials of the course” (item 6, disagreement=44.1%).
In the open question within this dimension, students have mentioned strengths of the learning platform as:
student´s exchange, availability of course materials, and independent learning. Some comments are:
Being able to interact and share experiences all students is very motivating. It is also an important
element that facilitates the learning subject material. [E60]
It provides basic information (subject guide, manual and other materials) to study subjects and
allows exposure of questions and comments from peers. [E83]
Aid to be autonomous in the management of information, as it cannot be otherwise in a virtual
and distance environment. [E77]
79

10. In this dimension, students have also shown weaknesses of the learning platform as: delay in responding
teachers to the forums, too much informational noise, under-utilization of the platform as a mere content
repository. Some comments are:
The delay in receiving answers to doubts, on the part of the teaching team, or the little solidarity
among students by not helping others with doubts or problems that arise, creates a feeling of
significant loneliness. [E77]
Regarding the forums, when the number of participants is very high it is impossible to read each
of the messages from peers. [E60]
Forums holdings are long texts that don’t incite debate. The materials are usually books, so don’t
promote link to related materials. [E72]
There is used only to deposit materials and do not promote communication among students.
[E17]
Dimension II: Instructional Design of the Learning Platform
In this dimension, the items are organized into two thematic blocks. In a first block (items 10-15) course
components are analyzed: study guide, contents, supporting documents, tasks, and self-evaluation activities.
The median value of the items is 4, except for item 13 and item 15 which is 5 (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Dimension IIa. Instructional design of the learning platform: course components (items 10-15)
All answers in this block have a higher agreement value. Some of these items are the importance given to the
feedback to the tasks (item 15, agreement=85.6%), the supplementary documents (item 12,
agreement=83.4%), the study guide (item 10, agreement=82.2%) and instructional tasks (item 13,
The second block (items 16-20) of this dimension is about the learning platform communication tools
(forum, chat, and webconference). The median value of all the items is 4 (Figure 6).
80

11. Figure 6. Dimension IIb. Instructional design of the learning platform: communication tools (items 16-
20)
Answers in this block of items stresses student participation in social networks (item 20, agreement=88.9%),
and the importance given to student forum (item 17, agreement=75.5%). The lowest score is the chat as a
medium for the resolution of doubts (item 18, disagreement=28.9%).
In the open question within this dimension, students are asked to describe and justify the components of
the learning platform that have made it more educational value to their learning. Among the responses it is
highlighted the importance of: peer learning through the forum, and resolving doubts through
webconference. Some comments are:
I appreciate the forums within each subject because allows interaction of students. Each of us can
contribute their views and experience in the subject matter. In my opinion, this enriches my
learning a lot. [E22]
Forums, can interact and help my teammates and communicate with my teachers. I love forums
and actively participate in them, not to solve my doubts, but to help colleagues who have more
difficulties than me. [E42]
Webconference, as the students' questions are answered at the time, and you know questions or
contributions from other students. [E70]
In the open question about reflections to improve teaching platform design, students identified proposals in
relation to navigation menus, uniformity in the design of the courses, and the possibility of performing
teamwork. Some comments are:
Improve the user experience in access to menus, you have not come and go when you want to
change the field to work. [E03]
A uniform format for all courses greatly facilitates the student’s work, while providing an orderly
educational structure. [E27]
To work in groups using other tools. [E90]
Dimension III: Didactic Interaction through the Learning Platform
In this dimension, there are 6 items related to aspects that contribute to online didactic interaction. The
median value of the items is 4, except for item 21 and item 24 which is 5 (Figure 7).
81

12. Figure 7. Dimension III. Didactic interaction through the learning platform (items 21-26)
The items with a higher agreement are that "the learning platform has introduced a new culture in the
process of distance learning" (item 21, agreement=87.6%), and the lowest degree of agreement is the use of
the learning platform by teachers to meet the needs of distance education (item 22, disagreement=34.4%).
In the open question for this dimension, students are invited to narrate the main tasks that teachers carried
out to improve the educational interaction through the learning platform. In this sense, their comments
focus on: avoid abandonment, promote dialogue and raise interactive activities. Some comments are:
To create a classroom environment, although the modality was at distance. Otherwise the
dropout rate increases significantly. [E27]
Having a fluid "dialogue" with students through forum posts, etc. [E42]
Propose interactive activities through the forum and send questions about any text or reading to
share views and respond to them among students. [E71]
Dimension IV: The Learning Platform and Professional Practice
In this dimension, there are 7 items on aspects that contribute to the present or future professional practice.
The median value of the items is 4, except for item 33 which is 5 (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Dimension IV. The learning platform and the professional practice (items 27-33)
82

