Operational Indicators of the Learning Management System in Virtual Spaces Supported by ICT

Abstract

The paper presents the conceptual framework and operational indicators of the Learning Management System in virtual spaces supported by ICT. The framework of the management system has three layers that are operational, management-operative, and management-decision. The conceptual foundation of the system is related to the Science of Education, the Science of Computing and the Science of Administration, and takes into account the representative model of the teaching-learning process of the student in virtual spaces supported by ICT. The dimensions, characteristics, variables, and indicators of the management system are assembled on the model in question. The indicators presented in the article correspond to 153 indicators of the operational layer. These were evaluated internationally with a confidence level of more than 90%. The operative indicators are contained in the dimensions of identification, academic, pedagogical-didactic, formative, of assessment of the virtual learning, and technological of the system of management of the virtual learning. The importance of the indicators presented ensures the success of the operational phase of the management system. Therefore, once the operation of the system is guaranteed, the success of the management-operative and management-decision layers of the system is assured. The correct fulfillment of the layers above guarantees the achievement of both the student's learning in the virtual course and the institution that offers virtual teaching through virtual learning platforms supported by ICT.

Undergraduate e-learning programmes in health professions: An integrative review of evaluation standards in low- and middle-income countries

“…Feedback provided by educators should be constructive and timely to foster efficient implementation by learners [ 33 ]. The proficiency of the educator domain identified in this study is similar to that reported by Capacho et al [ 7 ], while the QM model and Kumar et al [ 4 ] are silent regarding the educator’s proficiency. In LMICs, educators are often not well versed in advancements in educational technology and may be pressured to copy and paste face-to-face teaching modalities into the online or e-learning space.…”

“…Wafsy et al [ 32 ] describe the need for financial resources allocated for online learning. Infrastructure for e-learning is aligned with resources, materials and course technology as described by the QM model, with technology as described by Capacho et al [ 7 ] and with technological infrastructure Kumar et al [ 4 ]. As e-learning is based on the integration of technology in an educational programme, the standards for evaluating e-learning should have a specific focus on technological resources and use within a programme.…”

“…Jebraeily et al [ 20 ] further focused on the process of improved self-learning and problem-solving skills. The learner proficiency domain was not reported in the other popular models for evaluating e-learning [ 4 , 7 ]. Learners are expected to have some degree of proficiency specifically related to the technology used in their learning.…”

“…The QM model refers to learner support and accessibility as a standard for evaluating the quality of e-learning support. Capacho et al [ 7 ] relate to support in general, while Kumar et al [ 4 ] relate to support of instruction and learning and institutional support. All e-learning programmes should support learners, and in the evaluation of quality, the nature and type of support need to be made explicit and should be accessible for learners and educators.…”

“…Fishbain et al [ 6 ] operationalised it in describing the process of evaluating online programmes, considering the structure, complexity, and cultural differences. Furthermore, essential elements in evaluating the quality of e-learning programmes such as technological infrastructure, institutional support, course design, support of instruction and learning, assessment, educators, administration, and curricular structure have been reported [ 4 , 7 , 8 ]. Fishbain et al [ 6 ] make a futuristic recommendation related to evaluating e-learning programmes for the health professions by including patient outcomes.…”