CC BY
94
Section 2. Information technologies in education
Beckford Carl, Lecturer, Department of Computing The University of the West Indies (Mona), Jamaica E-mail: carl.beckford@uwimona.edu.jm
Mugisa Ezra K., Lecturer, Department of Computing The University of the West Indies (Mona), Jamaica E-mail: ezra.mugisa@uwimona.edu.jm
EXPANDING LEARNER-CENTRIC COURSE DELIVERY TOWARDS OPTIMALITY IN E-LEARNING
Abstract: Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) use Learning Management Systems (LMSs) to assist with the delivery and management of courses. Whereas there is a significant number of LMSs, only a few are predominantly used by HEIs and fewer used by HEIs in developing countries. The Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative developed the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) and the ADL Registry to standardize and modernize training and education management and delivery. Parts of the API of the LMS predominantly used by HEIs in developing countries have been implemented, but sections such as Navigation and Sequencing present in SCORM 2004, which will assist in learner progress and assessment detailed tracking, have not. We employed established theories of teaching and learning as the basis for integrating teaching-learning mechanism or style within LMSs. The research posits an approach that allows the HEI to select a SCORM compliant LMS and an IDE/tool of choice, and demands the creation of a tool that is SCORM compliant to be interfaced with the LMS. To assist with learner-centric course delivery, an Online Learner-Centric Delivery Tool (OLeCenT) is proposed by use of SCORM to provide increased learning in a batch of learners by lessening the gap between teaching and learning styles. OLeCenT was tested in five instantiations of math-based, computing and theory courses. OLeCenT identified 30% to 66% match between preferred teaching styles and the groups' dominant learning styles. Based on each user's determined learning style, a course learning path is determined and a best-fit learning object is employed per course learning unit.
Keywords: e-learning, course delivery, learner-centric, Learning Management System (LMS), Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), learning styles.
1. Introduction
Learning Management Systems (LMSs) are employed by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to assist with the delivery and management of courses. There are a number of LMSs, but only a few are predominantly used by HEIs and fewer used by HEIs in developing countries. The LMSs were examined for the top ten universities in each of seven regions. The standard and quality of course delivery and the level of learning or knowledge transfer which takes place are attributed to the teacher and learner; however, there are questions with respect to whether the greater burden rests on the learner or teacher [22, 7]. Technology development made available the scope for other forms of course delivery and the combination of different forms of learning [18, 9].
As HEIs move from fully traditional teaching-learning that does not provide optimal learning [27] to the use of online environments, course delivery remains static, becomes more learner-centric or becomes less learner-centric [8], resulting at times in loss, delay and/or non-optimal learning [20, 2] as the current online technology seems to favour certain types of courses [24]. Differences between the learners' learning styles and the teacher's teaching styles or approaches within a batch of learners and teachers, suggest various rates of learning and in the overall batch oflearners, a non-optimal level oflearning [15].
Attempts are made by HEIs to make course delivery benefit most, if not all learners. Due to the methodology and technology applied, the benefits vary. Learners are required to receive teaching in the teaching style adopted by the instructor. For courses which are less theoretical and require use of externals tools, learning may be disjoint amidst varied course delivery methods/course activities and assessment tools may not consider learner preferences.
Learning management systems are examined firstly with comparisons among usage in the top ten Higher Education Institutions in major regions of the world. We then analyze system interoperability features that have been implemented by some
of the major LMSs. The major theories of teaching and learning are examined and used as the basis for the development of OLeCenT, a learner-centric tool based on teaching-learning styles and designed to be integrated within an LMS.
2. Learning Environments In Use
2.1. Learning Management Systems
Blackboard's software and services are currently used by over 17,000 clients worldwide. The current version or service packs of the software, released in 2016 or later is within the Blackboard Learn 9 series. Including better grading and integration features, one of the newer features of interest is the Embedded Learning Analytics where predictive learning analytics are embedded into core workflows for both educators and students in order to drive student success [3].
Moodle software current version is within the 3.4 series. One of the newest features is Moodle Mobile which enables assignment submissions on the move. However, none of the new features were deemed to have a direct bearing on the level of learning, and other related aspects of the teaching-learning process [21]. Whereas there are a number of existing LMSs including many new ones, Blackboard and Moodle are still the more predominantly used LMSs.
The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2017 (www.timeshighereducation.co.uk) judge world class universities across all of their core missions - teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook. There are 5 core missions with teaching, research and citation each with a worth of 30% of the overall ranking score.
