Student Perceptions of the Visual Design of Learning Management Systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28154Keywords:
colour, learning management system (LMS), online education, technology, visual design, visual perceptionAbstract
Research on the impact of the visual design of the user interface of learning management systems (LMS) on learning experience is sparse. The purpose of this study was to conduct a preliminary examination of students’ perceptions of the visual design of their postsecondary institutions’ LMS and their learning experiences using survey methodology (N= 46). Students generally agreed that the course homepages were well organized and that the LMS colours, while deemed moderately to very important, did not enhance learning or increase the ability to remember course content. However, more positive perceptions of the visual appearance of the LMS were associated with greater satisfaction with grades. Expected end of term grade point average was negatively correlated with the degree to which students perceived that colour enhanced their learning. Students reported a greater satisfaction with the contribution of the LMS to learning correlated to the number of school terms they had used an LMS, their LMS proficiency, and their perceptions about the visual appeal of the LMS design. Together, these results suggest that exploring the impact of LMS colour and other dimensions of visual design on student engagement and learning are important and have practical value for LMS developers, instructional designers, and instructors.
References
Ashrafi, A., Zareravasan, A., Rabiee Savoji, S., & Amani, M. (2020). Exploring factors influencing students’ continuance intention to use the learning management system (LMS): a multi-perspective framework. Interactive Learning Environments, 0(0), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1734028
Bader, J. D., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2018). Using Visual Design to Improve the Online Learning Experience: A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics. In I. Bouchrika, N. Harrati, & P. Vu (Ed.), Learner Experience and Usability in Online Education (pp. 1-35). IGI Global. https://doi-org.uml.idm.oclc.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-4206-3.ch001
Bates, T., Desbiends, B., Donovan, T., Martel, E., Mayer, D., Paul, R., Poulin, R., & Seaman, J. (2017). The national survey of online and distance education in Canadian post-secondary education. Full technical report: Tracking online and distance education in Canadian universities and colleges: 2017 (Issue September). https://onlinelearningsurveycanada.ca/
Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39(3), 299-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476845
Chen, K. C., & Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741-752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011
Christianson, S. (1992). The handbook of emotion and memory: Research and theory. Erlbaum Associates.
Cole, A. W., Lennon, L., & Weber, N. L. (2019). Student perceptions of online active learning practices and online learning climate predict online course engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1619593
Cortese, M. J., Khanna, M. M., & Von Nordheim, D. (2019). Incidental memory for colour word associates processed in colour naming and reading aloud tasks: is a blue ocean more memorable than a yellow one? Memory, 27(7), 924-930. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1607877
Cutri, R. M., & Mena, J. (2020). A critical reconceptualization of faculty readiness for online teaching. Distance Education, 41(3), 361-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1763167
Deng, L., & Poole, M. S. (2010). Affect in web interfaces: A study of the impacts of web page visual complexity and order. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 711. https://doi.org/10.2307/25750702
Doreleyers, A., & Knighton, T. (2020). StatCan COVID-19: Data to insights for a better canada. Statistics Canada, 45280001, 1-9.
Dumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9179-z
Dzulkifli, M. A., & Mustafar, M. F. (2013). The influence of colour on memory performance: a review. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences: MJMS, 20(2), 3-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23983571%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC3743993
EduConsillium. (2015). Online and distance education capacity of canadian universities. https://www.tonybates.ca/wp-content/uploads/ANALYSIS-AND-REVIEW-of-Canada-Distance-Education-2015-EN-final-1-1.pdf
Eristi, S. D., Sahin-izmirli, O., Izmirli, S., & Firat, M. (2010). An evaluation of educational web-sites from the perspective of perception-oriented design principles. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 7(10), 3-13. https://itdl.org/Journal/Oct_10/article01.htm
Eveland Jr., W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from the web versus print. Communication Research, 28(1), 48-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028001002
Farinella, J. A., Hobbs, B. K., & Weeks, H. S. (2000). Distance delivery: The faculty perspective. Financial Practice and Education, 10, 184-194.
