##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 1240 Download : 738

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Abstract

This is the extended research presenting how applications of E-Learning tools for aided in meeting the students learning outcomes and how students with different understanding and cognitive skills can get benefits from E-Learning tools. In the current research researchers have tried to find the effectiveness of electronic tool for diverse skills. This research is to confer suggestions on how Electronic tools in learning management services could be implemented by the instructors in the process of Learning and Teaching (LT) to meet the requirements of different learners in Information Systems (IS). In this study the module chosen was E-Commerce in Information System’s environment. Thurstone scale to measure the effectiveness of various electronic tools available on Learning Management Services (LMS) “Blackboard”. This paper compared these electronic tools for their effectiveness in meeting learning outcomes for different learners in IS. For measuring assessments’ results, three tools were used namely Electronic-Quiz (EQ), Discussion Forum (DF) and Safe Assignment (SA). The paper has tried to measure the effectiveness of a new tools introduced on Blackboard named as Safe Assignment for submitting the assignment. Through this tool instructors were able to identify the percentage of plagiarism or matching between the peers. Based on three assessments’ results namely EQ, DF and SA, samples were categorized under best, average and poor. These assessments were considered for the purpose of study because they were conducted by the implementation on electronic tool LMS .The performance of student in each group was analyzed and it was found that students in all the groups could contribute and learn the best through open DF. Best Students tried to learn equally through all tools but other two groups plant least efforts and submitted their assignments using search engines such as Google

Keywords

Electronic tool LMS Blackboard Safe Assignment

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Arshi Naim. (2021). Applications of E-Learning tools for Achieving Students Learning Outcomes. Journal of Pedagogical Inventions and Practices, 2, 75–82. Retrieved from https://zienjournals.com/index.php/jpip/article/view/320

References

  1. Fink, L.D. (2003) Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  2. McTighe, J., & Ferrara, S. (1995). Assessing learning in the classroom. Journal of Quality Learning, 5(2), 95-112.
  3. Suskie, L. (2004) Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide. Bolton MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
  4. Naim, A., Alahmari, F., & Rahim, A. (2021). Role of Artificial Intelligence in Market Development and Vehicular Communication. Smart Antennas: Recent Trends in Design and Applications, 2, 28.
  5. Walvoord, B.E. (2004) Assessment Clear and Simple: A Practical Guide for Institutions, Departments, and General Education.San Francisco: Jossey-B
  6. Angelo, T.A., & Cross, P. (1993) Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers
  7. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Teaching quality matters.
  8. Arshi Naim, Raja Abdul Sattar, Nalah Al Ahmary, Mohammad Tehreem Razwi, Implementation of Quality Matters Standards on Blended Courses : A Case Study (2021) FINANCE INDIA Indian Institute of Finance Vol. XXXV No. 3, September 2021 Pages—873 - 890
  9. Matters, Q. (2016). About quality matters.
  10. Nicholson, P. (2007). A history of e-learning. In Computers and education (pp. 1-11). Springer, Dordrecht.
  11. Naim, A., & Alahmari, F. (2020). Reference model of e-learning and quality to establish interoperability in higher education systems. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(2), 15-28.
  12. Naim, A., Hussain, M. R., Naveed, Q. N., Ahmad, N., Qamar, S., Khan, N., & Hweij, T. A. (2019, April). Ensuring interoperability of e-learning and quality development in education. In 2019 IEEE Jordan International Joint Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information Technology (JEEIT) (pp. 736-741). IEEE.
  13. Arshi Naim. (2020). Realization of diverse Electronic tools in learning and teaching for students with diverse skills. Global Journal of Enterprise Information System, 12(1), 72-78. Retrieved from https://www.gjeis.com/index.php/GJEIS/article/view/451
  14. Naim, A., Khan, M. F., Hussain, M. R., & Khan, N. (2019). “Virtual Doctor” Management Technique in the Diagnosis of ENT Diseases. JOE, 15(9), 88.
  15. Naim, A. (2020). Realization of diverse Electronic tools in learning and teaching for students with diverse skills. Global Journal of Enterprise Information System, 12(1), 72-78.
  16. Ellis, R. A., Ginns, P., & Piggott, L. (2009). E‐learning in higher education: some key aspects and their relationship to approaches to study. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(3), 303-318.
  17. Naim, A. (2018). Strategies to Achieve Students’ Centric Approach in Blended Learning. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research (IJEMR), 8(2), 214-219.
  18. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Teaching quality matters.
  19. Legon, R. (2015). Measuring the impact of the Quality Matters Rubric™: A discussion of possibilities. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(3), 166-173
  20. Arshi Naim. (2021). Application of Quality Matters in Digital Learning in Higher Education. Texas Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(1), 3–12. Retrieved from https://zienjournals.com/index.php/tjm/article/view/11
  21. Naim, A., & Bashir, A. (2016). Application of Quality Matters Standards on Supportive and Online Module in Higher Education Program. Research Revolution, 5(3), 6-12.
  22. Lowenthal, P. R., & Hodges, C. B. (2015). In search of quality: Using quality matters to analyze the quality of massive, open, online courses (MOOCs). International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(5), 83-101
  23. Gregory, R. L., Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., & Cook, V. S. (2020). Community College Faculty Perceptions of the Quality Matters™ Rubric. Online Learning, 24(2), 128-141
  24. Hollowell, G. P., Brooks, R. M., & Anderson, Y. B. (2017). Course design, quality matters training, and student outcomes. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(3), 207-216.
  25. Yusuf, N., & Al-Banawi, N. (2013). The impact of changing technology: The case of e-learning. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 6(2), 173-180.
  26. Morris, D. (2008). Economies of scale and scope in e‐learning. Studies in higher education, 33(3), 331-343.
  27. Rodgers, T. (2008). Student engagement in the e-learning process and the impact on their grades. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 1(2), 143-156.
  28. Angelo, T.A., & Cross, P. (1993) Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  29. Fink, L.D. (2003) Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  30. Suskie, L. (2004) Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide. Bolton MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
  31. Walvoord, B.E. (2004) Assessment Clear and Simple: A Practical Guide for Institutions, Departments, and General Education.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.