NEW APPROACHES IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Vol. 4. No. 1. January 2015 pp. 62-68 ISSN: 2254-7399 DOI: 10.7821/naer.2015.1.107

ORIGINAL

Analysis of risks in a Learning Management System: A case

study in the Spanish National University of Distance Education
(UNED)
Esteban Vázquez-Cano1*, M.ª Luisa Sevillano García2
1
Department Didactics and School Organization, Spanish National University of Distance Education (UNED),
Spain {evazquez@edu.uned.es}
2
Department Didactics and School Organization, Spanish National University of Distance Education (UNED),
Spain {mlsevillano@edu.uned.es}
Received on 27 October; revised on 28 October; accepted on 3 November; published on 15 January
DOI: 10.7821/naer.2015.1.107

ABSTRACT teaching model, which enhances the independent work of

This article presents a research that examines the university student along with collaborative practices, and virtual learning
students' risk perception when using a Learning Management models are becoming an increasingly important role in these
System called “aLF” and implemented by the Spanish National processes. To meet these challenges, virtual campuses are
University of Distance Education (UNED) for the development of
promoting learning methodologies that prioritize learning
its university distance studies. The development of
“through interactions among students” (Gómez & Rodríguez-
comprehensive Learning Management Systems for teaching-
learning distance practices in the European Higher Education Marciel, 2012; Moyle, 2010; Stahl, Koschmann & Suthers,
Area (EHEA) is a challenge for universities all around Europe. For 2006) and contribute to the development and practice of
this reason, it is necessary to analyze not only the benefits that teamwork competencies. It is true that distance learning and,
involve these environments but the risks perceived by its users to specifically, online education, rather than an alternative, has
improve teaching methods and design better user interfaces. become a global trend of training, but at the same time, in recent
Through a quantitative method, we test 588 students' opinions years, a more social and interdependent learning among
about their risks perceptions when using this LMS to study the members of university communities is necessary.
University degree in Pedagogy. Results show that main risks are In this digital context, digital platforms are increasingly
concentrated in two dimensions: dimension 1 “basic or general”
organizing our lives; according to Rushkoff (2010), individuals
with high incidence of “fear of making mistakes” and “ignorance of
who do not understand the inner workings of these procedures
the course content; and dimension 2 “own and beyond students'
circumstances” where it is important to stand out the risks not and cannot handle them properly end up being marginalized and
directly controlled by the students: “warning from the authorities subjected to some degree in the fields of power. If you cannot
for not developing the program”, “isolation from teachers” and access the source code of technology, thinking machines may
“delegation of control”. overdo. The current world literature has a big number of
references on the use, application, and benefits of learning
KEYWORDS: LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, RISKS, through Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in
EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA, DISTANCE almost all stages of education. e-Learning activities across
EDUCATION. tertiary education institutions are very diverse, with programs
located at different points of the e-learning spectrum ranging
from none or trivial online presence to fully online provision.
1 INTRODUCTION Most studies establish that educational technology can play a
The design of learning experiences within online programs is a social role in bridging the achievement gap between students, as
continuously evolving area (Brindley, Walti & Blaschke, 2009; well as promoting higher-order thinking skills, and probably,
Dodda & Antonenkob, 2012; Shih, Feng & Tsai, 2008; Stahl, technology-rich learning environments can promote more
Koschmann & Suthers, 2006). Quality requirements of Higher effectively social-constructivist educational goals, such as
Education and the need for the assurance of learning outcomes higher-order thinking skills, learning motivation, and teamwork,
are increasing the challenges with which online universities have in comparison to traditional settings (Jackson et al, 2006; Rosen,
to face (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009; Baker, 2003; Park, Nam & 2009; Rosen & Rimor, 2009; Rosen & Salomon, 2007;
Cha, 2012; Sabry & Baldwin, 2003). Warschauer, 2003; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010).
Universities are in a process of transformation toward a This new reality has the potential to significantly impact how
we design learning experiences if we take advantage of
opportunities for connectivity. By incorporating 2.0 tools on
*To
Learning Management Systems (LMS), teachers also
whom correspondence should be addressed:
incorporate the new literacies that are becoming part of citizens
Facultad de Educación. (UNED)
in virtual contexts (Álvarez, 2001; Fletcher, 2007; Glover &
Dpto. Didáctica. Organización Escolar y Didácticas Especiales.
Oliver, 2008; Hahn, 2008). In the progress of integrating
C/Juan del Rosal, 14 (28040) Madrid.