The top ten (10) universities were chosen from each of the regions: Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, Oceania, Caribbean and Latin America. Where at least ten (10) universities were not identified for a region, the list was augmented with the "Webometrics Ranking of World Universities" (http://www.webometrics.info/en/Americas/Ca-ribbean). This was the case specifically for Africa and the Caribbean. The "Webometrics Ranking ofWorld Universities" is an initiative of the Cybermetrics Lab,
a research group belonging to the largest public research body in Spain.
(Table 1) displays the Learning Management Systems or types that were identified to be in usage across the universities ofreview. Responses were not received from four (4) universities, primarily of the Caribbean, and so their LMS usages have not been noted.
Of the total number of universities analyzed, 62% of these use either Blackboard or Moodle, with
Moodle having the greater usage of 41%. Whereas other proprietary systems and the home-grown self-used (bespoke) systems accounted for 20% each, the individual systems included within each category reflected usage of 5% or less.
The other matter of note is that the individual regions do not necessarily bear the percentages of the overall total.
Table 1.- Learning Management Systems used by Top 10 Universities per Region
Black-board Moo-dle Other propri-etary Be-spoke Total
TOTAL 13 (21%) 26 (41%) 13 (21%) 11 (17%) 64
North America 2 1 5 2 10
Europe 1 3 2 3 9
Africa 3 2 3 1 9
Asia 1 2 3 4 10
Oceania 5 4 1 10
Latin America 10 10
Caribbean 1 5 6
Moodle has a 100% usage in Latin American top 10 universities, whereas the usage of Moodle in the overall total was about 40% of the top 10 universities across the world. Whereas other proprietary systems and even amidst receiving only 60% of the responses from the Caribbean region, a similar anomaly was seen where 83% usage was accounted for by Moodle. In other regions, Blackboard and Moodle seem to be on par among the top 10 universities. Another anomaly is 40% of Asia's top 10 universities have their learning management system solution developed and implemented for their purposes only.
It may be understood that within developing countries, there is a more significant need to access resources at minimal expenditure or financial outlay. In regions such as the Caribbean and Latin America, the usage levels of the predominantly used open-source system, Moodle, suggest that where Moodle have significant benefits or drawbacks, the HEIs in these regions may be directly impacted.
3. Learning Management Systems Analysis for Improvement
3.1. Overview of LMSs
One researcher states among eleven other complaints about LMSs, that LMSs do not fit in the existing administration workflows [5]. Another researcher states that LMSs are deemed beneficial but fall short in some aspects specific to computer science education, in particular programming [12]. One of the most important things an academic technologist can deliver to faculty is to show them how the LMS can be used for more than just a platform for course administration but to teach in new ways [4]. These represent potential gaps for improvement in the current or future LMSs.
3.2. System Interoperability
The Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative was established to standardize and modernize training and education management and delivery. The ADL Initiative developed the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) and the ADL Registry. SCORM is a collection and harmonization
of specifications and standards that defines the interrelationship of content objects, data models and protocols such that objects are sharable across systems that conform to the same model. This specification promotes reusability and interoperability of learning content across Learning Management Systems (LMSs). SCORM 1.2, released in 2001 is the final version of SCORM before the integration of sequencing. ADL recommends use of SCORM 2004 4th Edition or higher which contains integration of sequencing [1].
SCORM has evolved through the years with there being four different implementable versions of SCORM. SCORM 2004 has several different editions, and the latest version/next generation of SCORM is the Tin Can API (aka Experience API or xAPI.) Furthermore, SCORM isn't the only e-learning standard existing. Other standards like LTI, AICC HACP and IMS Common Cartridge have their place in the industry [23].
The standards mentioned, namely Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) and Common Cartridge have been employed in Learning Management Systems in varied levels. The system operability review will not describe integration among systems where such integrations were built as features of the system, with little or no flexibility for enhancement to be used with other systems. The system interoperability review includes the extent to which systems can share data and interpret the shared data with or without one of these designed standards.
Blackboard Learn 9 series has support for Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM). Integration comes by way of the SCORM Engine Blackboard Building Block developed by Rustici Software in partnership with Blackboard. Blackboard is therefore easily integrated with newer versions of SCORM. Other proprietary systems that are less used by a significant number of clients such as Canvas by Instructure are also SCORM compliant. Though Canvas may have a comparatively small
number of clients, the system is used by the world's largest academy, Cisco Networking Academy.
