The results for the overall mean scores for each of the LMS component questions
(variables), and the mean overall evaluation rating for the sample are shown in Table II.
Students responding to this survey report a relatively high level of satisfaction in their
evaluation of the LMS used in their university. On the scale of 1-5, where 1 is defined as
“strongly agree”, the mean score was 1.89. The four individual LMS components also
attracted positive responses. All except one component are closer to neutral (around 3),
the usefulness of lecture notes rated the highest (mean ¼ 1.78), and overall evaluation
rating the next highest (mean ¼ 1.89). Student engagement with the module rated the
lowest with a mean of 3.11. These descriptive results from Table II seem to imply that:
. the interactive LMS features are not highly valued by the students surveyed in
the UK, Australia, and New Zealand; and
. the students mainly value LMS in its passive role as a “delivery vehicle”.
The results for the overall mean scores for each of the LMS component questions(variables), and the mean overall evaluation rating for the sample are shown in Table II.Students responding to this survey report a relatively high level of satisfaction in theirevaluation of the LMS used in their university. On the scale of 1-5, where 1 is defined as“strongly agree”, the mean score was 1.89. The four individual LMS components alsoattracted positive responses. All except one component are closer to neutral (around 3),the usefulness of lecture notes rated the highest (mean ¼ 1.78), and overall evaluationrating the next highest (mean ¼ 1.89). Student engagement with the module rated thelowest with a mean of 3.11. These descriptive results from Table II seem to imply that:. the interactive LMS features are not highly valued by the students surveyed inthe UK, Australia, and New Zealand; and. the students mainly value LMS in its passive role as a “delivery vehicle”.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