© NAER New Approaches in Educational Research 2015 | http://naerjournal.ua.es 62

 Analysis of risks in a Learning Management System: A case study in the Spanish National University of Distance Education (UNED)

collaborative practices in distance learning, Learning presence,” however, is how to build their knowledge through
Management System (LMS) offer different levels of interaction reflection and communication processes. The “presence of
and possibilities for developing active learning. Innovation is not education,” finally, is one that directly or indirectly facilitates
just the application of results of research and development to social interaction and simulation in the cognitive process.
high standards but also the result of entrepreneurial and strategic The presence enables the coordination of activities to generate
decision making, organizational and professional development, learning in LMS (Rourke et al., 2001). Social interaction in
and imaginative capabilities, and to this end, the forms of design virtual environments, with both other students and the teacher,
learning elements are important conditions (Georgina & Olson, has a marked influence on the behavior of students. Kreijns et al.
2010; Kopcha, 2012; Macdonald & Poniatowska, 2011; Rovai & (2002) and Hrastinski (2006) note that social interaction flows
Downey, 2010). when the LMS allows specific informal interaction, as occurs
Despite all, LMS are not alike, and they can be used in naturally in the real campus. One of the challenges of online
different ways. However, a common idea behind LMS is that e- education would allow natural interaction student-student in the
learning is organized and managed within an integrated system. virtual world. According to Dirkx and Smith (2004), in theory,
Different tools are integrated in a single system, which offers all online collaborative activities could be considered as the key to
necessary tools to run and manage virtual learning and teaching this new learning paradigm.
processes. LMS typically offer discussion forums, file sharing, In these collaborative digital contexts, students do report
management of assignments, lesson plans, syllabus, chat, and so experiencing a range of emotions, risks, and frustration (Do &
on—tools that are very productive in learning. However, at the Schallert, 2004; Pekrun, Goetz, Titz & Perry, 2002). Despite the
same time, it is also necessary to unravel the student's perception advantages reported in literature about digital collaborative
of risks of this type of virtual environments. learning methodologies in terms of social and psychological
Global studies regarding student's risk perception on LMS are benefits (Roberts, 2005), students engaged in collaborative
not very abundant and require field studies to unravel the risks digital learning activities can feel a high level of frustration
of these environments on users. Recent studies have described facing different risks.
emotional and motivational experiences students encountered
during computer-supported learning projects, which can also
1.2 Study context: The UNED LMS: “aLF”
cause negative effects (Artino, 2008; Artino & Stephens, 2007; The LMS called aLF (https://www.innova.uned.es/servicios/alf/)
Hickey, Moore, & Pellegrino, 2001; Järvenoja & Järvelä, 2005; is a platform based on open standards (OpenACS, the Open
Sierpinska, Bobos & Knipping, 2008). In particular, some Architecture Community System) and has been developed
computer-supported collaborative learning environments may entirely within free software principles. The appeal of in-house
interfere with students' willingness to engage in the project. and open source sometimes lies in perceived inadequate
They may also experience stress and frustration in collaborating functionality or pedagogic limitations of commercial offerings,
with people who they do not know well (Curtis & Lawson, despite platform functionality becoming increasingly
2001). customizable.
1.1 Learning Management Systems and social Its main contributions are security, scalability, extensibility,
and low learning curve. It has now migrated to .LRN, which is
interaction
the most widely used free software worldwide for distance
A LMS is a category of products designed to bring interactive learning. It is originally developed at MIT (Massachusetts
technology to teaching-learning process (Daniels, 2009; Institute of Technology), to provide a collaboration tool that is
Garrison & Vaughan, 2008; Weller, 2007). A full-fledged LMS flexible and innovative, along with scalable infrastructure
addresses three major requirements: first, it is a completely development, necessary for growth. The software is backed by
realized, networked digital environment that includes interactive “The .LRN Consortium”, a global organization formed by
interfaces for both teachers and students. Second, a LMS renowned institutions and companies around the world working
provides the content of the curriculum and assessments for together to coordinate the development of software, providing
teaching and learning in digital form. Third, a LMS includes quality and new guidelines in education. LRN is used by
special tools for managing classroom activity. A robust LMS organizations and universities, such as MIT Sloan
should be able to do the following: centralize and automate (Massachusetts, USA), Harvard University Kennedy School of
administration, use self-service and self-guided services, Government (Massachusetts, USA), University of Bergen
assemble and deliver learning content rapidly, consolidate (Norway), University of Heidelberg (Germany), University of
training initiatives on a Web-based platform, support portability Valencia (Spain), UCLA School of Medicine (California, USA),
and standards, personalize content, and enable knowledge reuse. University of Galileo (Guatemala) and the National University
Therefore, a LMS should integrate with other enterprise of Distance Education (UNED) in Spain.
application solutions, enabling management to measure the aLF facilitates the student to make good use of resources
impact, effectiveness, and cost of training initiatives (Ellis, available over the Internet to alleviate the difficulties offered by
2009). distance learning model. This provides the necessary tools for
The new LMS differ from the Course Delivery LMS in terms both faculty and students, finding ways to combine individual
of classroom operation and pedagogical support. Through the work and cooperative learning. aLF offers different types of
monitoring of assignments and assessment, new LMS offer tools virtual learning environments: virtual courses and virtual
for management of the classroom by the teacher and real-time communities. Each subject has an online space or online course.
evaluation of students. These new LMS should integrate three Both of them are didactic and evaluative environments in which
types of presence: social, cognitive, and teaching (Traphagan et contents, resources, and activities of the subject are organized.
al., 2010). “Social presence” is the way students cope socially Within each virtual course, students can find the following:
and emotionally to a virtual learning community. “Cognitive teacher(s) of the subject, tutor, network support tutor, and