SCORM 1.2 is supported in Moodle 2.1 (or higher) and passes all the tests in the ADL Conformance test suite 1.2.7 for SCORM 1.2. SCORM 2004 is not supported in any version ofMoodle. Parts of the API have been implemented, but sections not implemented include Navigation and Sequencing, which will assist in learner progress and assessment detailed tracking. Moodle has announced that development on native SCORM 2004 support in the system has stopped. They further suggest that where a fully certified SCORM 2004 Player in Moodle is desired, Rustici Software has a Moodle plugin which connects to their commercial SCORM Cloud service turning Moodle into a fully compliant SCORM 2004 LMS. Unlike Moodle, the plugin which is provided by Rustici Software is not under an open source license. The provider of this service performs a similar service for Blackboard Learn. Nearly all of Rustici Software licenses include access to the source code of the purchased product [13].
Moodle's lack of integration with the latest versions of SCORM identifies functionalities with respect to sequencing and navigation that is not achievable by users of the said system. Such users include a significant number of HEIs in developing countries.
4. Learner-Centric Course Delivery
4.1. Learning Styles
Many theories of teaching and learning have been purported and/or established. Some of these are Cognitive Load Theory of Multimedia Learning, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Cognitivism, Experiential Learning, Constructivism, ADDIE Model, ARCS Model of Motivational Design, and Multiple Intelligences Theory.
Cognitive Load Theory of Multimedia Learning, focuses the load on working memory during instruction. The ideal LMS should model aspects of the human cognitive architecture, and provide for ease of use by course designers in their endeavor to apply sound instructional design principles [26].
Abraham Maslow's theory, Hierarchy of Needs is a motivational theory in psychology that argues that while people aim to meet basic needs, they seek to meet successively higher needs in the form of a hierarchy [19]. Development and implementation of a learning system or tool must consider that the body of learners as well as instructors and teachers would tend to follow Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
The theory of Cognitivism says that the learner is viewed as an information processor (like a computer). Cognitivism focuses on the inner mental activities - opening the "black box" of the human mind is valuable and necessary for understanding how people learn [14]. In view of the theory of Cogni-tivism, ensuring that stimuli exist within a Learning Management System will contribute to the system being more learner-centric.
The theory of Constructivism says that learning is an active, constructive process. The learner is an information constructor. People actively construct or create their own subjective representations of objective reality [21].
Constructionism shares constructivism's connotation of the learning. It then adds the idea that this happens in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity. The theory of constructionism proposes that learning may be enhanced through kinesthesia. A Learning Management System should facilitate kinesthetic learning objects.
The Multiple Intelligences theory identifies seven distinct intelligences. The theory says that we are all able to know the world through language, logical-mathematical analysis, spatial representation, musical thinking, the use of the body to solve problems or to make things, an understanding of other individuals, and an understanding of ourselves [10]. The theory of multiple intelligences satisfies the many types of learning preferences that one person may embody or that a class embodies.
Learning styles are ways of learning presumed to allow individual(s) to learn best [13]. It is believed that most people have a preferred way in process-
ing information [16]. There are a number of instruments developed for determining learning styles. Some of these are Witkin's Field-Dependence/Field-Independence, Kolb's Experiential Learning Model (ELM) and Learning Style Inventory (LSI), Hunt et al.'s Conceptual Level Model, Dunn et al.'s Learning Styles Inventory (LSI), Fleming et al.'s VARK Model, and Gregorc Learning Style Model.
Predominantly, it was stated that there were three learning styles, namely auditory, tactile/kinesthetic and visual [11]. Currently it is more accepted that there are more than three learning styles/mechanisms/intelligences [17; 16].
The more prevalently used instruments were chosen for the research. Consequently, the learning styles models discussion includes Fleming et al.'s VARK Model, and Kolb's Experiential Learning Model (ELM) and Learning Style Inventory (LSI).
4.2. Learning Environments and Learning Styles
Where there is a human teacher as the primary source of course delivery, even where a LMS is in use, he/she is not necessarily provided with the resources oftime, compensation or training to ensure that all avid learners being taught at a particular time are at their optimal level of learning. Where HEIs employ a team of teachers per course, there is an increased number of teaching styles available for that course but accomplishing this task for all styles for all courses may be prohibitive in cost. Further, for many courses in some HEIs, the ratio of course to lecturer is normally one-to-one [3]. Avid learners whose learning style is not that favored by the source of the material including that available within the learning environment, tend to convert this information into the mode best received to ensure their own learning or attempt to procure information that more favors their learning style.