13. Items with more agreement are "The learning platform constitutes an essential didactic resource in distance
education" (item 33, agreement=94.5%), and "combine the learning platform with classic materials "(item
32, agreement=84.4%). The item with lowest degree of agreement is "through the learning platform links
with other students for future projects are favored" (item 28, disagreement=49.9%).
In the last two open questions respondents are asked to describe and justify the opportunities and threats of
the learning platform based on their academic experience. Among the opportunities arising from proper use
of the learning platform, students mentioned: access to higher education, interactivity, training, knowledge
sharing and creation of a virtual learning community. Some comments are:
Interactivity, as knowledge is shared through forums among students and teachers. [E03]
Access to training processes of people who, by personal, work, family, etc. circumstances, could
not access to training activities. [E06]
Continue professional training from anywhere in the world. [E56]
Appropriate use of the learning platform opens a new world of opportunities both classroom
training, and distance. It also contributes to the new teaching models to promote active student
participation in their training. [E27]
The well-used and encouraged platform by the faculty can give us a very useful asynchronously
learning, using teachers and student’s resources who wish to contribute with knowledge gained
or links of interest to other colleagues. [E39]
I believe that everyone who entered the virtual training are mature and responsible enough to
give an excellent use of this resource that becomes the only opportunity for improvement for some
people. [E53]
Feeling member of a virtual community of learning. Meet "virtually" companions from other
places and even make virtual friendships that endure over time. [E42]
Among the threats arising from a misuse of the learning platform, participants say: lack of motivation, digital
immigrants, mismanagement forum posting, lack of space to know the profile of other participants. Thus,
they manifest:
The biggest threat is not get motivated to go ahead with the studies. [E20]
Improper use of the platform can result in a large drop formation by the students, especially in
the form of distance learning. [E27]
Too much informative noise in the messages. [E43]
I think that should facilitate the relationship among students to promote collaboration. [E72]
When there is a lack of appropriate strategies for the use and management of new information
technologies in people who, like me, were born during the 60s and are at a disadvantage with
other more competent younger digital native’s students and the use of what relates technologies.
[E77]
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The discussion of the results and the main conclusions of the study are organized according to the research
objectives. In relation to the Objective 1 "To identify the student’s perceptions using learning platform in
distance education”, students agree that learning platform promotes autonomous learning (86,5%),
facilitates the availability of course materials (81.1%), and favors interaction among the different agents of
the course (78.4%). These aspects are also highlight by Kurucay & Inan (2017) that considered the learning
platform is a means to manage the basic elements of the course: content, activities and evaluation through
independent and self-regulated learning, enabling communication with faculty and peers. Dahlstrom,
Brooks, & Bichsel (2014) find that students who use the LMS are satisfied with their experience related to
accessing course content, and less about collaborating on projects for study groups with other students.
83

14. Added evidence in this respect is provided by the review carried out by Henderson, Selwyn & Aston (2017)
and Bartolomé, Garcia & Aguaded (2018) that conclude that universities would be well advised to continue
to develop their repositories of digital resources, improve the reliability and ‘user-friendliness’ of learning
management systems. However, Selwyn (2016) highlights four distinct types of digital ‘downside’:
distraction, disruption, difficulty and detriment.
In relation to the Objective 2 "To analyze the didactic interaction through the learning platform",
participants stress the need to enrich the courses with guided discussions aimed to create situations of
dialogue and exchange, and emphasizes the importance of proper use of this scenario to become familiar
with the new culture of distance learning processes. The opportunities offered by the learning platform to
collaborate among students is highly valued in our study (79%), in line with the results obtained by Maita
& Navea (2014) who point out the platform is considered by students as a way to improve the interaction
between students and teachers, both bilateral and multilateral. These findings are consistent with the results
by Altınay (2017) who found that the collaborative online peer learning process in higher education
encourages critical reflection and self-assessment. Nevertheless, Gomez; Barbera & Fernández (2016) find
that students are more concerned with their own learning benefits than the collaborative variables.
Students mentioned among the opportunities of the learning platform the creation of a virtual learning
community. As note by Lyashenko & Frolova (2014) and Moreira, Henriques, Goulão, & Barros (2017),
virtual platforms enforce collaboration of adults and young learners in universities. In this regard, it is
important to promote a scenario that facilitates the creation of social and collaborative learning
environments (Zapata, 2011; Zagalsky, Feliciano, Storey, Zhao & Wang, 2015; Fields, Lai, Gibbs, Kirk &
Vermunt, 2016) or being part of a learning cyber community (Murua, Cacheiro & Gallego, 2014), to
encourage student participation in online seminars (Falloon, 2011). Examining articles published between
2011 and 2015 about interaction in distance education environments, the results revealed that researchers
continue to pay attention to interaction, mainly learner-learner (Karataş, Yılmaz, Dikmen, Ermiş, &
Gurbuz, 2017). Empirical research on learner–content interaction is needed to improve the design and
production of distance learning courses (Xiao, 2017).
In relation to the Objective 3 "To propose keys to instructional design of the learning platform: course
components and communication tools", the educational use of the platform becomes a means of
technological literacy and for the development of communication skills apply to students whose main
horizon is teaching. In this line are the research of Garrison & Anderson (2005) and Benedetti (2015) to
maximize the possibilities of virtual teaching. This requires the design of motivating tasks taking into
consideration the different elements of each component of the platform following the proposals of Mishra
& Koehler (2006) and Puentedura (2014) combining subject matter, pedagogy and technological aspects.
One proposal in this regard is that of Shaw, Larson & Sibdari (2014) on Guided Learning Pathways,
contributing to personalize content and activities in learning platforms based on the interests and student
Learning platform design must consider student's FODA analysis based on the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats, and represented in the following network (Figure 9). Students manifest the use
of other external web 2.0 tools and social networks. This finding is in the line of Barak (2017) who stress
the importance to promote web 2.0 environments to collaborate in decentralized environments. Among the
variables to be considered in the instructional design of the learning platform, Mirriahi et al. (2015) point
out the need to consider: monitoring, feedback and evaluation. Online students would like to receive “more
comprehensive feedback to improve performance” (Gaytan, 2015, p. 56). In this regard, online course
designers should consider generating different types of activities besides discussion or dialogue (Lim, Jeong,
Hall & Freed, 2017; Khan, Egbue, Palkie, & Madden, 2017).
84