63
Vázquez-Cano, E.; Sevillano García, L. / New Approaches in Educational Research 4(1) 2015. 62-68

students of the subject. Teaching team of the course is 2 METHOD

responsible for the design and program of the subject, as well as
for developing contents, and the final students' assessment. The During 2012-2014, the authors of this study decided to study the
virtual tutor of the course deals with mentoring, monitoring, and risks perceived by our students in the university degree of
correction of continuous assessment tests proposed by the Pedagogy in relation to the use of LMS-aLF in distance
teaching team. university studies. Data were collected using a digital-based
The network support tutor is responsible for solving problems questionnaire uploaded in the LMS-aLF. The questionnaire was
using the digital tools of the platform during the course through distributed to 778 second-year students when they began the
a specific forum. Within the virtual course, study guide, calendar academic year through an induction session of virtual tutor
or schedule, sequence of planning activities, delivery of through e-mail and forum messages.
activities, online tests and quizzes, and communication tools The questionnaire included three sections: competencies in
(mainly the notice board of the teaching team, the thematic ICT, risks of use of LMS-aLF for developing university studies,
forums, and one forum exclusively for students) are offered. and barriers when using the LMS. Student variables included the
Virtual communities are relational environments not evaluative students' self-rating of skills in the use of ICT, students' views
or confined to any particular matter or subject. on the contribution of LMS to develop university studies, and
The main functions of these collective groups are virtual the power of LMS on creating creative learning environments.
collaboration and communication (eg, virtual communities for This questionnaire aims to establish the barriers' factors
new students reception), involving all new students in each themselves and the degree of intensity with which they act as
faculty or school with the intention of accompanying them both internal and external forces when using LMS-aLF. To this
throughout their first year and thus facilitate their integration end, 15 items were initially established to measure different
into the methodology of distance and virtual education. The factors. With the aim of strengthening the validity of the item
main features offered by aLF are the following: management of contents, they were evaluated by ten judges and the feedback
working groups on request, shared storage space, organization of used to reduce the items to 8: 1. Fear of making mistakes. 2.
the contents, planning activities, evaluation and self-evaluation, Ignorance of the course content. 3. Open ends and lack of
automatic notification service, design of surveys, news release correct answers. 4. Criticism of the educational community. 5.
planned, and personal and public portal user configurable. The Isolation from teachers. 6. Warning from the authorities for not
platform is characterized by presenting categorized information developing the program. 7. Delegation of control. 8. Difficulty
and resources. It is a powerful environment to support learning for students.
management courses and communities. The Likert items consisted of four point scales: slight, low,
aLF structure is based on the following functionalities: moderate and high. In short, the university students completing
forums, news, chat, bulletin board, messages, study guides, the questionnaire were asked to indicate the extent to which they
documents, activities, scores and assessments (Figure 1). agreed or disagreed with the different statements. The
questionnaire was completed during the second semester, and
results were downloaded from aLF for their analysis once the
academic year was finished.
About 608 questionnaires were validated, and factor analysis
was developed using SPSS. A final sample of 588 cases were
processed (Table 1).