From the concept of levels of learning [17] and the discussion of optimal learning [25], the optimal level of learning is the highest level of learning achievable in a given time and nature of the uptake function; we consider the nature of the uptake function to include the learner, learning environment and
learning style. Learners are expected to comprehend the material within the mode made available by the teacher. All learners in a particular batch tend to be governed by the path of learning carved out by the teacher in his/her expertise and experience. Whereas the teacher has the knowledge to be transferred and is better able to determine the path to be taken based on prior batches of students, the flexibility does not exist at the point oflearning for a change of path or delivery mode. Such a decision may be made in preparation for the next batch of learners with an implicit hope for learning similarities [3].
There is also often disparity between the mode employed for course delivery and assessment, such as oral versus written or electronic versus hardcopy. Hence, as the number of learning styles may increase as the population within a batch of learners increases, there is an increasing tendency away from the optimal level of learning, amidst the finite or a limited number of course delivery paths and human teachers, and the current design of Learning Management Systems.
HEIs have embraced the use of LMSs to assist with course delivery and assessment. The predominant usage of LMSs by course designers and other users is the uploading of static files, editable files,
course presentations, discussions, quizzes, wikis and assignments. Some courses may appeal to additional learning styles by providing the course material as an audio-or video file of a synchronous session or other links of course content uploaded to the LMS. It is possible that in view of learning styles, LMSs are used in the ways described because of the limitation of the LMS or the lack of a standard to ensure learner-centric course delivery and assessment [3]. The ultimate aim in the teaching-learning process is the transfer of knowledge or skill. The use of any learning environment by a HEI is to increase the efficiency in the knowledge transfer.
5. The OLeCenT Experience
We propose OLeCenT, a tool for learner-centric course delivery in the online environment. OLeCenT may be integrated with a Learning Management System for enhanced course administration (Figure 1). We embrace the integration of learning styles to achieve a maximal matching with the teaching styles. Teaching-learning in higher education institutions is examined with an analysis being done on course delivery in view of learning styles. We suggest how instructional design may be applied amidst a standard and specification for web-based e-learning with emphasis on how learning takes place.
Figure 1. The Online Learner-Centric Tool (OLeCenT) - Learning Management System Interface 5.1. Theories of the OLeCenT Approach
We embrace the concept of teaching and course delivery in e-learning, maximal matching
learning styles in a graph theory context (Figure with surjectivity for the teaching-learning styles is
2) where in any teaching-learning unit, optimal attainable with use of the learner-centric tool and
learning occurs where there is a maximal match- how the LMS is implemented [3]. The OLeCent
ing for G with all elements of L learner-centric approach is aimed at ensuring that all elements in
the set of learners, L has a pre-mapping from the matching with surjectivity) even where a com-set of teachers, T.having a pre-mapping (maximal plete matching does not exist.
Figure 2. The Teaching Styles (T) and Learning Styles (L) Matching reflecting when optimal learning [3]
For greater effectiveness in learner-centric course delivery, the learner-centric tool should be SCORM 2004 4th Ed. Compliant [3]. The parts of SCORM 2004 are the Run-Time Environment, the Content Aggregation Model (CAM) and the Sequencing and Navigation (SN) [1]. Adopted from [3], Table 2 outlines the mandatory/recommended usage of categories of the various SCORM parts for more effective learner-centric course delivery. Other categories such as Content Aggregation Model - Content Model were omitted as they were either described by [3] or deemed less important for learner-centric course delivery.
5.2. OLeCenT Components The tool has four components, namely Diagnostic Analysis, Repository and Workflow Setup, Learn-
Table 2.- Usage SCORM Categories
ing Administration, and Learner-Centric Assessment and Evaluation (Figure 3). Diagnostic Analysis includes processes "Setup of one or more Learning Style Inventories" as well as "Perform Diagnostic Assessment of the teacher(s) and learner(s)." The tool uses learning style indexes throughout its implementation and therefore translates the terms, codes and notations of specific learning style instruments to the OLeCenT learning style indexes. OLeCenT captures information about each learner and teacher and suggests the dominant and other learning/teaching styles. There is a matching which assigns the learners' learning styles and the teachers' teaching styles to a number of the learning styles indexes which matches to the learning styles of the LSI in use.