15. Figure 9. Learning Platform Student’s Opinion (open questions analysis)
The forum, chat and webconference centralize the communication process inside the platform. Participants
have a positive opinion about the use of webconference to answer questions, as well as the possibility to
review off-line later. It is suggested the creation of videotutorials to facilitate the work with the contents
(Pérez-Navio, Rodriguez & Carmona, 2015). The use of synchronous communication tools (chat and
webconference) provide the possibility of a better knowledge of the participants resulting in online
discussions (Falloon, 2011).
The analysis of open questions raises the need for an educational model that optimizes the possibilities of
working the transdisciplinary knowledge, through a creative and rational use of the basic tools of the learning
platform (forums, chat and webconference). In this regard, it is suggested by participants to improve the
response time to questions raised in the forum, and to propose topics for discussion to increase teachers
dynamization. Considering all this information, Piscitelli (2015) maintain that, to create tomorrow's
universities, the problem is not technological but epistemological, discursive and ideological. It is important
to generate a process of research and innovation using learning platforms and building strategies for initial
and continuing training of educators.
BIODATA and CONTACT ADDRESSES of AUTHORS
Maria Luz CACHEIRO-GONZALEZ has a Ph.D. in Education Sciences from the
UNED, Spain. She received her B.A. Degree in Education and Psychology from the
Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. She is Professor at the Faculty of Education at the
UNED, Spain. Coordinator of the Master in Strategies and Technologies for Teaching
Role in Multicultural Society Education Department. Coordinator of the Media,
Technology and Resources Socio Intervention Level of Social Education Degree. Among
his current research are "Evaluating web resources" and "the digital portfolio as a strategy
for teaching and learning".
85

16. Dr. Maria Luz CACHEIRO-GONZALEZ
Instructional Design Department, School of Education
Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED)
C/ Juan del Rosal, 14, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Phone: +34 913988878
E-mail: mlcacheiro@edu.uned.es
Antonio MEDINA-RIVILLA has a Ph.D. on Philosophy and Educational Sciences. He
is Emeritus Professor at the UNED, Spain, in the area of Teaching and School
Organization, and has thus been Director of Department for more than 25 years. He
has directed over 100 doctoral theses and numerous research papers in Spanish and
international context. He has developed numerous national and international R&D
projects, with a great impact on scientific network discussion (ECER, ISAAT, RIAICES,
etc.). Professor Honoris Causa of IUNIR (Argentina) and the University of Santander
(Mexico) in 2015, and has won special recognition for their collaboration professor and
researcher at the University of Latvia, Riga (Latvia) in 2015.
Dr. Antonio MEDINA-RIVILLA
Instructional Design Department, School of Education
Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED)
C/ Juan del Rosal, 14, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Phone: +34 913986969
E-mail: amedina@edu.uned.es
Maria Concepcion DOMINGUEZ-GARRIDO has a Ph.D. in Social Sciences, and
Degree in Pedagoy and Geography and History. She has been Professor Jean Monnet
for the European Union. She has been full-time professor in the Complutense
University of Madrid, Spain. She develops its work in the UNED in the area of
Teaching of Social Sciences, where she is part of various committees. She has
coordinated numerous projects R&D projects, and coordinates an annual project
within the Call for Research Networks for Educational Innovation (UNED) with
great impact on the adaptation of the own university methodology UNED to EHEA
guidelines. She is the Coordinator of the Master International Educational
Treatment of Diversity (UNED). She has numerous publications in the form of
articles and books, and she participates in the ECER, ISAAT and RIAICES networks.
Dr. Maria Concepcion DOMINGUEZ-GARRIDO
Instructional Design Department, School of Education
Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED)
C/ Juan del Rosal, 14, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Phone: +34 913986970
E-mail: cdominguez@edu.uned.es
Maria C. MEDINA-DOMINGUEZ has a Ph. International D. in Education, and
Degree in Law by Complutense University of Madrid. Training consultancy. She has
worked as Project Manager Training and Development in several consulting firms
worldwide, directing and designing programs to attract and develop talent in different
professional realities. She has published books: Leadership Training in Emotional
Intelligence and Talent Management, Teaching applied to Health Sciences, as well as
chapters on emotional dimension of leadership and emotional intelligence and coaching
86