Table 1. Case Processing Summary and Model Summary

Case Processing Summary

Valid Active Cases 588
Active Cases with Missing Valuesa 20
Figure 1. aLF Learning environment Supplementary Cases 0
Total 608
1.3 Objectives Cases Used in Analysis 588
a. Excluded case(s): 96 98 112 194 277 388 401 424 426 439
This research aims to estimate the perception of risks among
462 474 491 504 509 561 563 567 578 589.
students involved in a LMS developed in the Spanish National
University of Distance Education (UNED). The study addressed
The questionnaire's statistical guarantees were studied. The
the following objectives:
item-total correlation of the dimension was analyzed to eliminate
To analyze two risk dimensions: “general or basic risks” (not those items with a correlation coefficient of below 0.2. In
controlled by the students) and “own and beyond students' addition, the reliability of the scale was analyzed using the
circumstances” perceived as risks that could be controlled Cronbach’s Alpha Test (.861).
by the students and/or Higher Education institutions. Next, a factor analysis of principal components was conducted
To determine the most significant variables in students' risk to determine the internal structure of the questionnaire.
perception according to both dimensions with special However, before carrying out the analysis, and as a prior
emphasis on risks in dimension 2 than could be minimize statistical requisite that guarantees correct application, a series of
by higher education institutions and professors/tutors' other tests were performed: First, Bartlett’s test of sphericity
intervention. (.841 p<0.001) taking a 99% level of significance and the
Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin sampling adequacy measure (.797) were
found to be suitable when analyzing the factorial structure of the

64
 Analysis of risks in a Learning Management System: A case study in the Spanish National University of Distance Education (UNED)