Repository and Workflow Setup includes process
for Learner-Centric Course Delivery
SCORM Sub-Part Category Usage
1 2 3
Part: Content Aggregation Model
Metadata Meta-metadata Mandatory
General Recommended
1 2 3
Metadata Lifecycle Recommended
Relation Recommended
Classification Recommended
Part: Sequencing and Navigation Specification
Sequencing Definition Model Sequencing Rules Mandatory
Rollup Rules Mandatory
Rollup Controls Mandatory
Objectives Mandatory
Delivery Controls Mandatory
Navigational Controls Mandatory
Completion Threshold Controls Mandatory
Sequencing Control Modes Recommended
Constraint Choice Controls Recommended
Limit Conditions Recommended
"Maintain Learning Object Learning Style Index(es) which receives and updates learning objects of different types for a single unit of learning. The other process "Setup Learning Style Course Path(s)" allows the teacher or course designer to setup a designated workflow of how the learning objects are ordered for delivery of the course content per learning style. Within this latter process, the tool provides an option for setting learning sessions based on input of date, time or date-time ranges. Learning objects are stored in the repository and also given a learning style index or a number of indexes as determined by the course administrator/teacher.
Learning Administration generates learner course paths, given the course path per learning style and each user learning style. The learners are provided with learning objects in the form of course paths which vary based on the course administrator's projected path, the learners' learning styles, and other assigned or chosen course paths of similar learners. The path of learning objects, duration and completion percentage for each learner is maintained within the Learner Learning Object Workflow storage; these data is used as the source to alert the teacher to accept a modification of course
path for a learning style. Learning Administration may also vary by data acquired during Assessment and Evaluation.
The Assessment and Evaluation component provides for formative and summative assessments in consideration of each student's teaching-learning style. The tool is designed to allow for any learning style mechanism that has measurable notations. 5.3. Instantiation, Evaluation and Results 5.3.1. OLeCenTDevelopment OLeCent is developed with use of PHP for all backend (server) transactions, and CSS, Javascript, HTML 5 and XML for the graphical user interface (client), The development is aided with the MySQL 1.2.17 suite with use of a MySQL database. Whereas all the components of OLeCenT uses fields of SCORM 2004 4th Edition, the Diagnostic Analysis component was developed and tested to be fully SCORM 2004 4th edition compliant.
The current instance of OLeCenT allows a user to be defined as one of five possible user types. The user types are Student, Instructor/Lecturer, Course Designer, Administrator and System Administrator. Each user is assigned optionally to a specific department and/or institution. Where a user of type
Student or Instructor is not provided with a depart- assigned to any course as in the use of OLeCenT for ment or institution, that said user is available to be Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).
Figure 3. The OLECENT Model
5.3.2. Implementation Results
Access to OLeCent was successfully provided via the Moodle environment, but implementation was not yet done for full integration which allows for the ease of demographic and course data between the two systems. Learning Objects were setup as types V - Visual, A - Auditory, K - Kinesthetic, _ - None Specified, and O - Other. Video Files (WMV, MP4, AVI), Powerpoint Presentation (PPT, PPTX) and Show (PPSX, PPS) without Audio were setup as Visual. Audio Files (MP3, WAV, M4A) and Powerpoint Presentation (PPT, PPTX) and Show (PPSX, PPS) with Audio and Timing were setup as Visual. Articulate Storyline v. 2 Web-enabled Files (HTML) and Powerpoint Presentation (PPT, PPTX) and Show (PPSX, PPS) with Audio and Transition but without Timing were setup as Kinesthetic. PDF, TXT, RTF files were set as "_". Where learning objects of an auditory type were not readily available, the Windows version of Natural Reader v. 14 was employed for creation of such objects. Natural Reader is a free text to speech software with naturally sounding voices.
OLeCenT was used in five (5) instances including a regional course of Secondary-Level Information Technology administered at 3 secondary institutions including 1 private and 2 public schools, and two courses of Information Systems and Discrete Mathematics administered at 1 tertiary institution. The results showed in one instance of a Mathematically-based course that the preferred teaching style was matched by only 30% of the group's dominant learning style. In view of the total of preferred teaching style and other teaching styles, there was a match of 49% with the group's dominant learning style. With a more theoretical course, there was a 66% match between preferred teaching style and dominant learning style. The data proved useful both to the face-to-face and online instructors who were favored with the information as to how to possibly better reach the batch of learners in teaching.
The benefits of OLeCenT include (1) identifying disparity in teaching and learning and aiding face-to-
face teachers in knowing the percentage of students with greatest benefit in course delivery, (2) allowing learner flexibility of receiving best fit course content as first priority, and (3) reshaping course path per learning style as it learns of learning preferences. Drawbacks include that learning and auto-configuration takes place during course delivery and therefore provides greater benefit to latter users.