17. as a tool for the development of emotional competencies. He has been invited speaker at national and
international conferences (ECER, RIAICES, UVU). She has been co-director of the course of teacher
training: Europe in the field of development cooperation.
Dr. Maria C. MEDINA-DOMINGUEZ
Institute of Professional Competencies
Universidad Antonio de Nebrija
C/ Santa Cruz de Marcenado, 27, 28015 Madrid, Spain
Phone: +34 620515563
E-mail: mcastanar@nebrija.es
Adams, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC
Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2017-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf
Almarashdeh, I. (2016). Sharing instructors experience of learning management system: A technology
perspective of user satisfaction in distance learning course. Computers in Human Behavior, 63,
249-255
Altınay, Z. (2017). Evaluating peer learning and assessment in online collaborative learning environments.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(3), 312-320.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1232752
Altunoglu, A. (2017). Initial perceptions of open higher education students with learner management
systems. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 18(3), 96-104. doi:
https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.328939
Arasaratnam, L. A. & Northcote, M. (2017). Community in Online Higher Education: Challenges and
Opportunities. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(2), 188-198.
Baleghi, S., Ayub, A. F. M., Mahmud, R., & Daud, S. M. (2017). The influence of system interactivity
and technical support on learning management system utilization. Knowledge Management & E-
Learning, 9(1), 50-68. Retrieved from http://www.kmel-journal.org/ojs/index.php/online-
publication/article/view/696/338
Barak, M. (2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: A pedagogical framework for
technology-integrated social constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 283-303. doi:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y
Bartolomé, A., Garcia, R. & Aguaded, I. (2018). Blended Learning: Panorama y Perspectivas [Blended
Learning: Landscape and Perspectives]. RIED, Revista Iberoamericana de Educacion a Distancia,
21(1), 33-56.
Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in A Digital Age. UK: BC Open Textbooks. Retrieved from
https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage
Benedetti, C. (2015). Online instructors as thinking advisors: a model for Online Learning. Third
Quarter, 12(4), 171-176.
Bin, A. (2017). Faculty Perceptions of the Educational Value of Learning Management Systems. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Sheffield. Retrieved from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/19134/
87