scale using the Varimax with Kaiser Normalization method for Table 4. Rotated factor matrix
the principal component analysis.
Rotated Factor Matrix
3 RESULTS Variables
Factor
1 2
We consider dimension 1, as “general or basic” risks and 1 ,609 ,588
dimension 2, as “own and beyond” students' circumstances 2 ,692 ,495
perceived as risks. Kaiser's rule of retaining factors with 3 ,740 ,252
eigenvalues larger than 1.00 was used in this analysis as the 4 ,814 -,311
default. As the eigenvalues for the two principal components 5 ,815 -,324
with eigenvalues of 4.059 and 1.005 were retained. 6 ,710 -,066
7 ,612 -,374
Table 2. Research Model Summary 8 ,681 -,139
Factor 1: General or Basic Risks (not controlled by the student)
Model Summary Factor 2: Risks controlled by the student.
Variance Accounted For Variables: 1. Fear of making mistakes. 2. Ignorance of the
Total % course content. 3. Open ends and lack of correct answers. 4.
Dimension Cronbach's Alpha (Eigenvalue) of Variance Criticism of the educational community. 5. Isolation from
1 ,861 4,059 50,737 teachers. 6. Warning from the authorities for not developing the
2 ,005 1,005 12,559 program. 7. Delegation of control. 8. Difficulty for students.
Total ,917a 5,064 63,296 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method:
a. Total Cronbach's Alpha is based on the total Eigenvalue. Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
Table 3 contains the unrotated factor loadings, which are the
correlations between the variable and the factor. Because these The eight risk factors are reduced to 2 dimensions with
are correlations, possible values range from -1 to +1. On the abstract meaning: dimension 1 and dimension 2. Table 5
/format subcommand, we used the option blank (.30), which tells displays the frequency, the quantification value assigned, the
SPSS not to print any of the correlations that are .3 or less. This centroid coordinates, and the vector coordinates of each risk.
makes the output easier to read by removing the clutter of low We can observed that that most cases are located near the
correlations that are probably not meaningful anyway. centroid (0,0), with the majority of cases located between -3 and
5 on dimension 1 and between -4 and 6 on dimension 2.
Table 3. Correlations matrix
Table 5. Vector coordinates
Correlations Original Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Centroid Total
1 1,000 ,517 ,455 ,374 ,373 ,329 ,188 ,316 Coordinates (Vector Coordinates)
2 ,517 1,000 ,543 ,398 ,381 ,410 ,300 ,389 Factor Factor
3 ,455 ,543 1,000 ,460 ,470 ,446 ,390 ,411 1 2 Mean 1 2 Total
4 ,374 ,398 ,460 1,000 ,919 ,462 ,391 ,430 1 ,368 ,382 ,375 ,361 ,375 ,736
5 ,373 ,381 ,470 ,919 1,000 ,476 ,403 ,430 2 ,487 ,239 ,363 ,485 ,234 ,719
6 ,329 ,410 ,446 ,462 ,476 1,000 ,417 ,434 3 ,558 ,088 ,323 ,555 ,057 ,611
7 ,188 ,300 ,390 ,391 ,403 ,417 1,000 ,464 4 ,658 ,080 ,369 ,658 ,078 ,736
8 ,316 ,389 ,411 ,430 ,430 ,434 ,464 1,000 5 ,666 ,090 ,378 ,666 ,085 ,751
Variables: 1. Fear of making mistakes. 2. Ignorance of the course con- 6 ,500 ,018 ,259 ,500 ,012 ,512
tent. 3. Open ends and lack of correct answers. 4. Criticism of the edu- 7 ,375 ,136 ,255 ,375 ,135 ,510
cational community. 5. Isolation from teachers. 6. Warning from the 8 ,461 ,037 ,249 ,460 ,029 ,489
authorities for not developing the program. 7. Delegation of control. 8. Active Total 4,07 1,07 2,57 4,05 1,00 5,06
Difficulty for students. % of Variance 50,92 13,38 32,15 50,73 12,55 63,29
Variables: 1. Fear of making mistakes. 2. Ignorance of the course
Table 4 shows the rotated component matrix and establishes content. 3. Open ends and lack of correct answers. 4. Criticism of
the correlation of each variable with each factor. Using that rule, the educational community. 5. Isolation from teachers. 6. Warning
based on our interpretation of the rotated factor loading table, we from the authorities for not developing the program. 7. Delegation
find that four variables seem to load strongly onto dimension 1: of control. 8. Difficulty for students.
“open ends and lack of correct answers” (.740); “criticism of the
educational community” (.814); “isolation from teachers” (.815) Figure 1 shows the coordinates for each item on each
and “warning from the authorities for not developing the dimension. We can see how the items related to one another and
program” (.710). Items that load strongly onto dimension 2 are: to the two dimensions. We can see that the first three items tend
“fear of making mistakes” (.588) and “ignorance of the course to coalesce together in the upper range of both dimensions 1 and
content” (.495). 2, whereas the other four items tend to coalesce at the lower
range of dimension 1, and they tend to vary substantially along
dimension 2.

