Student Perceptions of the Visual Design of Learning Management Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".