18. Bousbahi, F., & Alrazgan, M. S. (2015). Investigating IT faculty resistance to learning management
system adoption using latent variables in an acceptance technology model. The Scientific World
Journal, 1-11. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/375651
Brazuelo, F. & Cacheiro-González, M.L. (2015). Estudio de adaptabilidad para dispositivos moviles en
plataformas MOOC [Adaptability study for mobile devices on MOOC platforms]. RED, Revista
de Educacion a Distancia, 47(1), 1-13. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.6018/red/47/1
Brown, M., Dehoney, J. & Millichap, N. (2015). What's Next for the LMS? Educause Review, 50(4), 40-
51. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/article-downloads/erm1543.pdf
Cabero, J. (2014). La formacion del profesorado en TIC: modelo TPACK [The training of teachers on ICT:
TPACK model]. Sevilla: Secretariado de Recursos Audiovisuales y Nuevas Tecnologias de la
Universidad de Sevilla.
Cacheiro, M.L. (2011). Recursos educativos TIC de informacion, colaboracion y aprendizaje [ICT
Educational Resources for Information, Collaboration and Learning]. Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios
y Comunicacion, 39, 69-81. Retrieved from
http://acdc.sav.us.es/pixelbit/images/stories/p39/06.pdf
Cho, Y.S. (2011). Diversification of learning platforms. Moscow: ITE-UNESCO. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002144/214486e.pdf
Chugh, R., Ledger, S., & Shields, R. (2017). Curriculum design for distance education in the tertiary
sector. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 18(2),1-15. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.17718/tojde.306552
Conner, M.L. (2013). Informal learning. Retrieved from http://marciaconner.com/resources/informal-
learning/
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D. Ch., & Bichsel, J. (2014). The Current Ecosystem of Learning Management
Systems in Higher Education: Student, Faculty, and IT Perspectives. Research report. Louisville, CO:
ECAR, Educause Center for Analysis and Research. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
Duran, A., Cornejo, J., & Flores, J. (2017). Competitive advantages with the use of ICT (moodle) in the
new curriculum at the University of Guadalajara, México. Competition Forum, 15(2), 319-323.
Falloon, G. (2011). Making the connection: Moore’s Theory of transactional distance and its relevance to
the use of a virtual classroom in postgraduate online teacher education. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 43(3), 187-209.
Fields, A., Lai, K.W., Gibbs, J., Kirk, A. & Vermunt, J. (2016). The transformation of an online learning
community from an organized facility to an organic Fraternity. Distance Education, 37(1), 60-72.
Garcia-Aretio, L. (2017). Educacion a distancia y virtual: calidad, disrupcion, aprendizajes adaptativo y
movil [Distance and virtual education: quality, disruption, adaptive and mobile learning.]. RIED.
Revista Iberoamericana de Educacion a Distancia, 20(2), 9-25. doi:
https://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ried.20.2.18737
Garcia-Cabrero, B. (2009). Manual de métodos de investigacion para las ciencias sociales. Un enfoque de
enseñanza basado en proyectos [Manual of research methods for the social sciences. A project-based
teaching approach]. México: Manual Moderno.
Garrison, D.R. & Anderson, T. (2005). El e-learning en el siglo XXI [The elearning in the XXI century].
Barcelona: Octaedro.
88

19. Garrison, D.R. & Cleveland, M. (2005). Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction
Is Not Enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
Gaytan, J. (2015). Comparing Faculty and Student Perceptions Regarding Factors that affect Student
Retention in Online Education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 29, 56-66.
Gharmallah, M. (2017). The Effect of Using Online Discussion Forums on Students’ Learning. TOJET:
The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 164-176. Retrieved from
http://www.tojet.net/articles/v16i1/16115.pdf
Gomez, J. (ed.) (2016). UNIVERSITIC 2016. Análisis de las TIC en las Universidades Españolas [TIC
Analysis in Spanish Universities]. Madrid: CRUE Universidades Españolas.
Gomez, P.; Barbera, E. & Fernández, F. (2016). Measuring teachers and learners’ perceptions of the
quality of their online learning experience. Distance Education, 37(2), 146-163. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1184396
Guedez, M. M., & Navea, L. C. (2014). La interaccion comunicativa en los foros de discusion de un
entorno virtual de enseñanza y aprendizaje [The communicative interaction in the forums of
discussion of a virtual environment of teaching and learning]. Accion Pedagogica, 23(1), 48-58.
Retrieved from http://www.saber.ula.ve/handle/123456789/40899
Gurtler, L. & Huber, G.L. (2007). Modos de pensar y estrategias de la investigacion cualitativa [Ways of
thinking and strategies of qualitative research]. Liberabit, 13, 37-52.
Henderson, M., Selwyn, N. & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’
digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1567-
1579. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946
Hernández-Sampieri, R., Fernández-Collado, C. & Baptista-Lucio, P. (2010). Metodologia de la
investigacion [Research methodology]. México: McGraw-Hill.
Holzweias, P.C., Joyner, S.A., Fuller, M.B., Henderson, S. & Young, R. (2014). Online graduate
student’s perceptions of best learning experiences. Distance Education, 35(3), 311-323.
INTEF, National Institute of Educational Technologies and Teacher Training, Spain (2017). Common
Digital Competence Framework For Teachers. Madrid: MECD, Ministry of Education, Culture and
Sport, Spain. Retrieved from http://aprende.educalab.es/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/2017_1024-Common-Digital-Competence-Framework-For-
Teachers.pdf
Ioannou, A. Demetriou, S. & Mama, M. (2014). Exploring factors influencing collaborative knowledge
construction in online discussions: student facilitation and quality of initial postings. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 28, 183-195.
ITU-UNESCO (2014). Partnership on measuring ICT for development final WSIS targets review
achievements, challenges and the way forward. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
D/Statistics/Documents/publications/wsisreview2014/WSIS2014_review.pdf
Jain, M. & Tyagi, R. (2017). Education standard can be improved by integrating. ICT in Education.
International Education & Research Journal, 3(10), 77-80. Retrieved from
http://ierj.in/journal/index.php/ierj/article/view/1452/1383
Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC Horizon
Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
89