65
Vázquez-Cano, E.; Sevillano García, L. / New Approaches in Educational Research 4(1) 2015. 62-68

Warning from the authorities for not developing the

program. 7. Delegation of control. 8. Difficulty for
students.
The angle between the vectors of the risks is an indicator of
“lankiness” of them. This implies the following:
It is remarkable the separation between own and beyond
factors. Both form independent clusters, being relatively
distant from each other.
The proximity of “isolation” and “criticism” factors can be
highlighted. These two risks provide very similar
information; thus, there is high consistency in the responses
given by students to these two questions.
Own and beyond factors could be improved through new
forums and chat rooms management. For this purpose, an
appropriate and constant training is fundamental to equip tutors
Figure 2. Vectors dimensions with necessary facilitation skills towards enhancing learner-
centered interaction in the web-based learning environment. This
sets an atmosphere for mutual respect and encourages proactive
The analysis of both dimensions of the vectors as in the case
participation from learners. As distance students tend to feel
numbers of both dimensions, we can observe the following:
lonely throughout their journey of acquiring knowledge, tutor
- All factors are positively charged in Dimension 1. plays a vital role to provide various methods of interaction in
web-based learning e.g. electronic office hours via synchronous
The basic or general risks could be summarize in Figure 3. chats. Creating learning environment which is perceived as
facilitating “safe” communication is essential. Therefore, tutors
could share own experiences related to the subject, promote a
constant response to students queries in the forums, encourage
learners to lead and participate in discussions (Wu & Teoh,
2008). High level of interaction in online learning environment
is desirable and positively affects the efficacy of web-based and
distance learning courses.

4 CONCLUSIONS
According to Reigeluth (2000), in the new concept of
instructional design-oriented knowledge, construction should be
given an important role to players in the educational activity
about decision making and management of their own learning
Figure 3. Dimension 1. General or basic risks
and teaching process. Risk assessment by students who develop
their learning in the LMS is an important knowledge that
With respect to Dimension 2:
determines the design of the activities and internal organization
Have a positive charge: 1. Fear of making mistakes. 2. of available virtual tools.
Ignorance of the course content. 3. Open ends and lack of Thus, the users should assess the type of tools available to
correct answers. students for the development of university distance studies on
Have a negative charge: 4. Criticism of the educational LMS. Students can contribute to take decisions about the best
community. 5. Isolation from teachers. 6. Warning from the choices of methods, materials, teaching sequences, and so on.
authorities for not developing the program. 7. Delegation of Understanding the users' risks involved in virtual environments
control. 8. Difficulty for students. is crucial, and in this sense, students could identify areas of
interest, necessity, and the main incidents of the scenarios in
We make the following interpretation of the dimensions: which they study. People may feel frustrated when they are
deprived of their expectations or are not able to complete their
Dimension 1: Risk basic or general.
plans (Mandler, 1975; Handa, 2003).
Dimension 2: Influence on the risk of “own and beyond This study focus on the main risks when using the LMS-aLF
students' circumstances” that could be controlled by the to develop distance virtual studies on the Spanish National
students and/or Higher Education institutions. University of Distance Education. The emphasis is concentrated
In this sense, we can establish the following factors' in those ones related to “own and beyond students'
interpretation: circumstances” perceived as risks that could be controlled by the
students and/or Higher Education institutions. These beyond
Own factors: positive charged in dimension 2: 1. Fear of main factors are: 4. “criticism of the educational community”,
making mistakes. 2. Ignorance of the course content. “isolation from teachers”, “warning from the authorities for not
Beyond factors: negative charged in dimension 2: 4. Criticism developing the program”, “delegation of control” and “difficulty
of the educational community. 5. Isolation from teachers. 6. for students”.

66
 Analysis of risks in a Learning Management System: A case study in the Spanish National University of Distance Education (UNED)

