Learning Management System versus Social Networking Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose - The motive of this study was the notice of the constant movement of the students in The University of Jordan (UJ) from official communities to creating groups on SNSs. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate an analysis about students’ usage of E-learning and Facebook, and identifies the major functions that are missing in the e-learning system. This paper firstly, compared students’ usage for Learning Management Systems (LMSs) vs. Social Networking Sites (SNSs), and secondly, investigated the students’ perceptions towards educational value of integrating social networking features in the LMS through Mobile Learning (m-learning).Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from students from multiple sources: observation, interviews, and survey. The obtained results formed students perceptions toward currently used LMS in the university and SNSs, which lead to extracting their requirements to enhance the LMS used.Findings – The results of this research emphasize the importance of SNSs as a communication tool and the development of e-learning systems to move beyond LMS and engage students in an active use of the system as a resource of their information and collaborative activities.Originality/value –This study contributes to examining UJ students’ perceptions toward embedding the characteristics of the smart learning and the social network services into an e-learning system. In contrast to previous studies in enhancing LMS by just integrating features of SNSs into LMS without utilizing smart learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".