20. Ju-Yin, T, & Yen-Chen, Y. (2016). College Students' Perspectives of E-Learning System Use in High
Education. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2(2), 53-62. Retrieved from
http://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/viewFile/889/pdf
Karataş, S., Yılmaz, A. B., Dikmen, C. H., Ermiş, U. F., & Gurbuz, O. (2017). Interaction in distance
education environments: A trend analysis. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 18(1), 63.
Keane, T., Keane, W. F., & Blicblau, A. S. (2016). Beyond traditional literacy: Learning and
transformative practices using ICT. Education and Information Technologies, 21(4), 769-781. doi:
https://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uned.es/10.1007/s10639-014-9353-5
Kebble, P.G. (2017). Assessing Online Asynchronous Communication Strategies Designed to Enhance
Large Student Cohort Engagement and Foster a Community of Learning. Journal of Education
and Training Studies, 5(8); 92-100. doi: https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i8.2539
Khan, A., Egbue, O., Palkie, B., & Madden, J. (2017). Active learning: Engaging students to maximize
learning in an online course. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 15(2), 107-115.
Knyazeva, S. (2016) (ed.). Futures for Higher Education and ICT: Changes Due to the Use of Open
Content. Moscow: ITE-UNESCO. Retrieved from
http://iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214745.pdf
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218. Retrieved
from http://rt3region7.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/file/view/8+Perspectives+on+RBT.pdf
Kurucay, M. & Inan, F.A. (2017). Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and
learning in an online undergraduate course. Computers & Education, 115, 20-37.
Kwon, K., & Park, S. J. (2017). Effects of discussion representation: Comparisons between social and
cognitive diagrams. Instructional Science, 45(4), 469-491. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-
017-9412-6
Lim, J., Jeong, A. C., Hall, B. M., & Freed, S. (2017). Intersubjectivity and discussion characteristics in
online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 18(1), 29-44.
Lopez, E. & Camilli, C. (2014). Métodos mixtos de investigacion en modalidad b-learning: análisis de la
comunicacion asincronica [Mixed methods research in b-learning modality: asynchronous
communication analysis]. Historia y Comunicacion Social, 19, 403-415. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_HICS.2014.v19.44966
Lyashenko, M.S. & Frolova, N.H. (2014). LMS projects: A platform for intergenerational e-learning
collaboration. Education and Information Technologies, 19, 495-513. doi:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9333-9
Ma, J., Han, X., Yang, J., & Cheng, J. (2015). Examining the necessary condition for engagement in an
online learning environment based on learning analytics approach: The role of the instructor. The
Internet and Higher Education, 24, 26-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.005
Maita, M. & Navea, L.C. (2014). La interaccion comunicativa en los foros de discusion de un entorno
virtual de enseñanza y aprendizaje [The communicative interaction in the forums of discussion of
a teaching and learning virtual environment]. Accion Pedagogica, 23, 48-58.
Marin, V., Sampedro, B. E., & Vega, E. (2017). Percepciones de los estudiantes universitarios sobre las
plataformas de formacion. estudio de caso [Perceptions of University Students about Training
Platforms. Case Study]. Revista Iberoamericana De Educacion a Distancia, 20(1), 283-303. doi:
https://dx.doi.org/10.5044/ried.20.1.16518
90

21. Martin, F., Ahlgrim, L. & Budhrani, K. (2017) Systematic Review of Two Decades (1995 to 2014) of
Research on Synchronous Online Learning. American. Journal of Distance Education, 31(1), 3-19.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1264807
Medina, A. & Dominguez, M.C. (2015). Modelo didáctico-tecnologico para la innovacion educativa
[Didactic-technological model for educational innovation]. In M.L. Cacheiro-González, C.
Sánchez & J.M. González (coords.), Recursos tecnologicos en contextos educativos [Technological
resources in educational contexts]. Madrid: UNED.
Medina, A., Cacheiro, M.L. & Medina-Medina, A. (2015). Caracteristicas de la práctica docente: el
proceso de profesionalizacion [Characteristics of teaching practice: the professionalization
process]. In A. Medina & M.C. Dominguez, Didáctica. Formacion básica para profesionales de la
educacion [Didactics. Basic training for education professionals]. Madrid: Universitas.
Medina, A., Pérez, L. & Campos, B. (2014). Elaboracion de planes y programas de formacion del profesorado
en didácticas especiales [Preparation of teacher training plans and programs in special didactics].
Madrid: UNED.
Mirriahi, N.; Alonzo, D.; McIntyre, S., Kligyte, G. & Fox, B. (2015). Blended Learning innovations:
Leadership and change in one Australian Institutions. International Journal of Education and
Development using Information and Communication Technology, 11(1), 4-16.
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Retrieved from
http://punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/journal_articles/mishra-koehler-tcr2006.pdf
Moreira, J.A., Henriques, S., Goulão, M.F. & Barros, D. (2017). Digital Learning in Higher Education: A
Training Course for Teaching Online - Universidade Aberta, Portugal. Open Praxis, 9(2), 253–
263. Retrieved from https://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/view/539/306
Moreno, V., Cavazotte, F., Alves, I. (2017). Explaining university students’ effective use of e-learning
platforms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 995–1009. doi:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12469
Murua, I., Cacheiro, M.L. & Gallego, D. (2014). Las cibercomunidades de aprendizaje (cCA) en la
formacion del profesorado [The learning cybercommunities (cCA) in teacher training]. Red,
Revista de Educacion a Distancia, 43(15), 12-29. Retrieved from
http://www.um.es/ead/red/43/gallego_et_al.pdf
Oproiu, G.C. (2015). A Study about Using E-learning Platform (Moodle) in Univeristy Teaching Process.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 426-432.
Pavel, A.P.; Fruth, A. & Neacsu, M.N. (2015). ICT and E-Learning: Catalysts for Innovation and Quality
in Higher Education. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 704–711. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00409-8
Pérez-Navio, E., Rodriguez, J. & Carmona, M. (2015). El uso de mini-videos en la práctica docente
universitaria [The use of mini-videos in university teaching practice]. Edmetic, 4(2), 51-70.
Pilli, O. (2014). LMS Vs. SNS: Can Social Networking Sites Act as a Learning Management Systems?
American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(5), 90-97
Piscitelli, A. (2015). ¿Está cambiando la tecnologia la Universidad? Humanidades digitales y nuevo normal
educativo [Is the University changing technology? Digital humanities and new normal education].
Telos, 101,13-22.
91