Finn, G. M., & McLachlan, J. C. (2010). A qualitative study of student responses to body painting. Anatomical Sciences Education, 3(1), 33-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.119
Gegenfurtner, K. R., & Rieger, J. (2000). Sensory and cognitive contributions of color to the recognition of natural scenes. Current Biology, 10(13), 805-808. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00563-7
Ghapanchi, A. H., Purarjomandlangrudi, A., McAndrew, A., & Miao, Y. (2020). Investigating the impact of space design, visual attractiveness and perceived instructor presence on student adoption of learning management systems. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 5053-5066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10204-5
Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 95-123. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0987
Hsu, H.-C. K., Wang, C. V., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2019). Reexamining the impact of self-determination theory on learning outcomes in the online learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 24(3), 2159-2174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09863-w
Joosten, T., & Cusatis, R. (2020). Online learning readiness. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(3), 180-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2020.1726167
Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239516661713
Klooster, S. (2016). The inclusion of individuals with colour vision deficiences [Nipissing University]. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/94006/1/inclusion of individuals.pdf
Lavie, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 60(3), 269-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.09.002
Los, R., De Jaeger, A., & Stoesz, B. M. (2021). Development of the Online and Blended Teaching Readiness Assessment (OBTRA). Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.673594
Mancilla, R., & Frey, B. (2021). QM | Course Design for Digital Accessibility: Best Practices and Tools.
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Michailidou, E., Harper, S., & Bechhofer, S. (2008). Visual complexity and aesthetic perception of web pages. SIGDOC 2008 - Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, September, 215-223. https://doi.org/10.1145/1456536.1456581
Palmer, S., & Hold, D. (2010). Students’ perceptions of the value of the elements of an online learning environment: Looking back in moving forward. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(2), 135-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/09539960802364592
Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P. R., & Sharma, D. (2018). Online learning: Adoption, continuance, and learning outcome—A review of literature. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.05.005
Pei, L., & Wu, H. (2019). Does online learning work better than offline learning in undergraduate medical education? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Education Online, 24(1), 1666538. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2019.1666538
Pelet, J.-E., & Papadopoulou, P. (2011). Investigating the effect of color on memorization and trust in e-learning. In O. Bak & N. Stair (Eds.), Impact of E-Business Technologies on Public and Private Organizations (Issue 1973, pp. 52-78). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-501-8.ch004
Pert, D., & Wilson, T. (1996). Color research and its application to the design of instructional materials. Educational Technology & Development, 44(3), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300423
Petrides, L. A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(l), 69-77. http://www.iskme.org/file?n=Web-Based-Technologies-for-Distributed-Learning-in-Higher-Education-Classrooms&id=929
Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701
Reinecke, K., Yeh, T., Miratrix, L., Mardiko, R., Zhao, Y., Liu, J., & Gajos, K. Z. (2013). Predicting users’ first impressions of website aesthetics with a quantification of perceived visual complexity and colorfulness. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’13, 2049-2058. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481281
Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Sanford, D., Ross, D., Rosenbloom, A., & Singer, D. (2017). Course convenience, perceived learning, and course satisfaction across course formats. E-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 11(1), 69-84.
Schönwetter, D., & Reynolds, P. (2013). Discovering online learning barriers: Survey of health educational stakeholders in dentistry. European Journal of Dental Education, 17(1), 126-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2012.00772.x
Sharp, J. G., Hemmings, B., Kay, R., & Sharp, J. C. (2017). Academic boredom and the perceived course experiences of final year education studies students at university. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1386287
Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4), 289-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1663082
Soffer, T., & Nachmias, R. (2018). Effectiveness of learning in online academic courses compared with face‐to‐face courses in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 534-543. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12258
Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003
Statistics Canada. (2009). Participation and activity limitation survey 2006: Facts on seeing limitations (Cat. No. 89-628-X 2009013). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/89-628-x/89-628-x2009013-eng.pdf?st=-VuSoZXj
Statistics Canada. (2022). Table 37-10-0011-01 Postsecondary enrolments, by field of study, registration status, program type, credential type and gender. https://doi.org/10.25318/3710001101-eng
Stoesz, B. M., Niknam, M., & Sutton, J. (2020). Defining the visual complexity of learning management systems using image metrics and subjective ratings. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 46(2). https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt27899
Tharangie, K. G. D., Irfan, C. M., Marasinghe, C., & Yamada, K. (2008). Kansei engineering assessing system to enhance the usability in e-learning web interfaces: Colour basis. Supplementary Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computers in Education, 145-150.
Vanslambrouck, S., Zhu, C., Lombaerts, K., Philipsen, B., & Tondeur, J. (2018). Students’ motivation and subjective task value of participating in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 36, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.09.002
Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: a case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00164-1
Waheed, M., Kaur, K., Ain, N., & Hussain, N. (2016). Perceived learning outcomes from Moodle. Information Development, 32(4), 1001-1013. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915581719
Wechsler, D. (2008). WAIS-IV administration and scoring manual. Psychological Corporation.
Wu, Y. (2016). Factors impacting students’ online learning experience in a learner-centred course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(5), 416-429. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12142
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Brenda M. Stoesz, Mehdi Niknam
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright Notice
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an International Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC-BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work for non-commercial purposes, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