6. Conclusion
Most developing countries use Moodle which does not support the ADL-recommended SCORM 2014 4th Edition which provides for sequencing and navigation. Such countries may be at a disadvantage without a mechanism to account for ease of course delivery, level of completion, and sequencing based on these input.
The research posits an approach that allows the Higher Education Institution (HEI) to select a SCORM compliant LMS and an IDE/tool of choice, and demands the creation of a tool that is SCORM compliant to be integrated to the LMS. To assist with learner-centric course delivery, an Online Learner-Centric delivery Tool (OLeCenT) is proposed by use of Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) to provide increased learning in a batch of learners by lessening the gap between teaching and learning styles, and learning and regenerating of learner course path during the period of learning.
OLeCenT was tested in five instantiations of math-based, computing and theory courses and identified 30% to 66% match between preferred teaching styles and the groups' dominant learning styles. Based on each user's determined learning style, a course learning path is determined and a bestfit learning object is employed per course learning unit. OLeCenT may be used for other instantiations. The results reflect matches that would not normally have been readily identified.
Whereas the design and principles of the OLeCenT approach may be employed in any Learning Management System, successful testing was done as
(l) a stand-alone system and (2) integrated within course delivery for HEIs using the Moodle LMS
the Moodle environment. There should be greater which is the case for 100% of the top universities in
benefits with respect to expanding learner-centric Latin America and 83% of same in the Caribbean.
References:
1. Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL), SCORM users guide for instructional designers. Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM®) - 2004. 4th Ed. Version 8,- 2011. Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL),- 2011.
2. Allen I. E., Seaman J., Changing curse: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Sloan Consortium,- 2013.
3. Beckford C., Mugisa E. K. A tool for learner-centric course delivery in e-learning. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education - 2010.-2010(1).- 2475 p.
4. Bergen P. F. The State of the Learning Management at The University of Chicago and Beyond. The University of Chicago,- 2013.
5. Bickford A. 12 common complaints about learning management systems. Connect Thinking Pty Ltd.,- 2013.
6. Blackboard Inc., Blackboard Learn Platform - There's More to Learn. URL: http://www.blackboard.com
7. Coates H., RadloffA. Monitoring and improving student engagement. Tertiary education policy in Australia,- 2013.- P. 21-30.
8. European Commission. High level group on the modernisation of Higher Education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union,- 2014.- 68 p.
9. Forsyth I. Teaching and learning materials and the Internet. Routledge,- 2014.
10. Gardner H. Frames of Mind. Basic Books,- 2011.
11. Gilakjani A., Ahmadi S. M. The effect of visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic learning styles on language teaching. In International conference on social science and humanity,- 2011.- 5.- P. 469-472.
12. Govender I., Govender D. W. An exploratory study: The effectiveness of a Learning Management System (LMS) in the delivery of a face-to-face programming course. In International Conference on Education, Training and Informatics: ICETI,- 2010.
13. Harel I., Papert S. Constructionism. Ablex Publishing,- 1991.
14. Hung D. Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional technologies. Educational Media International - 2001.- 38(4).- P. 281-287.
15. Kara S. Learning styles and teaching styles: A case study in foreign language classroom. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, - 2009.- 1(20).- P. 77-82.
16. Kolb A. Y., Kolb D. A. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning and education,- 2005.- 4(2).- P. 193-212.
17. Krathwohl D. R., Bloom B. S., Masia B. B. Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. David McKay,- 1973.
18. Laurillard D. Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Routledge, - 2013.
19. Maslow A. H. Motivation and personality, 2nd. Ed., Harper & Row,- 1970.
20. Minniti M., Bygrave W. A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship theory and practice,- 2001.- 25(3).-P. 5-16.
21. Moodle, Moodle Features. URL: http://www.moodle.com,- 2017.
22. Palloff R. M., Pratt K. Lessons from the virtual classroom: The realities of online teaching. John Wiley & Sons,- 2013.
23. Rustici Software. Whho's using the Experience API?. URL: https://experienceapi.com/adopters/,-2017.
24. Shukla N. J., Hassani H., Casleton R. A comparison of delivery methods for distance learning mathematics courses. SoTL Commons Conference, Paper 75,- 2014.
25. Son L. K., Sethi R. Metacognitive control and optimal learning. Cognitive Science, - 2006.-30(4).- P. 759-774.
26. Sorden S. D. The cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Handbook of educational theories. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing,- 2012.
27. Tseng H., Walsh Jr E. J. Blended versus traditional course delivery: Comparing students' motivation, learning outcomes, and preferences. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, - 2016.- 17(1). - 43 p.