The LMS success and efficiency through collaboration cannot Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. M. (2009). Creating effective collabora-
tive learning groups in an online environment. International Review of Re-
be taken for granted (Dirkx & Smith, 2004; Järvenoja & Järvelä,
search in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-18.
2009; Kreijns, Kirschner & Jochems, 2002). In some cases, Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning.
some LMS experiences may also evoke negative emotions and Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21-34.
create new challenges for motivation when people experience Daniels, P. (2009). Course Management Systems and Implications for Practice.
conflict with their own characteristics, objectives, and International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 7(2), 97-108.
Dirkx, J. M., & Smith, R. O. (2004). Thinking out of a bowl of spaghetti: Learning
requirements. to learn in online collaborative groups. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online collabo-
Findings from this study provide more understanding of the rative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 132-159). Hershey, PA: Information
phenomenon of students' perception of risks in LMS. Based on Science Publishing. doi: 10.4018/978-1-59140-174-2.ch006
these findings, we should provide recommendations to design Do, S., & Schallert, D. (2004). Emotions and classroom talk: Toward a model of
the role of affect in students’ experiences of classroom discussions. Journal of
the virtual environment that minimizes the risks, taking into
Educational Psychology, 96(4), 619-634. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.619
consideration the design of learning experiences related to Dodda, B. J., & Antonenkob, P. D (2012). Use of signaling to integrate desktop
cultural and social contexts of the students population. This virtual reality and online learning management systems. Computers & Educa-
activity can be fostered by contextualized activities such as tion, 59(4), 1099-1108. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.016
tasks, projects, and authentic cases based on real needs and Ellis, R. (2009). A field guide to learning management systems. USA. American
Society of Training and Development (ASTD).
demands, taking into account the explicit and implicit Fletcher, G. H. (2007). Bloggers welcome here: Social networking tools appear
knowledge about the subject matter (beliefs, group norms). It is poised to enter the school system. It’s a breakthrough long overdue. T H E
also important to generate rules that promote motivation and Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), 34(11), 8.
participation, a number of mechanisms of participants' Garrison, D., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education:
Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &
accountability and the provision of structures to facilitate
Sons.
communication and interdependence. Georgina, D., & Olson, M. (2008). Integration of technology in higher education:
On the other hand, in the context of adaptation to the A review of faculty self-perception. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 1-
European Higher Education Area, the teaching and learning 8. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.11.002
process must be associated with competencies, and one of the Glover, I., & Oliver, A. (2008). Hybridisation of Social Networking and Learning
Environments. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Con-
biggest risks is associated with the assessment, which must be ference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications
based on assessment progress, identify difficulties, and redirect 2008 (pp. 4951-8). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
the students' progress; in order that assessment should be Gómez, E., & Rodríguez-Marciel, C. (2012). PGDnet: a new problem-solving
primarily intended to provide feedback to students as part of virtual learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43,
576–591. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01224.x
their learning process to enable further progress.
Hahn, J. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives.
A competent student should learn to manage in a proper way Library Journal, 133(13), 105.
these changes, minimizing the risks and identifying what aspects Handa, Y. (2003). A phenomenological exploration of mathematical engagement:
can affect their own learning process, and take advantage of the Approaching an old metaphor anew. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(1),
elements that can positively influence this process and minimize 22-29.
Hickey, D. T., Moore, A. L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2001). The motivational and
those issues, which can hinder their learning. Professors and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do con-
tutors should be aware of these risks from a double perspective: structivist innovations and reforms make a difference? American Educational
primarily, to guide teaching in the virtual context and select the Research Journal, 38, 611-652. doi: 10.3102/00028312038003611
type of activities and tools that minimize risks to students, and Hrastinski, S. (2006). Introducing an informal synchronous medium in a distance
learning course: How is participation affected? The Internet and Higher Educa-
second, guide the design of the platform institutionally to
tion, 9, 117-131. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.03.006
provide feedback to teacher evaluation and minimize risks. Jackson, L. A., Von Eye, A., Biocca, F. A., Barbatsis, G., Zhao, Y., & Fitzgerald,
In this line, the integration of social networking, a better H. E. (2006). Does home Internet use Influence the academic performance of
management of forums and chats, friendly apps and software low income children? Developmental Psychology, 42, 429-435. doi:
that can be used ubiquitously could minimize the students' risks 10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.429
Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2005). How students describe the sources of their
perception when using LMS in Distance Education. emotional and motivational experiences during the learning process: A qualita-
tive approach. Learning, 15, 465-480.
REFERENCES Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integra-
tion and practices with technology under situated professional development.
Álvarez, M. C. (Ed.). (2001). Developing critical and imaginative thinking within
Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109-1121. doi:
electronic literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009, September). 21st century skills and competen-
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002).The sociability of computer-
cies for new millennium learners in OECD countries. NML country survey. In
supported collaborative learning environments. Journal of Education Technol-
The New Millennium Learners International Conference, Brussels.
ogy & Society, 5(1), 822.
Artino, A. R. (2008). Understanding satisfaction and continuing motivation in an
Macdonald, J., & Poniatowska, B. (2011). Designing the professional development
online course: An extension of social cognitive, control-value theory. In Annu-
of staff for teaching online: an OU (UK) case study. Distance Education,
al meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
32(1), 119-134. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2011.565481
Retrieved from
Mandler, G. (1975). Mind and emotion. New York: Wiley.
http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~aja05001/comps/documents/AERA_2008_SEM_Ar
Moyle, K. (2010). Building innovation: Learning with technologies. Australian
tino_FINAL.pdf
Education Review, 56.
Artino, A. R., & Stephens, J. M. (2007). Bored and frustrated with online learning?
Park, S. Y., Nam, M.-W., & Cha, S. B. (2012). University students' behavioral
Understanding achievement emotions from a social cognitive, control-value
intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model.
perspective. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Northeastern Educa-
British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 592-605. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
tional Research Association, Rocky Hill, CT. Retrieved from
8535.2011.01229.x
http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~aja05001/comps/documents/NERA-
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in
07_AchEmotions_Artino%2BStephens.pdf
students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and
Baker, E. (2003). Reflections on technology-enhanced assessment. Assessment in
quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91-105. doi:
Education, 10(3), 421-425. doi: 10.1080/0969594032000148226
10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4