22. Prendes, M.P. & Gutiérrez, I. (2013). Competencias tecnologicas del profesorado en las universidades
españolas [Technological competences of teachers in Spanish universities]. Revista de Educacion,
361, 196-222.
Puentedura, R. (2016, 12 July). How to Apply the SAMR Model with Ruben Puentedura [youtube].
Recuperado de https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQTx2UQQvbU
Puentedura, R.R. (December 12, 2014). Technology In Education: An Integrated Approach. Retrieved
from
http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/12/12/TechnologyInEducation_AnIntegrate
dApproach.pdf
Reichardt, Ch.S. & Cook, T.D. (1986). Hacia una superacion del enfrentamiento entre los métodos
cualitativos y cuantitativos [Towards an overcoming of the clash between qualitative and
quantitative methods]. In Ch.S. Reichardt & T.D. Cook, Métodos cualitativos y cuantitativos en
investigacion evaluativa (pp. 25-58) [Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research].
Madrid: Morata.
Rienties, B. & Toetenel, L. (2016). The impact of learning design on student behavior, satisfaction and
performance: A cross-institutional comparison across 151 modules. Computers in Human
Behavior, 60, 333-341. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.074
Sáez, J.M., Dominguez, M.C., Ruiz, J.M. & Belando, M. (2014). Análisis del uso de los sistemas de
gestion de aprendizaje en el desarrollo profesional docente desde una perspectiva práctica en la
Escuela Complutense [Analysis of the use of learning management systems in teacher professional
development from a practical perspective in the Complutense School]. Bordon, 66(3), 133-148.
doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.13042/Bordon.2014.66309
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., y Shin, T. S. (2009).
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). The Development and Validation of
an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
42(2), 123-149. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544
Scoppio, G. & Luyt, I. Educ Inf Technol (2017). Mind the gap: Enabling online faculty and instructional
designers in mapping new models for quality online. Education and Information Technologies,
22(3), 725–746. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9452-y
Selwyn, N. (2016). Digital downsides: exploring university students’ negative engagements with digital
technology. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8), 1006-1021. doi:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1213229
Shaw, C., Larson, R. & Sibdari, S. (2014). An asynchronous, personalized learning platform-Guided
Learning Pathways (GLP). Creative Education, 5, 1189-1204. doi:
https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.513135
Valles, M. (1997). Técnicas cualitativas de investigacion social. Reflexion metodologica y práctica profesional
[Qualitative techniques of social research. Methodological reflection and professional practice].
Madrid: Sintesis.
Xiao, J. (2017). Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction
research. Distance Education, 38(1), 123-135. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1298982
Yot, C. & Marcelo, C. (2017). University students self-regulated learning using digital technologies.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, 1-18. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0076-8
92

23. Zagalsky, A., Feliciano, J., Storey, M.A., Zhao, Y. & Wang, W. (2015). The Emergence of GitHub as a
Collaborative Platform for Education. Motivation and Dynamics of the Open Classroom. CSCW
2015, March 14-18, 2015. Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Zanjani, N., Edwards, S. L., Nykvist, S., & Geva, S. (2016). LMS Acceptance: The Instructor Role. The
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 519-526.
Zapata, M. (2011). Evaluacion de la calidad en entornos sociales de aprendizaje [Evaluation of quality in
social learning environments]. RED, Revista de Educacion a Distancia, 29, 1-10.9
Zhu, Y., Au, W. & Yates, G. (2016). University student’s self-control and self-regulated learning in a
blended course. Internet and Higher Education, 30, 54-62. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.04.001
Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview.
Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
93