67
Vázquez-Cano, E.; Sevillano García, L. / New Approaches in Educational Research 4(1) 2015. 62-68

Reigeluth, Ch. (2000). La teoría elaborativa: orientación para la toma de decisiones

sobre el alcance y la secuenciación. In Ch. Reigeluth (Ed): Diseño de la ins-
trucción. Teoría y modelos (pp. 449-480). Madrid: Aula XXI Santillana.
Roberts, T. S. (2005). Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher educa-
tion: An introduction. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Computer-supported collabora-
tive learning in higher education (pp. 2-3). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Publishing. doi: 10.4018/978-1-59140-408-8
Rosen, A. (2009). E-Learning 2.0: Proven practices and emerging technologies to
achieve results. New York, NY: American Management Association.
Rosen, Y, & Rimor, R. (2009). Using collaborative database to enhance students’
knowledge construction. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning
Objects, 5, 187-195.
Rosen, Y., & Salomon, G. (2007). The differential learning achievements of
constructivist technology-intensive learning environments as compared with
traditional ones: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
36(1), 1-14. doi: 10.2190/R8M4-7762-282U-554J
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social
presence in screen text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Ed-
ucation, 14, 51-70.
Rovai, A. P., & James D. (2010). Why some distance education programs fail
while others succeed in a global environment. Internet and Higher Education,
13, 141-147. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.07.001
Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be Programmed. Ten Commands for a Digital
Age. Or Books.
Sabry, K., & Baldwin, L. (2003). Web-based learning interaction and learning
styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 443-454. doi:
10.1111/1467-8535.00341
Shih, M., Feng, J., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Research and trends in the field of e-
learning from 2001 to 2005: A content analysis of cognitive studies in selected
journals. Computers & Education, 51(2), 955-967. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2007.10.004
Sierpinska, A., Bobos, G., & Knipping, Ch. (2008). Sources of students' frustration
in preuniversity level, prerequisite mathematics courses. Instructional Science,
36, 289-320. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9033-6
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative
learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge hand-
book of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. Retrieved from http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf
Traphagan, T. W., Chiang, Y. H. V., Chang, H. M., Wattanawaha, B., Lee, H.,
Mayrath, M. C., Woo, J., Yoon, H. J., Jee, M. J., & Resta, P. E. (2010). Cogni-
tive, Social and Teaching Presence in a Virtual World and a Text Chat. Com-
puters & Education, 55(3), 923-936. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.003
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital
divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds:
Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research
in Education, 34(1), 179-225. doi: 10.3102/0091732X09349791
Weller, M. (2007). The distance from isolation: Why communities are the logical
conclusion in e-learning. Computers and Education, 40, 148-159. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.015
Wu, B., & Teoh, A. P. (2008). A Comparative Analysis of Learners Interaction in
the Learning Management Systems: Does National Culture Matter? AAOU
Journal, 3(1), 1-16.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Funded by: Ministry of Science and Innovation, Spain.
Funder Identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004837
Award: EDU2010-17420

68