24. Questionnaire Responses (Percentages)
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. The learning platform motivates for the learning of the subject. 3,6 9,0 13,5 29,7 36,0 8,1
2. The learning platform facilitates the availability of course materials. 4,5 9,0 5,4 31,5 31,5 18,0
3. The learning platform promotes autonomous learning. 2,7 6,3 4,5 27,9 39,6 18,9
4. The learning platform has been successfully incorporated by the 4,5 9,0 14,4 35,1 31,5 5,4
teaching staff.
5. The learning platform requires effort to locate the relevant 6,3 16,2 21,6 24,3 27,0 4,5
information.
6. The learning platform is a complement to the classic materials of the 6,3 16,2 21,6 24,3 27,0 4,5
course.
7. The learning platform encourages critical thinking. 5,4 9,0 16,2 43,2 18,0 8,1
8. The learning platform favors the interaction between the different 2,7 6,3 12,6 35,1 27,9 15,3
agents of the course.
9. The use of the learning platform should be mandatory in distance 5,4 2,7 21,6 31,5 12,6 26,1
education.
10. The didactic guide offers the key aspects for the development of the 0 7,8 8,9 41,1 20 21,1
subject.
11. The contents selected are relevant to an in-depth knowledge of the 4,4 5,6 13,3 41,1 23,3 11,1
subject.
12. Online supplementary documents add value to the course's classic 3,3 4,4 8,9 41,1 26,7 15,6
materials.
13. The tasks of the learning platform allow to deepen the mastery of the 3,3 7,8 7,8 27,8 35,6 16,7
contents.
14. The self-assessment activities in the learning platform promote the 2,2 6,7 10 36,7 21,1 18,9
acquisition of the knowledge of the subject.
15. The feedback to the tasks sent in the platform contributes to the 2,2 7,8 4,4 31,1 25,6 28,9
improvement of the learning.
16. The platform teaching team forum offers possibilities to comment 5,6 3,3 17,8 41,1 21,1 6,7
basic contents of the subject.
17. The platform students' forum (cafeteria) offers a space for 3,3 0 12,2 51,1 12,2 12,2
collaborative learning.
18. The platform chat facilitates the agile resolution of your doubts in 4,4 7,8 16,7 35,6 14,4 6,7
your learning.
19. The platform web conferencing favors the creation of an affective 2,2 5,6 14,4 30 17,8 21,1
bond with the teacher throughout the learning process.
20. The participation in networks of teacher innovation through the 0 1,1 6,7 48,9 25,6 14,4
platform allows to continue reflecting on the subject in a broader
context.
21. The learning platform has introduced a new culture in distance 3,3 3,3 5,6 34,3 32,2 21,1
education processes.
94

25. 22. Teachers use the learning platform to respond to the needs of 6,7 14,4 13,3 33,3 18,9 13,3
distance education.
23. The learning platform facilitates the relationship between all course 2,2 4,4 15,6 37,8 22,2 17,8
participants.
24. The learning platform favors the creation of a scenario of possibilities 1,1 6,7 13,3 35,6 27,8 15,6
of collaboration between equals.
25. The learning platform fosters a climate of didactic interaction 3,3 8,9 14,4 34,4 25,6 13,3
between teachers and students.
26. The learning platform enables the creation of learning communities 2,2 3,3 20 37,8 21,1 15,6
among students.
27. The learning platform enables a fruitful dialogue with teachers for 4,4 13,3 16,7 41,1 17,8 6,7
professional practice.
28. Through the learning platform, strong links with other students are 4,4 12,2 33,3 28,9 13,3 7,8
encouraged for future projects.
29. The learning platform promotes a collaborative learning style of 2,2 5,6 20 42,2 17,8 12,2
interest for your professional practice.
30. The training platform promotes a collaborative learning style of 2,7 5,4 17,1 38,7 24,3 11,7
interest for their professional practice.
31. Satisfaction is perceived in using the learning platform as a means to 7,8 3,3 13,3 47,8 21,1 6,7
improve ongoing training processes.
32. The use of the learning platform with the classical materials (texts, 1,1 5,6 8,9 54,4 20 10
ebook, guides, etc.) is appropriately combined.
33 The learning platform constitutes an essential didactic resource in 1,1 0 4,4 23,3 25,6 45,6
distance education.
1=strongly disagree, 2=quite disagree, 3=somewhat disagree, 4=somewhat agree, 5=quite agree, 6=strongly agree
95

Book a Trial Class

Download